2002-05-16
Madam Speaker Braham took the Chair at 10 am.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I want to report to the House on the Alice in 10 Indigenous Employment Challenge. Last week I addressed a gathering of Alice Springs based business leaders and indigenous leaders. They accepted an invitation from the Office for Central Australia and the Alice in 10 Quality of Life Sub- Committee on Indigenous Employment to discuss the major challenge facing Alice Springs: the challenge of getting more indigenous people employed in the non-government sector in town. The Alice in 10 subcommittee, led by Strachy and Mandy Ahmatt of the Tangentyere Job Shop, presented a comprehensive strategy that has been driven and developed by the Alice Springs community to promote these improvements. Over 100 people have been involved in the development of the strategy.
So, what is the challenge? Simply it is to improve the indigenous employment situation in Alice Springs by 100% in two years, and then successively by 50% each year after that. At the gathering, Tony Quatermass of Aurora Hotels indicated that his company had already adopted a similar challenge and had exceeded its target. He pointed out that challenges need countdowns. His company has set a target to be achieved by 2000 and exceeded it, so they set another challenge for December 2002 and were already in front by May 2002.
It was pointed out that the challenge can be taken up by everyone. Businesses that might once have thought that employing indigenous people was just too hard were enthusiastically putting up their hands to say they recognised both the benefits to their business and the social benefits to the community of Alice Springs of improving their indigenous staffing levels.
Many private sector operators recognised the competitive advantage to their business of having local indigenous people on staff. They acknowledged the spin-off advantage of capturing the local market by presenting their product using the marketing tool of local employment. Strachy pointed out that this challenge will succeed if it manages to secure effective partnerships. He also pointed out - and I want to emphasise - that this is not a government driven initiative; this is an initiative of the local community. This program is driven by the enthusiastic and committed leaders of Alice Springs who recognise that improving the quality of life is a shared responsibility of all members of the community, and that people with a shared vision working together are more powerful than individuals or individual agencies. A key focus of this strategy is the need for a holistic approach to providing support and the strong message that all sectors of the community have a role to play in addressing the issue.
A clear timeline has been established by the committee for development and marketing of the strategy. The strategy will be completed and presented to government for endorsement at the end of next month. A key element of the strategy is a central agency, Footprints Forward, that will make it easier and more affordable for business to employ indigenous people and provide mentoring support for employees to maintain employment.
My government vigorously supports this sort of initiative. We will support the community in achieving their collective challenge. We already provide support to the work of the Alice in 10 committee including the allocation of a full time project officer to provide executive support to the Quality of Life project. The Commonwealth government also has a role to play and has indicated its support. Also members of the business community in Alice Springs have expressed an interest in contributing funds. This then will represent a true partnership between the Commonwealth and Territory governments and the community of Alice Springs.
This is what partnerships are about: working together, working smarter, working from a local base, relying not on others but on the strength of the local community, building bridges and establishing effective lines of communication. These are the ingredients of a successful local action program. My task at the gathering last week was to call on the assembled leaders to commit to playing a role as ambassadors for the challenge. This challenge must be ratified, it must be endorsed. It has to become the task not of the few, but of the large majority of organisations and businesses in Alice Springs. These leaders of business and industry are key to the success of the strategy and were asked to lend their names to the project, to get out and speak to their colleagues, partners, competitors and associates and lay down the challenge.
There are an increasing number of Aboriginal people in Central Australia. As of this year, Aboriginal people make up just on 50% of the total population of the Centre. Increasingly, the school aged population is becoming predominately Aboriginal. As our efforts in the field of education show improved results, large numbers of Aboriginal students will emerge from our school system. More and more of them must be absorbed into our labour market. The challenge is not just something that would be nice to do. It is essential that the challenge is met. To not do so is to imperil the social harmony and well being of the Alice Springs community.
I was wonderfully impressed by the enthusiasm of the assembled leaders, and I feel confident that a process is underway in Alice Springs that will lead to significantly improved indigenous employment outcomes in the next seven years. By then Alice in 10 will be 10 years old, and we will be able to judge just what sort of community the people of Alice Springs have been able to create for themselves and for their children. I am confident that it will be a bright and positive one, based on the belief and aspiration that we all share: that everyone has a right to a good job.
I would like to offer my congratulations to all involved.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I rise to also add my congratulations to this initiative. It is an initiative which is not new, it has been done before in various shapes and forms in the Central Australian region with varying degrees of success. I always support any initiative which is going to create employment, whether it be for indigenous people or otherwise, and this instance it does concentrate on indigenous people in Alice Springs. I have no qualms or problems with that and I congratulate the people on their initiative in relation to this.
The non-government sector, of course, is the real acid test in terms of employment because the non-government sector has the economic imperative driving it whereas many other employment programs have other drivers behind them. When people start succeeding in the non-government sector, then you start to see a real expression of the success of their ability to operate in the labour market.
I also hope that this extends into the bush. One of the things that I commented on last night during the adjournment debate was some native title issues which have recently been dealt with in Alice Springs. I hope that the resolution of those native title issues comes quickly so that people are able to buy their own homes in Alice Springs. But to buy their own homes, they are going to need jobs. I would also like to see these jobs extend into the rest of Central Australia. Native title does cover pastoral leases in Central Australia and of course there is inalienable freehold with its own inherent problems in relation to how it is able to create wealth and jobs for people who live in those communities. I have a vision that one day jobs will be abundant; we will be importing people left, right and centre to fill the jobs in Central Australia. This is a step in the right direction. I hope to see that the government does continue its support and even ramp up its support not so much in dollar terms, but support in other fashions.
Ms MARTIN: I thank the member for Macdonnell for his support, and take that as really strong bipartisan support from this House. We make no apology that this new government is about jobs and job creation and we have a very strong commitment to employment which is shown by the way that we’ve established the Department of Employment, Education and Training which is carried by the Deputy Chief Minister. We’ve given very strong support to the Alice in 10 project and I certainly compliment the previous government for the initiative. We have adopted it very strongly. I hope that there is bipartisan support for Alice in 10 as well. We want to see that project so critical for the development of Central Australia really come to fruition.
This indigenous employment challenge is one very strong element of that. Of course, the other element is the Desert Knowledge project, both of which I believe are steadily moving ahead. There are other elements of Alice in 10 which we are also supporting. But these two, I believe, are the critical elements. Listening to the challenge and seeing the support, I have great confidence we will have success here.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I would like to outline a number of senior appointments recently made to the Territory public sector, a number of which directly relate to the new directions and priorities of my government.
I am very pleased to announce to this House the appointment of a new Auditor-General, Michael Blake. Mr Blake’s appointment follows the retirement of Iain Summers who has been Auditor-General since 1994. I am sure as a House, we thank Iain Summers for his hard work as Auditor-General.
Members: Hear, hear!
Michael Blake holds a Bachelor of Commerce from the University of Natal and is a fellow of the Institute of Chartered Accountants Australia. His areas of specialisation are audit, corporate advisory services, financial and management accounting and executive management. His most recent appointments were as the Director of Finance and Performance Management, and then the Executive Director (Business Information Services) both with the Metropolitan Health Services in Perth. Currently he is the Acting Executive General Manager (Resource Management) at the Department of Health in Western Australia.
Prior to this, Mr Blake was engaged in the office of Auditor-General in Western Australia from 1993 to 1998 initially as Assistant Auditor-General and then as Deputy Auditor-General.
Michael Blake starts duty on 1 July and will serve as Auditor-General for the statutory term of seven years. I wish him well as he takes up the role, and I’m sure all members will look forward to working with him to ensure the parliament continues to effectively scrutinise the performance of government administration. In between the time that Iain Summers left the position and Michael Blake takes it up, we have an Acting Auditor-General and that is Otto Alder.
I have also recently announced the appointment of Mike Dillon as the new Chief Executive of the Department of Community Services, Sport and Cultural Affairs. He has the challenging task of leading a relatively new agency with a diverse range of functions including public housing in urban and remote communities, local government, Aboriginal development, arts and museums, libraries, sport and recreation, regional development, and the new function of funding essential services to remote communities.
Mr Dillon joins the Territory public sector from a senior executive position in AusAid. He previously held positions with AusIndustry in the Commonwealth Department of Industry, Science and Tourism, the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, and ATSIC. In his early years, Mike Dillon worked in a number of indigenous communities in the East Kimberley and brings a very wide range of skills and experience to the position of Chief Executive of the Department of Community Development. He will start in the position on Tuesday 11 June.
Maree Tetlow joined the Northern Territory Tourist Commission as Chief Executive just under two months ago and replaced Tony Mayell who left the Territory to take up a position with the Australian Tourist Commission in London. Ms Tetlow is a marketing and business executive with 17 years experience in destination marketing including a highly successful track record in developing tourism in Queensland and Victoria. Her distinguished career provides her with tremendous depth of experience in international and national marketing, business tourism, media and research, and this perfectly positions her to grow tourism with our industry in our key markets. She brings a big picture perspective to the Territory, having worked for both the Australian Tourist Commission and other states, a perspective which is more important than ever at a time when the Tourism Commission has been battered by global events and domestic aviation chaos.
Indeed, it is a very opportune time to bring on board a strong and creative leader who understands both our industry and key tourism markets, and Maree Tetlow’s appointment is timed perfectly with the opening of the Alice Springs Convention Centre next week.
Within my own department, I have established a brand new unit to provide the government with high level advice on indigenous policy. Neil Westbury has recently been appointed to head up this unit and he will commence duty on 1 July.
Mr Westbury comes to the Territory from the position of General Manager for Reconciliation Australia. He has 30 years’ experience working in indigenous affairs throughout the country, including 14 years in various locations within the Territory. Some of his notable achievements include adoption by the Fred Hollows Foundation and the Jawoyn Association of a regional nutrition strategy, the successful coordination of the National Australia Reconciliation Convention in 1997, the negotiation of the Mt Todd Mining Agreement, and the negotiation of agreements with state and territory governments for the provision of essential services to indigenous communities over three decades. The experience Neil Westbury has gained by working at community, regional, state and national levels ideally equips him to assist this government identify innovative approaches to advance the interests of indigenous Territorians and all Territorians.
Recruitment action is nearly finalised for the positions of Under Treasurer and Commissioner for Public Employment and appointments are imminent. These are obviously crucial appointments within the Territory public sector.
The Under Treasurer is the principal public servant who provides advice to government on financial management of the Territory’s budget with a gross expenditure of nearly $3.5bn.
The Commissioner for Public Employment is responsible for the legislative and policy frameworks for the effective development and management of public sector employees, government’s most critical resource. I expect to announce those appointments within the next couple of weeks.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, we welcome these, I am sure, fine officers to the Northern Territory Public Service. I put on the record our satisfaction, certainly, and involvement with the selection of the Auditor-General. I know from the conversations I have had with the member for Greatorex, who was part of the selection panel, that the Auditor-General is a very fine selection for an extremely important job in the Northern Territory.
Equally, Ms Marie Tetlow, who a number of members have already met, is already making her mark as the head of the Tourist Commission. I am sure, once again, we have found people of extremely high calibre for critically important tasks in the Northern Territory.
I was hoping to hear the Chief Minister announce the name of the new Under Treasurer. I can only wait. Hopefully, that name is announced shortly as time ticks away before the preparation of the budget. It seems to me to be an amazingly strange set of circumstances that right in the middle of preparation of the budget, given the timelines I expect are occurring, we don’t even have an Under Treasurer in the Northern Territory in place.
Ms MARTIN: Madam Speaker, to respond to the opposition leader’s comments, we have a very fine acting Under Treasurer and a very fine Treasury. I am very confident that together with this new government, budget preparations are proceeding very well. You can have the greatest confidence in that.
I did run out of time before. The position of the Public Service Commissioner will be announced within the next week and the new Under Treasurer within a fortnight.
Another very important position for this government is the Executive Director of the Office of Territory Development, a very important office for this government. The appointment of an Executive Director is a critical one and I look forward to being able to make an announcement on the appointment to this position within coming weeks.
I believe that the appointments I have announced today are very exciting and important ones for the Territory. They complement the existing skills and experience of the public sector. We have many experienced and competent senior executives already in place. These appointments are one of the final steps in completing the transition to the new agency arrangements that we announced last November.
Mr HENDERSON (Business, Industry and Resource Development): Madam Speaker, I rise to provide the House with an updated report on supply and service opportunities for Darwin arising from Timor Sea oil and gas projects.
Darwin is well positioned and has the infrastructure to substantially support oil and gas exploration and developments in the Timor Sea and eastern Indonesia. I have asked my Department of Business, Industry and Resource Development to make the identification and further development of service and supply opportunities for Territory business to the oil and gas industry a top priority of the department.
Current operations in the Timor Sea include a modest exploration program and oil production from floating facilities on the Jabiru, Challis, Elang-Kakatua, Laminaria, Corallina - currently the greatest oil producing fields in Australia and the Buffalo fields.
Future developments include a pipeline to shore from Bayu-Undan to the Phillips LNG plant on Wickham Point, pipelines to service mines and interstate clients, offshore methanol production, the BP’s Tangguh LNG projects in Irian Jaya and a number of other projects.
Bayu-Undan contains reserves of 3.4 trillion cubic feet of gas and 400 million barrels of LPG condensate. Development of Bayu-Undan is being undertaken in two stages: the liquids stripping gas recycle phase first, and a second stage to commercialise the gas. The liquids stripping phase of the project is scheduled to commence by early 2004. At its peak, the field will produce around 110 000 barrels of condensate and LPG per day. The Bayu-Undan liquids project will have an operational spend of around $100m, thus providing extensive new opportunities in the Northern Territory.
Honourable members would be aware from the updates provided by the Chief Minister in recent days on the current status of the Bayu-Undan and Sunrise projects. Suffice to say the benefits to the Northern Territory in terms of service and supply opportunities from an onshore domestic gas development of Sunrise far outweigh the benefits of a floating LNG project, with an estimated permanent net employment boost of over 4000 jobs to the Northern Territory.
It is important to note, however, that the opportunities for Northern Territory business to participate in the development of Timor Sea gas reserves do not end with Bayu-Undan and Sunrise. Studies to convert the gas of Evans Shoal to methanol on an offshore concrete gravity-based structure are being undertaken by Methanol Australia. Other significant Timor Sea gas fields awaiting potential development include Petrel Tern, Scott Reef/Brecknock, the Brewster area discoveries, Crux, Prometheus, Blacktip and, in Indonesian waters, Abadi.
An FPSO-based methanol project is proposed for Crux. Audacious, Tenacious, Montara, Hingkip, Jahal, Kuda, Tasi and Oliver are small to medium size Timor Sea oil fields that could also be brought into production this decade.
Pertamina and BP propose to establish an LNG project in Tangghu in Papua to commence production in 2005-06. Development work is scheduled to commence in 2002-03. Darwin is being considered as a base for exploration and development, service supply and support. We were actively pursuing this opportunity with people from BP in Darwin a couple of weeks ago.
Several global oil service companies - for example Halliburton, Baker Hughes, CSO Technip, Schlumberger, Diamond Offshore, CCH, Bristow, P&O, Tidewater and Weatherford - are represented in Darwin. A number of smaller international companies are represented in Darwin through alliances and agents; for example, Score International. Local companies provide a wide range of support services including fixed-wing aircraft, fabrication, inspection, catering, diving and safety equipment. As well, the private hire cars provide transport for a large number of oil and gas field workers.
I recently had the pleasure of inspecting the premises of Upstream Petroleum in Winnellie. This local company is undertaking a great range of work providing technical support and engineering capabilities for the development of oil and gas reserves in the Timor Sea and elsewhere. They’re also looking to expand into Asia, particularly Indonesia, and they are a great example of a Territory company with quality personnel and products making significant inroads in an internationally competitive market.
The Northern Territory government has identified large areas of industrial land near Darwin for gas processing projects and is developing multi-user infrastructure to cater for capital goods, imports, projected supplies and production exports. Of course, the construction of the AustralAsia Railway between Alice and Darwin, and Darwin’s new East Arm Port are key elements of that infrastructure. Honourable members would have seen the list of Territory businesses which are benefiting, yesterday. We’re not resting on these successes, and will continue to work with developers and suppliers to maximise local content and benefits, and I will continue to keep the House informed.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his comments because I have been concerned about what the government is doing with regard to ensuring that when it comes to offshore supply, the Northern Territory is being positioned now to take up those opportunities that will arise.
Whilst I appreciate the comments that he made, I’m more particularly interested - the Opposition’s more particularly interested - in looking and knowing what exactly we’re doing to assist companies that are already investing in the Northern Territory. We know that - I think it’s Toll Petroleum or Toll Offshore - has a major contract with Bayu-Undan for part of the supply and maintenance for the offshore liquids stripping project for Bayu-Undan.
We know that a new organisation called Darwin Offshore Logistic Base Pty Ltd, a subsidiary I believe of a large Singapore firm that does a major amount of work in this area, has already lodged in Darwin positioning itself for contracts.
I would like to hear from the Minister for Lands and Planning and the Environment on these sorts of issues because it seems to us that one of the critical issues for government is to put aside land for these facilities, something that I believe is an urgent need now as part of the whole process of encouraging these producers along.
I would also like to know, ministers and Chief Minister, just who is running this. It is critically important, I believe, that the Darwin Port Authority only has responsibility to the halyards at the port and everything else with regards to land allocation to ensure offshore supply occurs and these companies are positioned is essentially a whole-of-government responsibility and not the responsibility of the Port Authority notwithstanding the fact that they will be involved and offer advice.
It is a critical area for urgent action now. I thank the minister for his comments and encourage the government to ensure that these companies are well positioned and advantaged.
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his support and maybe next sittings we can bring a more detailed statement to the House.
It is a whole-of-government issue and responsibility being coordinated by the Office of Territory Development.
The issue of industrial land to capture these opportunities will be addressed through the establishment of the Industrial Land Corporation. I can assure the House that my colleague, the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, will brief the House at a later date on this initiative.
Madam Speaker, I can assure the Leader of the Opposition and all honourable members that government is moving ahead at a rapid pace to ensure that we do maximise the opportunities that are coming our way.
Madam SPEAKER. Minister for Local Government, I must remind you we only have six minutes left, so speak quickly.
Mr AH KIT (Local Government): Madam Speaker, I have pleasure in informing the Assembly that Alice Springs Town Council has made positive moves to resolve its organisational problems.
From November 2001 through to January 2002, the Alice Springs Town Council was criticised in the press for raising the level of the council rate levy while at the same time having a financial surplus not adequately disclosed to the public.
This and other dissatisfactions led, on 29 January 2002, to a majority of aldermen supporting a motion of no confidence in the executive management of council. This motion threw the council into crisis as an organisation, giving rise to a gradual paralysis in decision making.
It was my view that it was up to the members of the Alice Springs Town Council to resolve these problems amongst themselves as being the best way to continue to serve the people who elected them. However, I made sure that the resources of my department were available to assist wherever possible.
Inspectors of Local Government conducted a short inquiry which led to a number of recommendations being made to the Alice Springs Town Council to enable it to resolve its difficulties. These recommendations were adopted by the council on 25 February 2002.
While implementation of the recommendations was difficult in the context of a divided council, I am pleased to say there has recently been substantial progress towards resolution of the crisis.
On 11 and 14 April 2002, financial workshops were conducted for councillors and staff by the officers of the department. Recommendations from these workshops were ratified by the council at a meeting on 29 April 2002.
On 4, 5 and 27 April 2002, councillors and executive participated in mediation facilitated by an independent professional mediator as recommended by my Local Government inspectors. This process has resulted in agreement between councillors and the executive staff to move forward together in cooperation and goodwill.
This is a hopeful sign that the council’s crisis is substantially on the way to being resolved. More work needs to be done to consolidate this progress. At the council meeting on 29 April 2002, resolutions from the mediation were adopted, effectively rescinding the motion of no confidence by councillors in the executive staff. This was marked by the placement of a newspaper advertisement indicating the new spirit of co-operation.
Madam Speaker, I table this advertisement which was placed by the Mayor, Fran Kilgariff, entitled Moving in the Right Direction.
I am sure the members of this House would want to congratulate the councillors and executive staff of the Alice Springs Town Council in moving forward through what has been a difficult time. In closing, just let me say that this movement towards a positive outcome for Alice Springs Town Council is a real victory for the people involved. I thank the staff of the Office of Local Government, particularly those based in Alice Springs.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I rise to also congratulate the Alice Springs Town Council for resolving some of the difficulties.
You will recall that when it all occurred late last year, I criticised the minister for being very slow in his response to the difficulties that Alice Springs Town Council had and it took him a long time to get his act together. He finally got the Office of Local Government to assess and audit the books at the Alice Springs Town Council.
The officer then wrote a report and one of his criticisms was that many or some of the aldermen in the town council had a political agenda. The minister himself then parroted that phrase and accused some members of the Alice Springs Town Council of having a political agenda to try and attack the Chief Executive Officer of the council.
Within a couple of weeks of that, the minister then distanced himself from the report and dumped the poor officer from the Office of Local Government into the thick of it, and said it was his report, it wasn’t the minister’s report, that the minister had nothing to do with it.
Fortunately, the recommendations were appropriate. The aldermen and the CEO picked up the recommendations and have acted very, very well to bring the whole council together. I believe they had a group hug and things have really improved.
I had the opportunity to meet with several members of the council and the Chief Executive Officer at the Alice Springs Town Council where I discussed many issues of local government with them, on the 7th of this month, and it appears that the council is starting to come together. I hope that over the next six to 12 months that things will improve and we’ll see a better budget coming soon.
Mr AH KIT: Madam Speaker, it is disappointing that the shadow minister wants to criticise the process.
Unlike the former government, our government ministers are not going to interfere in the process and as a former minister, the shadow minister should have realised that we don’t - and they should not - interfere with the process, rules, and regulations that are in place.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, the time has expired for ministerial reports.
Reports noted pursuant to Sessional Order.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that this Assembly, on behalf of all Territorians:
(a) offers its heartfelt congratulations to the people of East Timor in achieving their independence
to be proclaimed on 20 May 2002; and
It gives me great pleasure to move this motion to congratulate the people of East Timor whose struggle against enormous odds has finally resulted in independence.
When the East Timorese flag is raised at the ceremony in Dili on Monday, the world will have its newest nation and Australia a good friend and ally. I am very pleased to be able to attend this ceremony along with my colleague, the Minister for Business, Industry and Resource Development, and I know we will carry with us the good wishes of all Territorians for the small country’s future prosperity and security.
The Territory has been home to many East Timorese over the years and we, perhaps more than any other Australian group, will truly experience the joy of independence along with our East Timorese friends. It has been good to see the peacefulness of East Timor in recent months in the lead up to Independence Day.
East Timor was a Portuguese colony for well over a century and experienced many hardships during that period. The country then suffered under harsh Indonesian rule from 1975.
On 30 August 1999, an overwhelming majority of voters opted for independence in a UN sponsored referendum. We all know the violence that broke out by the anti-independence militias following that vote. None of us will ever forget the graphic news footage of violence and horror as the militias, apparently backed by the military, took their vengeance on unarmed people whose only crime was the exercise of their democratic right to vote.
I have met East Timorese who escaped from that violence, and many have been scarred in both body and spirit for life, particularly the children. The use of organised violence against an unarmed civilian population is, thankfully, something foreign to this country and long may it be so. Even so, we can still experience deep sympathy and understanding for what these people have been through.
I am proud that so many Australians in many walks of life helped the East Timorese during this time: government officials, members of the media, aid workers and medical workers. The violence eventually brought action from the United Nations which authorised Australia to lead a peace keeping force into East Timor. This move had very wide support in Australia, and Lieutenant General Cosgrove and his forces did Australia proud. We should not forget how worried we all were that our forces might suffer severe casualties, and the subsequent relief when good planning, fine leadership and diplomatic efforts prevented this.
The East Timorese people have shown themselves to be a strong and determined people. I think particularly here of those long lines of voters back in 1999, individuals knowing their lives might be at stake, but nonetheless taking that courageous step towards independence. They struggled against the odds; a country of 800 000 people against the vast military machine of a country of 200 million plus. But their struggles paid off.
The successful move towards independence of East Timor is, in part, due to the remarkable change in the political fortunes of Indonesia herself. The transition to democracy of our giant Indonesian neighbour, gigantic in population and influence, has been one of the most important foreign affairs events of our time in the region. We should not forget those great changes and the impact they are still having right through our region, even while we celebrate the independence of East Timor. We can be a friend, as we will, to the new East Timor, as well as to the newly democratic Indonesia, and that is a very good outcome for some very difficult years.
The Territory and East Timor are bound together by geography, certainly, but also by people. Since the Indonesian invasion in 1975, East Timorese have been seeking refuge in Australia and the most likely port of call has been Darwin. As a result, we have a significant Timorese community in this city. These ties have led to significant involvement of both the public and private sector in the rebuilding of East Timor, and these ties, I am confident, will continue and grow deeper.
The Territory gave significant assistance with the reception of and temporary accommodation of East Timorese refugees in Darwin in late 1999, and also assisted with Emergency Services in such areas as transport, power and water, health and education in 1999 and 2000. The Territory has spent nearly $4m in assisting East Timor and the East Timorese in a wide variety of ways over the last three years, and I will take a little time later in this speech outlining some of those.
Since taking government, I built on the good relationship with the Chief Minister of East Timor, Mari Alkatiri, that I had already established in opposition. We have had ongoing discussions on matters of common interest, most recently last weekend on Timor Sea gas. But its not only Timor Sea gas. Certainly, when I meet with the Chief Minister one of the ongoing issues is his children in Darwin. We welcome them to study here, two of whom are at Darwin High, and one at Northern Territory University. But undoubtedly the major topic between us at present is the development of the vast oil and gas resources in the sea that separates Australia and East Timor.
While getting gas to shore is important for the Territory, it is the royalties from the gas that will underpin East Timorese development. So while Timor Sea gas is fundamental to the Territory’s expansion, it is crucial to East Timor’s very existence.
The gas revenue will help the small nation rebuild its infrastructure and set it up for the future. It will also provide the jobs needed to give the East Timorese people a decent living standard and security for the future. That’s why we’re working so closely with the East Timorese and why we have pledged to help train their citizens for employment in the gas industry, as well as other fields of endeavour that the see as of strategic importance to their country.
In the future we will work with them towards mutually beneficial projects. An example of this would be joint tourism marketing to attract those tourists who fly from Europe to Bali but come no further, or those who overfly both of us. With the right products and effective marketing, we hope to see those groups more and more interested in visiting both East Timor and the Territory.
To mark the independence of East Timor, the well-known Territory artist, John Firth of Unicorn Stained Glass Studio, has been commissioned to design and create a stained glass window for the East Timor Cultural Centre in Dili which is currently being refurbished. As well, we have assisted with the celebrations through donation of printed material to their specification and have provided advisors as required, particularly to assist with tourist-related activities. We will be holding a celebration here in Darwin for those who can’t be in Dili for the big occasion. The flag will be raised at midnight on Sunday after several hours of cultural, religious and social events here in Parliament House.
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms MARTIN: This is an occasion for celebration and an occasion to be thinking of the future. It is also an occasion for appreciation of the great work done by so many Territorians over the past few years to assist and support East Timor and the East Timorese in their transition phase.
Let’s look at the role of the Power and Water Authority that played a key role in the rebuilding of infrastructure following the period of conflict and massive destruction of services and infrastructure following the vote in 1999.
Our police and emergency services here in the Territory did a wonderful job organising the reception of refugees and their accommodation at the Marrara tent city, again in 1999.
Territorians have been involved in all levels of rebuilding and retooling in East Timor; everything from salvaging the remains of the Dili Museum to donating furniture, computers and even fishing equipment to the Timorese. We are involved in many ongoing training and education programs. The Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment has provided a training program for engineers, supervisors and project clerks from East Timor so they can manage the road network when the UN leaves the country. Similarly, our Power and Water Authority has been training linesmen and technical assistants to keep the power supplies they did so much to reinstate, up and running.
I want also to pay tribute to my colleagues in the Labor Party who have supported the East Timorese for so long when independence seemed a lost cause. From the mid-1970s Labor supported East Timor’s right to basic human rights, including self-determination and in the Territory political scene at the time, was often a lonely voice on these issues. John Bailey, who joins us here today, and my deputy Syd Stirling have been involved from the beginning, and I certainly pay tribute to them. Warren Snowdon and his long-time electorate officer, Carol Burke, have given consistent support through many years to the East Timorese cause. Many people on my staff now have been long involved in these issues and I’d just like to mention two here: Denis Bree, formerly of the Power and Water Authority, and Kerry Gardiner.
It is impossible to pay tribute to all of those Territorians who have been involved in the East Timorese cause, but I must bring special mention to Brian Manning and Rob Wesley-Smith, whose work was invaluable. Wes’s commitment to the independence is legendry and deservedly so. There’s also been considerable support from Bill Day, Jack Phillips and other unionists. Journalists Ken White, John Loizou, Tony Walker and Jamie Gallacher and others never dropped off the story, even during those darkest years.
The list of Timorese activists is huge, and their contribution is incalculable. But I must mention the remarkable efforts of Laurentino and Maria Pires and their children, and Francisco ‘Quito’ Pires and Agio Pereira. I must also mention Vaughan Williams, Ilana Eldridge, Jude Conway, Sally-Anne Watson, Tony Jeffries, Cindy and Jesse Watson, Hugh Ekebung, ‘Risto’ and Raymond Taylor. Mentioning as well: Jose Gusmao, Maria do Ceu Federer, the Pires sisters, Tony and Veronica Maia Pereira, Cesarina Rocha, Alfredo Ferreira, Antonio Gouveia, Louise Pinto, Flavia Pinto, Sarah Pinto, Goncarlo Pinto, Sonny Inbaraj and Juan Federer.
This is by no means an exhaustive list, and I profoundly apologise to those I’ve not had time to mention today but whose lives have been devoted to East Timorese independence. It is all about people. These people and their compatriots in East Timor, those who have lived to see these days, and those who died to achieve them, have proved to us that people can move mountains. They have shown us that people can achieve miracles if they work together in a common cause and never lose hope.
Madam Speaker, I am pleased and proud to move this motion of congratulations on behalf of my party, the government and the people of the Territory.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, on 30 August 1999 the East Timorese people voted in a referendum to decide whether East Timor would take the first steps to become an independent nation. The vote for independence was overwhelming, approximately 78%, but unfortunately this historic and courageous vote for independence unleashed a wave of murder and mayhem that has not been seen in our region for many years. Over 2000 Territorians voted. Many of those had taken up Australian citizenship since fleeing a series of civil wars in East Timor in 1975 and 1976. Their children and many of their relatives also voted.
At that time the Northern Territory had been closely involved with the arrangements leading up to this crucial vote. As members would recall, the raised expectations in East Timor leading up to the vote unleashed a wave of violence and many deaths as pro-independence and pro-Indonesian factions jockeyed for positions and for political preferment. Many Territory families lost family and friends in the violence that occurred both before and immediately after the elections. After the vote, the world become familiar with the television pictures chronicling the systematic destruction of Dili and all large regional towns and cities.
In Darwin, Territorians mounted an extraordinary effort spearheaded by Police, Fire and Emergency Services, Territory Health Services and other agencies to establish and service the refugee centre, known locally as Tent City, which could house up to 2000 people at a time. The influx of refugees was so great by the second week of September 1999 that at one stage the Kalymnian Hall, the Cypriot Hall, the Portuguese Timorese Club and the Marrara Sports Stadium were all being utilised.
Territorians reacted as they always have in times of emergency and showed the world that their generosity and compassion knows no bounds. At that time, also, I met the man who was to become the President of the new nation of East Timor, Xanana Gusmao. Xanana Gusmao was, at that time, the President of the CNRT, a coalition of pro-independence groups. He had spent the best part of two decades in the mountains as a member of, and then leader of, the Falentil guerrillas, followed by seven years’ imprisonment in Jakarta. Before the self-determination process was derailed by the violence, he had been released to house arrest in Jakarta and then to asylum in the British Embassy there.
We, in government at that time, cooperated with the federal government to facilitate his arrival in Darwin which had to be very sensitively handled. Along with my colleague, the member for Katherine, who was Deputy Chief Minister and police minister at the time, we organised and attended a meeting over dinner with Mr Gusmao and federal Immigration Minister Ruddock, as Mr Gusmao was most concerned to get safe haven for students in Indonesia who were under serious threat at that time.
I have urged my colleague, the member for Katherine, to say a few words in this debate because there are some stories that have never been told about the initial reception of Mr Gusmao in Darwin, and they are really good stories. I hope he will share some of them with us because he was intimately involved with looking after Xanana Gusmao at that time.
I have met Xanana Gusmao formally and informally three or four times since those days, and whilst he may not recognise me amongst the wall of dignitaries attending the Independence Day ceremonies on 20 May, I will remember fondly our first meeting and the circumstances of that time, and reflect on how fortunate I have been to have played a very small part of history in the making.
The attachment and the relationship to East Timorese people and Territorians extends beyond those tragic events of 1999, extends beyond the 1975-76 invasion, and beyond the role the Timorese played in World War II in helping Australians. Our relationship is determined by geography and fostered by the people of our two countries. Our friendship is enduring and will strengthen over these coming years.
I have been invited by Alexander Downer, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, to attend these celebrations and I will be a proud participant in the independence celebrations on Sunday evening. I know I carry the hopes and aspirations of all members of the opposition and Territorians for a peaceful and exciting future for the East Timorese people. Madam Speaker, I support the motion.
Mr HENDERSON (Business, Industry and Resource Development): Madam Speaker, in supporting the motion, I wish to pay tribute to the struggle of the East Timorese people over 26 years for their freedom, a freedom which will officially be recognised at midnight on Sunday night when the new nation of Timor Lorosa’e comes into existence.
The Chief Minister mentioned in her opening the many, many people in the Northern Territory, and people obviously across the road, but particularly in the Northern Territory whose lives have been devoted to this cause. Certainly, we on this side of the House have strong allegiances and acquaintances with many of those people.
It was a proud day for me as a new minister in a new Labor government to witness the swearing-in of the 88 democratically elected members of the new East Timorese Parliament. It was a great day. The Chief Minister and I were very privileged to be there. It was a very proud day. If members didn’t know, the new parliament of East Timor was actually built by a Darwin builder, Karl Ozolins and it really is a magnificent structure and home to the new democratic nation and democratic parliament of East Timor. Again, it just goes to show how strong those links are when Territorians actually built the new house of democracy there in East Timor alongside East Timorese people.
I feel particularly privileged to represent the Northern Territory government and the people of the Northern Territory this weekend with the Chief Minister at the Independence Day celebrations. However, my heart is a bit torn. I have large numbers of the East Timorese community in my electorate, and I would also like to be here on Sunday to witness the new East Timorese flag being raised over this parliament. I am torn: half of me wants to be here; the other half obviously wants to be in Dili amongst these East Timorese people.
I would also like to talk about the many Territory companies and businesses and people who have assisted with the Independence Day celebrations this coming weekend. I’d like to pay particular tribute to Mike Gallagher, our Northern Territory Government representative in East Timor who has been here a number of years and I would just like to read from his latest weekly report about how Territorians are contributing to the Independence Day celebrations:
Last weekend, 36 tonnes of printing left Darwin. This massive job was completed on time by Holland Print Solutions. Next week, 3600 kilos of official programs will fly out of Darwin.
Acknowledgement should go to Jill Nicholls from DBIRD for her co-ordination efforts. She’s worked with the UN office in Darwin, the printers, the flag man, airlines, the ET Trade and Investment Unit in Dili, proof reading brochures and posters. Everything has arrived on time, supported by the correct paperwork and in good condition. Thanks should also go to Tim Arthur, Sam Cleland and the team at the Bureau of Meteorology Darwin for providing regional weather reports. We can see that Darwinians again are in huge numbers supporting and working on the Independence Day celebrations.
I would, however, like to pay particular tribute this morning to those members of the trade union movement, particularly, as the Chief Minister said, Brian Manning and the wharfies, and the Labor Party here in the Northern Territory who supported the Independence struggle over a long, lonely two and a half decades.
I am very proud to say here today, that the Northern Territory Labor Platform since 1975 supported self-determination and independence for the people of East Timor. We never wavered from that commitment. Particularly, I would like to recognise my predecessor in Wanguri, John Bailey. John was a tireless advocate for East Timor in this House for many years, a great personal friend of mine. In researching for this speech last night, I went back through the Hansard. This is John Bailey’s testament in this House to speeches on East Timor, waving the flag, holding the flag high, and certainly Deputy Leader, Syd Stirling. John Bailey, history will show you well. History has recorded your position on a very principled cause, an issue over many, many years. John, I did try to get you over there to East Timor for the Independence Day celebrations - logically, it just was not possible, but I will be thinking of you.
Darwin has a thriving East Timorese community. They have formed the bedrock upon which the resistance movement was built, and have been an invaluable addition to Darwin’s multicultural society. I want to acknowledge the contribution of the East Timorese community in Darwin, and what they have made, and congratulate them on their determination and courage. I will name a few. The Chief Minister has been through lots of names that we all know.
A constituent of mine, Robert De Araujo, who very quietly has built the sport Timor Cup over the long lonely years, a biannual competition that took place here and in Melbourne, where the local Timorese community in Darwin and Melbourne took part in soccer competitions predominantly, and other sports, with the Timorese community in East Timor who’d come to Australia and kept those sporting links, those family links alive. Robert has been a tireless worker behind the scenes for the cause.
I would also mention that, going back to 1993, I think, as a first time up candidate for Nightcliff for the Labor Party, I doorknocked Maria and Juan Federer in Sandalwood Street, I think it was. I didn’t know the Federers. They brought me into their home and asked me what did I think about the position in East Timor, what was my view, what was the Labor Party’s view? Well, I think I stayed there for an hour and a half, and they have been firm friends ever since. When I left their house that day, understanding their story, I also was an absolute committed person to the East Timor independence cause. That doorknock was one of the defining moments of my life.
I would also like to mention Dr Rob McNaughton; again as a result of a doorknock in Nightcliff and Rapid Creek in 1996. He provided me with a paper that he had written as a doctor about the conditions and the health of the Timorese people, the economic and social conditions, and also some of the atrocities that had taken place. Again, Rob McNaughton is still there in East Timor working to rebuild conditions. A great Australian.
I have to mention Rob Wesley-Smith. We might not have always agreed with his methods in terms of bringing these issues to the public light but, my goodness, he was right. The cause was just, and Rob Wesley-Smith is still today working tirelessly on agriculture and aid projects in East Timor, and somebody, again, whose life has been committed to the cause.
I acknowledge a large number of people in my electorate. I won’t go through the names, but they all know who they are. Many in my electorate, particularly in Woodleigh Gardens, the Chinese Timorese community, the Hakka Association, President John Lai, George Mu, the Vice President - absolutely magnificent people. Many, many of those people are firm and lifelong friends.
Sunday marks the beginning of another long struggle for East Timor, to build a long-term, secure society with a viable economic base that can provide for the security and prosperity of its people. I don’t think anyone has any illusions about the difficulties ahead. I have only been to East Timor once, and that was on 15 and 16 September last year for the swearing in of the first parliament. It really did come home to me what a huge job President Gusmao, Mari Alkatiri, Ramos Horta, those 88 parliamentarians that have been sworn in, what a huge job they have ahead of them to rebuild that social and economic infrastructure that was so appallingly decimated.
We, the people of the Northern Territory, the new government of the Northern Territory, are behind them and will work with them to ensure that they build a just and particularly worthwhile life for the citizens of that new country.
Over the past 26 years, the East Timorese people have displayed their determination and courage, and with the support of their friends in Australia and particularly in the Northern Territory, we look forward to working with the new government of Timor Lorosa’e to help build that future. Madam Speaker, I believe that that future is bright.
Mr REED (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I congratulate the government today for this motion. It is most appropriate as we, within a few days, will witness the establishment of a new nation, a new neighbour for Australia and more particularly the Northern Territory, further strengthening those very long ties and very close ties that existed between the peoples of East Timor and Darwin.
It will be a final close to a very long struggle in terms of the experiences that the people of East Timor have been through. Now they will achieve for themselves independence, the establishment of a nation of their own and the ability to go forward into the future. As close neighbours, I believe all Territorians will be looking forward to the ability to work with the people of East Timor and to further cement those relationships that have developed over the last quarter of a century or more.
I was very closely involved in providing assistance, as the Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services, at the time that people were being evacuated from East Timor in 1999. It was something, as you will recall, that happened very quickly. They were traumatic experiences for the East Timorese people and there was no alternative to a number of them being evacuated from their own country for a short time to experience safety and to take a breathing space, if you like, before they were able to return to their homeland.
The need to respond very quickly was evident at the time. It was remarkable to see the response from the Northern Territory Police, Fire and Emergency Services, all other government agencies, community groups - especially those closely linked to the Timorese people - church organisations, volunteer groups, community organisations such as Red Cross and others who just came to the fore and offered their assistance and provided it in so many different ways.
The immediate concern was to provide accommodation. Buildings were used in the interim for that. It quickly became apparent that the buildings available were not going to be adequate. We had to source further accommodation, and that was done in the way of tents provided by the Defence Forces. Those that were quickly available locally were used up and overtures had to be made to the federal government through the Department of Defence for additional tents to be flown from interstate.
Then, of course, came the difficulties of adequate toiletry and kitchen services, ablution blocks. Resources were drawn from all over the Territory. I recall that personnel from the Power and Water Authority were quickly transported overnight from Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, certainly a number from Katherine. Over the following night, trenches were dug and, as I recall, they were something like six or seven metres deep to get the fall in relation to connecting into mains sewerage systems.
Buildings were put in place and, what was nothing the day before, were rows of ablution blocks to service the evacuees from East Timor out at Tent City. We had a reception centre where people could be housed as comfortably as possible under the circumstances. In addition to that, all of the arrangements had to be put in place for medical services and support. The Department of Health managed that in a very professional way.
The provision of food, clothing from a number of volunteer and community groups - everything that was needed was provided in such a short space of time. To reflect back on the response from the community and government employees at the time is something that I still wonder at just how it happened, how it happened so efficiently, how quickly, to meet the needs and to settle down those people who had been so traumatised and whom we were hosting at the time.
There were some very poignant times - one in particular that I experienced in relation to these events, and that was the advice - as I recall one Sunday morning. I was not going home for two or three weeks, did not go home over that period because there was so much work to be done and the demands were such of a minister overseeing these activities that I stayed here. They were early starts and late finishes.
One Sunday morning, I recall the staff in the Chief Minister’s and my office working on a range of issues and approving this and organising something else and liaising with the federal government at very high levels. We received advice that Xanana Gusmao was to arrive in Darwin that evening and it was a confidential matter and we had to find means to house Mr Gusmao and to ensure that he had adequate levels of safety.
The federal authorities had placed a very high security rating, as you would understand, on Mr Gusmao and, as he was coming to our jurisdiction, it was going to be our responsibility to ensure that the levels of security and his safety were put in place. We had never had an experience in the Northern Territory of this kind. We sat and pondered as to how to work with it. The federal government had put the responsibility on to us. We did not get offended about that but it was something to which we had to respond and we had to find what type of accommodation would be appropriate to meet security requirements.
We were quickly advised that for the short term, at least, it would have to be very secure, preferably isolated until things settled down a bit and we knew precisely what Mr Gusmao wanted in regard to his own personal requirements. That was because no-one had had an opportunity to speak to him. He had been released from detention in Indonesia, was placed on an aircraft which flew through, from memory, to Sydney. He got off that aircraft on to a Qantas flight to Cairns and then on the Cairns flight across to Darwin. All we knew was the arrival time.
We then started the task of trying to find where we could securely house Mr Gusmao and his personal staff. That is when we realised we had a great difficulty in terms of security. The Tactical Response Group was going to be responsible for his personal safety and that of his staff, and for security. We received advice from them in relation to some possible locations. We then checked them with the owners and for all sorts of reasons all of the suggestions that we came up with were eliminated. We found ourselves at about lunchtime still no further advanced in relation to a secure place and this was to be only for a matter of a couple of days until in Darwin we could find accommodation that would be secure and suitable for whatever the longer term was going to be in relation to Mr Gusmao’s stay here in Darwin.
At that time we went down to the Buzz Caf for lunch, four or five staff and myself, and that was quite an unusual experience. At the time I likened it to the movie Casablanca because we were sitting in the middle of a restaurant at quite a long table and we were surrounded by the world’s media. You will recall that these events did attract media from around the world and that was an issue that we had to deal with in itself. But everyone around us was wanting to find out because the word was then out that Mr Gusmao may in fact be heading for Darwin and they were wanting to find out indeed whether he was coming here and what was going to happen when he got here.
We were sitting in the middle of all this activity having a bite to eat, and each of us were on mobile phones continuously phoning people who we thought might be able to provide accommodation that would be suitable. It became apparent that none of those options were going to work. It was then that I determined that a place - and it has not been revealed to this time - that perhaps would be suitable was the Gurig National Park, Cobourg Peninsula, the ranger station there.
I contacted the head of the Parks and Wildlife Commission, spoke directly to the Ranger in charge at Black Point Ranger Station, and that in itself was difficult because I could not tell them what the issue was. I simply could make inquiries about who was staying there at the time, whether there was spare accommodation, and whether we could have someone arrive there perhaps in a short space of time and what would be the ability for us to achieve that. You can imagine the curious nature of the questions that followed from that.
It became evident that Cobourg Peninsula was in fact a place that would be suitable. We conveyed that to police. They were somewhat familiar with the place and that was eventually determined as the place that we would take Mr Gusmao who subsequently arrived, I think it was on the Cairns/Darwin/Singapore flight that evening. It was then known fairly publicly that he was thought to be on that flight. I recall the dismay and the dissatisfaction from the media when we made arrangements for Mr Gusmao to be taken off the plane directly down a set of stairs on to the tarmac, into a police car, and around to the general aviation area to an aircraft, a police aircraft, that then conveyed him to Black Point.
Having kept the federal government informed, bearing in mind that we are not responsible for international affairs but are very much a provincial government, I found it appropriate to travel out to Black Point the following day to meet with Mr Gusmao and explain to him why in fact he’d been bundled off.
It was then that I had one of those life experiences in terms of meeting someone who had been exiled in the hills, the mountains of East Timor for many years, had been incarcerated for the best part of a decade, and to find this very humble man, this very understanding man, this man that didn’t demonstrate one little millimetre, fraction of a millimetre of hatred or dislike towards anyone, even the people who kept him in detention. It quickly became apparent that I was talking to a most extraordinary person, that this was a most unusual time in history, that I was living through it.
There was some thought as to whether or not a United Nations representative should go on that flight, and they had certainly approached me to do so. In fact, we had advised them that we were going out. We had cleared with Mr Gusmao beforehand whether or not it was appropriate to take him with us and the first thing I said to him was: ‘I must, in welcoming you to the Northern Territory and offering you a safe haven here, please ask you to understand why you, now a free man, have been whisked away to a place of some secrecy, and you have not met with anyone else. This is very difficult for me and I hope that you can understand the situation’.
We had a very long conversation, I think it went for something in the order of two hours because there were a whole lot of things that he just wanted to talk about. He had never met anyone much in the way of people from a democracy for many years. I believe that I was the first elected member of a western government that he met since having been released from incarceration in Indonesia.
Of course, all this time the United Nations representative was cooling his heels outside wanting to get in. It was not up to me to say to Mr Gusmao: ‘I am going to call this conversation to an end; there are others’. But, eventually, we got to that point and I left him and he had the discussions, in the first instance then, with the United Nations representative.
I was, shortly after those discussions, in the difficult position of having to explain to him, notwithstanding his desire that he wanted to come straight back into Darwin to start the business of perhaps getting his country together and doing what he could as a free man, to advise him that unfortunately, I could not allow him to return to Darwin until the following day because we were seeking in Darwin accommodation that suited his security status, and that in itself was not easy. It had to be cleared by police in conjunction with arrangements that they had to put in place with federal authorities. We eventually found a block of units that had been recently completed where there was a suitable place on the ground floor to station Tactical Response Group forces, and a unit on a floor on its own for Mr Gusmao so that security for him could be ensured.
I did explain to him that that was going to take a little bit of time and, unfortunately, that would be at least tomorrow. I must say that that’s when he was a little bit perturbed and really did express very strongly that he was coming back on the plane with me. For a man who had been through so much, and who was now free and still virtually being kept captive, it was very, very difficult to explain to him that we did not believe that there was a threat to his security, but we could not accept any level of risk at all and that by tomorrow we would have a place for him to go to. It would be furnished, because all of the units were unfurnished, we would have all the cutlery and everything else that was required for him to live a comfortable life for as long as he wanted.
He accepted that, and I could see the feeling of anguish on his face that he had to stay another day because uppermost in his mind was his desire to come in to Tent City and to meet his people as a free man, to experience the contact, for the first time in many, many years, with so many of the thousands of people who were housed at Tent City.
The following day we had made arrangements for him to come into town. I think I went out there on the aircraft, actually, and came back with him. We had made arrangements for him to have a press conference at the Plaza Hotel, for him to address the world, as it were, in relation to the circumstances in which he now found himself.
Probably the most moving experience that I have ever had was to travel with him to Tent City. He asked me, specifically, if I would accompany him into the hall where the East Timorese evacuees were all gathered. Of course, they were just waiting to see no one else except Xanana Gusmao. That was, I think, the most moving time in my life in relation to the feelings that crossed the floor, just so moving in terms of this man walking into that place and being able to meet his people, how he addressed them, how he was received and what events followed from there. Those are matters that have never been disclosed previously, not for any particular reason, but at the time, of course, it was most important that security be maintained.
I subsequently travelled to East Timor to meet Xanana Gusmao. I recall that I received a request from him that they were starting to look at what laws could be introduced in East Timor and they had nowhere to start; could I bring copies of our legislation across to him so that someone could have a look at it and start to implement some legislation or at least start thinking about it. We soon realised that would be a truckload of paper, and I organised for all that to be downloaded onto a computer which I duly presented to him in East Timor on a subsequent visit, and had another chat to him about progress.
I am just so pleased that things have worked out the way that they have for this man, who suffered so much over so many years, together with his people. To have been able to meet him at that time, to be able to extend some assistance to someone who was so understanding of the circumstances that he’d been through and so humane about it, yet so focussed on where he was going.
Another very poignant moment was when I did return that following morning, as I did, to bring him back to Darwin, the Tactical Response Group officer said to me: ‘We had a very worrying time this morning’. ‘What happened?’ I became very anxious. He said: ‘Well, Mr Gusmao insisted on going for a swim’. Of course, the waters at Coburg Peninsula are beautiful: they are very attractive, they are crystal clear, tropical waters. ‘We could not stop him’. So, as I recall, they had people looking down on the beach, very apprehensively, to make sure that no crocodiles or sharks came while Xanana Gusmao was having a swim.
That morning, I walked in to the room, introduced myself again, and said: ‘Well, today you really will be a free man’. He said: ‘I experienced that this morning for the first time’. I said: ‘In what way?’ He said: ‘This morning, I walked down to the beach, and I went for a swim. And, as I was in the water and looking around this beautiful coast line, and just totally relaxed and totally safe, it came to me then, this is the time that I appreciated that I was free. And I so much thank you for your assistance and the fact that you’ve been able to do this’.
He expressed his understanding as to how difficult it must have been for me to keep him, as it were, in captivity, but today he appreciated whilst swimming on the beach at Coburg that he was, in fact, a free man.
Those experiences will live with me forever, and they are things that I never thought I would experience. But in a very small and humble way, I understood what Xanana Gusmao - and, indeed his people - had been through. That is why I look now with such warmth as to the establishment of the new nation of East Timor this coming week; what it means to the people of East Timor, and the President-elect, Xanana Gusmao, as a mate and someone who was able to help him, very directly, at a time of great need and great relief to him, I guess. I am able to look back and say: ‘Mate, all the best for the future. I wish the new country of East Timor of which you are going to be President all the very best. I hope that the people of East Timor progress, as I know they will, as very good neighbours and very close neighbours with all us Territorians’.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr AH KIT (Community Development): Madam Speaker, a few days and a few more hours away, our closest neighbour, Timor Lorosa’e, will become the newest member of the family of nations. I use this with the greatest respect, the Tetum language name for our new neighbour.
As an indigenous Australian and, along with my indigenous parliamentary colleagues, this event has special importance to us, as I’m sure it does to many of my countrymen and countrywomen. The experience of the peoples of Timor Lorosa’e over 400 years of Portuguese colonialism and 24 years of military occupation, has been a mirror to the narrative of indigenous peoples throughout the world since 1492. At midnight on Sunday, a chapter on this history of colonialism will close.
On 30 August 1999, the peoples of Timor Lorosa’e voted overwhelmingly for the freedom to establish their own nation. Many of us watched the immediate aftermath of that vote with horror - and a degree of helplessness - as the nation seemed to face the real possibility of extinction at the hands of militia and rogue army elements. The fact that we are now witnessing the birth of a new nation is a tribute not just to the international pressure and peacekeeping presence that followed, but more importantly to the enormous bravery of this new nation’s citizenry. This bravery had been starkly demonstrated to the Australian people during World War II. For supporting Australian commandos, occupying Japanese forces killed many thousands of Timorese. To Australia’s eternal shame, we never repaid that blood debt in 1975 by opposing a subsequent occupation by Indonesia. We abandoned the hand of friendship in their hour of need.
The peoples of the island of Timor have a long and rich history stretching from pre-colonial times to the present. The indigenous peoples of the island, east and west, are culturally and linguistically diverse while being ethnically distinct from the Indonesian Archipelago. That the island was divided between the Portuguese and Dutch so long ago is something indigenous peoples have experienced in different ways throughout the world. The fact that post-colonial Indonesia sought to suppress the peoples of the eastern half of Timor from the time of the December 1975 invasion was a cruel irony. It is worth noting that during that quarter century of occupation, the indigenous lingua franca of Tetum became the language of the resistance. And it was this resistance that we should find so inspiring.
Despite enormous odds, the peoples of Timor Lorisa’e refused to abandon their heritage and birth rights. It was not just a military resistance, though the names of guerilla leaders such as the late Nino Konis Santana will always live in the annals of that struggle. It was the resistance of peoples represented by the peasants of the countryside and the students of the towns and cities. It was a resistance bravely supported by the Catholic Church despite hostility at times from the Vatican.
It was also a resistance that was supported by people around the world including Australia. Darwin was one of those places where support was always strong. Many post-1975 refugees have settled in Darwin and have become valued citizens of this place but never forgot the plight of their countrymen and women such a short distance away.
Despite open hostility from the Northern Territory and national governments, many other Australians have campaigned for an independent East Timor over the years. During that time, many were regarded in Darwin and elsewhere as trouble makers and rat bags. We should acknowledge the value that their solidarity with our neighbours has had to the process of achieving peace and freedom in the Timor Lorosa’e.
This is of particular relevance today as we face the possibility of draconian so-called anti-terrorist legislation in the federal parliament. Under this legislation, many of those Australian activists in their support for people such as Xanana Gusmao and Bishop Belo could have been held without charge by ASIO at the behest of the federal Attorney-General.
Organisations that supported the East Timorese resistance could have been banned and their membership gaoled. I do not believe this is the kind of Australia that commandos in World War II East Timor sacrificed their lives for.
As I have mentioned, Darwin has become home for many East Timorese refugees since 1975. September 1999 saw around 1500 refugees flood into Darwin. The response of Territorians to that humanitarian crisis began what I believe was one of the first repayments of our wartime debt to the East Timorese. Of particular note during that time was the work of the Danila Dilba Aboriginal Medical Service. They established a clinic for the 450 East Timorese who were at the time released into the Darwin community. Assisted by 50 volunteers, Danila Dilba turned over its McLachlan Street clinic on the basis of access and equity and in recognition of the fact that mainstream services were not appropriate. It was a great example of the indigenous community in Australia helping others in need, in this case their indigenous brothers and sisters across the Timor Sea.
Those two months in 1999 demonstrated that the people of Darwin do not react with the sort of hysteria about refugees that many people down south appear to exhibit. It demonstrated that the people of this city are capable not just of tolerance, but compassion and understanding. Even though we are objectively in the front line of this so-called threat, we can work out sensibly that the world is not going to end if people fleeing deprivation, tyranny and oppression turn up on our shores. Indeed, many so-called boat people live on in Darwin as valuable members of our community.
Darwin is also the home base to many members of the Australian Defence Forces who have been assisting the United Nations in East Timor since the withdrawal of Indonesian troops and the retreat of the militia. Many of them have commented on their happiness to be able to repay the wartime debt to the peoples of East Timor. I would like to take this opportunity to thank those men and women of the Army, Navy and Air Force for the work they have done and will continue to do for our neighbours.
In welcoming independence for Timor Lorosa’e, I believe we should continue to extend the hand of friendship across the Timor Sea to these neighbours of ours. It is clear that our neighbours will remain relatively poor in material terms for some years to come. It is my hope that the people of the Northern Territory will continue to assist in areas we are able.
There is much we can share with the East Timorese for the mutual benefit of us all. Trade and commerce are obvious areas of cooperation, but we should also be talking in terms of health, education and cultural exchange as well as sharing our knowledge and tropical agriculture, architecture and sustainable energy.
Paramount in this is the possibility of indigenous Territorians working with the people of Timor Lorosa’e in anything from joint indigenous and ecotourism packaging to mutual programs on language and cultural maintenance. Our developing models of comprehensive primary health care in the Northern Territory including the Aboriginal Health Worker model may provide the inspiration for our brothers and sisters across the Timor Sea.
I applaud the coming independence of Timor Lorosa’e and salute their bravery over those many years of colonialism and military occupation. In their newly won freedom, I wish the peoples of Timor Lorosa’e peace and prosperity. Madam Speaker, I look forward to the Northern Territory developing a close and enduring relationship with its peoples.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I also rise to congratulate the people of East Timor on the achievement of Independence on 20 May. It has been a long and painful process which will culminate in the raising of the flag on Sunday, and I fully concur with the sentiments that have been raised here today, especially from the previous speaker, the member for Katherine and the Chief Minister.
The Minister for Business, Industry and Resource Development just jogged my memory about a couple of people who had an influence on me. I suppose in some ways it’s all been due to I suppose the changes in East Timor. One is Karl Ozolins, a constituent. I suppose one doesn’t realise how close our neighbour really is until - when I was working at Howard Springs Mitre 10, you get a phone call and you think it was just some local constituent ordering a couple of shovels or something and it would be Karl Ozolins talking from Dili wanting 20 shovels, a couple of grinders, some cement or something all loaded up that day to get on the barge or get on an aeroplane or something. The changes that were occurring with the new Assembly building in some ways affected all of us. You knew that there were changes happening in Timor.
Another person is Jimmy Lay and the Lay family. My office is in the Howard Springs supermarket. The Lay family came from Timor during the troubles and have had quite an impact in the Darwin region, especially the Darwin rural region, with the development of not only the Howard Springs supermarket area, which has doubled in size, but they also completely redesigned and expanded the Humpty Doo supermarket which was so good that Woolworths decided to take it over. So here’s a bloke who has come over to this part of the world and done very well. I gather he’s gone back, part of his family has gone back to East Timor and established a new supermarket and other facilities there.
Personally, I had very little to do with the struggle for independence in East Timor, although I was involved in a minor way in approving funding and distribution in East Timor in the early 1990s of the Tetum dictionary. That was done through the Australian Catholic Social Justice Council of which I was a member for about 12 years. Of course the Australian Catholic Social Justice Council was one of those leading groups that continually advocated independence for East Timor.
There were many other people who did far more than I ever did, and they were the ones who risked their lives and gave their lives to fight for independence. Some of the politics during that time were confusing as East Timor itself had different factions. That made it difficult for some of us to know what was happening. However, in the end, regardless of that, the vote for independence was a clear statement of the voice of the East Timorese. Sadly, that statement was the start of a devastating period for East Timor which directly affected Australia, especially Darwin. I do not intend to dwell on that today.
Rather, I would just like to say a few words about one person, and that person’s been mentioned a number of times today. He was involved in the East Timorese struggle for many years. Of course, there were and still are many people like Xanana Gusmao, Ramos Horta and Bishop Belo who were involved in the struggle. But I speak today of Rob Wesley-Smith. Rob Wesley-Smith is a constituent of mine who lives in Howard Springs. Rob has been a well-known activist on many issues for many years. He is someone who I certainly have not always agreed with, even on aspects of East Timor. I know many people here may have had a run-in with Rob on lots of issues, but I feel if there’s one thing you can say about Rob: he is genuine in his beliefs.
He was and is still passionate about East Timor. He raised issues when it was not popular, he raised them in ways that were not always popular. He has been arrested here and in Indonesia. He debated. He wrote letters. He was tenacious in his efforts to help the people of East Timor. No matter what your opinion of Rob is, it cannot be denied that he spoke up when others were quiet. He did what he thought was right and just, and no matter whether you agreed with him or not, Rob was true to his cause. I am therefore pleased that Rob will be attending the flag raising ceremony in Timor. It is appropriate that he does. I know he has mixed feelings about that because he still has concerns about other ongoing issues in East Timor.
In summary, I hope he and many others, and especially the people of East Timor, will see the fruits of their work culminating on 20 May. I congratulate the people of East Timor and I hope our nation will continue to support and strengthen our relationship with East Timor, our neighbour, not by words, but by actions, and I refer there to something I mentioned in my speech yesterday regarding the gas. We are all hoping the gas will come onshore to Australia but that gas, I believe, is rightfully part of East Timor’s future, and we should acknowledge that and do our best to make sure they also have rights to that gas so their economic future can be established. Madam Speaker, I hope we work with our newest neighbour so that they can establish themselves as the world’s newest nation.
Mr STIRLING (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, there can be no more important nor more proud day for any nation than, of course, the proclamation of its very being, its independence. Along with many other Australians, I followed very closely the history of East Timor post-1975, but of course the history of East Timor and its links with Australia go back much earlier, and it’s no secret - and other speakers have mentioned the fact - that many Australian servicemen’s lives were saved due to the efforts and courage of East Timorese during Japanese occupation of islands to our north in the middle and latter stages of World War II.
Perhaps what is not so commonly known, at the cessation of hostilities of World War II, Australian Air Force planes flew over Dili and East Timor and they dropped leaflets from those planes saying thank you for your efforts, on behalf of the Australian government, in saving our troops during the war years. We will never forget you.
We will never forget you. I always feel such guilt and shame that we could do that in 1945 and then post-1975, successive federal governments turned their back - turned their back on the plight of the East Timorese whose own courage had saved so many Australian lives during World War II.
Despite that attitude of successive federal governments, we in the Northern Territory Labor Party can stand proud. We stood for a free and independent East Timor from day one and never resiled from that. My colleague, the member for Wanguri, made mention of the efforts of his predecessor in this House, former Deputy Leader of the Opposition, John Bailey, and the speeches that he made in this House; the speeches that he made at rallies and demonstrations around Darwin; and, of course, Warren Snowdon, in the federal House of Representatives. I know a very proud day for John Bailey was when he was in Dili when Mr Xanana Gusmao made his first speech to the people of East Timor. John was there, and so proud and so happy was he to be a part of that crowd.
Many years ago, I was perturbed and angry in picking up The Weekend Australian and the supplement, the Weekend Australian Magazine, because it contained photos - and it was a cover story - of Fretilin fight for independence in East Timor. It contained photos of a Fretilin hideout in the hills presumed to be where Xanana Gusmao himself was in hiding. I don’t think it’s any secret that there was a link. It was within eight days Xanana Gusmao was captured by the Indonesian authorities.
Now, I don’t doubt that the intent of the journalist and the heart was in the right place in their support for Fretilin in their struggle for a free and independent East Timor, but I believe it was the publication of those photos in an Australian newspaper that led directly to the capture because no doubt that person was followed and tracked by the Indonesians, and they were able to pick up Xanana Gusmao at will some time after that journalist - if you can call him a professional journalist - left the country. Seven years imprisonment for Mr Xanana Gusmao - seven years in which he never lost his dignity, he never lost his humility, and he never lost sight of his dream for a free and independent East Timor.
I’ve got to pay tribute to the contribution to this debate by the member for Katherine. It’s not often that we hear the member for Katherine speak from the heart in the tones that he did today, and to share something so obviously very important to him and, I thought, important to share with this House. I thank him for his contribution because he was able to draw a picture of a man whose outstanding quality is great humility.
East Timor is a story that arouses such emotions from hurt, anger, horror, but at the same time, great pride. I remember standing in here with the member for Wanguri the day or two after the Santa Cruz massacre in the early 1990s, and the shock that reverberated through Australians and the lack of support from the federal government in relation to that. So that was anger and horror and, again, repeated of course after the overwhelming vote for independence by the people whose courage you simply have to admire. They walked in under the guns and the knives of the Indonesian military and the militia to record a yes vote, knowing in the bottom of their hearts that they were going to cop it, that they were going to cop it for their courage in a democratic vote for a free and independent East Timor.
Again, courage in relation to the 50 UN force who refused direct orders to leave the UN compound when they said: ‘It is all over, get out of here, save your lives.’ They knew if there was one piece of Territory in Dili that had to be respected, it was that UN compound. To this day, I do not think Australia has commended and fully recognised the courage of those 50 people who stayed in that compound to save the lives of those so desperately crowded into the compound in those dark days.
I am proud also of the role the Northern Territory played - the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Opposition mentioned some of the detail. A huge effort by the public service, a huge effort by non-government organisations to come to the fore and help out people in such great need.
We look to a bright future indeed between the governments of the Northern Territory and Australia, and the emergence of East Timor. I want to congratulate East Timor itself and the East Timorese who live in our midst and who are equally proud, and deservedly so, of the huge effort and the sacrifices and the commitment over so many years to see this through to fruition.
Madam Speaker, I am proud to stand with our Chief Minister and pledge that the Northern Territory will be a good neighbour and a good friend to East Timor in the years ahead.
Mr VATSKALIS (Lands and Planning): Madam Speaker, I rise today to support the motion congratulating the people of East Timor. I also want to congratulate not only on my behalf and behalf of my family, but also on the behalf of the Greek and Cypriot community because the success of the fight and the proclamation of independence of your country gives all of the Cypriot community a glimmer of hope.
For the same reason many of these people come from an island that has been invaded and been divided. Twenty five years ago, the year before East Timor was invaded, Cyprus was invaded by Turkey, and while you are going to gain your independence in about three days, Cyprus is still divided and invaded by a foreign army. I believe the Leader of the Opposition knows very well what I mean because I believe he served in Cyprus in a peace keeping force.
The invasion of East Timor was reported widely in 1975 in Greece. You see, we are very familiar with what happened in East Timor because a year ago, Cyprus was invaded. I became aware of East Timor when I came to Australia in 1983. I was still learning about Southeast Asian affairs, especially about the murder of five Australian journalists during the invasion.
I learned more when I came to Darwin in 1993. Coming from Greece and being very interested in political affairs, I learnt, I read, I listened, I watched some of the documentaries that came out of East Timor and I became aware that sooner or later, East Timor would become an independent state.
People who are prepared to fight in the mountains and the forests for 20 years against their invader, people who are prepared to give their own life for freedom inevitably one day will establish a free country. I know that very well. My own people did that for centuries. They gave their life for freedom. One of our messages was ‘freedom or death’. One or the other. You did exactly that. You gave your life and today you stand free.
I was very privileged in 1998 to work with the Health Department when 2000 of your people came to Darwin. I remember very well the feelings of the Greek community there when I personally rang the President of the Kalymnian Hall and asked him for his assistance to house the Timorese refugees. His answer was immediately yes and in addition, opened the fridge, opened the kitchen, opened the storeroom and gave Timorese people anything they liked. I also have to add that neither the Kalymnian community or the Cypriot community received any payment for offering their halls to the Timorese people.
I worked there with my colleagues from the Health Department - nurses, doctors, environmental health officers - for days and days. I remember very well, like the member for Katherine, the day that Xanana Gusmao arrived at the hall. I was taken aback. I could not believe how much these people loved him. I could not believe what a simple person Xanana was, and I was speechless. I was very moved, and I was left speechless.
One of the things that impressed me and brought back memories was the day the first bus loads of refugees arrived at the Kalymnian Hall and they got down from the bus. The expression on their faces was exactly the same expression that I saw in the faces of the refugees when they arrived in Greece after the Turkish invasion of Cyprus. They were different people, but their feelings were the same; they’d both lost their houses, their families, their properties, their country.
We worked there for days and days, and I was very, very happy when finally the world community decided to step in and rescue East Timor and the Timorese people.
Sometimes failed military campaigns have unexpected results. I have seen that in my own country when the failed campaign in Cyprus by the Greek Army resulted in the reinstatement of democracy in Greece. The same thing happened in East Timor. Not only did East Timor gain its independence when the Indonesian army failed to control the Timorese people, but also all of a sudden Indonesia started to become a democratic society and that’s a very positive result.
I said before that in a few days you are going to become an independent nation. I am very proud to be here today and congratulate you for that. We offer you our support, our political support, we offer support to your people for education, training and commerce. You have stood by us in tough times during the Second World War, and our promise is we’ll stand by you in this time of peace. We will be together with you in the future. We will always be your friends. Once again, congratulations.
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): I’ll keep it brief, Madam Speaker. It is with great honour that I stand here today to represent the people of Karama and Malak to say to the people of Timor Lorosa’e what a joyous time it will be this weekend as we celebrate the independence of Timor.
I have been given the great honour by the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory to be Master of Ceremonies at the flag raising ceremony we have here in Parliament House, so I’m sure we will have many celebrations that evening together.
This is a very special moment for me personally. As a child in Darwin, living in a city that had been devastated, in 1975 when Indonesia invaded Timor, my mother, then the Independent Member for Nightcliff, was at the forefront of speaking out publicly against the invasion, calling for Australia to rally behind the indigenous people of Timor and to support their struggle for true independence. I attended many rallies as a child from the age of eight years and, as I say, I am very proud that I have never, ever throughout my entire working life departed from my desire to see true independence for Timor.
When I worked in Melbourne in the 1980s, I worked very closely with Maria Gabriella Carascalao for Radio 3EA. She was a very popular broadcaster who was broadcasting weekly to the Timorese people. I was alongside Maria when the call came through from Dili about the Santa Cruz massacre. I remember spending many, many days - angst-ridden days - with Maria Gabriella working through, trying to find out who had survived. Her brother’s house was besieged for quite some time during that period because many people had gone in there to seek refuge and try and save their lives. Unfortunately, the tyranny continued. That house was invaded and people were taken away, never to be seen again.
Through the union movement in Victoria, I gave time, money and energy to Fretilin to support their struggle for a true independent Timor. As a mother of young children, having returned to Darwin in 1999 - I only got here about a month before the oppression of the Indonesians came to the fore in Timor. What heartened me then was to see the children of Darwin rally around the Timorese people who were flooding into Darwin as refugees.
Every school in Darwin was collecting toys, clothes and books to give to the children of Timor. I was delighted, some two decades after my experience as a child, to see the response from the children of the Territory who really embraced in a very loving and giving fashion the people of Timor and their great needs at the time. I commend the then Territory government for its decisive, quick and generous response in giving shelter, food and safety to the refugees from Timor.
We still have people from Timor living amongst us in Darwin who have no permanent residency in Australia and who, indeed, for a decade now have been seeking that. It is with pride that I say that our Northern Territory government is supporting the rights of those Timorese people living amongst us to be able to choose whether or not they return one day to Timor and to assist their nation in its rebuilding. That freedom of choice has not been granted by the Australian federal government yet, and I will continue to fight to secure the freedom of choice of people as to whether or not they continue to live here amongst us in the community that they have very much become a part of, or whether they choose to return home.
Madam Speaker, I look forward very much to the celebrations that will occur on Sunday evening, and I congratulate the people of Timor for never, ever giving up their struggle for freedom.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: I thank honourable members for their contributions to that motion. I particularly want to thank the member for Katherine for sharing with us his very personal experience on a very historic occasion. You have had an experience that many of us would envy.
Mr BURKE: A point of order, Madam Speaker. Just before the vote is taken, whilst it is not appropriate to have a division, is there any way we can record that the vote was unanimous?
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, we will.
Motion agreed to unanimously.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent bills entitled Criminal Property Forfeiture Bill 2002 (Serial 60) and Criminal Property Forfeiture (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2002 (Serial 61) (a) being presented and read a first time together and one motion being put in regard to respectively, the second readings, the committee’s report stage and the third readings of the bills together; and (b) the consideration of the bills separately in the Committee of the Whole.
Motion agreed to.
Bills presented and read a first time.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bills be now read a second time.
The existing Northern Territory legislation in this area, the Crimes (Forfeiture of Proceeds) Act, is ineffective and outdated. This is not a recent phenomena, not something restricted to the nine months since this government came into office. The original act was introduced in 1988 and has been largely useless since that time. The relevant records reveal that there were 64 cases where offenders were arrested or summonsed for matters involving possession or receipt of the proceeds of crime under the existing legislation.
Of those matters, only three proceeded to a court hearing. Of those, two resulted in confiscation of proceeds. Only one of these matters involved the proceeds of drug crime. In that case, only $7000 in cash was successfully confiscated.
The purpose of the bills I am introducing today is to repeal the existing scheme, replacing it with a non-conviction based civil scheme that reflects best practice in this regard. This scheme will bring the Northern Territory into line with developments occurring in most other Australian jurisdictions.
This legislation is aimed at preventing the unjust enrichment of certain individuals as a result of criminal conduct. Criminals should not profit from their criminal activity or benefit from their ill-gotten gains. This legislation provides a mechanism outside the criminal jurisdiction for forfeiture of property used in, or in connection with, the commission of a criminal offence. In particular, the legislation makes provision for the forfeiture of property of a declared drug trafficker, a person convicted of three serious drug offences.
The proceeds of crime are derived at the expense of the rest of the community. They are earned through harm and suffering of others. They can be used to finance future criminal activity and they are tax free. Criminals have no legal or moral entitlement to the proceeds of their crimes and, where property is used to facilitate criminal activity, that property will be forfeited to the Territory.
The need for strong and effective laws for the forfeiture of proceeds of crime is self-evident. The objective of such laws is threefold:
(1) to deter those who may be contemplating criminal activity by reducing the possibility of
gaining a profit from that activity;
(2) to prevent crime by diminishing the capacity of offenders to finance future criminal
activities; and
(3) to remedy the unjust enrichment of criminals who profit at society’s expense.
Since the 1980s, all Australian jurisdictions introduced laws enabling proceeds of crime to be confiscated after a conviction had been obtained - that is, conviction-based laws. These laws have not been fully effective. In particular, they have failed to have an impact upon those individuals involved at the more serious levels of criminal activity. Advancements in technology and the ease of national, even global communication allow individuals to be involved in sophisticated and large-scale criminal activity while being distanced from the actual criminal act. These individuals are able to evade conviction and, therefore, place their profits beyond the reach of conviction-based laws.
In its 1999 report entitled Confiscation That Counts, the Australian Law Reform Commission concluded that conviction-based laws were inadequate. Several Australian jurisdictions have now enacted or are in the process of enacting more effective laws enabling proceeds of crime to be frozen and confiscated through civil proceedings without the need to obtain a conviction.
The Criminal Property Forfeiture Bill 2002 achieves a complete overhaul of our existing conviction-based system for confiscating proceeds of serious crime. It represents a concrete demonstration of this government’s tough stance against crime. All forfeiture proceedings under the Criminal Property Forfeiture Bill 2002 will be civil proceedings. The bill provides a mechanism for civil forfeiture which does not require a conviction for a criminal offence as a condition precedent.
Civil forfeiture can occur when a court is satisfied that it is more probable than not that criminal conduct has occurred. Such a finding by a court does not constitute a conviction, and no criminal consequences can flow from it. The scheme is concerned with accounting for unlawful enrichment in civil proceedings, not the imposition of criminal sanctions. The object or focus of the proceeding is the recovery of assets and profits, not imprisonment.
The bill provides mechanisms for restraining orders over property so that, for example, where the police believe that property is crime-used or crime-derived, then the Director of Public Prosecutions may apply to the court for a restraining order in respect of that property. Crime-used property is that property used in or in connection with the commission of a forfeiture offence, or property of equal value. Crime-derived property is property derived directly or indirectly from the commission of a forfeiture offence.
A forfeiture offence is defined in the bill as an offence punishable by imprisonment for two years or more or any other prescribed offence. Where the court is satisfied that it is more likely than not that the property was crime-used or crime-derived, then the court must order forfeiture of that property.
The court will also be able to make forfeiture orders in relation to declared drug traffickers, unexplained wealth, criminal benefits and crime-used property substitution. The court may declare a person to be a drug trafficker when that person has been found guilty of three serious drug offences within a period of 10 years. For the purposes of the declaration, a serious drug offence includes cultivation, possession or manufacture of a commercial or trafficable quantity of an illicit drug.
Unexplained wealth is described in the bill as property equal in value to any amount by which the total value of a person’s wealth exceeds the value of the person’s lawfully derived income - the difference between the person’s total wealth and the wealth for which they can lawfully account.
A crime-used property substitution order may be used, for example, where the person has engaged in unlawful activity but does not own the property used in the commission of the criminal activity. That person will be ordered to pay an amount equivalent to the value of the crime-used property.
Forfeiture orders in relation to criminal benefits will prevent criminals exploiting their notoriety for commercial purposes such as by selling their stories to the media because such profits fall within the definition of criminal benefits and as such forfeit to the Territory.
The objects of the legislation can only be achieved if law enforcement officers are provided with appropriate powers of investigation. The bill provides for information gathering powers including monitoring, suspension, examination and production orders and search warrants. There is also a power to detain a person where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the person has property liable for forfeiture or property tracking documents in his or her possession.
Suspension orders allow for the suspension of financial transactions so as to provide law enforcement officers with 48 hours in which to investigate appropriately as to those transactions. This prevents the possible transfer of funds out of the jurisdiction while such investigations take place. The legislation makes it an offence to disclose any financial information collected under such an order; such offence being punishable for up to five years imprisonment.
The bill does provide for legal assistance for people who are indigent because their assets are restrained. Legal assistance in forfeiture proceedings can be provided by the Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission in accordance with the organisation’s guidelines. Restrained assets are to be ignored for the purposes of the means test. The bill enables legal aid commissions to be reimbursed for the provision of such legal assistance from the restrained assets of the person and to the extent of any deficiency, upon application to the minister, out of funds realised from the forfeited property. Such provisions will prevent any possible negative impact on the operation of legal aid organisations with respect to their legal aid priorities.
A number of consequential amendments are also necessary to facilitate the operation of the new forfeiture scheme. The Criminal Property Forfeiture (Consequential Amendments) Bill will amend the Sentencing Act, the Misuse of Drugs Act and the Director of Public Prosecutions Act so as to facilitate the operation of the new scheme.
As I previously outlined, under the new legislation a person may be declared a drug trafficker and as a result of that declaration, all properties subject to a restraining order owned or effectively controlled by the person and all property that was given away by the person will be forfeited to the Territory. The Misuse of Drugs Act is amended to provide for that declaration and to provide which offences are relevant for the purposes of a hearing of an application for a declaration.
The Sentencing Act is amended to allow a court to take into consideration, in sentencing an offender, any cooperation shown by the offender in resolving any action taken against the offender under the proposed legislation. It also provides that the court may have regard to a forfeiture order to the extent that the order forfeits property that is not crime-derived in relation to the offence for which the offender is being sentenced. Finally, it provides that the court must not make allowance for any other property that is being or may be forfeited when sentencing an offender who has been a respondent in those proceedings.
The Director of Public Prosecutions Act is also amended by providing that where the Director has conducted proceedings related to forfeiture, the property is forfeited to the Territory under a court order. It is a function of the Director to take any further proceedings that may be required to recover the amount or enforce the order.
Finally, the bill repeals the Crimes (Forfeiture of Proceeds) Act and provides that the operation of that act continues in relation to any proceedings commenced under that act before its repeal until the proceedings are finally determined.
Madam Speaker, this is long overdue and important legislation. It will greatly assist in fighting serious crime in our community. The profit of those who traffic or trade in drugs or participate in other criminal activity is at our expense. These bills will ensure that an effective, broad ranging scheme is put into place to recover those profits and deter people from participating in criminal activity.
I commend the bills to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now a second time. The purpose of this bill is to provide witnesses with protection from intimidation. The new provisions will protect a witness who is about to give evidence, will have to give evidence in the future or has already given evidence.
As part of this government’s commitment to drug law enforcement, this amendment will strengthen the operation of the three point plan. A successful drug conviction is often dependant upon a witness giving evidence. If we do not prevent witnesses from being intimidated, it is likely that they will be reluctant to come forward and give their evidence. This can result in a witness disappearing on the day of the trial which will effectively undermine our criminal justice system. This must be avoided at all costs.
Witnesses must feel safe and secure in the knowledge that there are measures to protect them if they give evidence. It is therefore an important part of our tough-on-drugs strategy that a witness who is about to give evidence, whether that be just before the trial or months or years prior to the trial, should not be threatened or intimidated by any person nor suffer abuse or threats by any person after having given that evidence. Nor should any person suffer intimidation by way of indirect means. For example, if one family member is called as a witness, it may be that intimidation is directed at their partner, their children, other family members or friends. Such intimidation will also be caught by this amendment to the Criminal Code. Any person who exhibits any intimidating behaviour towards a witness or others will suffer severe penalties.
A concerned parent also raised this issue with me when her son had been subjected to threats and abuse from an accused after her son had given evidence in a court case. Whilst police were aware of the problem and are sympathetic to the situation, they were unable to assist because it is not an offence under Northern Territory legislation to intimidate a person who has given evidence. While the Criminal Code contains offences of broad application which can be used in some circumstances of witness intimidation, there is no specific offence as contained in section 36A of the Crimes Act of the Commonwealth. Section 36A makes it an offence to intimidate a person for or on account of his or her appearance as a witness in judicial proceedings.
Consequently this bill will insert a similar provision to section 36A of the Crimes Act of the Commonwealth into our Criminal Code to address this issue. The maximum penalty of seven years will be imposed to deter such behaviour and provide consistency with sections 95, 100 and 101 of our Criminal Code that deal with corrupting or threatening jurors and corrupting and deceiving witnesses.
Madam Speaker, the criminal justice system relies on the cooperation of members of the community to come forward and give their evidence, and it is totally unacceptable that anyone who does so should be harassed and threatened. This type of behaviour will not be tolerated. I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to omit the current section 8(1) of the Prisons (Correctional Services) Act and substitute a new section to permit the Director to appoint only those persons who are employees within the meaning of the Public Sector Employment and Management Act to be prison officers. Since 6 June 2000, the legislation has provided for the Director to appoint any person whether they be a public servant or not to be a prison officer. The then shadow minister for Correctional Services, the Honourable Syd Stirling MLA, opposed the amendment with the strong support of the Northern Territory Prison Officers Association. In fact, he gave an undertaking to repeal the amendment if the membership of the Association supported its repeal. The Association strongly supports this action.
The argument for the amendment at the time was to create the potential for savings. However, it is interesting to note that there has not been one single person other than a public servant appointed as a prison officer since the amendment in June 2000. This indicates that there was little if any purpose in amending this act in the first place. Further, employing private security guards within the prison system is contrary to this government’s policy. We prefer to work with the Prison Officers Association rather than against it, and I have every confidence that we can work together to achieve the required outcomes that ensure an efficient and effective prison service. I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
Continued from 27 November 2001.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, since November 2000, the Auditor-General has prepared a special November report on the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Statement and Report rather than include these comments in his February report.
Given the importance of the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report in reporting on the outcomes of each financial year, this is appropriate. I am pleased to report that the Auditor-General has recognised the noticeable improvement in the latest report as a result of the change in government. However, he states that further improvements could be made.
I agree with him on both these points. It is a matter of deep regret that the previous government did not see fit to utilise the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report to provide a more open and transparent accounting of the budgetary performance of each year. Again, this reflects the deterioration in the budgetary and reporting culture that occurred under the previous government. One of the key reasons for this was that previous reports focussed on comparing the actual outcome of the latest financial year with the actual outcome of the previous year.
While year-on-year comparisons are valid and important, so too is the reporting of actual outcomes against the budget for that year. This is one of the key changes that I made with respect to the latest report. Prior to this report, Territorians and parliamentarians had to go through a complicated process of analysis to compare the outcomes with budget. That complete lack of transparency, I am pleased to report, is now a thing of the past.
As with past years, the Auditor-General has also had to reconcile differences between the headline deficit of the budget sector with the published debt figures which are on a uniform presentation basis. The Auditor-General has been critical of the way in which the Conditions of Service Trust, traditionally treated as an off-budget entity, was brought into the public account and used to mask the real increase in estimated debt for 2000-01 contained in the 2001-02 budget papers which were published in May of last year.
The changes instituted under the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act mean that this sort of ambiguity will be relegated to the past. With regard to final consumption expenditure, the Auditor-General has noted that the estimated outcomes reported in the 2001-02 budget papers in May of last year contained adjustments to the health and education amounts. This is, of course, subject to inquiry by the Public Accounts Committee, and I look forward to its report being tabled in the Assembly next week.
However, of equal concern is the identification by the Auditor-General of the $70m blowout in final consumption expenditure compared to the original budget. This highlights the former government’s approach to budgeting and reinforces the findings of Professor Percy Allan. 2000-01 provides a clear example of how the former government failed to provide appropriate fiscal discipline and simply kept adding to the bottom line through the year.
Some of these items clearly could not have been foreseen at the time the budget was brought down, such as the collapse of HIH and repairs to flood-damaged property, but a number appear to reflect poor estimation of future expenditure. For example, $8m additional funding was required by the Department of Education to meet its personnel costs, including retrenchment costs but, as well, the normal costs of its operational staffing level. ITMS needed supplementation of $3m related to the implementation of IT outsourcing. Both these items seemed to indicate that either estimates provided by the agencies were less than satisfactory or that the estimates were kept artificially low.
The Auditor-General also is critical about the lack of adequate information on capital spending, particularly with regard to the capital works program. This criticism applies to both the budget information as well as that contained in the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report.
My government is well aware of these concerns, which are reflected in the wider community, especially the construction sector. We all got used to the CLP announcing with much fanfare its capital works program, and then finding that there was little cash allocated against the item in the year in which it was announced. Further, items on the program would simply not proceed, sometimes for years, and then be re-announced at a later date. You only have to think of the Alice Springs Hospital which was announced more times than you could remember and finally, 10 years after the first announcement, actually got a very timely and excellent refurbishment and redevelopment.
As a consequence, I’m investigating ways in which this information can be improved and made more relevant for the community, and for parliament in the 2002-03 budget papers in August. Similarly, I can assure the parliament that reporting on outcomes in future Treasurer’s Annual Financial Reports will also be improved.
In total, capital expenditure was close to that originally budgeted although, within the components, there was substantial variation. Chief among these were transactions related to the railway, and to the purchase of the Darwin-Katherine transmission line for $43m.
The Auditor-General makes the disturbing link that, given the outcome for capital expenditure was very little different from that originally budgeted, a significant part of the increase in debt reflects borrowings to finance recurrent expenditure. In other words, putting the weekly groceries on the Bankcard. This is a damning outcome of the previous government’s financial mismanagement. The Auditor-General has also undertaken an examination of the previous government’s fiscal strategy, with the recommendation that the strategy be reviewed by the new government.
My government acknowledges these comments, although a revised strategy was incorporated in Labor’s financial statement. It is clear that the move to accrual accounting from the next budget will necessitate the update of that strategy. This will be incorporated within the budget documents in August. As part of that review process, the government will examine the strategies and standards utilised by other jurisdictions. I believe it is clear from my comments and actions that my government is dedicated to the improvement of budgetary and financial information including its reliability, its accuracy, and its transparency.
It is pleasing to see that these efforts are being recognised elsewhere. Access Economics, in its March 2002 Budget Monitor, includes a chapter of fiscal transparency, and I lay on the Table an extract from the Monitor.
The Territory’s ranking by Access Economics is a C+, on par with South Australia and ahead of New South Wales, the ACT and Tasmania. Last year, the Territory was ranked worst among the states and territories, and had a score of D-, which is a fail in terms of Access’ score card. Access Economics in that Monitor makes a couple of pertinent comments. First, and I quote from them:
My government agrees with these comments wholeheartedly, and they lie behind the introduction of the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act. The public’s confidence in the CLP’s budgets has been shattered by blatant political interference in the budget process. The Martin government is committed to rebuilding that confidence, and I’m confident next August’s budget will be another step in that process.
Second, referring again to the Monitor, Access Economics says:
Here is an independent commentator providing their opinion on the reporting performance of the CLP. Quite simply, it was unacceptable. And what is it under the new government? It is already acceptable and is set to improve further with the introduction of accrual reporting from the next budget.
I would like to thank the Auditor-General for his comments. They form a valuable contribution to public and parliamentary debate about the financial performance of the Territory government, both past and present. I know that this House would like to thank now-departed Auditor-General, Iain Summers, for an excellent job over seven years and, as I announced this morning, welcome Michael Blake as his replacement.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr REED (Katherine): Madam Speaker, if rewriting history was a crime the Chief Minister would be in gaol. For example, the reference that she just made to her government introducing accrual accounting, it was I as the then Treasurer in May last year who announced that the Northern Territory would be moving to accrual accounting. I think that is as good as an example as anything else to demonstrate just how deceitful this Chief Minister can be in terms of rewriting history and trying to take credit for things that she has had nothing to do with.
Another example - and you will see this on the coming Saturday week - is notwithstanding the abhorrence that she has for the alleged black hole, there are parts of the black hole that she is prepared to embrace with great alacrity. We will see it on Saturday week as she embraces and launches and opens the convention centre in Alice Springs. She won’t say this is the part of the black hole I like and all the gathered throng here in Alice Springs who will benefit, or have benefitted, in terms of the construction of this facility and will benefit in the ongoing business that it will bring to town. I daresay she won’t give any credit to the former Northern Territory government in relation to the fact that had it not been for them, she would not be there on that occasion opening the new convention centre in Alice Springs.
It is rather like speaking out both sides of the mouth for the Chief Minister …
Ms Martin: Do you suggest I refuse to open it?
Mr REED: Well, whoever’s going to open it. In terms of the duplicity of the Chief Minister and we saw …
Ms MARTIN: A point of order, Madam Speaker! This is totally inappropriate. Totally inappropriate talking about duplicity and other things. He should talk about the Auditor-General’s statement.
Madam SPEAKER: I don’t think there is a point of order. Continue, member for Katherine.
Mr REED: It all relates to the period of the document but, of course, the Chief Minister would not want to hear this and I can understand her sensitivity.
Another fine example of it of course we have seen throughout the course of this year is the opening of sleeper plants. A lovely part of the black hole; something we can embrace and get a bit of warm glow from in the public arena. Let’s just forget about the black hole in relation to the sleeper plants. This is a nice part of the job that I can enjoy and I would not be enjoying much else if it had not been for the former CLP government had they not put this railway in place.
Of course, following that, we had the great spectacle of the laying of the first track in Katherine. Yet another part of the alleged black hole that the Chief Minister finds to be quite attractive and provides the opportunity for her to strut the stage.
Rather a shame that the Katherine Times of that week in reporting that had a front page story with a photograph of the member for Lingiari and the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory at the opening; 40% of those papers did not sell in Katherine. Quite amazing. The first time it has ever happened. They were left on the shelves in the news agencies and other newspaper outlets in Katherine. The only thing that the locals could put it down to were the two faces on the front page. They were so repugnant and of course people saw through the fact of ‘Oh, this must be a nice part of the alleged black hole. We can see through this so there is no point us taking that newspaper home because of the deceitfulness of the two people on the front page trying to take credit for it’.
Mrs AAGAARD: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I think the word ‘deceitful’…
Mr REED: So, Madam Speaker, let’s just…
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Katherine, we have a point of order.
Mrs AAGAARD: Madam Speaker, I do not feel that the member for Katherine should be referring to the word ‘deceitful’ in relationship to the Chief Minister. I think he should withdraw.
Madam SPEAKER: I do not understand that point of order. No.
Ms Martin: How come deceitful is different from lie, though? Hey, hey?
Mr REED: It is a word you use regularly. You have used it these sittings. But it is all right for you and we understand that because you are deceitful.
Madam Speaker, can I say that I reject the assertions made by the Chief Minister in relation to the comments she has made as regards this document. I think the few examples, and there are many more, that I have given in relation to just how tricky she can be, and selective. She suffers very seriously from selective amnesia. When it suits her in the public arena to embrace something that the Northern Territory government did whether or not it contributed to the alleged black hole, well, that’s all right for the Chief Minister.
Well, can I say to her that if she thinks that this is going unnoticed by the general populace, she is terribly wrong. People are alert to it and they are talking about it quite extensively. In that regard she would do well to take a little bit more notice of them and just have a few pangs of guilt next time she stands up to take credit for something that was put in place by the former government and perhaps to even recognise it.
They are very pertinent points in that regard. As I say, so too is the accrual accounting that she’s now trying to take credit for. Her Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act, when you look at it, when you read it, there is nothing in there that makes it necessary for the current government to change anything in relation to reporting.
The processes are generally followed and have been and, of course, what she’s also chosen to very cutely overlook is the fact that over the last five or six budgets there have been changes every year in the reporting process, and they’ve been recognised by the financial people, the reporters, in terms of how budgets are being reported and the improvement and the extension of budget reporting processes over the years.
As I indicated at the outset of my contribution to this debate, the fact that accrual accounting was alluded to in the last budget I introduced and was to be accompanied by a range of other initiatives to further improve the accounting process and the reporting process, it ill behoves the Chief Minister to try and rewrite history. The people of the Territory are very much familiar with how she operates now and it’s just a matter of correcting the record when she attempts to do it. But I reject the ridiculous assertions she made, and in terms of the examples I’ve given, I think they adequately illuminate the situation.
I take this opportunity, though, in closing my remarks to thank the former Auditor-General, Iain Summers, for the contribution he made to the Northern Territory during his holding of that very responsible position. I am sure the incoming Auditor-General will do the same. Not an easy task but an essential one in terms of reporting to this parliament. The government does not own the Auditor-General. This parliament owns the Auditor-General and this parliament is the entity to which the Auditor-General reports. It rather downgrades the position of the Auditor-General for the Chief Minister to try and make some assumption that there’s some close contact in terms of relationships - working relationships, I’m talking about - and responsibilities between the Auditor-General and the government.
The Auditor-General clearly reports to this parliament and is responsible to this parliament and all of its members. I look forward to meeting the new Auditor-General. I’m sure that he will perform to a very high standard and keep the members of this parliament so informed.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, before we go on with the next speaker in this debate, I would like to advise you of the presence in the Gallery of Vocational Education and Training students from Ali Curung. On behalf of all members, I welcome you to our parliament and it’s very pleasing to see you with the teacher, Kevin Diflo, who I think many people will remember. A warm welcome to you all.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to the Auditor-General’s November 2001 report but before doing so, I would just like to digress and thank you for a very pleasant evening last night. Members from both sides of the House certainly enjoyed your hospitality and also enjoyed meeting the new CEO of the Northern Territory Tourist Commission. It was a fine night, and I know others join with me in thanking you for that.
Members: Hear, hear!
Dr BURNS: I, too, have prepared something in thanks to the Auditor-General, but I thought I would wait to the next debate which is about his very last report, his 2002 February report.
Looking at this November 2001 report, looking at that report as a report card, it appears to contain little good news regarding the previous government’s fiscal stewardship.
One of the major issues raised by the Auditor-General in this report is the $116m increase in net debt compared to the budgeted increase of $45m, which is approximately $70m difference. The Auditor-General, in his report, reports that most of this $70m was to do with increases in recurrent expenditure. He also observes that, at current interest rates, an extra $4.3m per year will be required to service this extra debt.
I believe Professor Percy Allan commented on consecutive blow-outs in final consumption expenditures of between $65-70m per year under the previous government. Whilst the former Treasurer might try and argue that this was because of natural disasters, the Auditor-General and Professor Allan are very clear that these blowouts were due to additional recurrent expenditure. I believe it is quite wrong of the former Treasurer to pretend that the Alice Springs Convention Centre, the sleeper factory are actually part of the black hole. They are not. These are blowouts in additional recurrent expenditure. To me, this indicates poor budgetary practices. Indeed, probably the major disaster was the financial management of the former Treasurer himself in allowing this to occur.
The Auditor-General has raised some questions in relation to some of the accounting treatments used in relation to railway funding, in particular the write-down of the $25m loan to the AustralAsia Railway Corporation. These matters aside, I believe the railway project is a wonderful investment for the Territory and I do compliment the former government, particularly the opposition leader, for all the hard work that he and others, such as Barry Coulter, did to secure this particular project.
The Auditor-General also makes an important point in relation to capital works for the 2000-01 financial year. He states, and I quote from page 5:
Similarly, in his November 2001 report, the Auditor-General challenged the new government to take the opportunity to adopt better fiscal management performance measures. That is an important message that this government will heed. We will not head down the same path as the former government of systematically ignoring the advice of the Auditor-General.
I commend the Auditor-General’s November 2001 report to honourable members.
Motion agreed to; report noted.
Continued from 28 February 2002.
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Madam Speaker, the role of the Auditor-General is important in a democratic process. It is one of the checks and balances in government accountability. The Auditor-General raised several key issues that arose during his term of office, and I wish to speak specifically on his report relating to the auditing of the public account where he addressed the inadequate controls over the Community Benefit Fund.
The Auditor-General had a look at this whole question of the Community Benefit Fund and his investigations laid bare several quite serious concerns about the use of public monies under the former government. The Community Benefit Fund accumulated as a result of additional taxation levels on hotel poker machines following their introduction on 1 January 1996.
Barely 18 months after those machines were introduced in the community in July 1997, disbursements from the fund to community groups ceased pending a review of the gaming industry. The funding of amelioration programs to Anglicare and Amity Community Services continued, but the rest of the fund was frozen from July 1997. This parliament never saw a review in relation to the reason given as to why the Community Benefit Fund was frozen; it never saw the light of day. Nothing was ever tabled by the former government in relation to the review.
In March 2001, the former government decided to use part of the accumulated fund to make grants under the Small Grants Program to grassroots community groups. Although not mentioned by the Auditor-General, the fact is that the money started to flow in 2001, an election year. For some reason, - again, never explained - the responsibility for the fund passed from the Minister for Racing, Gaming and Licensing to the Treasurer at that time. The Auditor-General also found that, after initially setting the pool of grants to be distributed at $1m in March 2001, on 16 July it was upped to $1.6m, just four weeks before the election.
Public servants were left with the job of processing 520 applications for grants with very few specific criteria. In the haste to process payments during July, a matter raised by the Auditor-General meant proper controls were not in place. According to the Auditor-General, the CLP government was so eager they overpaid some recipients and they paid five recipients twice. Two payments totaling $9000 were made to the Casuarina Security Association Incorporated, an organisation in the Auditor-General’s words ‘that was dormant’. That money has still not yet been acquitted.
So, what was the government of the day doing in making payments to an organisation that was not a grassroots organisation in the first place? Why wasn’t the money paid directly to the target groups - the recipient groups, the ones who were going to do the community work and community benefit for this money? I think the answer to that is because the organisations that were going to do the work were found after the grant had been processed and the money paid.
The Auditor-General has been very generous in describing the Casuarina Security Association Incorporated as ‘dormant’. Even when it was operating, it had nothing to do with soccer clubs or playground equipment. Its original charter was to provide security around the Casuarina Shopping Centre using money from other government sources, but it stopped doing this some considerable time ago.
The Auditor-General said there was no indication that any check was made to ensure that the purpose of the grant was in accord with the basic objectives of the association. In the Auditor-General’s summary of key findings, there was a lack of evidence to support how the committee arrived at its recommendations. There was no feedback from the Treasurer to the committee or the Director of Licensing to identify why grants approved differed from the recommendations of the committee and, further, there were payments made without the benefit of recommendations from the committee, and there were recommendations for payments from the committee that were not actioned.
The Auditor-General spoke of unsatisfactory procedures. I suggest that it was blatant pork barrelling, without decent administrative procedures in the dying weeks prior to the 2001 election. I think that the former government had a view that they couldn’t lose and none of this would ever be exposed.
A lack of consideration of the taxation implications of the grants meant that in some cases tax invoices to properly account for GST had to be subsequently requested from recipients. The committee was required to consider over 520 applications under the Small Grants Program in a very short period of time. The committee relied on a long standing interpretation of grassroots which meant entities which were not umbrella organisations applying on behalf of a series of smaller entities.
The committee did not seek to determine whether any member of parliament was also a member of an organisation seeking funding assistance; it was not considered to be a relevant consideration. There is no requirement for a minister to provide feedback on why decisions differed from recommendations.
The whole exercise was far from perfect. Public servants were put into very awkward positions over this fiasco. They had legitimate processes hijacked from them and they were directed to make payments in such a way as to possibly leave them embarrassed in the future.
How will things be done differently by this government? The Martin Labor government will finalise a proper review of the Community Benefit Fund. That review will set parameters about how the fund should be used and it will put up clear accountability and transparent processes.
I also briefly mention the Auditor-General’s comments on CEO separation arrangements. The Auditor-General claimed there was insufficient documentation to support the extent of termination payments to former chief executives and executive contract officers. The Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment agreed that documentation needed to be improved and I am assured by the department that they will address the issue of adequate documentation in the future. However, the Commissioner for Public Employment asserts, and the government agrees, that the net outcome provided throughout that exercise did provide considerable savings to government.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, that was fairly selective reporting of the Auditor-General’s report. I notice it went to one item only and that is the extent of the government’s contribution.
Mr Stirling: No, it is not.
Mr BURKE: Well, it is pretty selective reporting. If I could address the issues very quickly that were raised by the Deputy Chief Minister and member for Nhulunbuy who makes much of the community grants that were paid out. I put it on the record that I have read the Auditor-General’s findings very closely and I can say that as Chief Minister at the time, I am proud of that grants program.
Mr Kiely: That was the ex-member for Casuarina.
Mr BURKE: It was done precisely for this reason: there is a whole range of organisations that do not have the ability to lobby for funds from government.
Dr Burns: That’s not the point.
Mr BURKE: If I could just pick up on the high handed, high moral position that a couple of the members on the other side are putting now, you will find in government, particularly as MLAs without the entre into Cabinet, to lobby for your own electorates that such a grants program will be of immense benefit for you in your own electorates. There are a whole range of organisations out there, many of which are not incorporated associations, many of which do not have access through their peak bodies, or if they do have access through peak sporting bodies, are very poorly resourced from the generous funding that certainly we provided for those peak organisations. They struggle from day to day to conduct what we believe were essential community services to their own constituency; some small, some larger, but in the general sense, mostly disorganised. For the most part, these organisations are not incorporated associations.
The member for Nhulunbuy makes the gross generalisation that this was essentially pork barrelling by the CLP government. If it was pork barrelling by the CLP government, it was a pretty poor effort at pork barrelling because if we were going to conduct a program of pork barrelling the electorates, we certainly would not have done it this way. You only have to go to the Auditor-General’s report itself to see there was a committee that was set up to look at these grants and to oversee where these grants were paid.
Of a total of 316 grants, 261 were paid on the recommendation of the committee; another 10 were paid although not recommended by the committee; there was one paid without recommendation; there were 10 that were paid more than recommended; there were five that were paid more than once, and that recovery action was in place; there were 11 that were paid less than recommended; and not paid although recommended totalled 34.
So if you look at the whole regime of that program, if you’re trying to pick holes or to suggest somehow we were pork barrelling the electorates, it was a pretty poor example of pork barrelling. All I can say is that - I know the member for Nhulunbuy was the recipient of some of those grants. I proudly in my own electorate handed out grants to a number of organisations. I know the work that they do in my own electorate; I know how difficult it was for them to get their funding and I was proud to be part of that grants program.
If the government is going to take the high moral attitude that they’re going to improve the program, well and good. We’ll see what you do and we’ll see how well it works and we’ll see exactly how those sorts of organisations that benefitted from those grants in the past are looked after by the government in the future.
This is the last report of this Auditor-General after seven years of service to this parliament and the Territory. I would like to put on record our appreciation of Mr Summers for his efforts while noting we did not always agree with his comments or his recommendations. The role of the Auditor-General is a crucial one in any true democracy, not only in the role of being an independent check on executive government but also as a direct advisor to the parliament.
I note the member for Johnston made much of the fact that under this government, the recommendations of the Auditor-General will not be ignored. Well, that’s good. I’ll hold you to that because it’s not an issue for the government per se; it’s really an issue for the Public Accounts Committee and the Public Accounts Committee needs no direction from the government of the day to walk in and decide to investigate any aspect of the Auditor-General’s report.
Dr Burns: One issue in seven years!
Mr BURKE: You’ve made the statement …
Dr Burns: One issue in seven years.
Mr BURKE: The member for Johnston has made the statement. He said that under his tutelage and in this government’s time, they’re going to really ensure that the Auditor-General’s recommendations are taken note of. I can say that the response by government so far to this report has been off handed, to say the least. The member for Johnston has set himself the task. He’s going to ensure that as Chairman of Public Accounts Committee, the government will make sure that they look at these reports. I just reiterate, particularly for the member for Nelson - and I’m not trying to lecture him - it is not for government to recommend what the PAC looks at. The Auditor-General puts down this report and the PAC itself can walk in and look at any aspect of that report at any time. So you follow up on what you claim you will do, Mr Chairman.
Madam Speaker, the role of the Auditor-General is a crucial one in any true democracy, not only in the role of being an independent check on executive government but also as a direct advisor to the parliament. The PAC, as I said, is the recipient in many respects of that parliamentary advice. Iain Summers has performed that job admirably in the past seven years and, as he himself noted in the last paragraph of his final summary to this parliament, and I quote:
I am quite sure that will be the case with his successor.
Let me turn to several of the matters reported on in this final report by Mr Summers. We’ve already heard the very selective reporting from the other side about one aspect of his findings but I believe it’s worth expanding on what he had to say about this new government. One of the first points he makes is that he is encouraged by the current government’s policy to introduce a Code of Conduct for parliamentarians. The trouble is that Code of Conduct has remained so far just that. It is a stated policy of the new government that they will introduce a Code of Conduct and we wait to see exactly how that Code of Conduct will be presented.
Certainly, the Code of Conduct could include a whole range of new clauses. It could include a clause on language in the parliament and the drafting of this new dictionary of language in the parliament could include the member for Nhulunbuy himself. I mean the ‘f’ word is a fairly favourite word of his; it could include the member for Sanderson who likes the ‘w’ word …
Mr Kiely: I love the ‘w’ word.
Mr BURKE: He likes the ‘w’ word – there you are, he has just said, Madam Speaker, he likes the ‘w’ word. The member for Nhulunbuy is very keen on the ‘f’ word.
If we are going to look at and draft a new Code of Conduct in parliament, this new government is setting new standards of parliamentary debate, new standards for the conduct of politicians in this Chamber. I would imagine that if we let these two, at least, loose, Madam Speaker, you could have a proposal for a new dictionary of parliamentary language.
It would be interesting to see what Territorians think of what that dictionary said. Respect for the parliamentary Chamber - now there’s a clause we could put in the new Code of Conduct. There are certainly staffers in the Chief Minister’s office who have some very clear ideas as to how this parliamentary Chamber should be used. They seem to think it’s …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! To which staffers is the Opposition Leader referring?
Madam SPEAKER: I think the Leader of the Opposition will clarify that.
Mr BURKE: Well, Madam Speaker, we know - and you have conducted the investigation - that certainly the incident in this Chamber was aided and abetted by at least one staffer who is currently on staff who I know presented some sort of an apology to the Speaker, and I believe that that was fairly inadequate.
But the thing is we are talking about this new government. This new government has standards of conduct, it wants to lay down those standards of conduct in a new Code of Conduct for the parliament, so I would be very interested in who drafts that clause. Certainly, there are one or two staffers up there and some of the MLAs, including the Chief Minister, who seemed to think it was quite a giggle when I saw her reaction on television. It might set a whole new approach as to how we treat this parliamentary Chamber. I would be interested to see how the Speaker handles that.
How we settle disputes in the parliament, now there’s one. The member for Millner has some very clear ideas. If you want to get your point of view across, at what point in debate do you say ‘Righto, that’s enough’ and decide that a good old stoush-up does the job. It might be that this parliament really has not been able to get to the real nub of issues using the current system of parliamentary debate. It might be that we set up a boxing ring in the middle of the Chamber here. We could have clear rules of how we actually conduct debate, and there is a point at which you move from this very stilted, very structured approach and just get into it.
The member for Sanderson’s really keen on this. You can see he is so frustrated by the constraints that are currently on him in this Chamber that he really would like to see some greater flexibility not only in language, but probably in the way we interact with each other. This is something that we should really throw on the table. This is something that really needs to be debated. I could not think of anyone better than the member for Millner to be involved in that sort of drafting. The member for Millner clearly has some ideas as to how we could move from debate to real interaction, and where and in what circumstances a good old punch up gets you the result that you want.
Participation in sport. Now this is something. The Minister for Sport and Recreation gave us a lecture the other day …
Mr STIRLING: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition can justify these remarks in relation to the Auditor-General, but I am having trouble putting a context on it. I ask from the point of relevance.
Madam SPEAKER: The Auditor-General did mention Code of Conduct in his report.
Mr BURKE: Madam Speaker, it is one of the first points he raises.
Madam SPEAKER: I think that is what the Leader of the Opposition is speaking to.
Mr BURKE: The Auditor-General not only mentioned the Code of Conduct, he said he looked forward to seeing the form in which this Code of Conduct was presented to the parliament. I am taking the opportunity in my response to reflect on what that Code of Conduct could be.
The minister for Sport and Recreation lectured this Chamber on participation in sport, said that we all need to be more active, said that he set standards for himself and his staff about how they need to engage more in sport. His views need to be put alongside the Chief Minister who believes that MLAs are too busy to participate in sport.
We need some clarity on exactly how the government believes ministers and members should keep themselves active. Should we be more active? Should we participate in sport and therefore under what circumstances would you ban a member from playing sport? Perhaps he is too busy, but we know that there is at least one member in this Chamber who has been banned from participating in sport.
How do you get your hand on taxpayers money to aid your election campaign? There are members who come into this Chamber, they say they need more information on how to undertake the rigors of not only parliament, servicing their electorate - but the real issue is how do you get yourself elected. In this Auditor-General’s report, we can see that through the misuse of taxpayers’ funds directly the members for Johnston, Sanderson, Millner, and Karama directly benefitted from taxpayers’ funds from the Leader of the Opposition’s office to win an election campaign. So, they’re a few …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The Auditor-General mentioned none of these things within his report.
Madam SPEAKER: But he did mention a Code of Conduct and I think the Leader of the Opposition is very broad in speaking to that.
Dr BURNS: He did mention a Code of Conduct, but if the Opposition Leader is referring to the matter of paper within the Opposition Leader’s office, there was no mention of me or any of the other candidates, and I ask him to withdraw it.
Madam SPEAKER: Well, he was not referring to the paper used by the Leader of the …
Ms Scrymgour: He was, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: … the current Leader of the Opposition’s office. I didn’t hear it that way. You know, when speaking to these reports that people do tend to take a broad view. We heard the Leader of Government Business concentrate on one element of the report. The Leader of the Opposition is now concentrating on another element of the report.
Mr BURKE: Madam Speaker, we are waiting to see how this government – it is now nine months - how they settle down, what sort of other misdemeanours and foibles and punch-ups and whatever they get into before we sit down and say we can really see how the new government wants to conduct business and what sort Code of Conduct we have.
One foible they have fallen for is paying to get rid of people, irrespective of the legal niceties of what are the different entitlements of someone who resigns or is sacked. The Auditor-General was in no doubt that something shonky had gone on; he makes it quite clear in this report that if the former CEOs ousted by this government on the day of the long knives, November 13, had resigned, they would not have been entitled to the payments that they received, payments, I would add, we are still waiting to have fully explained to this House and to Territorians.
The government had no compunction in revealing the payout of a former employee of the previous government in detail; the payment he received when he lost his job due to the change of government and a payout to which everyone knows he was clearly entitled after many years of service. I am sure if the government did their figures and brought forward the new rules - they claim two weeks for every year of service - the member would have got more than he actually received.
The Deputy Chief Minister took delight in standing up in this place revealing who it was and how much money that person received. What he or his leader won’t do is give us the same details about the CEOs that they sacked or forced to resign, or whatever mechanism they used to get rid of them. It was the government claiming that these CEOs were not forced out. It was the government saying these CEOs were not terminated, that they had chosen to go. Now, the Auditor-General doesn’t believe you and nor do Territorians.
The Auditor-General says that if you didn’t sack them, you didn’t terminate them, you paid them out too much money. Let me quote from the report:
Of course, the Labor Party’s got a pretty long history of paying to get rid of unwanted people from their ranks. Once they got rid of old Bob Collins because he was an encumbrance as the leader. They offered him a Senate candidacy in order to get him out of the leadership in the Territory parliament …
Mr Stirling: Rewriting history again? Making it up again?
Mr BURKE: He has told us that himself. It’s one of the things that he holds with great bitterness about the Labor Party in the Northern Territory was not only the fact that they got rid of him – and you well know it – but the reasons they got rid of him.
So when you start running a high moral ground here - the member for Millner knows it very clearly - if you don’t, ask him. He’ll tell you, and he’s still bitter to this day for the reason that the Labor Party of the Northern Territory dumped him as leader.
In this report I am pleased to see that they have been caught out by the Auditor-General. Sadly, this new government’s reaction to the Auditor-General’s condemnation has been effectively to laugh it off. Their attitude has been: ‘Well, we’re the government now and we can do what we like and explain it how we like’. Of course, this report reveals that being over-enthusiastic with the use of taxpayers funds for their own ends is not something they have embraced only since reaching government.
The Auditor-General also investigated the legitimacy or otherwise of expenditure on inhouse photocopying in ministerial offices, and that included the office of the then Leader of the Opposition and now Chief Minister, the member for Fannie Bay. The investigation only covered the period between June 2000 and April 2001, a few months before the election - so it ended at that high period before the election - but in that period alone, the then Opposition Leader managed to use taxpayers funds to churn out 872 256 photocopies. That was three times as much as the then Chief Minister’s office achieved and more than 12 times the amount produced in the office of the then Deputy Chief Minister.
It was no secret that the then Leader of the Opposition was using her office and taxpayers funds to run the Labor campaign. It was no secret her office was producing the newsletters for Labor candidates using taxpayers’ paper and taxpayers’ photo copiers. Again, the Auditor-General has tagged them for it. He picked on two periods: the four weeks to 23 August 2000; and the four weeks to the 28 November 2000. In that period, almost 400 000 photocopies came out of the then Leader of the Opposition’s office. As the Auditor-General found, for more than 51% of these photocopies and publications no legitimate public purpose could be clearly demonstrated because of the political bias that they contained. He went on, and I quote:
Text in these documents appears to seek advantage for the political party then in opposition, and that it was
highly critical of the political party in government, while advancing the policy alternatives of the then Leader
of the Opposition’s political party. It featured endorsed candidates from the party in opposition in these
cases. It is reasonable to conclude that party political benefit was obtained ahead of the public benefit.
So you lot over there who put your hand on your heart - probably go to church, do you? - just remember, as far as I am concerned you are a bunch of thieves. You can make allegations against the former government, but you cannot point an allegation and say anyone in this former government put their hand in the taxpayers purse and put it in their own pocket. That allegation I lay squarely at you, and you have never been able to refute it because you know it is the truth.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, your time has expired.
Mr BURKE: Madam Speaker, I was going to sum up, but I simply say that this is a government now that is not only immoral but amoral, and that finding has clearly been evidenced in the Auditor-General’s Report.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Madam Speaker, I rise to speak on the Auditor-General’s February 2002 report. As has been canvassed here earlier, we are all aware that the former Auditor-General has completed his seven year term and moved from the position. This February 2002 report is his last.
At the outset, I would like to pay tribute to Mr Iain Summers. I believe he has worked very hard over the past seven years. He has a strong commitment to transparency in budget processes and making budget information more accessible and understandable for parliament and the people. He is also a strong advocate of performance auditing.
If I could just digress there, the Leader of the Opposition was trying to point to comments made by the Auditor-General about codes of conduct etcetera, but I think when you read the context in which the Auditor-General made those comments, it says quite plainly: ‘Major issues from seven years of auditing for parliament’ so he is talking mainly about seven years of the CLP government.
I would like to quote from his report. It says:
So his experience was seven years of CLP government. That is why he has called for these things. That is why he called for a Code of Conduct. That is why he commented, as I will show later, that only one issue in that seven years had actually been picked up by a Public Accounts Committee. So it is a bit rich for the Opposition Leader to come in here trying to point all this towards us.
Certainly, we will take all the messages of the Auditor-General on board because it was clearly the fact that the former government would not heed the Auditor-General’s advice that the public just got sick of them because they weren’t open and accountable and transparent in their processes. My speech today will illustrate many of those things.
In his final report, as I have said, he devotes a great deal of detail to what he calls major issues from seven years of auditing parliament. One of the most striking features of the outgoing Auditor-General’s report is the graph shown on page 8 of the report which clearly illustrates the growth of actual net debt over budgeted net debt. It’s quite plain here: 1997-2001, page 9. A very large increase. So every year since 1997-98 to 2000-01 inclusive, actual net debt has been significantly greater than budgeted net debt. In the past two budgets it has been in the order of some $65-70m per year.
The former Auditor-General commented as follows:
So in this statement, he is pointing to a lack of clarity in the former government’s primary financial accountability document, the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Statement. This was something that they were trying to hide, this row, if you like, of overexpenditure of between $65-70m per year.
As the opposition leader has pointed out, the Auditor-General’s Report draws attention to the need for ethics to underpin public sector performance and for the need for commitment to come from the top. He says, and I quote from page 13:
The report also draws attention to the disregard that successive Public Accounts Committees under the previous government had for matters raised by the Auditor-General over the seven years of his tenure. If I could digress, Madam Speaker, I believe the Auditor-General has been a voice crying in the wilderness; no one has been heeding him. One issue in seven years. What sort of a record is that? It’s a record of a government who didn’t really want to hear.
Members interjecting.
Dr BURNS: I will quote from page 13 of his report:
I reiterate the commitment I made in reply to the Auditor-General’s comments found on page 14 of the report, in which I give a commitment as Chair of the Public Accounts Committee that we will be investigating these things, but before I do, just to illustrate the past seven years, I asked the Library to extract elements of the Auditor-General’s reports. I would like to flick through a few.
Here we go. 1999-2000 net debt showing an increase. Here it is going up, going up and up and up. Nothing happened. Here is another one of grave concern from the August 2000 report. It says:
Now, that is very, very serious. I will read it again. August 2000:
And what did we have in the Annual …
Mr REED: A point of order, Madam Speaker! It is very interesting what the honourable member is talking about, but we are talking about the February 2002 report of the Auditor-General. He is going on about matters previous, I think it is 1996 or something to that effect.
Madam SPEAKER: Well, I have allowed a lot of leeway in this discussion, so I don’t think there’s a point of order.
Mr REED: He is not even within this report, he is talking about former reports, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Keep your remarks as relevant to the report as possible.
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, I strongly contend it is relevant in the context of what the Auditor-General has said. He has raised major issues over seven years of auditing for parliament. His comment …
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! He is reflecting on a committee of this parliament. The Public Accounts Committee is a committee of this parliament and you can’t use it interchangeably with the previous government, so these are matters that went to the Public Accounts Committee, not to the previous government, and I believe he is reflecting in an untoward way on a previous committee.
Madam SPEAKER: He is speaking to the report and comments the Auditor-General made and I have allowed that licence from both sides of the House.
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, I will get to the end of all of this, even though some people don’t want to hear it.
What I am reflecting on is the Auditor-General’s February 2002 report where he is reflecting on major issues from seven years of auditing for parliament. I am also reflecting on the fact that the Auditor-General comments, in this particular report, that in seven years of reporting and briefing previous Public Accounts Committees, only one issue had ever been taken up. That’s what I am reflecting on, and I am looking at some of the issues that were put before the Auditor-General. I will come back to it. August 2000 report:
Here is another one from the August 1990 report. He says:
Here we go. Here is a comment from 1996. There seems to be a bit of a theme here:
Mr Dunham interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Drysdale.
Dr BURNS: Here’s another one from the February 2001 report. Public information, advertising and community attitudes research. Here he says in his highlight on page 5 of the February 2001 report:
What else can I find here? That’ll do me for a while.
So in contrast to the attitude of the previous government or successive Public Accounts Committees, I would like to read my comments in relation to the comments the Auditor-General made - those concerning comments where he said that only one matter had been acted on in seven years. I wrote to him, and it’s published in this report. I said:
The Auditor-General suggests that, and I’ll quote again:
We are going to do a lot better than that. Based on his experience over the past seven years, this is a reasonable suggestion that should be implemented. Moreover, the incoming government has a commitment to strengthening the parliamentary committee system …
Mr Dunham: So you’re making this decision are you, Mr Chairman? Go for it, big guy. You don’t need the rest of us.
Dr BURNS: The member for Drysdale well knows that we have a commitment to that.
… in order to provide open and accountable government to the people of the Northern Territory. This includes appropriate consideration of matters raised by the Auditor-General relevant to the Public Accounts Committee. Therefore, it is quite likely that a number of matters raised by the Auditor-General would form the basis for examination by the current Public Accounts Committee in any 12-month period. We will. We are.
Mr Dunham: Fearlessly going to investigate this current government? Put it on the record, mate.
Mr Henderson: Look forward to your contribution.
Mr Dunham: We’re looking forward to the PAC’s good work in the future, mate.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, one of the troubling issues reported by the Auditor-General was in relation to the adequacy of internal audit capacities of agencies. He said:
In the February 2002 report, page 36, the Auditor-General drew attention to a statement in his previous August 2001 report that adequate internal audit had still not been demonstrated by many agencies during the 2000-01 year. This is obviously a matter that the Auditor-General holds as important, and one which the current Public Accounts Committee will certainly consider following up; it is a viable issue.
Another topical issue the Auditor-General has raised is in relation to the stewardship of the Community Benefit Fund. I know the member for Nhulunbuy has already touched on this. I quote from page 20 of the report:
In contrast to what the Opposition Leader tried to allege, of course, this government wants to see community groups benefit by small grants. But it comes down to the control and proper auditing of those grants, the processing of those grants which the Auditor-General found to be very, very lacking under the control and oversight of the previous government. It is not right for the Opposition Leader to suggest that we don’t want to give money to deserving community groups. Of course we do, but it has to be done correctly. Let me follow up by what the Auditor-General said:
In haste to make payments from the fund proper, controls were not maintained.
It seems to be a bit of a pattern with the previous government: in haste to do everything; not having proper controls, not maintaining proper controls. His third dot point:
And the fourth dot point:
And if I could read a couple of dot points from page 21 of his report. Here are a few, he said:
There was a lack of evidence to support how the committee arrived at its recommendations. There was no
feedback from the Treasurer to the Committee or the Director of Licencing to identify why the grants
approved differed from the recommendations of the Committee. The Director of Licencing made payments
out of the fund without obtaining clear evidence that the Treasurer had approved the amounts to be paid.
Grant cheques were distributed by ministers and other members from the party in government without
recipients being provided any supporting paper work to identify the acquittal requirements.
So it was the previous government. It was some of the ministers and previous MLAs that put some of these community organisations in the slot and I think they should be ashamed of themselves. They did not equip them with the knowledge and the paper work to be able to properly be cognisant of acquittal requirements.
The final one, I don’t think it goes over the page, I think there is enough there:
A lack of consideration of the taxation implication of the grants meant that in some cases tax invoices to
properly account for GST had to be subsequently requested from recipients.
What a litany of mismanagement! It was just blatant pork barrelling that went on, but they never really backed it up with the proper paperwork to allow those community organisations to do the right thing.
It is noteworthy the control - or lack of control, I think you would say - of the grant program, occurred within the former Treasurer’s office. He can take responsibility for this debacle, for all the strong criticism by the Auditor-General that I have previously alluded to.
This government is reviewing the Community Benefit Fund. We will move decisively to ensure that proper procedures are in place governing the disbursement of grants from the fund.
In his February 2002 report, the Auditor-General challenged the new government to take the opportunity to develop improved measures of our fiscal management strategy. This is an important message that this government will heed. We will not head down the path of the former government of systematically ignoring the advice of the Auditor-General. This is constructive advice we will act on.
Madam Speaker, I commend the report to honourable members.
Mr REED (Katherine): Madam Speaker, this is the last report that we will read presented by Mr Iain Summers. I would like to read out to members, from page 13, a cogent remark that he made, particularly given the theatrics that we have just been through from a couple of members opposite:
That is the challenge for this government, to allow the Auditor-General to perform his duties unhindered, without interference, and, as he says in this report, free of any real or implied interference. I hope we can look forward as a parliament to the new Auditor-General being able to experience those same conditions as the former Auditor-General to allow him to perform in a way completely unimpeded, implied or otherwise, by the government.
I do want to touch on a few points and I will start with the Community Benefit Fund. The member for Johnston has just been waxing lyrical about it and made particular reference to some comments made by the member for Nhulunbuy. Unfortunately, what the member for Nhulunbuy did not tell the member for Johnston was that the member for Nhulunbuy thought it was a fairly good program. In fact, my recollection is that the member for Nhulunbuy, when the Community Benefit Fund was in place, put an advertisement in the local newspaper saying ‘If you want to apply for a Community Benefit Grant, do so through my office’. That suggests to me that it was seen as a pretty good show, an opportunity for community organisations to take advantage of the grant program, which indeed it was. It also suggests this to me because we didn’t hear to the contrary from the good member for Nhulunbuy: I suspect that all of the grants that were applied for through his office were in fact granted.
Pork barrelling. We’re blamed for pork barrelling. The member for Nhulunbuy quite rightly acted in the way that he did to provide services and access and convenience to his constituents. It was all right on the day. It was all right the day he put the ad in the paper. It was all right on the days that he processed those applications and sent them through for consideration and, of course, when he found that all of the grants applied for in his electorate were granted.
Yet today, it is different. Oh, shock, horror. Let’s find a way to create some adverse remarks in relation to the former government because that’s what they’re focussed on rather than looking to the future and trying to make some progress on behalf of Territorians.
That example is quite sufficient to demonstrate that the Community Benefit Grant Program was not a pork barrelling exercise. It was used effectively by opposition members of the day just as it was used by others. There are community organisations right across the Northern Territory that benefitted in a very constructive way from that grants program, and I daresay are still benefitting from it.
The good member for Nhulunbuy, and indeed the member for Johnston was the same, in talking about the Community Benefit Fund, were turning pages but they had a little note on page 23 that said: ‘Don’t turn to page 24’. Page 24 talks about inhouse photocopying at the Leader of the Opposition’s office. I daresay pages 24, 25, 26 and 27 in the report to the members of the government benches are all taped together. ‘Do not open this section’. Very selective in terms of the way that the honourable members opposite have made comment on this report today. Of course, there is very good reason why they would not want to open pages 24 through to 27 with the very serious comments - and indeed I’d venture to say that the most serious comments in this report by the Auditor-General in that pages 24 to 27 are a cogent example of the use of taxpayers funds for political purposes.
Quite outrageous. There are no ifs, buts or maybes made in relation to the comments made by the Auditor-General. There were party political benefits but no broad community benefits from the exercise that was undertaken in the Leader of the Opposition’s office of the day in relation to the use of government stationery and requisites valued at no mean amount, $76 000. Other plant and equipment: $114 000. We are talking about $200 000 here that was pilfered from the tax payer for use by a political party for political purposes. If you don’t think that’s outrageous, then why are you going to bother with a Code of Conduct? Let’s forget all about it. It’s just a nonsense.
One day when you have the courage, get a razor blade, slit the tape off pages 24 to 27, have a read of it because it really is a good example of what shouldn’t be done by a party in terms of access to taxpayers funds.
Members interjecting.
Mr REED: We heard much from the member for Nhulunbuy, the Deputy Chief Minister, in relation to…
Mr Stirling interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! The member for Katherine has the floor.
The comment then from the Auditor-General:
That’s what I said in the contribution to the previous debate. You have changed nothing. This is a charade. In terms of what the current government is saying as regards improving fiscal management and financial reporting, it is no different in terms of what was in place formerly, and for the Chief Minister and Treasurer to try and present it otherwise, that she has improved the reporting process, is wrong.
Now let’s have a look there at the comment by the Auditor-General. These might be good subjects for the Public Accounts Committee to pursue:
We’ve been told, month in and month out since the mini-budget was brought down, that everything is in the mini-budget papers, in the new structure, that you could ever possibly want; it’s transparent, it’s open and everything there is for everyone to see. Not so, according to the former Auditor-General.
Comment from the Auditor-General:
I thought all things former were trashed: no good, dreadful, useless, deceitful, misleading, lies. All the other adjectives and descriptions that we’ve heard that were trashed. they were washed through the system and this wonderful new government of honesty, transparency and accountability had introduced all these wonderful things. I have just been through three and they’re all either the same or they’re useless, according to the Auditor-General.
What does the Auditor-General say?
What more damning response could you get from an Auditor-General in relation to a foundation element of a fiscal management strategy? And he goes on to say:
Where are they coming from? The extent of misleading the Northern Territory community in relation to what they have heard concerning these fiscal management strategies is alarming.
That’s the wish, that’s what we’re told is going to happen. What does the Auditor-General say?
- a preferred measure, bearing in mind that we’ve heard from the new Chief Minister and Treasurer that all we did is trashed; terrible, useless, was ineffective and deceitful -
Can you believe it? I daresay these comments are also taped together. This is the last thing members opposite, especially the Chief Minister and Treasurer, would want to have read. Here are his general comments:
He’s blown it out of the water. Talk about sinking the Bismarck, this has got nothing on it. The River Platte doesn’t even come anywhere near the Auditor-General’s assessment of this government’s fiscal management strategy. The report goes on to say:
Now, the Chief Minister will get up and she will give us all those lovely flowery words which Territorians are coming so much to hate. We will have to put up with them for another three years or so, but nothing will enable the Chief Minister, however flowery her words and her presentation in closing this debate, to cover up the comments made by the Auditor-General in relation to her government’s fiscal management strategy. The flowery words, the presentations that she has given to the business community and to this House in relation to the appalling circumstances that she inherited, the inadequate processes that were in place to control and report on the financial management of government are shot to pieces by the former Auditor-General’s report.
Her new strategies, indeed, when compared to the former government’s strategies are found, not only be wanting, but to be totally inadequate and to the extent that the suggestion is there that the new strategy should be replaced by that of the former government. No better remark could be made by an Auditor-General in relation to evaluating a fiscal management strategy and telling the government how it should be improved. What I want to hear from the Chief Minister and Treasurer is whether or not she will now live by her word because her word was that the Auditor-General, and we heard it in contribution to the former debate, is God in relation to these matters. She will adhere to what he has to say in terms of fiscal management strategy.
If she is going to keep her word, if she is going to have a scrap of honesty about the way that she runs the government, she will tell us now that she will improve her fiscal management strategy, the five elements in particular, adopt the recommendations of the Auditor-General, or at least refer them to the Public Accounts Committee so that they in turn can report back to government and we might be able to see some meaningful elements put into the fiscal management strategy reflecting the concerns expressed by the Auditor-General.
Mr HENDERSON (Business, Industry and Resource Development): Madam Speaker, I will be brief. I will go to the issues particularly in relation to my electorate and the Community Benefit Fund which the previous government saw as the great big lolly jar and pork barrel in the month leading up to the last election.
In deference to the Chief Minister, and being very quick, I will just put my concerns on the table. The audit findings: during July 2001, the month before the election, in the haste to process payments out of the Community Benefit Fund under the auspices of the $1m small grants program, proper controls were not maintained. I would like to go to the issue of the Casuarina Security Association and the $9000 which we are yet to account for. Again, the Auditor-General states an organisation that was dormant up to the receipt of the grants and we have all seen the NT News account in terms of who the office bearers were of this mythical association that was purely set up to receive the pork barrelling money in the month leading up the election, and of which a government minister, the former member for Casuarina, was the public officer and the only public officer on the incorporation document.
There was no indication that any check was made to ensure that the purpose of the grant was in accord with the basic objectives of the association. What we have had since then is the current Lord Mayor, the former member for Casuarina, twisting and turning, trying to acquit this money. It certainly came to my attention when it was mentioned in the NT News - I do not have the articles here with me now - that part of this money went to playground equipment in Strele Street in my electorate.
Now, I thought: ‘Last time I drove past Strele Street, I did not see any playground equipment there’ and sent my electorate officer out to have a look. Lo! and behold, there was no $7000 worth of new play equipment. So this government really does want to see what did happen to that money. There are a lot of unanswered questions about it. At the end of the day, Territorians did see through the blatant pork barrelling from the previous government and it was so blatant it helped bring them undone. Certainly there is no play equipment there. Apparently the Nakara Soccer Club did get some goal posts but that came out of the blue.
We want to know exactly when this cheque was cashed, which bank account it went in to, what number, when disbursements were made from that account and to whom, and how much money is in that current account and when it was deposited. Until those questions are answered, there is certainly a very - the current Lord Mayor has a lot of questions to answer.
There are some other questions about some shade cloth that appeared at Nakara Primary School, again in the months leading up to the election, about $3000 worth. The request from the former Member for Casuarina was that he wanted a plaque put up, right on the race in terms of the corridor that goes into the polling booth, stating that this shade cloth was donated or was won for the school on behalf of the Member for Casuarina. It got off side the school council so much, they refused to put it up. So just in terms of the blatant pork barrelling that went on with the Community Benefit Fund, there are still many questions unanswered and the current Lord Mayor has got a lot to answer for.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, there were some very important points made by the Minister for Industry, Business and Resource Development. I need to comment just briefly on the contribution by the opposition spokesperson on Treasury matters. I think, generally, he should take his tablets. It is always a tricky performance in here when he doesn’t and he gets over excited. It is disappointing that he was not listening to the previous discussion which was on the Auditor-General as well and the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report when I said very clearly that we have taken the Auditor-General’s statements on board about fiscal strategies and we’re certainly looking at how we can hone that fiscal strategy, particularly in light of the introduction of accrual accounting and we will be doing that.
So to have an hysterical attack in here about Labor’s fiscal strategy and comparing it with one that was never kept by the previous administration anyway, no matter how fine it may have looked on paper, then it is important that he does actually get some sense of the debates that are going on in here and what he’s said previously.
I welcome the Auditor-General’s comments. We take them seriously and we are certainly looking at them. We are, as I said in the previous debate, revising the fiscal strategy whereby we will run our Treasury matters. So that is fine; we welcome it. As a measure of our determination to make sure that we don’t see the kind of blurring of the lines and the performance that we saw in the last budget of fudging figures, we have introduced the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act.
This sets the foundations of what this government is about. It is important that members in this House do listen to debates when they are going to contribute later, particularly when it could inform them better. I recommend taking appropriate tablets before contribution to debate.
The role of the Auditor-General is an important one in the democratic process and one of the crucial checks and balances in government accountability. The responsibility of the Auditor-General is to audit the public account and to audit performance management systems of agencies to determine whether they enable the agency to assess whether its objectives are being achieved economically, efficiently and effectively. The Auditor-General’s February 2002 report was tabled here on 28 February this year. Again, I recognise the contribution made by Iain Summers as Auditor-General because this was the final report of his seven year term. A significant section of the report deals with key issues that arose during his term. His observation included:
I am sure everyone in here agrees with his view. It is one of the reasons why this government is proceeding with Working for Outcomes. One of the key objectives of the new accounting framework is to improve performance information, both to the government and public sector managers for decision making purposes as well as to the public for greater accountability.
Another key observation from the Auditor-General is that performance information should be audited. This is a contentious area in a number of jurisdictions whereby differences of opinion often emerge between experts in agencies and the Auditors-General. There is also a danger that agencies will specify performance targets where it is easy to demonstrate improvement rather than seek a comprehensive set of targets with genuine improvement as the goal. While I respect the Auditor-General’s view on this issue, it is a matter my government will keep under consideration as the implementation of Working for Outcomes progresses.
The Auditor-General highlighted that performance information about the achievement of service and policy outcomes needs to be improved. The Auditor-General is concerned the new accounting framework focusses on outputs rather than outcomes. Working for Outcomes by its very name has as its ultimate objective a focus on outcomes. However, it has to be acknowledged that the first step in assessing realistic outcomes is to specify, in a reliable and consistent way, outputs and to develop measures of quantity, quality, cost and timeliness in respect of these outcomes. When that base information on outputs is reliable, the assessment of outcomes can be made with greater certainty.
The Auditor-General also said the profession of public administration expects outcomes to be measured but this has lacked government support. Bearing in mind my comments earlier, this government will progressively move towards greater specification and valuation of outcomes as Working for Outcomes is implemented.
The Auditor-General says:
The Auditor-General has cited concerns with both Planning for Growth and the November 2001 mini-budget. Ultimately, it is the prerogative of governments to set expenditure levels for agencies or to alter the priorities of the functions undertaken. However, the initiative of my government to provide agencies with a single net appropriation will give CEOs and managers more flexibility in running their agencies, enabling them to focus on the achievement of the outcomes specified rather than line by line program budgeting. Ultimately, the evaluation of the government’s mini-budget will be measured in terms of whether the longer term deficit reduction strategy has been successful.
The Auditor-General considers that the changes initiated through the Planning for Growth and the new agency arrangements accompanying the mini-budget have involved insufficient consultation with staff and has relied too heavily on a directive style of management. My government is seeking to maximise the involvement and cooperation of agencies. However, given the financial situation my government inherited, it was imperative that we acted quickly. As mentioned earlier, the government is providing management with increased flexibility in the management of their budgets which will also allow greater consultation within agencies as to how improvements in productivity can be made.
Referring to the restructure of government agencies, we did put in place the task force to manage the process of the restructure and probably overall, about 200 people in the public sector actually had to move places following that restructure. The task force had union representation on it and I think it has proved very effective in managing that process of change. We have had good feedback from every department, through having delegates in each major area and overall - and change can be difficult, of course - the process has been managed very well.
The Auditor-General suggests that financial information now available to managers may not be sufficiently reliable for them to understand the impact of their decisions, and they do not yet have expertise in using accrual financial data. To deal with this statement from the Auditor-General, this is one of the main reasons underpinning the adoption of Working for Outcomes, by providing much enhanced financial and performance information for government and public sector managers. However, it is acknowledged that the substantial change to accrual accounting will take some time to settle down, although, it is likely to occur more quickly in the Territory than in other jurisdictions due to the quality of the information it has currently and its centralised accounting systems.
I add to that accrual accounting has been adopted by every other jurisdiction but ours. We are certainly looking at the experiences of other states and how they adopted accrual accounting. Treasury is working very effectively with agencies to bring the critical people in those agencies up to speed about accrual accounting and what is required. There is no doubt this is a big change, and it will take time to implement.
The Auditor-General has also raised concerns as to whether agencies have the necessary expertise and systems for managing contracts for outsourced services and for grants. Since last August, the new government has been examining a range of areas concerning outsourcing and grants management. My colleague, the Minister for Corporate and Information Services, is on the record as saying the IT outsourcing contracts are subject to particularly close scrutiny. The issue of managing grants, and especially small grants program for the Community Benefit Fund initiated by the previous government last year in the lead up to the election, is also subject to review and subject to comments during this debate. In these two cases at least, I am not convinced that some of the difficulties encountered were necessarily the fault of the departmental officers involved. On the contrary, the policy framework and/or political interference has more to do with these areas.
The Auditor-General commented on the physical assets record and reporting, saying they weren’t adequate, including those relating to the NT Land Corporation. In response, the Working for Outcomes framework, will place far greater emphasis on the management of physical assets than the current cash framework, and this is one of the additional benefits of moving to the full accrual framework.
The Auditor-General said:
My colleague the member for Johnston has made comment on this issue. Nevertheless, I would like to reinforce my belief that the committee processes of this parliament need to be reinvigorated, and I am certain that under the chairmanship of the member for Johnston, this is already happening.
The remainder of the Auditor-General’s report relates to auditing of the public account, on which I wish to touch on only a couple of issues. The first of those is the then opposition’s use of paper. The Auditor-General has found the allegations raised by the former Chief Minister that the Leader of the Opposition’s office produced ALP campaign material were false. We all remember the brochures that the then Chief Minister held up, and the stunt organised by him out the front of this Assembly, inappropriately using large amounts of public servants’ time for political purposes. Members might remember that the now Opposition Leader tried unsuccessfully in this House to allege that I was guilty of rorting Territorians and laundering taxpayers’ money in the lead-up to the August 2001 election.
Did the Auditor-General find any substance in the then Chief Minister’s allegations made in this House on 31 May? Absolutely not! The facts are that the Auditor-General found that the Leader of the Opposition, 12 months before the election, in August and November 2000, produced parliamentary newsletters and position papers on business and property crime. These documents accounted for the large amount of usage in those months - some 290 300 copies. What constitutes political material is a grey area. The previous government had no guidelines and no budgetary control. We have always argued presenting and articulating our message on important policy issues and communicating with the Territory community is the legitimate business of opposition, and this remains our view.
Since taking office, this government has instigated many accountability measures including budget controls on ministerial offices and the Leader of the Opposition - something the opposite side couldn’t manage to do in 26 years of government: budget control and accountability.
A final issue I would like to comment on: the Auditor-General claims that there was insufficient documentation to support the extent of separation payments to former chief executives and executive contract officers. The Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment agrees that documentation needs to be improved, but asserts that the net outcome was that there were considerable savings to government.
Finally, I want to thank the Auditor-General for his efforts over the last seven years. The opinions and recommendations of the Auditor-General are an important element of the open and accountable processes inherent in any robust democracy.
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Madam Speaker, in reply, closing debate, I thank members for their contribution. I can assure the member for Katherine that the relevant pages of my copy of the Auditor-General’s report at least were not stuck together; I had a look at that.
He was very coy in response to matters that I wished to raise. As much as he may choose to accuse me of selectivity in the issues that I brought out of the Auditor-General’s report, I suggest very much the same applies to him. We have just heard the Chief Minister’s explanation in relation to the printing of those newsletters that occurred back in 2000 and subject to comment in the Auditor-General’s report. We don’t intend to post someone down the bottom of the chain to see how many reams of paper were …
Member interjecting: 50 boxes
Mr STIRLING: … deposited from the Leader of the Opposition’s office, but already there are reports of some 50 or 60 boxes lying about when the member for Brennan was heading out of the building the other day.
It is appropriate that some sort of guidelines are put in place, as the Auditor-General suggests. The Chief Minister has taken that on board, and I’m sure that will happen. I can assure the member for Katherine the pages of my copy weren’t stuck together. I do wonder about the pages in his copy relating to the Community Benefit Fund because he didn’t want to talk about that.
Motion agreed to; report noted.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, as this report, which the Assembly has just noted, marks the final report by the Auditor-General, Iain Summers, I think it is appropriate to record the appreciation of the Assembly for the effective and diligent work of the office of the Auditor-General under his leadership. His reports to the Assembly and advice to the Public Accounts Committee have been exemplary and facilitated the scrutiny of the financial accounts of government by the Assembly and its committee.
In particular, I refer to Mr Summers’ recommendations over the years over in respect of program evaluation, performance management and requirements for internal audit and risk management. He leaves a legacy of independent analysis and reporting on government financial management performance.
I also record the sincere appreciation of officers of this Assembly for the professionalism and the cooperation of Mr Summers in the conduct of his role as an officer of this parliament. The Clerk has written to Mr Summers expressing thanks and extending best wishes to Mr Summers and his family.
Members: Hear, hear!
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, the Martin government was elected with a clear mandate to tackle illicit drugs and crime. This government is committed to building a safer Territory by attacking crime and the causes of crime through its comprehensive crime prevention strategy. Our Tough on Drugs three point plan is one of the corner stones of that crime prevention strategy. This evening, I would like to speak on our policies and our plan to attack illicit drugs and drug related crime in our community. Among the steps were are taking…
Mr BURKE: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Dr TOYNE: Oh, we’re going to get cute are we?
Mr BURKE: I was advised by various sources that a new statement was to be distributed.
Madam SPEAKER: It has been.
It is irresponsible to pretend, like the opposition did when in government, that drug related crime in the Northern Territory, is, to quote the opposition leader, ‘minuscule’. The government is acting to implement its three point plan to get tough on drugs. I do not want to preempt any of the debates that will be held in a comprehensive package of bills I’ll introduce this week. Those debates are scheduled for the June sittings of this parliament. I understand that the shadow Attorney-General and his colleagues have already contacted my office for a briefing on the proposed legislation, and I’m heartened by their obvious interest in our initiatives. Let me say that I am very much looking forward to contributions from all members of this parliament. I am sure the debate will be constructive and we will see all members working in a bi-partisan way to address this serious problem in our community.
But tonight, as I have said, I want to talk about this government’s policy to tackle illicit drug trade and drug related crime. Our Tough on Drugs three point plan is a comprehensive, multi-faceted attack on the illicit drug problem and its links with property and other crime. The plan operates on all fronts by disrupting the illicit drug supply, by providing treatment and rehabilitation to those that need it, and by preventing illicit drug uptake.
Our Tough on Drugs plan tackles the illicit drug problem three ways. First, through law enforcement with zero tolerance on drug production and distribution. Second, through compulsory treatment of addicts arrested on drug related crimes, and third, with a sound drug prevention strategy including family support policies and education campaigns directed at our young people.
Tough law enforcement with properly targeted police powers will enable the police to lead the attack on those who are behind the drug trade; those drug dealers and pushers who are willing to make money out of the addiction of drug users and who don’t care about the suffering of their families or friends. Drug courts will link offenders with treatment and rehabilitation to help drug users, who often have to steal to support their habit, and beat their drug addiction problems. The development of a sound drug prevention strategy will ensure that we are doing our utmost to discourage our children and young people from seeing drug use as an attractive option.
Trafficking drugs is a serious criminal offence and causes serious harm to our community. Drug dealers prey on our kids and on other vulnerable people. It is disturbing, but there is clear evidence that drug manufacture and distribution is carried out by organised bikie gangs and organised crime around Australia and in the Northern Territory. We need to know some facts about the state of illicit drug use and drug crime in our community today. We know there is an opiate problem in the Northern Territory. Figures from the Health Insurance Commission show that in 1999 the prescription of morphine in the Northern Territory was almost 15 times higher than the national average. Because of intervention by the Health Insurance Commission, not I note by the now opposition, that alarming statistic dropped, but it is still seven times the national average.
Research shows that indigenous people are emerging as users of morphine and opiates, that more people are using opiates, especially young people, and they are using more of the drug. But in the report Northern Territory Drug Trends 2001 shows not only the increasing use of morphine but also amphetamines. This is confirmed by the 2000-2001 Australian Illicit Drug Report which says the use of amphetamines in Australia has been increasing in the last few years which it describes as ‘probably the most concerning trend in the illicit drug environment’.
This trend should be of concern to all of us. Amphetamine is a potent drug that can be swallowed, mixed with drinks, ingested nasally or injected and the effect of long term or binge use includes aggressive, irrational and unpredictable behaviour often described as psychotic.
As the Australian Illicit Drug Report finds, the use of amphetamines presents a threat both to our community and to law enforcement. In the Northern Territory, research shows injecting is the most common way of using amphetamines and there is evidence that young people and indigenous people are increasingly becoming users. In fact, it is likely that new injecting drug users will use amphetamines as the first drug they inject. The research shows that amphetamines are either very easy or easy to obtain in the Northern Territory. The increasing availability of amphetamines can be seen in the arrest rates for amphetamine use or supply which have increased from 26 in 1997-98 to 124 in 1999-2000 to 160 in 2000-2001.
Amphetamines are manufactured in clandestine laboratories, commonly called ‘clan labs’, from common chemicals like pseudoephedrine available in over the counter medicines such as Sudafed. These chemicals are known as precursors. The Illicit Drug Report says that:
The findings of the 2000-2001 Australian Illicit Drug Report on cannabis are alarming. The report says that the cultivation and distribution of cannabis is big business and cannabis is often transported several thousand kilometres from cultivation to final sale. There appears to be little doubt that the sale and consumption of cannabis makes a significant contribution to the profits of organised crime in Australia. Again, outlaw motor cycle gangs are prominent amongst the organised crime groups involved in large scale production and distribution of cannabis.
In the NT, we know the use of cannabis and other drugs, or polydrug use, is common. More young people are smoking cannabis and cannabis use is causing concerns on Aboriginal communities. There has also been an increase in cannabis users presenting with mental health and behavioural problems. There is evidence that the level of the active component in cannabis, THC, is increasing and hydroponically grown cannabis is becoming more readily available around Australia. It is being grown in the Territory and transported from South Australia where intelligence suggests that organised crime groups operating there are responsible for production and distribution.
If we don’t want the Territory to become a haven for drug dealers and manufacturers, it is now time to take the drug problem in the Northern Territory seriously. This government’s Tough On Drugs policy does exactly that. The opposition, when in government, failed Territorians by refusing to acknowledge the extent of the drug problem in the Northern Territory. In August 2000, the then Chief Minister, Denis Burke, when asked what he was doing to combat the increase in drug related crime, said:
Mr Dunham: Interesting to see the full quote, at last.
Dr TOYNE: That head in the sand approach…
Mr Dunham: Interesting to see the full quote at last.
Dr TOYNE: What did you do about it? Come on, what did you do about it? I didn’t put that in the speech, but I had to say it.
Members interjecting.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Dr TOYNE: I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will continue. That head in the sand approach did not work and it is clear that we have an increasing drug problem in the Northern Territory. We also must not forget the research which shows the very strong link between property crime and drug use. It is estimated that around 50% of all property crime is directly related to the use of illicit drugs in the community. Just this week, the Supreme Court sentenced a man who pleaded guilty to eight offences relating to two house break-ins, a business break-in and several accounts of pawning stolen property. The court found that:
There is also some evidence that drug dealers in the Northern Territory directly supply drugs in exchange for stolen property. A more telling example of the link between drug use and house break-ins couldn’t be found. We have also heard this week of a man robbing a Darwin chemist at knife-point to steal morphine. The NT Police have estimated the morphine that was stolen in that robbery would fetch more than $65 000 on the black market. In relation to this robbery, police have said:
That is what the police are saying. It is clear that the illicit drug problem in the Northern Territory is not minuscule at all. Far from it.
While in opposition, my colleagues and I constantly brought information before this House on the link between illicit drug use and property and other crime. This government is determined to break the drug crime cycle with solutions that will work.
Under our three point plan to get tough on drugs, we committed to a strong law enforcement strategy of zero tolerance on drug production and distribution. We said that we would properly resource our police to operate on a front line to get those involved in the illicit drug trade behind bars. Under our plan, we committed to cracking down on drug traffickers, dealers and manufacturers; doubling the resources of the Drug Squad, from 20 to 40 officers; giving police targeted powers to attack drug trafficking and dealing; and recovering the profits from drug traffickers through confiscation legislation.
In the November mini-budget, we announced funding to implement our promise and to double the number of police officers in the Drug Squad. Those 20 extra officers are part of the government’s commitment for 50 extra police officers over its first term. The NT Police Drug Squad will lead the fight against the illicit drug trade. It is important that they have the resources they need to operate effectively at the coal face of law enforcement. Under our three point plan, this government also committed to introducing laws similar to those now operating in New South Wales to give police the powers they need to finally crack down on drug houses and other centres of supplies like nightclubs and pubs. We said that under our plan, police would be able to arrest landlords and owners who knowingly allow their properties to be used as illicit drug distribution centres.
Unlike the previous CLP government, the Martin government will not ignore the facts about illicit drugs and drug houses. Denis Burke in parliament claimed that there were one or two anecdotal pieces of evidence that drug houses exist. Well, he doesn’t get out much. That is all he would admit to, one or two anecdotal pieces of evidence. Yet it is obvious to everyone that drug houses are blatantly operating right now in Darwin; their existence and locations are common knowledge. The CLP government’s response was simply not good enough and this government, in accordance with it’s Tough On Drugs three-point plan, is determined to plug the gaps in the existing law.
The NT Police have told us that people operating these drug houses are well organised. The dealers operating through drug premises usually make sure they only have possession of small amounts of a prohibited drug at any one time. They deliberately avoid being caught with trafficable amounts of illicit drugs, making it unlikely they can be found guilty of supply charges. The dealers operate their illegal drug business by ensuring purchasers and other dealers attend at the drug house briefly, purchase illicit drugs, and leave. There is a high degree of organisation required to ensure a constant supply of illicit drugs for sale. The dealers use a range of individuals to carry out different roles, acting as look-outs, couriers, packers and retail dealers. A dealer might be charged, but the drug house in question will continue to operate by the strength of its reputation. Other dealers will move in and continue the business. The staff of drug premises simply turn over as they come to police attention.
Police indicate the same conduct occurs at certain commercial premises where the only significant commerce taking place is drug dealing. On many occasions, police also attend night clubs and hotels in relation to drug incidents. It is clear that one way to interrupt this trade - as we promised under our three-point plan - is to ensure police are able to take action to close down the drug houses which are operating openly under current drug laws. Under our plan, we have also committed to amending the law to ensure police are able to arrest people who assist in the organisation of a drug house, and those who act as look-outs or guards to warn the dealers when the police approach.
Under our three-point plan, this government also made a commitment to strengthen the NT’s criminal property confiscation laws. The ability to confiscate the ill-gotten profits and assets of those involved in the drug trade is crucial in the fight against drug dealers and organised crime. This type of legislation provides a powerful avenue of attack against drug traffickers, dealers, drug manufacturers and other serious criminals. It aims to take the profit motive out of drug dealing, and it acts as a powerful deterrent by attacking drug traffickers where it hurts: that is, by confiscating their profits and their assets. It also works to attack the resource base of dealers and organised crime which can cripple their illegal businesses.
Under our three-point plan, we are committed to replacing the scheme of the previous government which simply didn’t work. It has been very rarely used since it was introduced in 1988, and does not accord with the best practice laws in this area which were identified by the Australian Law Reform Commission in its 1999 report Confiscation that Counts. This government’s commitment to implement effective confiscation legislation is tangible evidence of our determination to tackle the illicit drug trade on all fronts. The legislative package I mentioned earlier implements those commitments from our three-point plan to get tough on drugs.
The bills have been developed by the Department of Justice, in close consultation with the NT Police to ensure that the new powers, offences and other amendments give police the tools they need to attack the drug trade. I am pleased to report it is the view of the police that a number of the drug houses are likely to cease operation once our legislation passes. It is certainly the government’s intention to make business extremely unprofitable and uncomfortable for drug traffickers, manufacturers and dealers in the Northern Territory.
I am pleased to be able to report tonight that the Witness Protection Bill passed by parliament this week will operate to support our three-point plan. That legislation enables the Northern Territory to participate in the national Witness Protection Scheme. The scheme is designed for witnesses who agree to give evidence against organised crime groups - or in relation to other major crimes - who may be at risk of serious reprisals or injury, either before or after the trial. Police already provide protection to those witnesses by locating them in secure accommodation before they give evidence. The new legislation will address longer term and ongoing threats by providing mechanisms for witnesses to change their identity and start a new life in another location if this becomes necessary. Hopefully, this will only occur in rare cases.
This legislation will support our three point plan against drug crime by protecting witnesses who are prepared to speak out against drug dealers and organised crime. A successful drug conviction is often dependent upon a witness giving evidence. We must protect witnesses and their families from being threatened and intimidated. Our Witness Protection Act will be complemented by the additional legislation which parliament will debate in June.
I am also pleased to be able to report to the parliament that I have requested my Department of Justice to work with the NT police to comprehensively review the Misuse of Drugs Act. The review will look at any additional amendments which can be made to strengthen our drug laws and ensure that they operate effectively to protect the community from drug dealers and illicit drugs. We are not going to give drug dealers any comfort zone. We want to move them on from their place of activity, we want to make it a lot harder for them to re-establish their distribution networks, and we want to confiscate their profits and cripple their businesses.
I believe this government’s illicit drug policies under its three point plan to get tough on drugs reflect the wishes of Territorians to protect our young people from harm and reduce illicit drugs and drug related crime in our community. The government went to the electorate last year with a clear plan to tackle illicit drugs in our community, and we are delivering on that commitment. I commend the statement to the House.
I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I am happy to contribute a few words to this debate. I am not quite sure where we expect this debate to go today. That is up to the Attorney-General, but anyone can spout rhetoric with regards to what they are going to do. The real issue here is exactly what the government intends to do. That is the subject of a separate debate on legislation yet to be debated in this Chamber. The only way you can contribute satisfactorily to that debate is to wait until that debate occurs. In the meantime, we have a ministerial statement which is probably the most repetitious thing I have heard in this House. It has been the subject of media comment, media reports, media releases, ministerial reports, Question Time and now a ministerial statement on essentially the same thing. I mean, you must be getting tired of it.
Mr Ah Kit: It is pretty important.
Dr Toyne: It’s about time we brought this topic to this House, Denis. You never did.
Mr BURKE: It may be important in your mind, and it is important, but I am simply saying that if you want to get constructive debate on the issue, I wonder when we will get the substance of it.
Now, can I say at the outset, if I pick up the last paragraph of the Attorney-General’s statement, he says:
I agree whole heartedly that the aspirations of Territorians are for their government to deal with crime as it occurs and to ensure that almost the primary responsibility of government is to keep a lawful society to ensure that people can be safe and protected from harm, whether that is harm from being assaulted, harm from being broken into, or harm from substances such as illicit drugs. That is a fundamental responsibility of government. The fact that the government now says they are going to do that, with its legislation as an aspiration of Territorians is self-evident.
What we need to establish, though, is what exactly the government will do, and how they will do it, and the time to decide that and to comment on that will be when that legislation is presented in this House. I find it interesting, though - and I have to say I am quite confused; I hope the Attorney-General is less confused than I - but we have this all encompassing statement called, Drug, Drugs, Drug Houses, increasing use in our society, zero tolerance approach, coupled with comments like:
If that is the case, these drug houses must be marijuana houses because the only protection that is afforded to any drug that is an illicit drug in the Northern Territory is for a very small amount for personal use by a marijuana user or a person who might in fact be a dealer, but would claim to be a user if he only has a small amount in his possession.
So if the inability of police to deal with drug houses is hampered by the fact that only small amounts are there on the premises, you are clearly talking about marijuana. You are not talking about some of these other drugs that you subscribe to be a major problem in the Northern Territory.
One of the ways I thought I might approach this debate very quickly is to take a leaf from the member for Nhulunbuy’s book and the advice he gave in the Chamber yesterday when he said that the censure motion that was run in this House was poorly presented because it didn’t prove the fundamental points which were the premise of that censure motion.
I might say, as an aside, if it was an unsuccessful censure motion, certainly it was astoundingly successful in terms of the response it got from the media, probably more attention than I've ever seen on a censure motion for a long, long time in parliament. All channels, radio reporters, NT News report. In respect of that censure motion, I would imagine the truth is that it has been a long awaited censure motion by members of the media who feel exactly the same as the opposition does and also in many respects reflect a growing concern in the community.
But if we work on the Deputy Chief Minister’s assertion of having to prove your fundamental premise, surely the Attorney-General can do that in terms of then describing and getting confidence from us as to how this strategy will be implemented. Let’s just define the problem first and then we can describe the strategy.
Dr Toyne: The problem you denied ever existed.
Mr BURKE: Well, so you claim. I have said the Attorney-General has had every opportunity to describe the problem, and whilst it’s good rhetoric and it says all the right words, we have to be damn sure that we’re on the right track in terms of what exactly the problem is and the premise for the problem in the Northern Territory rests on three fundamental factors as I understand them.
The first is that there has been a survey conducted around Australia that says that drug-related crime in Australia is 50% of the property crime problem in Australia. The government has then extrapolated that report and said: ‘Therefore 50% property related crime in the Northern Territory is drug-related, therefore we have a major drug problem in the Northern Territory’. That’s the fundamental premise that you rest your strategy on.
The truth is, as you well know, that that particular survey was conducted in five police stations around Australia, not one of which was in the Northern Territory. I don’t actually know where those police stations were, but I know that not one of them was in the Northern Territory. To then extrapolate the result of that study and say: ‘Therefore, given the immense diversity and differences in the Northern Territory population, those fundamental figures can be sustained’ is an amazing extrapolation and generalisation in my book.
That said, you have set yourself the challenge. You have said: ‘Drug-related crime in the Northern Territory is 50% of property related crime’ and you are going to fix the drug problem in the Northern Territory. Therefore, I am going to put out a press release because I’m convinced that your position is this: as a result of your strategy, property crime in the Northern Territory will fall by 50% under your government. It follows logically that if you can successfully, as you say you will, use this strategy to attack the drug problem, you will therefore be successful with property crime and you will drive property crime down by 50% in the Northern Territory.
The challenge is this: property crime in Darwin since August 2000 right through until April 2002, on the Police Commissioner’s own assessment and on the statistics that he believes and has said to Territorians are accurate, I suggest that there is a very small trend upwards over all of that time. Essentially, property related crime almost looks static on the trend line. Static on the trend line. There are certainly peaks and troughs, and the Commissioner points to the alarm that those peaks and troughs can cause, but if you look at property crime in Darwin from April 2000 right through until April 2002, the trend line is static.
It is very interesting that you run an assumption that the Northern Territory is being assaulted by drugs, the Northern Territory is in great danger of becoming a major drug distribution centre. These drugs are causing crime. That crime is 50% of crime in the Northern Territory. Yet the Police Commissioner’s own figures show that the property crime stats are static. If you are going to say this strategy is going to work …
Mr Henderson: So it’s not a problem?
Mr BURKE: Okay. Just - I am just giving you the scale of what I believe is the challenge you’ve set yourself. If you have then said that this strategy is going to work, the figures on growing drug crime does not bear that out. What you see is a trend line of almost static property crime on the Police Commissioner’s own statistics, both in Palmerston and Darwin, but you have devised a strategy that is going to drive those figures down by 50% and that is an enormous challenge for you.
The second fundamental premise you based your strategy on is a report that you refer to, called Northern Territory Drug Trends 2001. The Northern Territory Drug Trends 2001 report was conducted by Bridie O’Reilly. I can tell you that the Northern Territory Police Service had no faith at all in the methodology or scientific nature of that report. We all know that …
Mr Henderson: Contributed resources to it. They did!
Mr BURKE: Yes, I’ll answer that. It was on police advice that it wasn’t resourced.
Mr Henderson: It was resourced. The first one was.
Mr BURKE: It was resourced by a federal government program; it was not resourced by the Northern Territory government on advice from the police because the police had no faith in the scientific nature of that study. The researcher herself paid users $40 a session to dob in or give her information. You claim that report is correct. I can tell you that the previous government’s assessment, based on advice from the police - and I might add these are police who are members of the National Crime Intergovernmental Committee.
The National Crime Intergovernmental Committee meets often, shares information, shares strategies, assesses each other’s programs, and looks at the value of research that is being conducted. That report was totally disowned as not having any scientific base to it and therefore to use that report as the second foundation stone of your strategy I suggest is chancing your arm at the very least.
We have one report that doesn’t even look at one area in the Northern Territory. We have got a second report that is scientifically unsound. They are two of the foundations for your strategy. The third foundation for your strategy is essentially: drug related crime is on the increase and you point to - God help us - one reference to one statement made in one court in the Northern Territory where it says …
Dr Toyne: We’ve had the Drug Squad working on the whole thing for the last three months, for heaven’s sake!
Mr BURKE: Read your own statement. This is your own statement I am referring to here. One case that went to court, a person was convicted, the person stole morphine to feed, and it says actually ‘their own habit’. But this is now a rationale for increased drug related crime in the Northern Territory. And in relation to that robbery, it is worth quoting, again, what the Attorney-General himself has said, by quoting what the police said in that case:
You then go on to say:
I would suggest that is a contradiction in terms. Certainly, in relation to what the police believe is the morphine or opiate community – small, well entrenched, but small in this jurisdiction.
Using those three foundations, the government has now devised a strategy to deal with drug related crime in the Northern Territory. As I said, the legislation has been foreshadowed; I don’t intend to speak on that legislation. There will be much rhetoric from the government and the Attorney-General, prior to that legislation being debated and during the debate. That’s fine; that’s good.
What the community out there want is property crime addressed in the Northern Territory. You have made the statement that the previous government should rot in hell for their lack of action with regards to drug related crime. Yet at the same time you point to convictions for drug related crime moving right back to 1997-98 from an arrest rate of 26 in 1997-98; 124 in 1999-2000; and 160 in 2000-01. Well, who was running the show at that stage? The people who were running the show at that stage was the CLP government. But more than that, this is really a criticism of the efforts of police during that time.
You can make your comments in this Chamber and have a go at us, but the reality is the suggestion that the government is making is that the police were making no effort to address drug related crime during that period. Yet it is clear from the figures that you use to base your argument of increasing rates of crime that a greater effort was being made, and I am thankful for that.
None of that proves your fundamental premise, and your fundamental premise is that property crime is on the rise because 50% of it is drug related. Because there hasn’t been sufficient action to deal with the drug related aspects of it, you are going to attack that problem; in doing so you will drive down property crime by 50%.
Attorney-General, that’s the challenge you set yourself. If you are successful in driving property crime down by 50% in the Northern Territory, you will be wildly applauded. What you have done is you have tried to reinvent the situation in the Northern Territory. There is drug related crime in the Northern Territory. I have said that on many occasions, but drug related crime in the Northern Territory has to be seen in comparison with crime generally; it has to be seen in comparison with the causes of crime generally and much of which involves factors like alcohol. There are other factors such as the self-destructive nature of the people who are involved in a lot of that crime.
The notion that there are drug houses being supplied from South Australian and operating under our noses; that we need this special legislation to attack; that nowhere before had we legislation that was sufficient to address it is just nonsense.
Dr Toyne: That’s a good comment; that’s on Hansard.
Mr Henderson: Drug houses are nonsense.
Mr BURKE: Good! This is a jurisdiction in which I am pleased to live. I can tell you that to suggest that the Northern Territory Police Service for the last how many years, in a city of around about 100 000 people have no idea of who the Mr Bigs are and need, all of a sudden, the whole new government to give them the way forward, is nonsense. You can give them some assistance, but what you’re ...
Mr Henderson: Nonsense? So they don’t need tougher powers? Okay.
Mr BURKE: The member for Wanguri says they don’t need tougher powers. What they got from the CLP government was tougher powers. Under the anti-social legislation that you dumped or are about to dump and under the mandatory sentencing laws that, when a person was apprehended they went to gaol. What you’re going to do is you’re going to bring in legislation that is going to fix all of our problems. Well, fix all our problems. I hope you do. But do it; don’t just talk about it.
I want to know when you’re going to drop property crime by 50%. Is it going to be at the end of this first year of government? Will it be at the end of the second year of government? Or the third year of government? I will be reporting back to Territorians on how you’ve driven property crime down in the Northern Territory to achieve the benchmarks that you yourself have set. I will have plenty to say on the actual legislation which I won’t deal with today. The legislation itself will have difficulties in terms of its implementation in the courts and some of those difficulties will be sounded out in further debate.
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Mr Deputy Speaker, it seems that the Leader of the Opposition did not learn a lot from yesterday. One of the things I said yesterday was just because someone on the other side stood up and said something – that is, inveterate liar or whatever the description of the Health Minister was at the time - does not make it true. It does not make it true unless you can back it up, substantiate it and have the facts with it.
Now, he is pretty excited because he got a bit of a run on TV and apparently on radio. I note the NT News did not even dribble out one line on the censure. So if you think that is a measure of your success in here, the fact that you got a TV or radio headline, I think you have a fair bit more thought to go on this.
Probably the saddest thing about the Leader of the Opposition’s contribution is the denial factor. They denied it two years ago, that this was a problem. There are two problems in his contribution in the debate. The denial factor which is there as strong as ever and the second issue - and again, because he says it he thinks it is fact; because it is in Hansard in black and white and will come up in Hansard in the next few days, it is fact, there forever.
He now says that the Attorney-General says we have slashed property crime by 50%. No one has ever said that on this side of the House. No one has laid claim to that. Unlike the CLP, with the introduction of mandatory sentencing, it was going to do away - it was not going to reduce it by 50%, it was going to do away with it. We were not going to have property crime because mandatory sentencing was going to put them all in gaol and then there would not be any bad people left to do any property crime and we would not have any property crime. So said former Chief Minister Stone. So said former Attorney-General, one Denis Burke in this House all those years ago.
What do we find? He prosecutes my own case. He holds up the statistics released by the Police Commissioner the other day going back 2000-2002 and he says it is static. It is static. Of course, part of that time mandatory sentencing was in place for property crime and yet we see no aberration, we see no dip, no variation in that graph between when mandatory sentencing was there and when mandatory sentencing was lifted. So he destroys his own argument in trying to prosecute his case. It is quite wrong of the opposition to still grovel about in denial about the scope of this drug problem. It is a denial that they held right up until the last election and they continue to hold now. They have remained constantly in denial about this link between drug addiction and property crime.
A couple of years ago, the member for Wanguri and myself attempted to convince the government of this strong link between property crime and drug use. If we had a look at the NT News of that time - and I said at the time that they consistently report on drug related crimes - Luke Mumme, 19, charged with one count of armed robbery after a hold up at the ANZ Bank at Parap. The court heard Mumme had told police he suffered from schizophrenia and had a drug problem.
The NT News, 8 September, under the heading ‘Addict Bashed Woman, Men for Drugs’ reported:
That is the sort of drug half world in Darwin at a time when heroin was not a problem but prescribed morphine was.
The NT News again under the heading ‘Man robs two taxi drivers for drugs’:
The NT News, 8 February, under the heading ‘Syringe threat in $6500 robbery’:
13 July under the heading ‘Drugs Grab: Police Hunt Man’:
And many, many other headlines over the years referring to robberies at knifepoint, break ins, property crime, assaults, all related to drugs, all related to drug use. We are serious. We are not in denial about this fact and this link. For two years we were saying this, and the former government simply didn’t want to hear it.
We intend to tackle this problem in three ways: through law enforcement with a zero tolerance on drug production and distribution; compulsory treatment of addicts arrested on drug related crimes; and with a sound drug prevention strategy including family support policies and education campaigns.
We are committed to building a safer Territory by attacking crime and the causes of crime through protection, punishment and prevention. I have been active as Minister for Police in the development of this strategy and the legislative support needed to assist our police officers to be tough on drugs. Commissioner Paul White has quite a distinguished career in South Australia in these matters where he took on outlaw motorcycle gangs, and I believe he’ll have the same view as Commissioner here. There has been clear evidence that drug distribution has been carried out by these groups for some time, but what has been particularly disturbing was the previous government’s head-in-the-sand approach to these problems described variously as ‘minuscule’ on one occasion and ‘infinitesimal’ on another.
Tough law enforcement with properly targeted police powers will enable the police to lead the attack on those behind the drug trade and those willing to make money out of the suffering of others. The government is taking the Territory’s drug problem seriously. Unlike the opposition, we won’t pretend it doesn’t exist.
We will make life as difficult as possible for those in this criminal activity. We will target the producers and distributors. Our proposals will give the police the powers they need to close down drug premises, catch drug dealers and manufacturers and advise landlords so they can take steps to remove such undesirable tenants. In short, the dealers and manufacturers won’t have a base of operations. Our commitment to seize property derived from drug dealing will enable the police to confiscate ill gotten profits and assets of drug traffickers. It will be more difficult to make a profit from manufacturing and dealing.
I am reminded of the examples in Western Australia where some millions of dollars have been claimed by the government in relation to forfeiture of crime proceeds. There was a photograph of a rather flash looking Harley Davidson motor cycle valued at $25 000 under the heading: ‘Granny wants motor cycle back’. The story was, of course, that the grandmother had bought the $25 000 Harley Davidson motor cycle for the accused who was convicted of drug dealing and unable to prove in any way where that motor cycle had come from. Now, unfortunately for grandmother, that’s gone. That is the property of the Crown, that $25 000 Harley Davidson, along with about $12m worth of other property and assets that have been taken by the Western Australian government under their forfeiture of profits from crime legislation.
As I said, $14m seized in the first 12 months of operation in Western Australia, so effective has that been. $2m seized from the outlaw motorcycle gang, the Gypsy Jokers, since November including six properties owned by the gang’s leader, Leonard Kirby. The aspect of the reforms will be critical in convincing organised crime that there will be no easy path here in the Territory. Bank accounts can be searched and, if appropriate, seized. Land, houses, vehicles, equipment, and cash are all targeted under these reforms.
We want to ensure also that all witnesses to drug dealing and other crimes are protected from intimidation. Criminals, especially those who are organised, have been known to threaten witnesses. Our new Witness Protection Act will do this and our new proposals will address the intimidation of witnesses and make such behaviour an offence.
Police believe that when we implement our three part plan, the dealers will not be able to take on the authorities and will have to close up shop. It is common knowledge that at least three drug houses selling drugs existed for years in Darwin. Under our plan, they will be out of business and if they move shop to another residence they will be targeted and forced to close operations. We as a government are adamant that police should have the powers to deal with drug manufacturers and sellers and these laws are positive moves towards that.
In wrapping up, at no time has anyone from government said that we were going to reduce property crime by 10, 30, 40, 50%. We are going to do what is necessary. We will put laws in place for a start and we will judge, in conjunction with the police and the courts, how effective these laws are. If further changes and further legislation are necessary further down the track, so be it. This government will effect it. We are not, as our predecessors were doing, standing in this place and saying: ‘We have the answer Territorians. Property crime will finish. There will be no more property crime under us because we’re going to put them all in gaol under mandatory sentencing’. We have seen the example put by the Leader of the Opposition today, nothing could be further from the truth. It ill behoves him to attribute to government members statements such as ‘we’re going to halve property crime’. We never said it and we don’t say it. What we do say is we will judge the effectiveness of these laws over time and we will revisit them where necessary for further changes.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Mr Deputy Speaker, there is no doubt that a strong system of law and order is a cornerstone to our democratic system and any person with a scintilla of community conscience agrees with the general good motives of any government to do all it can to reduce the impact of drug related crime on our community.
But there is a point where politicising the issue is one thing, but addressing it is a completely different kettle of fish. Politicians, on balance, are usually uninformed and indeed unqualified to make many of the decisions which ultimately fall to be dealt with by them in relation to this subject matter. Unfortunately, the type of rhetoric which falls from the current Attorney-General in the form of this statement is an example of rhetoric and in my view is devoid mostly of any substance. Indeed, some portions of the statement are a little misleading and headline grabbing.
There is an enormous amount of literature about, I could spend an inordinate amount of time going through some of the studies which have come out of the UK and the United States. Unfortunately, none of it can be succinctly summarised into one or two lines suitable for a headline. I feel it is important to put on the record - which I think probably is going to be a bit closer to the truth in terms of a statement which is going to be made in this House today - the facts relating to the commission of property crime and what we can genuinely do as a community to address them.
There are these new catchphrases which we are seeing bandied about. The term ‘zero tolerance’, we’ve all heard about zero tolerance, and it is a term which defies definition. It is used by employers to say this is a zero tolerance work place, it’s used by the learned Attorney-General in the second page of his amended statement:
It has been used in the United States ad nauseum, of course. It has been used in the UK. There are terms like ‘confident policing’. New Labour under the Blair government ran a very good campaign using the phrase ‘tough on crime, tough on its cause’ and of course secured a fairly solid electoral victory. That was one of the cornerstones of their whole policy development.
We have heard about the famous New York experiment, the broken window thesis, back in the early 1980s by Wilson and Kelly. That thesis argues that, in a nutshell, various forms of minor disturbance and activities and transgressions are allowed to go unchecked, then, over a period of time, the community becomes increasingly disenchanted, fragmented and fearful. This is supposed to lead to further disorder and crimes of an increasingly serious nature.
The state of New York introduced new laws; there were some 7000 extra police and there was a significant drop in crime. Now, there are many reports. Indeed, the member for Macdonnell has asked me to have a look at some of the material which the authorities in the New York Police Department have prepared in relation to their observations of the effect of their new laws and the extra policemen have had and the reasons why crime fell so dramatically.
There are also, of course, other quite comprehensive articles by academics both here and in the United States which show - just by way of example, I’m not going to go through them all - but in San Diego, at the same time that there were such large falls in New York, they had similar falls in that state and that city, and there wasn’t the adoption of any of the new laws and there wasn’t the increase in policing.
There seem to be, and there are no doubt that there are other factors at work which contribute to whether or not a person is likely to commit an offence. The jury is still out in terms of what the result is going to be, and what the true effect of these laws will be, but it is certainly the subject of research.
The reforms referred to in a very general way in the Misuse of Drugs Act and the other associated legislation implies or offers a promise of a police-led solution to the drug problem and the fears and anxieties which the Northern Territory community currently endure. Could I just put this on the record: the police in the Northern Territory are, in my view, amongst the nation’s very best and I hold them in the highest regard. The observations I make today are really - and I will draw upon some of the findings which senior police have made in the UK and the United States.
The type of statement the Attorney-General made today certainly is politically attractive to Mr and Mrs Malak. It also accords with the basic storylines of police culture. On its face, it seems to be straight talking, action orientated and authority enhancing. There is, however, a message which, if you look beyond that thin veneer and the two very impressive headlines which the government secured - and I suspect that is why we are getting so much of this sort of rhetoric – it is a view to sending out the message that this government is going to be tough on crime. We have that theme, the Blair government theme.
There are, if you look at what police are now saying in the UK - and I have an article. The Thames Valley Police Chief Constable, Charles Pollard - apparently it is equivalent to our Commissioner; not that I am familiar with their hierarchical system. Talking about zero tolerance, very much in the same types of legislation which had been envisaged and talked about in the ministerial statement. He states:
There seem to be voices in amongst the senior police in the UK, when they have seen legislation and these sort of three-point plans, six-point plans, introduced to their communities. The type of statement which has been made by the Attorney-General today is indicative, in my view, of a society where people are presumed, in some situations, not to be innocent. However, we are politicians and we are in the game of politics and there is little resistance generally in parliaments across the world to this type of legislation. It is very palatable to middle Australia and in reality, party lines prevent any real and constructive debate on this type of matter.
The desire to stay in government and the desire to achieve government is not conducive or constructive to any clear and logical decision making in this type of topic. It is all about persuading the jury, which is of course the media that is being fed the exclusives, the end result being you get the front page headline. I shudder to think if the poor journalist who wrote that article had perhaps studied the area with any real closeness - would really understand that what was being fed was devoid of substance.
Obviously it is not the time to talk about the legislation, but in an indirect way the ministerial statement does touch upon, in a fleeting and a general way, a number of different pieces of legislation and uses words to the effect that there are gaps, the police need these extra powers and with this new legislation things like drug houses, things like arresting the look outs and the like are going to be capable, and then people who supply drugs and the like from drug houses, drug premises, will now be the subject of strong police action.
It does not take much intellect to really, if you have a casual glance at the Misuse of Drugs Act just how important it is, and quite genuinely, almost all the conduct which is being talked about being at the front of this police led charge is covered in the Misuse of Drugs Act. Just by way of an example, you talk about drug houses. Well, I assume a drug house relates to supplying cannabis or whatever they supply, well that is an offence, and even supplying a small amount of cannabis attracts a fairly significant penalty.
If there are such common occurrences in our community, it would not be difficult to arrest these people for supplying any sort of drug, and if whilst they are being processed they are on bail and if they breach their bail they get remanded in custody and, you know, the powers are there. You talk about broadening the net to catch all different types of people involved in the possible production of these types of illegal substances, if you look at section 8 of the Misuse of Drugs Act, it deals with a person who unlawfully manufactures or produces a dangerous drug, blah, blah, blah, and it goes from life down to about seven years. So they are really heavy penalties for people who produce or manufacture. The definition of ‘produce’, it is one of those legal definitions contained in the Misuse of Drugs Act, it expands it beyond what the plain English meaning is. ‘Produce’ in the Misuse of Drugs Act - this is how broad it is; this is how wide the net is - includes prepare, package, produce, offering to prepare and it goes on to say:
We talk about - not that I am an expert at it, but I can draw from my observations both prosecuting and defending on some of the Aboriginal communities where there is a really high ratio of police to residents. I can reliably take you to some statistics, but it is among the highest ratios in Australia. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence that if you have chronic unemployment and chronic social disharmony then there will be chronic crime. We’ve heard the hollow claims of there is a strong link between drug crimes and property crimes or there may be a link, but there is an overwhelmingly stronger link between unemployment and crime. Indeed, most people who commit drug offences are unemployed.
It’s almost impossible to make a general comment about a drug offender, but they tried to work out - this was done, I think, by the - it wasn’t the Law Society; it may have been the Criminal Lawyers Association - what is the average drug person and what is he? Is he the Mr Big that everyone talks about or does he prey on our kids? Who is he? They worked out that the most - if you could say this is the normal drug type person, he would be an unemployed Anglo-Saxon male living in a unit in Fannie Bay of about 28 to 32 years. So that is the type of person you are dealing with and if you think for a moment that an unemployed Anglo-Saxon male living in a unit in Fannie Bay before he commits an offence goes: ‘Hang on. The new Crimes (Forfeiture of Proceeds) Act – if I commit this offence, despite the fact that I’m not convicted, on the balance of probabilities, I might lose my car. Should I commit the offence?’ Well, it’s not even a concern. People murder other people and the last thing they think about is getting caught. In fact there is a presumption that he is not going to get caught. They used to send people, only 200 years ago, to Australia for life in penal servitude for stealing loaves of bread to feed their family. Do you think that for a moment stopped people stealing loaves of bread to feed their family?
Mr Henderson: It’s a bit like mandatory sentencing, really.
Yes. In conclusion, these comments and the - I suppose the real goal is to secure and feed the media to running a few headlines. As I said, there have been a couple of successes.
But the unfortunate reality is that - and it’s a reality which I suspect will come back to bite the government, and it’s related to the proposed amendments and the misleading statements - is that they don’t advance in reality. And we’ll carry on and go along party lines and get stuck in to each other, but the complete reality is that it’s not going to advance the situation at all from a practical perspective, and there are many senior police who share that view.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the Attorney-General does himself a disservice where he reads such a poorly prepared statement in this parliament.
Mr HENDERSON (Business, Industry and Resource Development): Mr Deputy Speaker, I can hardly believe my ears in terms of the contributions from the two members opposite in this debate this evening. I am aghast at the transformation from government to opposition that has been inculcated in to the persona of those people opposite. One would have thought that after the election defeat - and this issue in terms of crime in the Northern Territory; crime is always an election issue, and both sides of politics seek to place before the community during any election campaign strategies to deal with crime.
The CLP, during the August 2001 election campaign had a very clear strategy, and it was plastered over every single polling booth in the Northern Territory in black and white in a scary type of persona - an enormous sign I remember at the top of Dick Ward Drive in Nightcliff about how Jane Aagaard was going to throw out mandatory sentencing but you could rely on Jason Hatton, he was going to keep it. This was the opposition’s position on crime which we all know as local members - local members in the northern suburbs, bush members, wherever we come from in the Northern Territory - that the community had had a gut full. We all experienced complaints whilst door knocking during the election campaign about the impact of crime.
During the two years that I have been in this House prior to the election, all of the research we did in opposition, it became very apparent that the links between drug use in our community and property crime were evident. We prosecuted that in a number of statements in this parliament. The position of those members opposite, of the then Chief Minister and picking up on the minuscule quote, it was in comparison to other states that drug related property crime was minimal, therefore drug related crime was minimal. That was their position.
For the life of me, I couldn’t work it out. I couldn’t work it out from a conservative government, one of the most ultra-conservative right wing, red neck governments in Australia – that Australia has probably ever seen - that this was a place they didn’t want to go. They did not want to go there, and I could not work it out. I thought every other conservative government in Australia, in the western world, would jump on the evidence that was presented to them in terms of the links between drugs and crime and be seen to be getting tough, be seen to be cracking down, because they would have seen it as good politics as well as good public policy. But not the CLP government here in the Northern Territory.
It baffled me. I couldn’t understand the politics of it. I couldn’t understand why they would not go there and take this issue seriously. When we look at the lack of legislation to give the police the powers to deal with the vermin who manufacture, produce, distribute, sell, profit from illicit substances in the Northern Territory, when we look at the lack of legislation - I’ll name a few:
When we look at the Crimes (Forfeiture of Proceeds) Act - so vague that you could drive a truck through it, very few recoveries of monies over the years and very little in terms of successful seizures. Not an indictment on our police at all. Our police need the legislation to give them the powers to do the job. One has to wonder why we did not have the legislative framework, why the previous government, from both a good public policy point of view - even picking up on the member for Daly’s position; he’s acknowledged the good politics in this - why they would never go there.
That has been confirmed, and I continue to ask these questions, when the Leader of the Opposition came into the Chamber this evening on this statement, I would have thought we would get some sort of uniform support for the package of legislation we are presenting.
What we’ve seen here tonight is two speakers in a row basically indicating that they are not going to support this legislation. The Leader of the Opposition on two occasions - and it will be interesting when the Hansard rushes come out because, my goodness, we are after them - talked about the nonsense of the existence of drug houses in the northern suburbs. My constituents certainly don’t believe its nonsense. The many, many taxi drivers I talk to don’t believe it is nonsense and the constituents who are parents in my electorate don’t believe it’s nonsense.
Then he talked about the nonsense again in regards to the police not having the powers to catch the Mr Bigs. The Leader of the Opposition is in a continual state of denial. I find his comments on the drug houses absolutely astounding. In his comments on the drug houses, he was basically saying that if people are peddling vast quantities of cannabis in minuscule amounts through premises in the northern suburbs, that’s okay! That was essentially his line, and it is going to be very interesting to see the opposition’s …
Mr HENDERSON: Well, they don’t like to hear it, member for Arafura, because they know where we are coming from on this. I know the politics that they think that they are playing on this issue. That was the position. So never mind the dozens of households around these premises who are impacted by the premises, whose property values have devalued by these premises - the Leader of the Opposition doesn’t seem to care about that. I remember on his own side when we had this debate - I think it was the then member for Jingili admitting that he had one of these drug houses operating in his electorate; currently, Mr Deputy Speaker, in your electorate, the infamous Moil’s Foils unit there on Lee Point Road - and how we really needed to do something about it, and the ludicrous legislation that was introduced in regard to the move on legislation, whatever it was called, was going to fix the problem.
So, even within their own side they were divided on this particular issue. Then we’ve had the member for Daly come in - the learned member for Daly, the member for Daly with legal qualifications who has a bit of a track record in terms of …
Mr Elferink: Goyder!
Mr HENDERSON: Goyder. I stand corrected - who has a bit of a track record in terms of representing some of these people in a past life. Basically his contribution was: if it ain’t broken, don’t fix it. That was his line: essentially, we don’t have any problems, and it doesn’t matter what you do with this legislation you introduce, we already have legislation on the books, therefore it is not going to work, therefore don’t bother, and it’s all a political exercise.
Well, I am absolutely astounded! It will be interesting to see if there are any other comments from members opposite in this debate tonight because I can say that as a parent of three young children, as an adult who has a member of his family who has had his life devastated by the impact of drugs, as a member of parliament who knows of three constituents who have lost children to illicit drugs, and as a member of parliament who is aware of the large numbers of breaks and enters that devastate families and communities - and all of the evidence stacks up about this link between drugs and crime - I have an absolute responsibility and duty to do everything I can as a member of parliament to make sure that we have the legislative framework in place that will give the police an opportunity to start to turn this tide of drug use in our community.
We are not going to fix it, we are not nave enough to believe that. We are not nave enough to state - as the Leader of the Opposition tried to force words into the Attorney-General’s mouth - that we are going to reduce property crime by 50%. But, by God, if we reduce it by 10% or 5% it will have been worth it. We will do something, which is more than those opposite did.
The only law and order initiative that the previous government had over many years, in terms of attempting to tackle property crime, was mandatory sentencing. There was some simple logic about it, that if you do the crime, you do the time. That is simple logic. The Leader of the Opposition knows, and he knows full well, that when that Cabinet submission went round to all agencies in terms of setting up that framework, that the police opposed it. The police opposed it because they knew it wouldn’t work.
Obviously, we have no evidence to support that, but I certainly know that that was the case, and one day those documents may come out. So there was no real attempt by the CLP whilst they were in government to actually deal with this issue. The evidence that we have seen - and we prosecuted time and time again in this parliament - the evidence was that we do have a problem. It may have plateaued and we are running along a peak, but it is certainly affecting many hundreds, if not many thousands, of lives of people across the Northern Territory. We as the new government in the Northern Territory will do everything we can to make a significant dent in this issue.
It is not, as the member for Goyder stated - what did he say? - a police led solution. I do not know where he has been on this debate, but we are introducing a comprehensive range of public policies to deal with this issue. What we will be dealing with in the June sittings - and I cannot foreshadow debate - is a range of legislative measures. We have the Health Minister who has put together a task force to look at the rehabilitation issues, the health issues around people who currently have drug problems that are affecting their lives and devastating their lives, and the lives of the family and the community around them. We are also looking at education initiatives to try to do everything we can so that our children are not tempted to take up the use of substances which ultimately will lead to problems, whether they be health problems or financial problems, and only serve to make rich and to profit the vermin that push those drugs on to our kids and on to our community.
I really am astounded by the position of those opposite tonight. I am quite angry about it. I did have a prepared speech but I will move to some of the evidence in terms, again, we prosecuted this uphill and down dale whilst we were in opposition. I do not know why those members opposite think that the Northern Territory is so totally different from the rest of Australia because all of the evidence suggests - if we look at the Australian Institute of Criminology - we are part of Australia, for heaven’s sake. The studies that they released on 4 May 2000, again we prosecuted this in opposition, showed that quite clearly that 43% of all detainees charged with a property offence tested positive for opiates at the time of arrest.
Again, why we would possibly believe that we are any different from the rest of Australia when at the time that study was undertaken we had a morphine prescription rate in this community of 14 times the national average. We had the AIDS Council down there in Manton Street distributing 400 000 needles to a population in Darwin, and we had that anecdotal evidence as to what was happening with opiate prescriptions and needle distribution here at the very time the Australian Institute of Criminology were running studies in three centres around Australia and came up with this figure, that 43% of detainees charged with a property offence tested positive for opiates? Well, it beggars belief that those opposite couldn’t see that that link would hold true here in the Northern Territory. If they had been a responsible government, they would have said: ‘My goodness, we have a problem here’ and conducted their own research. But, no. All you do is try and shoot the messenger.
Those studies also showed, federal government studies commissioned by the conservative Commonwealth government - I might have some differences of opinion with John Howard on many things, but his tough on drugs policy is something I admire him for at least for trying to have a go. Eighty-six percent of adult males arrested tested positive to a drug of some type excluding the legal drugs alcohol and tobacco.
Again we have the Leader of the Opposition talking about the impact of alcohol on property crime and yes, it is there, but again this same study showed that 86% of adult males tested positive on arrest to a drug of some type excluding alcohol and tobacco. Through all of those debates over the previous two years, through the censure motions, the matters of public importance, the questions we put to those opposite, all the Leader of the Opposition, the then Chief Minister, could say was: ‘Look, we are different. These are not Northern Territory studies and they do not relate to us.
Well, I am sorry but you do not have to be Einstein to recognise that if this is the type of problem affecting the rest of Australia then it is certainly a problem that we have here in the Northern Territory.
We have the Leader of the Opposition sinking the boot into Bridie O’Reilly and stating that the police had no faith in the scientific assessment. Now, any study is going to have at the margins some element of doubt to it, but this was a study that was part of a Commonwealth Government anti-drugs strategy at the time, that all of the states signed up to in an effort to achieve some sort of consistency of information across Australia about what drug users were saying about there own drug use, where they sourced those drugs from and what was happening on the ground in those jurisdictions.
It was acknowledged at the time that the best way to elicit that information was to go out and talk to those people who were using those substances. Now, that makes sense to me and if people were paid $40 to bring that information forward, I don’t see the link that just because they were paid $40 to pass on that information that somehow the information would be flawed or they would be lying. Why would they do that?
They had no incentive to tell anything other than the truth about what was happening here in the Northern Territory, and the previous government ran a mile from it. They tried to shut it up; they tried to make sure that it wasn’t distributed. It so offended their political position at the time that an instruction was conveyed that we wouldn’t be part of any further studies because we didn’t like the message we were receiving so we would shoot the messenger.
But even with the information that was received in that study - and it’s all on the record because we put it into the Hansard and it did cause an enormous amount of alarm to myself as a local member - was flawed, given the Australian Institute of Criminology studies, you would have thought that the government of the day would have commissioned their own study to get to the bottom of this. But no, we’re just going to stick our heads in the sand and it looks as though that policy is going to continue in opposition.
Well, I look forward to the Leader of the Opposition going out there on the steps of parliament, on the airwaves, tomorrow and tell Territorians that drug houses are a nonsense and that they don’t exist because I do know his credibility in terms of making that statement will be even lower than it is now.
This is a very important issue for Territorians. It is certainly something that, as a member of this House, I spoke so passionately about in opposition with my colleagues the Minister for Justice, the Deputy Chief Minister and the Chief Minister. I am pleased to be on this side of the House introducing this legislation trying to make a difference. It might not work, but, my God, we’ll have a red hot go.
This will be complemented by a public health strategy that will deal with the health issues surrounding the people whose lives are affected by drug use, and giving those people who want to get off drugs the opportunity to get off drugs and a strategy that we're going to put in place to try and keep our kids away from drugs. Now, if these people opposite can’t support that, well, I can’t wait until the next election.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to make a few observations in relation to this statement tonight, and I thank the members opposite as well as the members on my side of the House for their contributions because it’s a lot to think about, and 20 minutes is not much time in which to discuss these topics.
In thinking about this whole issue, I have to turn my attention to the very first and fundamental role of any government. In the case of a federal system such as Australia, the first and primary role of government, which is defence, is picked up by the Commonwealth. However, another fundamental role of government to provide the framework for a civil society and to that end, this is what the Attorney-General who is, in many respects, the most important person in the Northern Territory in terms of providing a civil society, is attempting to address in his statement to the House today. I am grateful that the Attorney-General considers his role with such gravity.
However, I would like also to turn a critical eye to what he said. That doesn’t necessarily mean that I’m going to lambast what he said. I think there’s a lot of good in what he said, but I would just like to turn a critical eye over the principles that seem to be occupying the Attorney-General’s mind.
Specifically, I turn my attention to the issue of marrying up property crime with drugs. There is clearly a link that the Attorney-General makes in relation to this, and I am not going to deny such a link. I think that it would be futile to deny such a link. However, there is some debate as to how profound that link possibly is. Nevertheless, to achieve the outcomes which the Attorney-General and the government are seeking to achieve, to remove property crime by targeting drugs means that to be successful in the latter, you have to be successful in the former, targeting drugs. This is where I am a little bit concerned that the government may be somewhat forgetting the lessons of history.
I turn my attention to the very difficult problem that was experienced in the United States from 1929, if memory serves me correctly, to the beginning of the Second World War when they had organised villains such as one Alfonzo Capone operating in cities around the United States peddling their particular form of drug at the time. I found it intriguing as a lesson of history that the only way that they were able to nail Mr Capone was not by targeting his distribution networks but finally through the backdoor of tax evasion. That’s how he was dealt with.
Dr Toyne: Exactly what we’re going to do through forfeiture.
Nevertheless, the problem is that I listened very carefully to what the Deputy Chief Minister had to say. He lauded the fact - congratulations to the Western Australian government - that they’ve been able to seize some $12m worth of property and identified a very expensive $25 000 motorcycle, a Harley Davidson, despite of the fact that $25 000 is the average price for a Harley Davidson. In fact, it’s a little bit more nowadays. The fact of the matter is that in the whole drugs budget, the economy of drugs in Western Australia which I would, without knowing any of the figures, would guesstimate in the hundreds of millions, all that they’ve been able to nail down is $12m. That is an almost affordable tax regime as far as these drug operators are concerned, and that is the thing that bothers me about this approach; it is not a complete enough approach and I will return to that issue shortly.
So what we have is a policy by which the government is becoming tough on the producers of drugs, and they are nailing these producers in every way that they possibly can. However, one of the gangs which has already been spoken about in this Chamber today, the Hell’s Angels, who are a multi-national corporation by any measure of the word. If you ever talk to one when you have them in their leathers, they carry a little diamond just about here on their leathers. It is either one side or the other. That little diamond has inside it 1%. For the elucidation of members, what that means is ‘I am 1% of the true dirtbag. I am the outlaw. I don’t care about the law. The law is not worth so much toilet paper as far as I am concerned. I am 1% of the true villains’. That’s what that 1% means.
So I look at the package that the Attorney-General brings into this Chamber and the issue that he tries to raise, and he says: ‘We are going to target the Al Capones of the modern world, the people who sell the illicit drugs to our children’. I have no problem with that. It is a good idea because there is a public expectation of government, no matter what flavour that government is, that drugs are dealt with.
However, in the last year - and I could be wrong, but I’m not far wrong in terms of the figures - in the United States, the drug budget in terms of fighting it for the DEA alone - let alone the smaller police forces, the many thousands of small police forces throughout the United States - the DEA’s budget alone as I understand it was well over a $US1bn. Enormous amounts of man power and dedication go into some very dangerous and scary operations in an effort to fight drugs. Yet, am I convinced that there is one less crystal of crack cocaine on the streets of Los Angeles as a result? Am I convinced that there is less cannabis available in the People’s Republic of San Francisco?
The approach to managing these sorts of issues is made very complex by the nature of drugs themselves. What the government is intending to do with this legislation is to target or create a bogie man, the evil doer. The real arch villain is that person who manufactures, produces or sells the drugs which is no problem. That’s the bogie man that the members opposite are trying to create …
Ms Lawrie: No, no, we’re not creating them. They’re out there pushing drugs on to kids.
Mr Bonson: They’re in our community.
Mr ELFERINK: … and what they attempt to create this bogie man does – and it is a very real bogie man; I’m not disputing any of this. I am actually speaking in support of what the Attorney-General is doing as far as it goes. But when I have dealt with drug dealers in pubs over the years, I have dealt with some guy who is way down the supply chain.
According to the Attorney-General, if this is the supplier somewhere in a pub - I remember one incident in an hotel in town where I arrested a fellow. He had several deals on him; he went down for a traffickable quantity. But at the end of the day it wasn’t him; it was further up the chain.
The experience in New York in relation to these sorts of issues is that they have taken a pincer approach, and it’s something that I find quite attractive. The pincer approach is that one edge of the pincer is pushing down on the places of manufacture but the other end of the pincer approach is that on a street level, there has to be also that issue of responsibility. This is where I think that a philosophical, consistent approach in relation to drugs should be applied. At what point does the user become the supplier? I think you will find that there is a very large grey area in between the two because the guy in the pub dishing out a few bags of joints is actually supplying his own habit more often than not, and the guy above him is often working on his own habit more often than not. It is only when you start getting to those untouchables that we complain about further up the food chain that you can see this bogie man, this villain. But he is very difficult to touch, and that is what the Attorney-General is trying to touch.
What I’m suggesting is that if you are going to be consistent in the approach the villain has also to a degree got to be a user themselves. At the end of the day, they are as much a part of the market place as the producer. I, as a consumer of Coca-Cola - I nearly said coke then - am as much of the market place as the company itself. I purchase the drug and, because - if we listen to the members opposite - I need to engage in crime to purchase the drug, then I think that you should be targeting the users as well.
The second point or the second aspect as was explained by the Deputy Chief Minister was through the compulsory treatment of addicts. But this is where the philosophical shift occurs that I am concerned about because if we make drugs nasty, awful, evil at the point of sale, but don’t make them at the point of purchase, then what you’re doing is that you are engaging in an exercise where there is no act of villainy in the consumption, the possession those sorts of things as a psychological position.
This means that the pincer won’t work. If you try to clamp down on these sorts of things you are pushing from one position only and this is where I think that the major difference will be between the government and opposition in the future. I am quite prepared to make the people who use these substances as responsible for their own criminality as the people who supply the substances. That seems to be something that members opposite don’t want to do because they seem to want to treat the people who use these drugs exclusively as victims. The fact of the matter is that people use drugs because they want to. They engage in the criminal act of purchasing drugs, they engage in the criminal act of possessing drugs, in a vast amount of cases, because they choose to do so. I have never seen a person unwillingly buy drugs.
I have only in my whole life been aware of a handful of cases where drugs have been taken unwillingly by people. These are the date-rape type of drugs I am referring to now. But in terms of cannabis, in terms of heroin, in terms of cocaine, all those sorts of drugs that are out there, people who use them do so voluntarily. It is the very nature of the contract between the people they purchase from and the people who use them themselves, and that market place is part of the problem. By targeting the supply chain only, which has historically proven to be insurmountably difficult, and by not targeting the use of the street level itself as a criminal endeavour, then you are not going to succeed. I don’t say that as in any sort of gloating term. I am hoping that the government takes heed of what I am saying because I want them to succeed. I want the government to succeed in policing these problems.
It has been a bit of a Road to Damascus change from the members opposite. They have changed their whole attitude to the drug scene. They have decided to deal with drugs in terms of the public expectations that are out there. However, this process of trying to make the users the victims does also lead to what I am concerned is an inconsistent message to the users of drugs out there. Part of my concern comes from the former member for Wanguri, Mr John Bailey, who wanted to established things like heroin trials here in the Northern Territory. He put out press releases at the time where he called on the Prime Minister to reconsider his cancellation of the ACT heroin trial. He also put out a press release in 1998, I think it was, where he said:
Denis Burke must listen to the medical profession and he must also listen to those involved in law enforcement
including the Woods Royal Commission who are clearly stating that the legal prohibition has totally failed to
deal with the problems resulting from illegal drug use.
Quite contrary to the position of the Labor Party today. It is the right of a political party to change its mind as it goes through time. Indeed, both sides of this House have done so over time. But I would seek leave, so that members are aware of what the political position was only a few years ago, to table these press release by John Bailey where he argues for things like heroin trials in the Territory.
Leave granted.
Mr ELFERINK: However, that inconsistent message which is going out to the drug users in the community remains with us to this day and, of course, this deals with issues like the needle exchange program which I believe is still running in the Palmerston area. I seek leave to table, in relation to that, clippings from newspapers from 3 and 4 December 2001 where the current Health Minister has given her nod for a needle exchange program to be placed in the Palmerston area.
Mrs Aagaard: Needle and syringe program.
Dr Toyne: It’s not an exchange program.
Mr ELFERINK: If you are going to send out a clear message, then it must be a consistently clear message. I am not entirely sure that the government of today is sending out that message clearly. If drugs are bad, then they are bad. Full stop. If you want to deal with these issues, you have to deal with the issues consistently with a consistent message.
The other thing that I would ask, and part of this inconsistent message is the issue of methadone …
Dr Burns: It’s called harm prevention, harm minimalisation.
Mr ELFERINK: This is intriguing. I’ll pick up on that interjection of harm minimisation. The point is that we’re talking about zero tolerance. The minister himself has used the expression zero tolerance. Zero tolerance as a concept is fundamentally different. Zero tolerance happens at the zero level; it starts at the very basic level. The general concept of zero tolerance, which is now being used in a more general term is actually precise in its intent.
Members interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: I find it intriguing that the member for Johnston wants to interject. It seems that he doesn’t want to hear me saying things like the government’s message has to be consistent; the government message has to be consistently hard on drugs. I am curious to see from the member for Johnston’s participation in this debate whether he thinks that the message should be consistently difficult or whether he wants to tolerate drug use in the community through management.
I find the steps that the minister is talking about encouraging, but I find them incomplete and I would urge the minister to take a more consistent approach, a message which is going to be consistent to the whole community, the users as well as the mums and dads in the suburbs as well as the drug dealers themselves, that you will not tolerate drugs at any level in our community and that you will do everything that you can to deal with the issue from a street level up. Targeting the dealers only is going to be problematic because you have problems that you will face from history.
Seizing a bit of property is going to be nothing more than a small tax as far as these guys are concerned. They are going to continue finding ways to get around the legislation. If you look at tax legislation, even in the world on this side of the law, you see something like tax legislation, people immediately try to minimise their tax, look for loopholes, look for ways to get through it, look for ways around it. That’s exactly what they’re going to do with this legislation. Unless there is a consistent approach throughout the whole of government services, the process of offering a tough solution on one hand and then offering a soft solution on the other hand is going to cause you no end of grief and cause the community no end of grief.
I would hope that the minister will change the approach by targetting not only the producers and the manufacturers and the suppliers but also targetting, as criminality, the use of drugs and seeing mandated processes of sentencing
Dr Toyne: Yes, drug courts. That’s what we’re going to do.
Mr ELFERINK: No, you’re not.
Mrs AAGAARD (Health and Community Services): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of the Minister for Justice today. This government’s Tough on Drugs plan showcases our determination to jointly tackle the major issues confronting this community in a serious and comprehensive manner. The approach we are developing is characterised by the active cooperation of all key players from the police force to Health and Community Services.
Let there be no mistake: illicit drugs are a major health and social issue. Our plan tackles the growing problem of illicit drug use in three ways. First, through law enforcement with zero tolerance on drug production and distribution; second, through compulsory treatment of addicts arrested on drug-related crimes; and third, with a sound drug use prevention strategy. It is to this third arm of the plan that I will direct my comments.
One of my earliest decisions as Minister for Health and Community Services was to establish a high profile Task Force on Illicit Drugs to advise the government on strategies to help users and their families on the road to better health as part of our broader strategy, Drugs and Drug-related Crime in Our Community. Since its establishment, the task force has conducted thorough consultations with community groups, service providers, individual Territorians and their families. Task force consultations have occurred in all regional centres - Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Nhulunbuy, Katherine, Darwin and Palmerston. The consultations have been well attended and a good level of information and opinion has been gathered. Over 70 submissions have been received by the task force to date. The task force members are currently undertaking the arduous task of collating all of the information they have received, and are continuing their deliberations regarding their findings and recommendations that will be presented to me on 31 May this year.
Without wishing to pre-empt this report, I can say that the strong messages received by the task force so far have been that injecting drug use is becoming increasingly common in the larger urban centres of Darwin, Alice Springs and Palmerston. Illicit drug use is occurring within a background of high levels of licit drug use, such as alcohol, tobacco and petrol, which means that polydrug use, the use of more than one substance at a time, is common, thus increasing the associated risks.
Although the problem is not yet out of control with respect to injecting drug use, action needs to be taken now to prevent the problems from escalating because the social harms, for instance the impact upon families and the community, can be huge. Further, the public feel that the illicit drug area is one that has not received the focus it deserved in the past in the Northern Territory.
People also consider, as a result of its poor profile in the past, there is a general lack of understanding, education and competence in dealing with illicit drug use throughout the Northern Territory community. The denials of the previous administration on this issue, in the light of what we know about hard drug and injecting use in the Territory, and its relation to criminal activity, is nothing short of astounding. Police information suggests that amphetamine use is growing and heroin is on its way. There are indications that more people are using, particularly younger people, and that indigenous users are an emerging group. We also know that intravenous use is the most common means of administering opiates and amphetamines, and that most users are not in any form of treatment, given the paucity of facilities.
The importance of a multidimensional approach to illicit drugs cannot be over-emphasised. Ours is one that looks at law enforcement and education, treatment and harm reduction. Unfortunately, what we have found as a direct consequence of the head-in-the-sand approach of the previous government is that the care, treatment and rehabilitation services in the Territory are, in the main, uncoordinated and running on a shoe string. They have had little opportunity to match best practice within our jurisdictions; little opportunity to expand their capacity to give thorough psychosocial assistance to addicts through the trauma of withdrawal and rehabilitation; little opportunity to increase their quality, and thus their success rate. That is why an independent analysis of what is required to bring us into the 21st century with our education, treatment and prevention approach is so critical.
I expect the task force report to identify where we need to direct our energies if we are to provide effective treatment, education and family support to lessen the many harms associated with uncontrolled drug use in our community. I commend the minister’s statement on our government’s commitment to a comprehensive approach. I look forward to advising the House on the outcomes of the task force deliberations.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I would also like to comment on the statement Tough on Drugs and Drug Crime. I don’t feel at the present time I am fully informed about many of the issues involved in this debate and, as it has to come before parliament later on, I thought I would address a number of philosophical issues rather than deal with some of the matter which have been raised today.
As a member of the Substance Abuse Committee, I will use that as part of my education process before I comment directly on some of the matters that will be raised later. I also note some of the matters that were raised by my friend, the member for Goyder. He raised some issues that I will also raise as a matter of concern regarding this debate.
I don’t like drugs, especially those that take control of people, destroy their health and interfere with and destroy other people’s lives. Debate about drugs and crime, especially in the political arena, is often prefaced by the word ‘tough’. This might sound like fighting words, but I hope that when it comes to such a complex and serious issue, the tough talk doesn’t blur a reasoned debate on the issue.
I welcome the government’s formation of the task force - and I appreciate the report that the Minister for Health has just given us on that task force - and the establishment of a substance abuse committee.
I hope that there will be some important recommendations from the task force before the debate on legislation, based on the ‘Tough on Drugs Three-Point Plan’ is introduced. I am also concerned that this issue does not just focus on one aspect only - that is, drug control. We need to look at why people turn to drugs and we need to look at ways of turning people away from drugs and putting their efforts into more constructive pursuits.
I believe there is a need to promote, especially amongst our young people, the notion that one doesn’t need to get a high through the use of drugs. One can get a high using the talents that we are all born with. We can do that through music, art and sport; play or sing or listen to a beautiful piece of music; design, construct, paint or admire a painting, a sculpture, a building, a landscape; get a buzz from playing any sport, and even a bigger buzz from winning. Let’s encourage our children to use their talents so that they can enjoy life in its many forms as they go through life. Government need to make sure that it provides adequate facilities to allow the community to bring their talents to the fore.
Another aspect which I feel is lacking is our education system. Children today are taught many things. One subject they are taught right through school is human development. This covers lifestyle issues like health, growth, diet, sexual development and other matters. Many of these issues are dealt with without raising issues of what is right or wrong, about conscience, about morality, about natural law. I’m not talking here about religious education; I’m talking about philosophy. This may not be applicable in primary schools, but certainly I think it is needed in secondary schools. Are issues like sex, love, hate, anger just debated as if they were one dimensional issues? Do we debate the very fundamental issues like: who are we and why are we on this earth? I don’t believe they are. These issues require analysis beyond the scientific and the clinical.
I believe that many of the problems that we have in our society can be based on a society where many people have no idea where they are going, are very individualistic, are only concerned about material goods, and are looking for instant gratification and pleasure. Where is our society heading? Is drug use just a reflection of a society that is wandering along, with little thought given about the meaning of life, except ‘enjoy it now, and who cares about others in the future’?
Some of you may say that this has little to do with this statement today, but I believe it does. If we only debate this issue based on ‘my laws are tougher than your laws’, then we may miss an opportunity to develop a holistic policy, and we may miss out on an opportunity to look at all aspects of drug matters. I don’t like drugs; I don’t want people having their lives destroyed by drugs, and I still refer back to those legal drugs that do just as much damage, like alcohol. What I want is a debate covering the many views about this issue, not a debate based on political toughness but on common sense with realistic and achievable goals, and with the hope that we can help make our society a healthier and safer one.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Madam Speaker, at a time when there has been a lot of media attention about drive-through drug houses and the proposed changes to drug laws to allow police wider powers to enter and search a range of different kinds of premises, most of the focus has been on what happens in Darwin. Sometimes that concerns me because my seat is a remote area seat.
A substantial illegal drug trade has been operating for a long time between Darwin and remote Aboriginal communities. While there have been some recent media reports, this trade has substantially escaped the public and media glare. Going back on some of the instances that have happened. On Tuesday 26 February 2002, a non-Aboriginal man was caught trying to smuggle into Maningrida from Darwin about $38 000 worth - that’s 700 grams - of cannabis. The stuff was stashed into the back of a television set. While that doesn’t sound much, it’s alleged that $50 000 worth of drugs is being brought into Maningrida fortnightly and I have gone on about these amounts a couple of times in this parliament.
This pattern has been borne out by the latest bust with the police seizing $50 000 worth of cannabis cookies. We keep highlighting the issue of the drug problem and the opposition’s stance that it was minuscule. If you weigh up remote Aboriginal communities compared with every other jurisdiction throughout Australia, the Northern Territory has the highest proportion of indigenous people. And if you look at that proportion of indigenous people, 23% of this population, which is the highest of any jurisdiction, the problem associated with the taking of drugs is huge - and that is far from being minuscule.
Many other communities have been similarly targeted. Imagine for a moment the impact that this is having on communities. Quite apart from the financial burden imposed on families whose small disposable incomes have been sacrificed, anecdotal evidence suggests that almost all attempts and completed suicides are drug or drug and alcohol related. The cost of drug abuse is escalating on communities like Maningrida and changing the whole fabric of community life.
I find it absolutely beyond any rational thinking person that any individual could protest about legislation or disagree with something that will assist in stopping this illegal trade happening in our communities. If the amount of time - and if I could just point out, that protest that happened the other day -, the time that they spent and all the energies that they put into protesting -and look, I am a firm believer in democracy and protesting is fine - but sometimes you hope that some of that energy could be put into more productive means like taking the time to look at the impact that these drugs are having on our remote Aboriginal communities.
Our communities do not need another substance added on top of the two other menaces that are tearing at the very foundations of Aboriginal families. If they were to be confronted with the senseless deaths and suicides, violence, children malnourished that is currently happening in our communities, I just wonder if the debate would be a bit different. Only a Martin Labor government will deliver to reduce crime and the illicit drug trade. Our 3-point plan will be delivered by strong and committed leadership. This commitment has shown whilst working to eliminate or reduce the illicit drug trade, there will be a process in which treatment and rehabilitation programs will be put in place.
I know that with each visit back to the Tiwi Islands lately, it is to attend a funeral for some young person who has committed suicide. This was the case only last week when there has been one suicide and two attempts by young people under the age of 20. These are young people still in their prime.
However, looking at all that I would like to put a final word, and it would be remiss of me not to, of caution or context into the whole debate. While cannabis use or abuse especially by children and teenagers is a real threat to both urban Territorians and to people living in remote Aboriginal communities, we must not lose sight of the fact that alcohol abuse is arguably a far greater threat to our society across the board and petrol sniffing is a particular menace to an increasing percentage of remote Aboriginal communities.
We have reached crisis point with each of these two substances, each of which probably needs specialised strategies and laws to counter them as well. That is for the future.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I did attempt to stand prior to the member for Nelson. I am glad I was not recognised because that was an excellent contribution, an excellent contribution to this debate as was the last speaker. I apologise for missing some of the words but I caught most of them in the lobby and the rest of them here.
There is a very strong delineation between the Health Minister who has substantial responsibility for this issue, substantial responsibility. I mean, if we take out the law and order which in a drug sense is only going to address a tiny portion - I would not like the use the word minuscule because it might get misrepresented - but the act of regulating matters relating to drugs is only going to affect this in a small way and the member for Nelson is spot on.
The big interventions are social. The big interventions will be social, educative, lifestyle, parenting. They will be the big interventions that change how society views drugs, how society addresses drugs, how society tolerates and prohibits drugs.
It was very refreshing for me to hear again – well, it was saddening to hear the Health Minister parrot a speech that has been written by somebody. This is a person who today has told us that she is a temperance person, totally temperate. She doesn’t take the evil vices of alcohol or any other drug and I would have thought, as a person with strong religious convictions and a strong anti-drug philosophy, that she could have stood up here and given us a fire and brimstone sermon that would have had our hair standing up.
Dr Burns: This isn’t a church.
Mr DUNHAM: I know it’s not a church. I would have expected that we would have got a passionate, from the heart Health minister saying: ‘This is an intolerable situation’. Instead, we had a robotic routine reading out of a speech written by somebody. After that we had the member for Nelson, and he said some very interesting things right at the front. First, he didn’t know all about it and he had to learn. Great, and that is true of all of us. He had to learn. He also said that maybe there are other ways of doing it and maybe all of this muscular grab the headline stuff, you know: ‘We are really going to jam these drug pushers’ is not the be all and end all.
He talked about a linkage between drug control - and he said – ‘philosophy’. He’s right. I mean, some of these - he talked about music. He talked about things that are attractive to young people. This is spot on. What we have here is, in a mathematical sense, a binary debate. We have a binary debate. One or two. Yes or no. If you don’t support the drug policies of this government it means you must be against it. There are a million positions, a million different positions and societies around the world, not just western societies, eastern societies, all sorts of societies have had to contend with this problem of drugs. Some of them have been licit drugs. We have a massive problem with licit drugs in this society now. And they’ve had a great problem in how they handle it.
Our ears should be wide open to debate. We should be looking far and wide, and the member for Nelson has my admiration for that contribution. That was a very good - not an anti-drugs speech; it was a very good legislator standing up saying: ‘I want to give it my best shot. I really want to have a go at this thing, but I don’t know how to do it. I will listen. I will be persuaded. But please don’t give me an act of parliament that says: “Don’t worry; it’s fixed. Hunky dory. We’ve got an act here. We’ve worked out who the baddie is”.’
That gets us down to the whole point of this debate which is a series of reinforcing messages from the government about being tough on drugs. Okay. That’s good. That’s a good political thing. But I guess in a parliamentary sense - and I am an adherent to the processes in this parliament. I would like to say that whatever the rules are here, I would like to oblige the parliament and the people that have elected me here to try and do the right thing by abiding by them. So I am not going to go into the debate that is going to come in a mere few days. We have a substantial opportunity to debate all these bills. So what we have before us is a generic debate not about the bills because we have got that opportunity and standing orders would prohibit such a debate in any event as you are well aware, Madam Speaker.
So I was going to restrict my commentary to those issues in the Labor manifesto that are not picked up in the legislation and, like the member for Nelson, I would like to talk about the whole universe that we find ourselves in with this business.
Dr Burns: A cosmologist now, eh? PhD in cosmology.
Mr DUNHAM: I don’t pretend to be anything, Madam Speaker, other than a person who in his limited time in this parliament will try and make life better for Territorians, and I would hope that some of the big impacts on Territorians, including the children of some of us living here and are elected to this place, will be better because of our time in this parliament. That is what I am trying to do.
While others may think I have all sorts of nefarious motives, I would suggest that the minister, too, has some motivation that is not entirely evident in the words that are in this debate. I think this is the old trick, and it is not a Labor party trick, Adolf Hitler used this trick, lots of people use this trick. What you do is you say: ‘Look, our life is not good. Our life is not good because we have a problem’. Okay, what’s the problem? ‘Well the problem is X and if we can just address X our life will get better’.
That was the Port Arthur thing, you know, the problem is people own guns. So everybody who owned a gun was put in the same category as some deranged murderer. What we have here is a statement parading as ‘We have found the baddie, we know who the baddie is. We’re organising the posse, going to go out, going to get Mr Big. We’re going to get those drug dealers, and after we do that, everything will be sweet’. Now, I don’t like to use the Hitleresque sort of picture.
Ms Lawrie: Well, then don’t. It’s offensive, absolutely offensive.
Mr DUNHAM: It may well be offensive. Your statement is quite offensive. But it does go to the fact that a simplistic solution that would say: ‘Big problem, complex problem. One answer: eradicate that. Got it fixed’. This is a nonsense in a complex society that we live in. I have spoken about drugs on a number of occasions in this parliament, and I can tell you that I proudly claim to have several generations of heritage in this place, in the Northern Territory. My grandmother grew up here as a young girl, went to school here as a young girl. She told me stories about Chinatown, the opium dens in Chinatown, well before the Second World War, the drugs that they contended with then were seen as manageable proportions. I was a publican’s son, I grew up in a pub. We dispensed a drug, we dispensed alcohol, we dispensed tobacco - both legitimately, I would add. Nonetheless, they had a very big impact on society and I recognise that that impact still exists today.
We have had drugs like petrol sniffing that have been a fairly recent phenomena that I hope my colleague the member for Johnston will talk about, being learned in this area. We’ve had problems with drugs like kava that have been fairly recent introductions, including by the Church, well meaning people introduced it on a harm minimisation basis. They said it would be better for people to abuse this drug that is a soporific than this drug which is alcohol which causes violence. That is a reasonable argument to have; we’ve had it in this parliament before. We have said: ‘Okay, if you zonk everyone out in the community, it’s got all these other problems, but is it as bad as grog?’ I have been to probably 20 community meetings where we have talked about kava, and in all of them the discussion is: ‘We don’t like kava. Kava is a bad thing’. It comes right around to: ‘Well, without kava, we have grog. Okay. Therefore we have kava’.
If you want to run harm minimisation arguments, and drug replacement arguments like you will do eventually with methadone maintenance programs, let’s have the debate, but let’s not be blind about it because it doesn’t matter which drug you are abusing, it is a problem for you. It is a problem for you to abuse drugs whether they are licit, whether they are illicit, or whatever. Let’s get that straight in our heads at the start. This statement that says: ‘We know who the baddie is. We’ll go and get the baddie. Everything is sweet.’ That is a nonsense. The very first sentence I read:
No! You were elected to fix it. When that word ‘fix’ was used before, I note the member for Wanguri said: ‘No, no, no. Tackle. We’re not going to fix it; we’re going to tackle it’. Basically what they’re saying is, we’ll have the good fight; we’ll have the good and honourable fight; we’ll kick up a big mob of dust, we’ll come out with our nose bloodied and at the end of it we’ll say: “Well, we gave it our best shot”.’ A red hot try, I think the member for Wanguri said. No, we don’t want that.
Members interjecting.
Mr DUNHAM: We want some objectivity about at least defining a goal. If it is property break ins, define that; if it is the number of arrests, whatever it is, define that. Then what we want to know is are you encroaching on the goal? That is, is it getting better, is it getting worse?
We come to the vexed issue of statistics, and this open, honest, transparent government has at least quashed one form of statistics.
Mr Stirling: Nothing to do with us.
Mr DUNHAM: I can understand the argument: it wasn’t us, the Police Commissioner didn’t like them, so he did it. A bit of a nonsensical argument because we need a variety of statistics here; we need a variety of goals. There’s no one goal; there’s no one baddie. My colleague, the member for Macdonnell, spoke pretty well about that. What he said was: ‘Okay, all the dealers are baddies and then it’s barleys. So, you can use, abuse, whatever, you are okay. You are a mere victim of one or two Mr Bigs’.
The sad fact is – and I’ve been to a few places that treat people with drug addiction including people who were withdrawing, who still had a drug addiction or whatever - and it is a very difficult business to procure illicit drugs, very difficult. If they’re very expensive illicit drugs, you have three options. There is a fourth option, but it’s rarely used. The fourth option is to be so independently wealthy like Howard Hughes that you can do anything you like - or the Rolling Stones or something. But even they have a difficulty with being able to procure, travel - all those sorts of things – their drugs.
Failing that, you deal, you steal or you prostitute yourself. You deal, you steal or you prostitute yourself. If to this group of victims we’re saying: ‘Sorry, we’re not going to look at you; we’re going to look at the people who sold you the drugs’, the people using the drugs are still dealing in the main. Many of them are dealing and on-selling; many of them are still stealing and on-selling; and many of them are involved in the trade of prostitution which has some very unhappy travelling companions including the various Mr Bigs you are looking for.
So, let’s get away from this business of the House having a bill and fixing the problem. I hope the bill helps fix the problem. Instead of this wording about ‘we will tackle it’, I hope we talk about goal definition; we talk about: ‘We will get to this point: X’. If you don’t get there, there’s a debate about that. But at least if you are going there, you have a pretty good rejoinder for us. You can say to us: ‘Okay, we didn’t get all the way to that destination but, by golly, we are on the way. We are on the way; we have some data that would show you that some of this stuff is pretty good’.
The other thing I could talk about – I have a couple of minutes left - is that, in a debate like this, you get a lot of mythology and pseudo name calling – head-in-the-sand approach. If people have these various little electric books here that can hit up words and you put in ‘head-in-the-sand’, it would probably come up …
Mr Kiely: Dunham.
Mr DUNHAM: No, no. How many times? How many times?
Members interjecting.
Mr DUNHAM: How many times? You either have done it or you haven’t. He’s probably told the parliament another little porky, he probably hasn’t done it. But, anyway, what I’m saying is that it is a bit like finding out who the baddie is; calling him a baddie. You know: ‘If it was only for getting rid of the Hell’s Angels, everything would be sweet’. This is not going to work. The Hell’s Angels could disappear tomorrow and we’re going to have a drugs problem. This is what I call a Hitleresque policy. I know it offends some people opposite, but it is to say: ‘Our life would be hunky dory; we would never have a break in if it wasn’t for those people in leather jackets on those Harley Davidsons. It is them who are causing my life to be a misery, and my child, who I brought up so well, is smoking marijuana and I’m sure it’s those bloomin’ Hells Angels doing that’.
Look, I’m not a friend of the Hell’s Angels …
Mr Kiely: Some of you are. For some of you it becomes a qualification.
Mr DUNHAM: I’ll pick up the interjection Madam Speaker: ‘Some of you are’.
Dr Burns: No, he didn’t say that, he did not say that.
Mr Elferink: That’s exactly what he said.
Mr DUNHAM: What I would say is they are probably not terribly nice people, I don’t know. But, as I said, I have talked to many people who have used drugs. I was an employee in premises - many premises - that dispensed drugs. That particular drug is called alcohol. While those opposite will run this line of Denis Burke saying: ‘Oh, it’s minuscule’, you have to take a sense of proportion. There must be a sense of proportion.
There is a big problem with drug abuse, 30 m from this parliament in that park. There are people there, illegally consuming drugs tonight - illegally consuming drugs tonight. Those people, I would say, their prognosis of going into prison, the watch house, the back of a police car or hospital is about 100 times greater than the various people we are talking about in here. So I am not saying that illicit drugs is a minuscule problem. What I am saying is let’s work out what your big problems are. Let’s get the health minister to say: ‘The big things that worry me are…’ whatever.
Now, as the former Health minister, I will give you the list: grog. Right up the top. Grog. Big problem. And lots of things happened in this place. All this ‘We never did anything, head-in-the-sand, 27 years of neglect’. Rubbish! The best grog policies in Australia, probably the world, came out of this place.
Number two: tobacco. Okay, I will agree with various members, maybe we could have done more. But I mean, even a tobacco zealot like my colleague, the member for Johnston - and I admire him for it, I’m not being negative - still has difficulty in his own family circumstances, as he once said on the radio, of controlling this commodity. It is not an easy thing to get people to desist from human behaviours that they find attractive. There are many people, particularly young people, who will persist with risk taking behaviours. It happened with Julius Caesar’s generation. It has happened and happened that young people will take risks that are injurious to their own health or their family.
Enter the member for Nelson again. This is where we have to go. What you have to have is a multi-pronged approach, not a three step approach or whatever. The business about your three pronged approach, that’s a rip snorter, that is a rip snorter. What you are talking about here is a compulsory treatment of drug addicts and drug courts. Where’s that?
Dr Burns: New South Wales.
Mr DUNHAM: We want it here, mate. It is your promise. Compulsory treatment of drug addicts is a very vexed issue. Unless you can actually incarcerate them, lock them up, take them away from society, it is pretty tricky. That is actually called mandatory sentencing. To exclude somebody from society because of their drug taking behaviour is mandatory sentencing. If you are going to have them compulsorily attend a treatment centre, ‘Yes, I promise. I’ll sign this form’, you don’t know much about drugs because it is a very persuasive habit and lying, duplicitous behaviour and all that stuff is not just the monopoly of those opposite. Drug addicts exhibit it probably even more than them.
The issue for them is to describe to us the drug courts. How do they work? Compulsory treatment. How is it going to work? Are you going to put people in some sort of a detox centre? Buprenorphine? Naltrexone? What are you going to do to these compulsorily treated people? I would like to know.
So in keeping of the parliamentary tradition of only talking about those things that are not being anticipated, I would like to talk about the absence in this statement of those fundamental bench marks of the Labor Party. I would like the minister in rejoinder not to talk about and anticipate debate coming up, but to talk about these big holes in his statement. Tell us about the drug courts. Tell us what compulsory treatment means. Tell us about stuff like that because we would like to know. There are some of us on this side who may well support the majority of the stuff, but we would like to know. We do not like being snowed and we do not like this little posse act, Madam Speaker. The statement is not supported by me.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Johnston, haven’t you spoken yet?
Dr BURNS (Johnston): I haven’t, Madam Speaker, and I hope the member for Drysdale might listen to what I have to say.
Mr Dunham: I’ll listen closely.
A member: Run away!
Dr Burns: I have not prepared for this particular speech, but his comments have had their effect and probably spurred me into action.
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I heard the words ‘running away’, and I hope they were not levelled at me.
Mr Stirling: No, I don’t think so.
Madam SPEAKER: Well, member, you know that you should not refer …
Dr BURNS: I didn’t say that, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: I am sure you wouldn’t.
Dr BURNS: No. I, too, agree with the member for Nelson. I thought his speech was excellent because we do hear lots of facts and figures about drugs. The committee which the member for Arafura heads is going to be meeting tomorrow about substance abuse, and we’re going to be hearing a lot of facts and figures. But I felt the member for Nelson went right to the heart of things in terms of young people having activities that are fulfilling and satisfying. Through my own experience – the member for Drysdale mentioned that I have done a lot of research on petrol sniffing. At Maningrida, one of the major things that was successful there in ridding that place of petrol sniffing was the fact that the young people had work. They were given the opportunity to work; they were given the opportunity to actually contribute back in a meaningful and constructive way to their community. I think that’s very important.
We can have all sorts of strategies, but that valuing of young people is very important. I could speak for hours about why young people take up drugs. I wrote a PhD on it. There are many different theories, but it comes down to influences on young people – some of them are positive, some of them are negative. It’s about young people making choices for themselves and young people being valued, and that is probably one of the most important things. It is one of the most important lessons I’ve learnt through my work in lots of different areas to do with drugs.
Mr Elferink: Don’t qualify it. Just people. Just people.
Dr BURNS: Well, young people – the challenges are a little bit different. I believe in the good of young people. A lot of things are said about them that are negative, but by and large, I think young people are good; they want to do good and they want to be good. Let’s encourage them to be good. So in that respect, I agree with what the member for Nelson had to say.
Now, we talked about social situations. The member for Drysdale reflected on my social situation in regards to tobacco. My mother was a smoker for many, many years. It wasn’t until she was nearly 80 that she gave it away after she had a stroke. That was hard for her. Other members of my family who I think the member was referring to have actually given tobacco smoking away since I last made those comments.
Members: Hear, hear!
Dr BURNS: Whether a person smokes or not, I have been tagged as a tobacco zealot. I’m certainly not a tobacco zealot. I don’t judge someone if they smoke tobacco or whether they don’t. The thing that I dislike is tobacco and the things that tobacco companies have done over many decades to try and pull the wool over people’s eyes, to try and disguise the fact that tobacco is a very lethal drug because unlike alcohol which can be used in moderation, the use of tobacco leads to ill health so I’m dead set against tobacco. I’m for the use of alcohol in moderation. I’m not a tea totaller. As I’ve said in this House before, I’ve been known to have a shandy on a hot day and I’ve been known to have a wobbly boot.
Mr Wood: In that pub over the road.
Dr BURNS: Possibly. Social situations are very important, but the fact of the matter is that people, for whatever reason, in increasing numbers are taking up drug use, whether it’s tobacco use – particularly amongst young women – or some of the figures that we’ve heard about here today, drug use among young people in the Northern Territory – I’m a believer in Bridie O’Reilly’s research. It was commissioned by a very august body, by a recognised institute in research that has some pretty heavy hitters in it. It just amuses me – it always has amused me that the member for Katherine used to get hysterical about Bridie O’Reilly’s work. I’m a supporter of Bridie O’Reilly because I think the work she’s done is right.
We all know anecdotally that amphetamine use has been growing here in the Territory steadily over a long time. We know that intravenous drug use amongst young people has been growing a long time and that’s an alarming statistic. I was dismayed on the way home from work sometimes on Drive Time, I used to hear the former Treasurer get hysterical about Bridie O’Reilly. In fact, the former government wouldn’t endorse the grant that she was getting from the Commonwealth government. They didn’t even want the Commonwealth to give her money because they didn’t want to hear the story that she had to tell. She is a woman of courage and a scientist of repute. It made me angry, the way that she was treated by the former government. I know the former Health Minister didn’t address this issue.
It comes down to harm reduction. Okay, in an ideal world, our young people would not be taking drugs. Unfortunately, they do. It comes back to harm reduction and harm minimisation, a strategy that worked so well for Australia in the AIDS epidemic. The fact of the matter is it is a public health measure to have needle exchange; it is a very important public health measure, and I support it.
Mr Elferink: It’s also a very mixed message.
Dr BURNS: Well, it may be but the fact of the matter is that basically it is supporting people to try and get through their problem. It appears to me that a lot of the ordinary drug users in their drug use career - and you might have an idea about this, member for Macdonnell - they might take drugs for a specific time during their lives and usually when they get to about 30 or so - we are talking about heroin and other drugs here, and morphine - they decide for whatever reason, they’ve got a family, that they’ll give it away. The whole thing is to try and support them through that.
That brings me to methadone. I was a bit dismayed to hear the edge in the member for Drysdale’s voice about methadone because he seemed to indicate to me, in former sittings, that your side of the House was prepared to shift ground on this issue. Methadone treatment is a well recognised treatment. No one is saying it’s the be all and end all of drug treatment, but it should be available as a support to help people get through this period I just mentioned. I know some people in my own life, personal friends, who are now doing quite well in life and methadone helped them. It helped them through a very bad period in their lives and it helped to bring some consistency in their lives.
Dr Lim: How many methadone clinics did you check out? Your own. Your own. How many of those clinics did you check out?
Mr Ah Kit: Dr who?
Dr Lim: How many methadone clinics did you check out?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: That brings us back to supply. I am going to finish very soon.
Mr Kiely: You wouldn’t have a clue.
Dr Lim: Wouldn’t have a clue? I would be the one that does know a lot about it.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: The essence of what the minister for Justice was talking about with supply. The member for Drysdale talked about kava and how it was introduced by well meaning missionaries as a sort of harm reduction, harm minimisation strategy. Kava worked well. I have done research in kava as well, as you might be aware. It worked quite well for a considerable time
It worked quite well for a considerable time, but what was its downfall? The profit makers came in. The dealers came in. It ballooned out to a $10m industry in East Arnhem. It is the same with the other drugs, whether it be cannabis or morphine or amphetamine. It is the dealers who come in. They are the ones who should be targeted. I truly believe that the minister’s statement was right.
Of course, coming back to what the member for Nelson said, that end of the equation is not the be all and end all, but we can do a lot through the supply end of the equation. I have no hesitation in supporting measures that will reduce the supply of these drugs in our community.
I did have a lot more to say, but I’ve run out of time. I apologise. I haven’t really prepared what I have said today, but what I have said comes from the heart. It is what I believe.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, this has been a very interesting debate. I thank all the members for their contributions, with perhaps the exception of the Leader of the Opposition. It has been very interesting in the sense that it has given a good indication of not only the issues that are involved in what is a complex problem, but also of the various attitudes around the House and amongst the opposition in particular about the measures we have put forward not only now, but in the election before we got down to the detail of some of the initiatives that we are bringing forward.
I will start with the Leader of the Opposition. I must admit I was absolutely stunned by some of the assertions he made. If you could read out of his lips the opposition policy or position on drug issues in the Northern Territory, it would go along these lines: First of all, pretend that there is no problem in the face of overwhelming evidence both at the formal level of research and the informal level of what is known throughout the community here in the Northern Territory.
I really wonder whether the Leader of the Opposition gets out much because he would only need to go doorknocking around his electorate or to talk to any of the people who are involved in these issues - whether it is the social services that deal with addicted people or whether it’s the police who look at the patterns of this sort of activity in our community - he would know - talking to any of those people; it would take him less than a week to find out - how extensive this problem is and how urgent the search for solutions is also becoming.
For the CLP, through its leader, to be saying that we can still deny that there’s a problem out there is absolutely beyond belief. He deserves censure for his continual denial of this problem over the last few years.
The existence of these problems is common knowledge around our communities. Even in the last few months of my contact with people around the Northern Territory, I have not only heard about the drug problems here from people like taxi drivers or from people who get out around the city of Darwin, I have heard it from the people who live in the town of Alice Springs, I’ve heard it from people in the remote communities that we visited in recent times. As an example, Mutitjulu and Kintore communities where there is increasing concern by the senior members of those communities about the degree of intrusion of drugs into those remote communities. This isn’t just an urban problem; it is also a remote area problem.
If you could look at a secondary position that we have heard from the opposition today, which is to say: ‘Well, we don’t think there is a problem, but if it’s a problem it’s such a difficult and complex thing that you can’t possibly do anything about it’. That pretty well sums up the contribution of the member for Drysdale in that he spent near on 20 minutes on his feet telling us that there are 150 things that you can’t do anything about because they’re all too difficult. ‘We know this is out there, there are all sorts of other things that you should be working on instead’. Well, we don’t accept that. We’ve got a three-point plan, not a one-point plan. What we’ve been talking about in the last few days in the sittings with the introduction of this legislation is largely the enforcement arm of our three-point plan.
I can assure the member for Nelson that you’ll be getting a lot more than a piece of legislation from this government. You will be getting a multi-faceted and a very complex response to what is a complex problem. I accept his assertions entirely that we have to look very broadly across this issue if we are going to make any inroads on it. I think that the announcement we made earlier on about the creation of the Office of Crime Prevention is specifically to take that sort of action where we can put the various initiatives that this government is going to take in combating crime into a coherent picture across the various sections of government.
The Office of Crime Prevention will have the job of measuring the impact that the legislation makes alongside the impact that the recommendations that the drugs task force will make, and the Parliamentary Committee on Substance Abuse will make, along with things like our school programs, our recreational programs. By multifaceted we mean whole-of-government; we mean a coordinated approach that the Office of Crime Prevention will be helping us to implement as we get these various elements in place.
The objections that were being raised by the Leader of the Opposition and, to some extent, the members for Goyder and Macdonnell, I accept that. I accept that this is a complex problem and we are going to have to do a lot more than just purely put in the punitive enforcement aspects that are embodied in the legislation that we have before the House to be debated in the next sittings.
I would ask members to take the initiatives that we are putting forward in that context. We are building up a range of responses to what we see as being one of the key areas of crime prevention that we need to be working on. We have no doubt, despite what the member for Drysdale said, that we have a mandate to do this. We went out very clearly to the electorate. We went out clearly and explained the elements of our three point plan on drugs and our six point plan on crime and the electorate, in the response they gave to our candidates, clearly indicated that they found our proposals acceptable to them.
What you can say is this is a very good example of why, in our democratic system, we have opposition parties and that, from time to time, the government changes between the two parties. The CLP had run out of energy on law and order issues. It is inevitable, if a government stays in power for a long period of time, that the vitality, the energy, the urgency goes out of their governance. In this case, there could not be a greater contrast to the attitudes that we have seen today on the other side of the House and the attitudes that we have been expressing from this new government. The least you can say about this is there is going to be a comprehensive and energetic attack on these problems on our community. We want to not only attempt to fix it, we want to fix it to whatever degree that we can accomplish through these initiatives.
I must deal with the assertions by the Leader of the Opposition about if we think there is 50% of property crime coming from drug use, therefore we can expect to get 50% off the property crime figures. What a silly assertion! Really, even speakers on his own side of the House rebutted that silly, simplistic position he was taking. In framing our crime prevention policies, we have accepted the fact that crime has very complex antecedents. There are complex relationships between the various contributing factors to someone taking up some criminal behaviour, whether that is a break in to a house or whether it is to go and buy an illicit drug.
These issues and inter-relationships are very complex, so to be putting any sort of figure, in terms of an impact of a particular initiative that you take in crime prevention, is very silly whether you are a politician or whether you are a policeman or whether you are an academic.
All we can say is that we will be taking account of a raft of contributing factors to this type of behaviour in our community. We will deal with them in a multifaceted way. We will put enough weight into the campaign that we intend to wage against drug use in our community to the point where the combination of the initiatives we are going to launch will have a discernible impact on the pattern of illegal activity, whether it is the trading of drugs, whether it is the breaking into houses to gain the means of getting hold of drugs on the part of users. All of that has been taken into account in the broad approach that we are taking to this problem.
I would like to finish my remarks in terms of these initiatives by saying - along the lines that the member for Nelson took when he contributed to this debate - that we do want to end up, while starting at the point of enforcement legislation to enforce against the supply of drugs into our community, we want this whole process, this roll out of our initiatives, to end up in the classrooms, to end up on the sports fields, to end up in intervention at individual level with people who are either at risk of taking up high level drug use or kids who are being approached by these people in the street for the sake of building up their clientele, we want to be there. We want to have some programs that are going to operate across the full spectrum of this problem and how it generates into our community.
I can give an absolute undertaking that that breadth will be in our approach to this problem. It has never been there in the past and I would again like to say that when the Leader of the Opposition holds up the statistics that the Police Commissioner put on the public record earlier this week, he neglected to mention one thing that that data series shows beyond doubt, and that is that the repeal of mandatory sentencing had absolutely no discernible effect on breaks and entries in Darwin and Palmerston.
That is yet another piece of evidence that says that relying on such a simplistic strategy as mandatory sentencing was doomed to failure. The police said it was doomed to failure. It has been proven to be a failure. We are not going to fall for that trap. We are not going to go out there with just one shot in the locker. We’re going to build up a complex response on the part of government to what is a complex set of problems.
We expect to get results. We very much look forward to seeing bipartisan support for the measures that we’re putting into place. We’ll be listening to the detail of the debates as we go through introducing these various measures, not only the legislation against drug dealing but also the follow up action into the parliament on the Drug Task Force and what comes out of the Parliamentary Committee. This will gradually build up the layers of what we need to be doing as a parliament, as the leadership of our community to try and get these problems under control and build a better future for the next few generations coming through.
With those remarks, Madam Speaker, I will conclude the debate. I thank all members for their contributions.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
Mr STIRLING (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to advise the House of the wonderful successes of the children and teachers at Anula Primary School at the 2002 41st North Australian Eisteddfod conducted at the Darwin Entertainment Centre.
A significant and increasing number of Darwin and Palmerston schools encourage students to enter the Eisteddfod. Schools throughout the Top End are similarly motivated to contribute, to receive feedback, to build confidence and to have the chance to earn accolades. These are strong motivational factors to schools and their students.
This is a wonderful event. It is a premier event and competition is of a high standard. Students are involved in presenting as members of groups, in solo instrumental performance and so on. The Eisteddfod reminds me of the fact that a complete education includes cultural appreciation. In an original form, the Eisteddfod was an annual gathering of Welsh bards. Globally, regionally and locally, it is defined as a gathering for competition in music and other performing arts. To be able to participate in a program of this nature develops within students an appreciation for artistic and expressive elements of social development. It builds confidence and gives them an opportunity to develop skills in expression and communication that will forever stand them in good stead.
The Eisteddfod offers a multitude of benefits to our community. It provides performers with the chance to go public and build self-confidence. It offers the Territory a showcase for the viewing and appreciation of Territory talent. It provides performers from different fields and children from different schools with the chance to see, hear and learn from and to appreciate each other’s contribution. It helps performers and artists of all ages and all disciplines – dance, song, musical instrumentation and speech – to gain the advantages associated with public performance. It provides opportunity for self and comparative insight in the arts and cultural areas. It enables those who are performing to be offered quality feedback through formal adjudication, audience applause and so on.
It builds confidence and communication skills in young people which will stand with them through all the days of their lives. It provides the opportunity for healthy competition in a positive, embracing and warm environment. Audiences are supportive, adjudication professionally and positively encouraging; the whole situation is very constructive. It brings children of all ages and cultures together in a context which fosters appreciation and enhances goodwill and understanding.
On Monday 13 May this year, the Anula recorder group was awarded a Highly Commended with a score of 85% in the Recorder Group Primary Year 3 and Under section. This was only two points behind first place which went to Moil School. I have met quite a number of children who make up the Anula School Recorder group, and I am honoured to be able to place their names in Hansard as an historical record of their wonderful achievement. They are: Jackson Clark, Douglas Crane, Elaina Kirby, Jessica Dally, Gina Harold, Sean Iji, Melissa Tan, Maddison Fletcher, Casey Glennon, Vaanathy Kandiah, Claire Kiely, Tiffany Kindell. Jamie Miller, Chloe O’Doherty, Gabriella Parker, Caitlin Tiernan and Camilla Gonzales-Quintiero.
In the Recorder Trio 8 and Under section: Jessica Bailey, Gina Harold and Melissa Tan were the winners with a score of 87%. I am sure the whole school community will be delighted with this news and will wish to congratulate these students for their wonderful effort. I also congratulate Ms Robyn Ferguson for encouraging and building the children’s spirit which resulted in both awards. Considering the school hasn’t been in the Eisteddfod for at least 10 years and the children only spent the past 12 months in practice, the result has been remarkable.
Mr Deputy Speaker, as a parent of one of the children who participated in the Anula School Recorder Group, I would also like to give my personal thanks to Ms Ferguson for the generous giving of her time and the valuable life experiences she has provided not only for my own daughter, but for the children of all other parents as well.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise tonight to raise the issue of the needs of women and electorate offices in the Northern Territory.
As I see it, my electorate office is not my office. I occupy it only for the duration of my term. It in fact is an office that belongs to the taxpayers and, accordingly, an office that should be frequented by members of the community. Having said that, I am aware some elected members allow community groups to use their conference rooms - those who have them - and I certainly encourage community groups in the electorate of Araluen to come in to use my conference room. In fact, I suspect the use of conference rooms has been the main function of electorate offices for the community over many years.
For my own part, I would like to see all members extend the use of their electorate offices, or at least pause to consider whether their office really is available in every sense to members of their community. In particular, I wonder whether people’s electorate offices are friendly to women, and when I say that I am referring to both sides of politics. In particular, at my own electorate office of Araluen, I have introduced some new things which may be of interest to members.
The first observation I make, before outlining the measures I’ve introduced, is the reality is most of our electorate officers are women. My electorate officer, Tracey Wise, has two children under four, and as we all know, child care is not always as easy to get as it should be. From the outset of her employment, I made it very clear that she was welcome to bring her children into my electorate office in the event that she could not obtain child care. It worked so well and was so easy that her four year old, William, comes into my office about two or three times a week after pre-school. He sits in the conference room, which is generally rarely used during business hours. In fact, to accommodate young William, I brought a spare television from home and put it in the conference room, and accordingly he sits there quietly and patiently in the afternoons when he is in my office.
When we were getting established in the electorate office, Tracey and I wanted to make and ensure that the office was open and accessible. We also wanted to ensure that women with young children could feel welcome. In addition, we wanted to create an area for children to occupy themselves when mothers were calling in to see the local member of parliament. We therefore purchased a children’s set of tables and chairs, and some toys and books and we created what we call Kids Corner. We have been given more toys and more books since its creation, and it is an area set aside in our waiting/reception area, and it is invariably used. It is a sensible service to provide to members of the community and in particular women coming to see their local member of parliament.
I also introduced an area for breast feeding in my electorate office. In Alice Springs in the CBD where my office is based, there are very few places for mothers to breast feed. As a result, I determined that it was sensible to advertise the fact that women could feel free to come into my office and use a spare room for breast feeding and changing their babies. I’ve advertised this in a number of newsletters including my own, and fliers have been sent to various women’s groups around Alice Springs.
None of the matters I’ve outlined seem particularly remarkable to me but, increasingly, I have been told that in fact the initiatives I have introduced are quite remarkable. Having seen members’ electorate offices on both sides of politics, I have formed the view that my electorate office is quite different from many, although not quite all. The purpose of raising these matters tonight is to alert all of my parliamentary colleagues to this issue. It’s not about politics, it’s about serving the people of the Territory well, and in particular women. So I’d issue the invitation to all of my colleagues to ensure that their electorate office really is available to all members of the community and in particular that members pay attention to the needs of young women with children.
I might say in closing, Mr Deputy Speaker, that my wonderful electorate officer Tracey Wise is leaving at the end of June for family reasons. She is going back to Queensland and I wish Tracy, her husband Dave and her two children, Jackson and William, every success.
So together, we stumbled through. We rose to the challenge and I’m very proud to say that my electorate office is up and running and that’s in no small part as a result of the efforts of my Electorate Officer Tracey Wise.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Mr Deputy Speaker, everyone in this House has some association with junior sports either as patron or as a sponsor in some way. I am very pleased to be the Patron of the Central Australia Junior Soccer Association and this year they have started their 2002 season and they have 400 registered players ranging from three and a half to 16. That’s right, Mr Deputy Speaker, three and a half and you can just see from this photo how gorgeous it is to see these three and a half year olds running around so enthusiastically playing. You have to go down and see them to believe it; that these little tackers just enjoy themselves so much with their introduction to soccer. And what a way for soccer in Alice Springs to be promoted, that they start them so young, care for them so that they will eventually go into the senior league.
The committee of the Central Australian Community Soccer Association are a tremendous bunch of people. They give so much of their time in a voluntary capacity to the young people, and Sunday morning at Blatherskite Park, they’re all in their shiny uniforms, the goalie in his special uniform. They are there all day playing and it’s just a great thing to see. This year they’ll be hosting the Northern Territory Championships from 8-10 June and this is a really great occasion for them. They will have teams competing in all age groups, seeing the championships are in their home town with older junior girls competing in the senior women’s team.
Not only will the competition be held for 14 year old girls, but there will also be 13, 14, 15 and 16 year age groups and senior women’s and men’s games. Teams have been invited to attend from Darwin, Katherine, Gove, Borroloola and they’ve all indicated they will be sending teams in most of the age groups. There may be a team from Tennant Creek, as they are also interested in going to Alice Springs for the 2002 Championships. Last year, a team from Borroloola came down - and there is a gentleman in Borroloola who is just so great at promoting and fostering the young players from that town.
The 12 year championships will be held in Borroloola from 22-24 and the 11 year championships will be held in Katherine on 3-5 August. The Central Australian Junior Soccer Association will be sending two teams for the 11 and 12 year old age group to compete in South Australian Zone Championships following an invitation and sanction by the Northern Territory Soccer Federation.
These games are played at the same time the championships are being held in Alice Springs. So on their return, the 12 year old team will travel later in June and the 11 year old later in August to compete in the Northern Territory championships. It is all go down there for junior soccer. Lots of support, lots of families involved. You see so many parents down there on Sunday morning, it is great. Their president, Barb Glover, is an exceptional lady in the way she handles that association. She seems to generate people’s enthusiasm to come along and help her. I certainly wish them all the best for that.
I started with that positive talk about junior soccer because the next story is about a group of young footballers, the under 16 team from Alice Springs that travelled to Darwin just a couple of weeks ago to participate in the Australian Rules Under 16 Carnival for secondary schools. They had Danny Measures - and many people will know the Measures family. He is a great dad; he volunteered as coach. Ian Taylor was manager and Cal Dean, who is now retired, who gives his heart to the game in the Centre, also accompanied them.
Mr Deputy Speaker, each player contributed $500 towards the cost of getting them from Alice Springs to Darwin and the Central Australian Football League contributed $2000. I say this because it is difficult for teams in the Territory to travel so far. It is a great cost. What made it even harder for this team is that on the night they were travelling, the air flight was delayed for six hours and they eventually arrived in Darwin at 1.30 am. You can imagine these people having this group of kids at the Alice Springs Airport waiting, waiting, waiting for their plane to go.
So when they did get there, how did they perform? Well, first they defeated Sanderson High School, then they accounted for Elliott, Palmerston were the next to go down, the Katherine side was then beaten, next they took on St John’s who are a bit of traditional rival in the competition and in the grand final they beat Dripstone High. So they won every game they played. Fantastic!
What was the result of it? They did not get the trophy. And this is what is making people so very cross in Alice Springs. They were not awarded the trophy. Why? Because they had sent up a composite team of young players from a number of high schools. They did not have a team from one particular junior school in Alice Springs or another team from the bush schools. They had a composite team. Now, you can understand why they had a composite team. It is the cost, it is the distance, it is getting volunteers, it is getting billets when you get there. There are many reasons.
But suddenly they are in this competition which they win outright and are told by this ridiculous School Sports Council that we seem to have that they are not eligible. They are not eligible for the trophy. Now, what sort of message is that sending to these young under 16 year olds? Is that any sort of encouragement for them to continue to play football? What message are they getting from these adults who run this football carnival? Winning does not count?
Ms Lawrie: They need the Braham Trophy.
Mrs BRAHAM: Well, I will tell you what: they should have won this trophy. I am asking the Minister for Sport and Recreation to look in to this matter. They deserve this trophy. To send a team so far, to win every game they play and then be told by these bureaucrats: ‘No, you are a composite team so you do not qualify to win the school trophy,’ is the pettiest decision I have ever heard of. I cannot understand how we allow these rules to be made that disadvantage and discriminate against teams who come from so far away.
Might I add, Mr Deputy Speaker, we have had much publicity in the papers from this: No prize for the winners and then you see all these great kids there. Anger is growing; No logic in NT school decision. We all know it is unfair and unreasonable. So I ask the Minister for Sport and Recreation to have a look at that, to see if he can rectify it and change the rules.
I also ask the Minister for Education if he would look at the Schools Sports Council. I believe there are some people there who have been there too long, who are making these decisions unilaterally without involving the schools concerned. They have to get rid of the mentality that they have; they have to understand that sport is about participation, rewarding good performance, not saying to kids: ‘Here’s a slap in the face. Although you won, you don’t deserve the trophy’.
I am quite incensed that this has happened because these kids are really great sportsmen and some of them will grow up to be great sportsmen with a great future. So I urge the Minister for Sport and Recreation and the Minister for Education to address this problem and come back to us and say: ‘This was unfair. Give the kids the trophy’.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise tonight to pay tribute to the efforts of Manunda Terrace Primary School which this year celebrated Anzac Day in a very wonderful and special Assembly held on 23 April, a couple of days before Anzac Day itself.
It was my great pleasure to attend this Assembly at Manunda Terrace Primary School and to witness the extraordinary efforts that the teachers and the students had gone to, to celebrate Anzac Day and to make Anzac Day a day that, for many Australian adults, is incredibly meaningful, to give it some meaning for the future leaders in our society, the children attending our schools. They sang songs, they did a re-enactment of the Aeroplane Dance that is famous amongst some of our indigenous Territorians. We heard a story from a member of the Royal Australian Navy, Warrant Officer Lawrie, about Anzac Day and just what meaning it had to the service personnel of Australia.
It truly was a wonderful and very moving morning. The Assembly went on for quite some time. But watching the children, they were never restless; they never lost interest. It was something that touched they hearts. The dramatisation, the song, the story telling was all delivered in a way that was engaging for these young students at Manunda Terrace Primary. So I would like to commend the Principal, Ron Abbott, and the staff and the students for the efforts they went to give true meaning to Anzac Day to a very young generation of Australians.
I make this adjournment speech about Anzac Day with great sadness as well. I discovered that Australia’s last Anzac, Alec Campbell, the Tasweigian, died at the age of 103 today. It is a very sad occasion for Australia. We’ve lost our last Anzac. The Anzacs, to me, helped form the strength of what Australia is and what Australians are. They went into the unknown. They went with a great deal of trust and faith in their hearts, but they went into an impossible and unenviable, tragic wartime disaster. They dug in and they fought, and they fought beyond any measure of expectation. Their successes were beyond belief for many of the strategists who saw the situation that those troops were in.
They fought and sustained themselves on the strength of mateship, and the individual tales of mateship that came out of the Anzacs at Gallipoli are truly phenomenal. I pray and I hope that as Australians, we continue to tell the stories to the young generations of the Anzacs, why they fought, why the battle had particular meaning to Australia and why we honour the Anzacs and their courageous efforts in World War I. My heart goes out to the family of Alec Campbell. He was a tremendous man, a great supporter of Labor and a man who devoted his life to keeping the knowledge and the spirit of the Anzacs alive, and it is with sadness that we note his passing today.
Also, tragically, it appears that my electorate is losing a special person in our community. Ray Gigg is a person who has been wheelchair bound for some time now. He is a popular and regular fixture at the Karama Shopping Centre. Ray wheels around the place and always has some witticisms to impart; he has a smile on his face. He knows so many people in our community of Karama. He is highly regarded and well liked by so many people within our community. It is with sadness that I know that Ray has a terminal illness, and indeed his days with us appear to be fading fast. So I extend my prayers and best wishes to Ray and his family at this difficult time.
Finally, on a happier note, I would like to say that it is often the individual energy and commitment that helps to weave and create the fabric of a community. I want to pay tribute to a parent at Holy Family School, Sabina Horvath, who has dedicated years to running the annual Holy Family School fete. That fete is a terrific fete, and I encourage all people to get down there on Saturday 25 May and have a fantastic and very affordable time, and in some measure contribute to the fundraising efforts of the school that is very community minded. To Sabina Horvath and the Parents and Friends Committee of Holy Family school, I pay tribute to your efforts. I look forward to participating on the day at the Chocolate Wheel in a small token of effort that I can make to contribute to that school community who do a terrific job.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise tonight to add my words of support to Madam Speaker in her statements in relation to the decision taken about the young footballers who competed in the competition recently and were, in fact, deprived of the prize rightfully earned for basically a technical infringement - or not even an infringement; a technical breach of the rules.
They were thrown together as a disparate team, they came together, fought the good fight, went over the top, so to speak, beat team after team, won the competition only to be told that because they didn’t qualify on paper, they couldn’t have the prize.
I urge the minister for Education, whose department it was that organised this competition, to enquire into this issue and to obtain a result for these young fellows who, at the end of the day, triumphed despite the odds that were stacked against them. They didn’t have much time to train together. They had to raise $500 a head as I understand it, and had to come together. The young fellows involved, I think, bear mentioning: Nelson Kenny, Russell O’Keefe, Dan Gorringe, Braydon Buckley, Ken Morton, Isaac McLean, Henry Peckham, Richard Watts, Michael McDonald, Darcy Brooke, Dan Measures, Luke Adams, Toby Bens, Patrick Ah Kit, Luke Ross, Daniel Molloy, Darren Porter, Matt Campbell, Nathan Flanigan, Eric Campbell, Ben Kenny, Ivan Presley and Eric Williams.
I notice the Ah Kit name in there, and I wouldn’t be at all surprised if there was some sort of relation to the minister for Community Development. I would urge the minister for Community Development, no less, to take an active interest in relation to this matter because I think it is an important one. I have some newspaper articles, one from the Centralian Advocate, the other from the Alice Springs News of the 14 and 15 of May respectively. I seek leave, Mr Deputy Speaker, to table those documents, also for the purposes of Hansard as those names appear.
Leave granted.
Mr ELFERINK: On the subject of football, I rise tonight to speak of the Hermannsburg Football Carnival that went ahead despite of the minister’s decision not to throw any money at it, or not to support the people of Hermannsburg’s football carnival over the Bangtail Muster weekend, which was Friday 3 May through to Monday 6 May.
Several teams turned up; one from Ali Curung, no less, which was a long way away. It has been a very, very long time since Ali Curung had turned up to a football carnival in Hermannsburg. Indeed, it’s a trip of some 500 km, but nevertheless they turned up and did their bit. I have to say that of the days that I spent there, I thoroughly enjoyed the competition that I saw. Indeed, I mentioned this the other day in the Chamber, and I would urge members to look up my web site, on which there are several photographs – in fact, some 20 or so photographs of the sports day involved. You get an impression from those photographs of the level of athleticism that has been demonstrated at Ntaria by all concerned including the women’s basketball, the softball, and of course, the football itself which was the highlight.
The final was ultimately played between the teams from Utju, more commonly known to the rest of us as Areyonga, and Ntaria, or basically the Western Arrernte team. I have to say that is was looking like an absolute whitewash at one stage. However, Utju fought back passionately. Unfortunately, they were to go down at the final whistle.
Nevertheless, the game was played in good spirit; there was very little strife. I noticed that the police made the effort to put in an good amount of work to make sure that the carnival ran smoothly, but to the credit of the people there, very little grog – in fact, I wasn’t aware of any grog whatsoever. The place was great. I was there until, I think, about 8 pm or 9 pm on the Monday, and I was fortunate enough to be able to offer a little bit of support to the local football team out of my own pocket as well as dish out some of the trophies that I’d bought for the evening.
These sorts of competitions in the bush are one of the few highlights that people who live out there can avail themselves of. I think it is incumbent on a government to support these things in a minor way. It’s irritating to me that on the very same day that the Minister for Community Development wrote a letter and said: ‘No, you can’t have a few thousand dollars to run a football carnival’, a press release goes from the minister’s desk out to the people of the Northern Territory saying: ‘I’m going to spend $1.25m on the Marrara Sports Stadium’ and then only a short time later doubles that amount - doubles that amount to the abandonment of these small carnivals in the bush. These carnivals don’t cost a lot to throw together. The cost of putting these things together is largely borne by the participants and the communities themselves. It is not an enormous ask to support some of these competitions and to support some of these communities in what is an otherwise difficult environment for them. These communities don’t operate on huge budgets. Indeed, a $1.25m amount could run several communities for quite some time. So it is frustrating to deal with this and to see this sort of thing occurring. I hope it doesn’t keep occurring, that the government – despite its new windfalls - continues to pull in the belt where it’s not necessary to do; where it is absolutely not necessary to do so. We’re starting to see spending in Darwin which is not commensurate with the rest of the population.
I thank members for their attention this evening, and I do want to hark back – I know it’s not strictly within the rules but I’m sure that members will grant me some latitude in relation to this. I picked up on the member for Johnston earlier and his comments in relation to younger people being the ones who are drug users as a general rule. I’ve taken the time – or I should say the library has taken the time …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. I didn’t say that at all.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Withdraw that comment, member for Macdonnell.
Dr BURNS: If the member for Macdonnell would like to discuss the matter further with me, I am happy to do so after he consults with Hansard where he can see what I actually said.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Macdonnell, can you substantiate your allegations?
Mr ELFERINK: Well, without having the Hansard published, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am not in a position to substantiate. However, I will say this - perhaps I will rephrase it. The member for Johnston said that as a general rule, drug users tend to be the younger part of the community’.
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I did not say that all. What I said was that drug use often starts in youth. That was the point I was making. I did not try to ascertain or report the magnitude of drug use through life.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Macdonnell, might I suggest that you substantiate your comments and then reincorporate them in some way in a later speech.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Deputy Speaker, I am actually not disagreeing with him and I will accept exactly what he says there, it often starts in youth. The statistics I was about to lay on this table actually accord with and agree exactly with the comments of the member for Johnston. There is no attempt to put words in his mouth. And I thought that for his elucidation and for future reference, if I lay these statistics on the table, it would be useful for him to make his points. That’s all I was going to do. But unfortunately he is so obsessed with disagreeing with absolutely everything anybody ever says that does not agree with him, that he does not even realise that there was nothing in it. Christ! I mean, golly - I withdraw that.
Dr BURNS: A point of order!
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, I have withdrawn it. I mean, it is infuriating, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am actually trying to do the guy a service and he cannot even have the grace, does not even have within himself the grace, to listen to what people have to say before he climbs up on his soap box complaining bitterly about all sorts things.
It really is dismaying, Mr Deputy Speaker. The member for Johnston seems to think that it his job, that his sole reason for existing in life is to dispute what this side of the House has to say. What a limited existence. What a puerile reason for drawing your next breath. I cannot believe that that is the reason he exists. He gets out of bed in the morning and he thinks, ‘What are the CLP going to say today. They are all a pack of bastards. I’ll tell you what …
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Macdonnell!
Mr ELFERINK: They’re all a pack of so and so’s, and I’ll tell what I’m going to do …
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Did I mention about unparliamentary language, member for Macdonnell?
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Deputy Speaker, absolutely, and with your vast experience in the area of unparliamentary language, I will take guidance from you and I withdraw the ‘b’ word.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am glad that you defer to my greater knowledge on the subject.
Mr ELFERINK: I am just fascinated. All I really wanted to do, honestly - dib, dib, dib; dob, dob, dob - was going to do was lay these statistics on the table.
Dr Burns: Well, why can’t we discuss it over a beer? - it is 8.30 - instead of trying …
Mr ELFERINK: Actually that is an interesting interjection. Last night I invited the member for Johnston to discuss his doctoral thesis with me and you know what his answer was? ‘Yes’. I tried last night; you were not interested. I am trying to build communication. It is like piddling into the wind. Well …
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Macdonnell.
Mr ELFERINK: No, I won’t withdraw it.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Macdonnell.
Mr ELFERINK: I would like to take some advice as to whether that is unparliamentary.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would suggest that if the term ‘sloth’ is unparliamentary, then the term ‘piddle’ would also be.
Dr Lim: Piddling means small.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Are you challenging the Chair, member for Macdonnell?
Mr ELFERINK: Well …
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will take some advice and we will see about this. Member for Macdonnell, you are to withdraw that comment.
Mr ELFERINK: I will withdraw it, Mr Deputy Speaker. I seek leave to lay these statistics on the table for the elucidation for the member for Johnston.
Leave granted.
Mr ELFERINK: Thank God for that.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
MINISTERIAL REPORTS
Alice in 10 Indigenous Employment Challenge
Alice in 10 Indigenous Employment Challenge
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I want to report to the House on the Alice in 10 Indigenous Employment Challenge. Last week I addressed a gathering of Alice Springs based business leaders and indigenous leaders. They accepted an invitation from the Office for Central Australia and the Alice in 10 Quality of Life Sub- Committee on Indigenous Employment to discuss the major challenge facing Alice Springs: the challenge of getting more indigenous people employed in the non-government sector in town. The Alice in 10 subcommittee, led by Strachy and Mandy Ahmatt of the Tangentyere Job Shop, presented a comprehensive strategy that has been driven and developed by the Alice Springs community to promote these improvements. Over 100 people have been involved in the development of the strategy.
So, what is the challenge? Simply it is to improve the indigenous employment situation in Alice Springs by 100% in two years, and then successively by 50% each year after that. At the gathering, Tony Quatermass of Aurora Hotels indicated that his company had already adopted a similar challenge and had exceeded its target. He pointed out that challenges need countdowns. His company has set a target to be achieved by 2000 and exceeded it, so they set another challenge for December 2002 and were already in front by May 2002.
It was pointed out that the challenge can be taken up by everyone. Businesses that might once have thought that employing indigenous people was just too hard were enthusiastically putting up their hands to say they recognised both the benefits to their business and the social benefits to the community of Alice Springs of improving their indigenous staffing levels.
Many private sector operators recognised the competitive advantage to their business of having local indigenous people on staff. They acknowledged the spin-off advantage of capturing the local market by presenting their product using the marketing tool of local employment. Strachy pointed out that this challenge will succeed if it manages to secure effective partnerships. He also pointed out - and I want to emphasise - that this is not a government driven initiative; this is an initiative of the local community. This program is driven by the enthusiastic and committed leaders of Alice Springs who recognise that improving the quality of life is a shared responsibility of all members of the community, and that people with a shared vision working together are more powerful than individuals or individual agencies. A key focus of this strategy is the need for a holistic approach to providing support and the strong message that all sectors of the community have a role to play in addressing the issue.
A clear timeline has been established by the committee for development and marketing of the strategy. The strategy will be completed and presented to government for endorsement at the end of next month. A key element of the strategy is a central agency, Footprints Forward, that will make it easier and more affordable for business to employ indigenous people and provide mentoring support for employees to maintain employment.
My government vigorously supports this sort of initiative. We will support the community in achieving their collective challenge. We already provide support to the work of the Alice in 10 committee including the allocation of a full time project officer to provide executive support to the Quality of Life project. The Commonwealth government also has a role to play and has indicated its support. Also members of the business community in Alice Springs have expressed an interest in contributing funds. This then will represent a true partnership between the Commonwealth and Territory governments and the community of Alice Springs.
This is what partnerships are about: working together, working smarter, working from a local base, relying not on others but on the strength of the local community, building bridges and establishing effective lines of communication. These are the ingredients of a successful local action program. My task at the gathering last week was to call on the assembled leaders to commit to playing a role as ambassadors for the challenge. This challenge must be ratified, it must be endorsed. It has to become the task not of the few, but of the large majority of organisations and businesses in Alice Springs. These leaders of business and industry are key to the success of the strategy and were asked to lend their names to the project, to get out and speak to their colleagues, partners, competitors and associates and lay down the challenge.
There are an increasing number of Aboriginal people in Central Australia. As of this year, Aboriginal people make up just on 50% of the total population of the Centre. Increasingly, the school aged population is becoming predominately Aboriginal. As our efforts in the field of education show improved results, large numbers of Aboriginal students will emerge from our school system. More and more of them must be absorbed into our labour market. The challenge is not just something that would be nice to do. It is essential that the challenge is met. To not do so is to imperil the social harmony and well being of the Alice Springs community.
I was wonderfully impressed by the enthusiasm of the assembled leaders, and I feel confident that a process is underway in Alice Springs that will lead to significantly improved indigenous employment outcomes in the next seven years. By then Alice in 10 will be 10 years old, and we will be able to judge just what sort of community the people of Alice Springs have been able to create for themselves and for their children. I am confident that it will be a bright and positive one, based on the belief and aspiration that we all share: that everyone has a right to a good job.
I would like to offer my congratulations to all involved.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I rise to also add my congratulations to this initiative. It is an initiative which is not new, it has been done before in various shapes and forms in the Central Australian region with varying degrees of success. I always support any initiative which is going to create employment, whether it be for indigenous people or otherwise, and this instance it does concentrate on indigenous people in Alice Springs. I have no qualms or problems with that and I congratulate the people on their initiative in relation to this.
The non-government sector, of course, is the real acid test in terms of employment because the non-government sector has the economic imperative driving it whereas many other employment programs have other drivers behind them. When people start succeeding in the non-government sector, then you start to see a real expression of the success of their ability to operate in the labour market.
I also hope that this extends into the bush. One of the things that I commented on last night during the adjournment debate was some native title issues which have recently been dealt with in Alice Springs. I hope that the resolution of those native title issues comes quickly so that people are able to buy their own homes in Alice Springs. But to buy their own homes, they are going to need jobs. I would also like to see these jobs extend into the rest of Central Australia. Native title does cover pastoral leases in Central Australia and of course there is inalienable freehold with its own inherent problems in relation to how it is able to create wealth and jobs for people who live in those communities. I have a vision that one day jobs will be abundant; we will be importing people left, right and centre to fill the jobs in Central Australia. This is a step in the right direction. I hope to see that the government does continue its support and even ramp up its support not so much in dollar terms, but support in other fashions.
Ms MARTIN: I thank the member for Macdonnell for his support, and take that as really strong bipartisan support from this House. We make no apology that this new government is about jobs and job creation and we have a very strong commitment to employment which is shown by the way that we’ve established the Department of Employment, Education and Training which is carried by the Deputy Chief Minister. We’ve given very strong support to the Alice in 10 project and I certainly compliment the previous government for the initiative. We have adopted it very strongly. I hope that there is bipartisan support for Alice in 10 as well. We want to see that project so critical for the development of Central Australia really come to fruition.
This indigenous employment challenge is one very strong element of that. Of course, the other element is the Desert Knowledge project, both of which I believe are steadily moving ahead. There are other elements of Alice in 10 which we are also supporting. But these two, I believe, are the critical elements. Listening to the challenge and seeing the support, I have great confidence we will have success here.
Senior Public Sector Appointments
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I would like to outline a number of senior appointments recently made to the Territory public sector, a number of which directly relate to the new directions and priorities of my government.
I am very pleased to announce to this House the appointment of a new Auditor-General, Michael Blake. Mr Blake’s appointment follows the retirement of Iain Summers who has been Auditor-General since 1994. I am sure as a House, we thank Iain Summers for his hard work as Auditor-General.
Members: Hear, hear!
Michael Blake holds a Bachelor of Commerce from the University of Natal and is a fellow of the Institute of Chartered Accountants Australia. His areas of specialisation are audit, corporate advisory services, financial and management accounting and executive management. His most recent appointments were as the Director of Finance and Performance Management, and then the Executive Director (Business Information Services) both with the Metropolitan Health Services in Perth. Currently he is the Acting Executive General Manager (Resource Management) at the Department of Health in Western Australia.
Prior to this, Mr Blake was engaged in the office of Auditor-General in Western Australia from 1993 to 1998 initially as Assistant Auditor-General and then as Deputy Auditor-General.
Michael Blake starts duty on 1 July and will serve as Auditor-General for the statutory term of seven years. I wish him well as he takes up the role, and I’m sure all members will look forward to working with him to ensure the parliament continues to effectively scrutinise the performance of government administration. In between the time that Iain Summers left the position and Michael Blake takes it up, we have an Acting Auditor-General and that is Otto Alder.
I have also recently announced the appointment of Mike Dillon as the new Chief Executive of the Department of Community Services, Sport and Cultural Affairs. He has the challenging task of leading a relatively new agency with a diverse range of functions including public housing in urban and remote communities, local government, Aboriginal development, arts and museums, libraries, sport and recreation, regional development, and the new function of funding essential services to remote communities.
Mr Dillon joins the Territory public sector from a senior executive position in AusAid. He previously held positions with AusIndustry in the Commonwealth Department of Industry, Science and Tourism, the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, and ATSIC. In his early years, Mike Dillon worked in a number of indigenous communities in the East Kimberley and brings a very wide range of skills and experience to the position of Chief Executive of the Department of Community Development. He will start in the position on Tuesday 11 June.
Maree Tetlow joined the Northern Territory Tourist Commission as Chief Executive just under two months ago and replaced Tony Mayell who left the Territory to take up a position with the Australian Tourist Commission in London. Ms Tetlow is a marketing and business executive with 17 years experience in destination marketing including a highly successful track record in developing tourism in Queensland and Victoria. Her distinguished career provides her with tremendous depth of experience in international and national marketing, business tourism, media and research, and this perfectly positions her to grow tourism with our industry in our key markets. She brings a big picture perspective to the Territory, having worked for both the Australian Tourist Commission and other states, a perspective which is more important than ever at a time when the Tourism Commission has been battered by global events and domestic aviation chaos.
Indeed, it is a very opportune time to bring on board a strong and creative leader who understands both our industry and key tourism markets, and Maree Tetlow’s appointment is timed perfectly with the opening of the Alice Springs Convention Centre next week.
Within my own department, I have established a brand new unit to provide the government with high level advice on indigenous policy. Neil Westbury has recently been appointed to head up this unit and he will commence duty on 1 July.
Mr Westbury comes to the Territory from the position of General Manager for Reconciliation Australia. He has 30 years’ experience working in indigenous affairs throughout the country, including 14 years in various locations within the Territory. Some of his notable achievements include adoption by the Fred Hollows Foundation and the Jawoyn Association of a regional nutrition strategy, the successful coordination of the National Australia Reconciliation Convention in 1997, the negotiation of the Mt Todd Mining Agreement, and the negotiation of agreements with state and territory governments for the provision of essential services to indigenous communities over three decades. The experience Neil Westbury has gained by working at community, regional, state and national levels ideally equips him to assist this government identify innovative approaches to advance the interests of indigenous Territorians and all Territorians.
Recruitment action is nearly finalised for the positions of Under Treasurer and Commissioner for Public Employment and appointments are imminent. These are obviously crucial appointments within the Territory public sector.
The Under Treasurer is the principal public servant who provides advice to government on financial management of the Territory’s budget with a gross expenditure of nearly $3.5bn.
The Commissioner for Public Employment is responsible for the legislative and policy frameworks for the effective development and management of public sector employees, government’s most critical resource. I expect to announce those appointments within the next couple of weeks.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, we welcome these, I am sure, fine officers to the Northern Territory Public Service. I put on the record our satisfaction, certainly, and involvement with the selection of the Auditor-General. I know from the conversations I have had with the member for Greatorex, who was part of the selection panel, that the Auditor-General is a very fine selection for an extremely important job in the Northern Territory.
Equally, Ms Marie Tetlow, who a number of members have already met, is already making her mark as the head of the Tourist Commission. I am sure, once again, we have found people of extremely high calibre for critically important tasks in the Northern Territory.
I was hoping to hear the Chief Minister announce the name of the new Under Treasurer. I can only wait. Hopefully, that name is announced shortly as time ticks away before the preparation of the budget. It seems to me to be an amazingly strange set of circumstances that right in the middle of preparation of the budget, given the timelines I expect are occurring, we don’t even have an Under Treasurer in the Northern Territory in place.
Ms MARTIN: Madam Speaker, to respond to the opposition leader’s comments, we have a very fine acting Under Treasurer and a very fine Treasury. I am very confident that together with this new government, budget preparations are proceeding very well. You can have the greatest confidence in that.
I did run out of time before. The position of the Public Service Commissioner will be announced within the next week and the new Under Treasurer within a fortnight.
Another very important position for this government is the Executive Director of the Office of Territory Development, a very important office for this government. The appointment of an Executive Director is a critical one and I look forward to being able to make an announcement on the appointment to this position within coming weeks.
I believe that the appointments I have announced today are very exciting and important ones for the Territory. They complement the existing skills and experience of the public sector. We have many experienced and competent senior executives already in place. These appointments are one of the final steps in completing the transition to the new agency arrangements that we announced last November.
Timor Sea Oil and Gas Projects – Supply and Service Opportunities for Darwin
Mr HENDERSON (Business, Industry and Resource Development): Madam Speaker, I rise to provide the House with an updated report on supply and service opportunities for Darwin arising from Timor Sea oil and gas projects.
Darwin is well positioned and has the infrastructure to substantially support oil and gas exploration and developments in the Timor Sea and eastern Indonesia. I have asked my Department of Business, Industry and Resource Development to make the identification and further development of service and supply opportunities for Territory business to the oil and gas industry a top priority of the department.
Current operations in the Timor Sea include a modest exploration program and oil production from floating facilities on the Jabiru, Challis, Elang-Kakatua, Laminaria, Corallina - currently the greatest oil producing fields in Australia and the Buffalo fields.
Future developments include a pipeline to shore from Bayu-Undan to the Phillips LNG plant on Wickham Point, pipelines to service mines and interstate clients, offshore methanol production, the BP’s Tangguh LNG projects in Irian Jaya and a number of other projects.
Bayu-Undan contains reserves of 3.4 trillion cubic feet of gas and 400 million barrels of LPG condensate. Development of Bayu-Undan is being undertaken in two stages: the liquids stripping gas recycle phase first, and a second stage to commercialise the gas. The liquids stripping phase of the project is scheduled to commence by early 2004. At its peak, the field will produce around 110 000 barrels of condensate and LPG per day. The Bayu-Undan liquids project will have an operational spend of around $100m, thus providing extensive new opportunities in the Northern Territory.
Honourable members would be aware from the updates provided by the Chief Minister in recent days on the current status of the Bayu-Undan and Sunrise projects. Suffice to say the benefits to the Northern Territory in terms of service and supply opportunities from an onshore domestic gas development of Sunrise far outweigh the benefits of a floating LNG project, with an estimated permanent net employment boost of over 4000 jobs to the Northern Territory.
It is important to note, however, that the opportunities for Northern Territory business to participate in the development of Timor Sea gas reserves do not end with Bayu-Undan and Sunrise. Studies to convert the gas of Evans Shoal to methanol on an offshore concrete gravity-based structure are being undertaken by Methanol Australia. Other significant Timor Sea gas fields awaiting potential development include Petrel Tern, Scott Reef/Brecknock, the Brewster area discoveries, Crux, Prometheus, Blacktip and, in Indonesian waters, Abadi.
An FPSO-based methanol project is proposed for Crux. Audacious, Tenacious, Montara, Hingkip, Jahal, Kuda, Tasi and Oliver are small to medium size Timor Sea oil fields that could also be brought into production this decade.
Pertamina and BP propose to establish an LNG project in Tangghu in Papua to commence production in 2005-06. Development work is scheduled to commence in 2002-03. Darwin is being considered as a base for exploration and development, service supply and support. We were actively pursuing this opportunity with people from BP in Darwin a couple of weeks ago.
Several global oil service companies - for example Halliburton, Baker Hughes, CSO Technip, Schlumberger, Diamond Offshore, CCH, Bristow, P&O, Tidewater and Weatherford - are represented in Darwin. A number of smaller international companies are represented in Darwin through alliances and agents; for example, Score International. Local companies provide a wide range of support services including fixed-wing aircraft, fabrication, inspection, catering, diving and safety equipment. As well, the private hire cars provide transport for a large number of oil and gas field workers.
I recently had the pleasure of inspecting the premises of Upstream Petroleum in Winnellie. This local company is undertaking a great range of work providing technical support and engineering capabilities for the development of oil and gas reserves in the Timor Sea and elsewhere. They’re also looking to expand into Asia, particularly Indonesia, and they are a great example of a Territory company with quality personnel and products making significant inroads in an internationally competitive market.
The Northern Territory government has identified large areas of industrial land near Darwin for gas processing projects and is developing multi-user infrastructure to cater for capital goods, imports, projected supplies and production exports. Of course, the construction of the AustralAsia Railway between Alice and Darwin, and Darwin’s new East Arm Port are key elements of that infrastructure. Honourable members would have seen the list of Territory businesses which are benefiting, yesterday. We’re not resting on these successes, and will continue to work with developers and suppliers to maximise local content and benefits, and I will continue to keep the House informed.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his comments because I have been concerned about what the government is doing with regard to ensuring that when it comes to offshore supply, the Northern Territory is being positioned now to take up those opportunities that will arise.
Whilst I appreciate the comments that he made, I’m more particularly interested - the Opposition’s more particularly interested - in looking and knowing what exactly we’re doing to assist companies that are already investing in the Northern Territory. We know that - I think it’s Toll Petroleum or Toll Offshore - has a major contract with Bayu-Undan for part of the supply and maintenance for the offshore liquids stripping project for Bayu-Undan.
We know that a new organisation called Darwin Offshore Logistic Base Pty Ltd, a subsidiary I believe of a large Singapore firm that does a major amount of work in this area, has already lodged in Darwin positioning itself for contracts.
I would like to hear from the Minister for Lands and Planning and the Environment on these sorts of issues because it seems to us that one of the critical issues for government is to put aside land for these facilities, something that I believe is an urgent need now as part of the whole process of encouraging these producers along.
I would also like to know, ministers and Chief Minister, just who is running this. It is critically important, I believe, that the Darwin Port Authority only has responsibility to the halyards at the port and everything else with regards to land allocation to ensure offshore supply occurs and these companies are positioned is essentially a whole-of-government responsibility and not the responsibility of the Port Authority notwithstanding the fact that they will be involved and offer advice.
It is a critical area for urgent action now. I thank the minister for his comments and encourage the government to ensure that these companies are well positioned and advantaged.
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his support and maybe next sittings we can bring a more detailed statement to the House.
It is a whole-of-government issue and responsibility being coordinated by the Office of Territory Development.
The issue of industrial land to capture these opportunities will be addressed through the establishment of the Industrial Land Corporation. I can assure the House that my colleague, the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, will brief the House at a later date on this initiative.
Madam Speaker, I can assure the Leader of the Opposition and all honourable members that government is moving ahead at a rapid pace to ensure that we do maximise the opportunities that are coming our way.
Madam SPEAKER. Minister for Local Government, I must remind you we only have six minutes left, so speak quickly.
Alice Springs Town Council – Resolution of Organisational Problems
Mr AH KIT (Local Government): Madam Speaker, I have pleasure in informing the Assembly that Alice Springs Town Council has made positive moves to resolve its organisational problems.
From November 2001 through to January 2002, the Alice Springs Town Council was criticised in the press for raising the level of the council rate levy while at the same time having a financial surplus not adequately disclosed to the public.
This and other dissatisfactions led, on 29 January 2002, to a majority of aldermen supporting a motion of no confidence in the executive management of council. This motion threw the council into crisis as an organisation, giving rise to a gradual paralysis in decision making.
It was my view that it was up to the members of the Alice Springs Town Council to resolve these problems amongst themselves as being the best way to continue to serve the people who elected them. However, I made sure that the resources of my department were available to assist wherever possible.
Inspectors of Local Government conducted a short inquiry which led to a number of recommendations being made to the Alice Springs Town Council to enable it to resolve its difficulties. These recommendations were adopted by the council on 25 February 2002.
While implementation of the recommendations was difficult in the context of a divided council, I am pleased to say there has recently been substantial progress towards resolution of the crisis.
On 11 and 14 April 2002, financial workshops were conducted for councillors and staff by the officers of the department. Recommendations from these workshops were ratified by the council at a meeting on 29 April 2002.
On 4, 5 and 27 April 2002, councillors and executive participated in mediation facilitated by an independent professional mediator as recommended by my Local Government inspectors. This process has resulted in agreement between councillors and the executive staff to move forward together in cooperation and goodwill.
This is a hopeful sign that the council’s crisis is substantially on the way to being resolved. More work needs to be done to consolidate this progress. At the council meeting on 29 April 2002, resolutions from the mediation were adopted, effectively rescinding the motion of no confidence by councillors in the executive staff. This was marked by the placement of a newspaper advertisement indicating the new spirit of co-operation.
Madam Speaker, I table this advertisement which was placed by the Mayor, Fran Kilgariff, entitled Moving in the Right Direction.
I am sure the members of this House would want to congratulate the councillors and executive staff of the Alice Springs Town Council in moving forward through what has been a difficult time. In closing, just let me say that this movement towards a positive outcome for Alice Springs Town Council is a real victory for the people involved. I thank the staff of the Office of Local Government, particularly those based in Alice Springs.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I rise to also congratulate the Alice Springs Town Council for resolving some of the difficulties.
You will recall that when it all occurred late last year, I criticised the minister for being very slow in his response to the difficulties that Alice Springs Town Council had and it took him a long time to get his act together. He finally got the Office of Local Government to assess and audit the books at the Alice Springs Town Council.
The officer then wrote a report and one of his criticisms was that many or some of the aldermen in the town council had a political agenda. The minister himself then parroted that phrase and accused some members of the Alice Springs Town Council of having a political agenda to try and attack the Chief Executive Officer of the council.
Within a couple of weeks of that, the minister then distanced himself from the report and dumped the poor officer from the Office of Local Government into the thick of it, and said it was his report, it wasn’t the minister’s report, that the minister had nothing to do with it.
Fortunately, the recommendations were appropriate. The aldermen and the CEO picked up the recommendations and have acted very, very well to bring the whole council together. I believe they had a group hug and things have really improved.
I had the opportunity to meet with several members of the council and the Chief Executive Officer at the Alice Springs Town Council where I discussed many issues of local government with them, on the 7th of this month, and it appears that the council is starting to come together. I hope that over the next six to 12 months that things will improve and we’ll see a better budget coming soon.
Mr AH KIT: Madam Speaker, it is disappointing that the shadow minister wants to criticise the process.
Unlike the former government, our government ministers are not going to interfere in the process and as a former minister, the shadow minister should have realised that we don’t - and they should not - interfere with the process, rules, and regulations that are in place.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, the time has expired for ministerial reports.
Reports noted pursuant to Sessional Order.
MOTION
East Timor – Independence and Nationhood
East Timor – Independence and Nationhood
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that this Assembly, on behalf of all Territorians:
(a) offers its heartfelt congratulations to the people of East Timor in achieving their independence
to be proclaimed on 20 May 2002; and
- (b) pledges long-term support and ongoing assistance to our good neighbours, the East Timorese, in
the development of their nation in the months and years ahead.
It gives me great pleasure to move this motion to congratulate the people of East Timor whose struggle against enormous odds has finally resulted in independence.
When the East Timorese flag is raised at the ceremony in Dili on Monday, the world will have its newest nation and Australia a good friend and ally. I am very pleased to be able to attend this ceremony along with my colleague, the Minister for Business, Industry and Resource Development, and I know we will carry with us the good wishes of all Territorians for the small country’s future prosperity and security.
The Territory has been home to many East Timorese over the years and we, perhaps more than any other Australian group, will truly experience the joy of independence along with our East Timorese friends. It has been good to see the peacefulness of East Timor in recent months in the lead up to Independence Day.
East Timor was a Portuguese colony for well over a century and experienced many hardships during that period. The country then suffered under harsh Indonesian rule from 1975.
On 30 August 1999, an overwhelming majority of voters opted for independence in a UN sponsored referendum. We all know the violence that broke out by the anti-independence militias following that vote. None of us will ever forget the graphic news footage of violence and horror as the militias, apparently backed by the military, took their vengeance on unarmed people whose only crime was the exercise of their democratic right to vote.
I have met East Timorese who escaped from that violence, and many have been scarred in both body and spirit for life, particularly the children. The use of organised violence against an unarmed civilian population is, thankfully, something foreign to this country and long may it be so. Even so, we can still experience deep sympathy and understanding for what these people have been through.
I am proud that so many Australians in many walks of life helped the East Timorese during this time: government officials, members of the media, aid workers and medical workers. The violence eventually brought action from the United Nations which authorised Australia to lead a peace keeping force into East Timor. This move had very wide support in Australia, and Lieutenant General Cosgrove and his forces did Australia proud. We should not forget how worried we all were that our forces might suffer severe casualties, and the subsequent relief when good planning, fine leadership and diplomatic efforts prevented this.
The East Timorese people have shown themselves to be a strong and determined people. I think particularly here of those long lines of voters back in 1999, individuals knowing their lives might be at stake, but nonetheless taking that courageous step towards independence. They struggled against the odds; a country of 800 000 people against the vast military machine of a country of 200 million plus. But their struggles paid off.
The successful move towards independence of East Timor is, in part, due to the remarkable change in the political fortunes of Indonesia herself. The transition to democracy of our giant Indonesian neighbour, gigantic in population and influence, has been one of the most important foreign affairs events of our time in the region. We should not forget those great changes and the impact they are still having right through our region, even while we celebrate the independence of East Timor. We can be a friend, as we will, to the new East Timor, as well as to the newly democratic Indonesia, and that is a very good outcome for some very difficult years.
The Territory and East Timor are bound together by geography, certainly, but also by people. Since the Indonesian invasion in 1975, East Timorese have been seeking refuge in Australia and the most likely port of call has been Darwin. As a result, we have a significant Timorese community in this city. These ties have led to significant involvement of both the public and private sector in the rebuilding of East Timor, and these ties, I am confident, will continue and grow deeper.
The Territory gave significant assistance with the reception of and temporary accommodation of East Timorese refugees in Darwin in late 1999, and also assisted with Emergency Services in such areas as transport, power and water, health and education in 1999 and 2000. The Territory has spent nearly $4m in assisting East Timor and the East Timorese in a wide variety of ways over the last three years, and I will take a little time later in this speech outlining some of those.
Since taking government, I built on the good relationship with the Chief Minister of East Timor, Mari Alkatiri, that I had already established in opposition. We have had ongoing discussions on matters of common interest, most recently last weekend on Timor Sea gas. But its not only Timor Sea gas. Certainly, when I meet with the Chief Minister one of the ongoing issues is his children in Darwin. We welcome them to study here, two of whom are at Darwin High, and one at Northern Territory University. But undoubtedly the major topic between us at present is the development of the vast oil and gas resources in the sea that separates Australia and East Timor.
While getting gas to shore is important for the Territory, it is the royalties from the gas that will underpin East Timorese development. So while Timor Sea gas is fundamental to the Territory’s expansion, it is crucial to East Timor’s very existence.
The gas revenue will help the small nation rebuild its infrastructure and set it up for the future. It will also provide the jobs needed to give the East Timorese people a decent living standard and security for the future. That’s why we’re working so closely with the East Timorese and why we have pledged to help train their citizens for employment in the gas industry, as well as other fields of endeavour that the see as of strategic importance to their country.
In the future we will work with them towards mutually beneficial projects. An example of this would be joint tourism marketing to attract those tourists who fly from Europe to Bali but come no further, or those who overfly both of us. With the right products and effective marketing, we hope to see those groups more and more interested in visiting both East Timor and the Territory.
To mark the independence of East Timor, the well-known Territory artist, John Firth of Unicorn Stained Glass Studio, has been commissioned to design and create a stained glass window for the East Timor Cultural Centre in Dili which is currently being refurbished. As well, we have assisted with the celebrations through donation of printed material to their specification and have provided advisors as required, particularly to assist with tourist-related activities. We will be holding a celebration here in Darwin for those who can’t be in Dili for the big occasion. The flag will be raised at midnight on Sunday after several hours of cultural, religious and social events here in Parliament House.
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms MARTIN: This is an occasion for celebration and an occasion to be thinking of the future. It is also an occasion for appreciation of the great work done by so many Territorians over the past few years to assist and support East Timor and the East Timorese in their transition phase.
Let’s look at the role of the Power and Water Authority that played a key role in the rebuilding of infrastructure following the period of conflict and massive destruction of services and infrastructure following the vote in 1999.
Our police and emergency services here in the Territory did a wonderful job organising the reception of refugees and their accommodation at the Marrara tent city, again in 1999.
Territorians have been involved in all levels of rebuilding and retooling in East Timor; everything from salvaging the remains of the Dili Museum to donating furniture, computers and even fishing equipment to the Timorese. We are involved in many ongoing training and education programs. The Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment has provided a training program for engineers, supervisors and project clerks from East Timor so they can manage the road network when the UN leaves the country. Similarly, our Power and Water Authority has been training linesmen and technical assistants to keep the power supplies they did so much to reinstate, up and running.
I want also to pay tribute to my colleagues in the Labor Party who have supported the East Timorese for so long when independence seemed a lost cause. From the mid-1970s Labor supported East Timor’s right to basic human rights, including self-determination and in the Territory political scene at the time, was often a lonely voice on these issues. John Bailey, who joins us here today, and my deputy Syd Stirling have been involved from the beginning, and I certainly pay tribute to them. Warren Snowdon and his long-time electorate officer, Carol Burke, have given consistent support through many years to the East Timorese cause. Many people on my staff now have been long involved in these issues and I’d just like to mention two here: Denis Bree, formerly of the Power and Water Authority, and Kerry Gardiner.
It is impossible to pay tribute to all of those Territorians who have been involved in the East Timorese cause, but I must bring special mention to Brian Manning and Rob Wesley-Smith, whose work was invaluable. Wes’s commitment to the independence is legendry and deservedly so. There’s also been considerable support from Bill Day, Jack Phillips and other unionists. Journalists Ken White, John Loizou, Tony Walker and Jamie Gallacher and others never dropped off the story, even during those darkest years.
The list of Timorese activists is huge, and their contribution is incalculable. But I must mention the remarkable efforts of Laurentino and Maria Pires and their children, and Francisco ‘Quito’ Pires and Agio Pereira. I must also mention Vaughan Williams, Ilana Eldridge, Jude Conway, Sally-Anne Watson, Tony Jeffries, Cindy and Jesse Watson, Hugh Ekebung, ‘Risto’ and Raymond Taylor. Mentioning as well: Jose Gusmao, Maria do Ceu Federer, the Pires sisters, Tony and Veronica Maia Pereira, Cesarina Rocha, Alfredo Ferreira, Antonio Gouveia, Louise Pinto, Flavia Pinto, Sarah Pinto, Goncarlo Pinto, Sonny Inbaraj and Juan Federer.
This is by no means an exhaustive list, and I profoundly apologise to those I’ve not had time to mention today but whose lives have been devoted to East Timorese independence. It is all about people. These people and their compatriots in East Timor, those who have lived to see these days, and those who died to achieve them, have proved to us that people can move mountains. They have shown us that people can achieve miracles if they work together in a common cause and never lose hope.
Madam Speaker, I am pleased and proud to move this motion of congratulations on behalf of my party, the government and the people of the Territory.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, on 30 August 1999 the East Timorese people voted in a referendum to decide whether East Timor would take the first steps to become an independent nation. The vote for independence was overwhelming, approximately 78%, but unfortunately this historic and courageous vote for independence unleashed a wave of murder and mayhem that has not been seen in our region for many years. Over 2000 Territorians voted. Many of those had taken up Australian citizenship since fleeing a series of civil wars in East Timor in 1975 and 1976. Their children and many of their relatives also voted.
At that time the Northern Territory had been closely involved with the arrangements leading up to this crucial vote. As members would recall, the raised expectations in East Timor leading up to the vote unleashed a wave of violence and many deaths as pro-independence and pro-Indonesian factions jockeyed for positions and for political preferment. Many Territory families lost family and friends in the violence that occurred both before and immediately after the elections. After the vote, the world become familiar with the television pictures chronicling the systematic destruction of Dili and all large regional towns and cities.
In Darwin, Territorians mounted an extraordinary effort spearheaded by Police, Fire and Emergency Services, Territory Health Services and other agencies to establish and service the refugee centre, known locally as Tent City, which could house up to 2000 people at a time. The influx of refugees was so great by the second week of September 1999 that at one stage the Kalymnian Hall, the Cypriot Hall, the Portuguese Timorese Club and the Marrara Sports Stadium were all being utilised.
Territorians reacted as they always have in times of emergency and showed the world that their generosity and compassion knows no bounds. At that time, also, I met the man who was to become the President of the new nation of East Timor, Xanana Gusmao. Xanana Gusmao was, at that time, the President of the CNRT, a coalition of pro-independence groups. He had spent the best part of two decades in the mountains as a member of, and then leader of, the Falentil guerrillas, followed by seven years’ imprisonment in Jakarta. Before the self-determination process was derailed by the violence, he had been released to house arrest in Jakarta and then to asylum in the British Embassy there.
We, in government at that time, cooperated with the federal government to facilitate his arrival in Darwin which had to be very sensitively handled. Along with my colleague, the member for Katherine, who was Deputy Chief Minister and police minister at the time, we organised and attended a meeting over dinner with Mr Gusmao and federal Immigration Minister Ruddock, as Mr Gusmao was most concerned to get safe haven for students in Indonesia who were under serious threat at that time.
I have urged my colleague, the member for Katherine, to say a few words in this debate because there are some stories that have never been told about the initial reception of Mr Gusmao in Darwin, and they are really good stories. I hope he will share some of them with us because he was intimately involved with looking after Xanana Gusmao at that time.
I have met Xanana Gusmao formally and informally three or four times since those days, and whilst he may not recognise me amongst the wall of dignitaries attending the Independence Day ceremonies on 20 May, I will remember fondly our first meeting and the circumstances of that time, and reflect on how fortunate I have been to have played a very small part of history in the making.
The attachment and the relationship to East Timorese people and Territorians extends beyond those tragic events of 1999, extends beyond the 1975-76 invasion, and beyond the role the Timorese played in World War II in helping Australians. Our relationship is determined by geography and fostered by the people of our two countries. Our friendship is enduring and will strengthen over these coming years.
I have been invited by Alexander Downer, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, to attend these celebrations and I will be a proud participant in the independence celebrations on Sunday evening. I know I carry the hopes and aspirations of all members of the opposition and Territorians for a peaceful and exciting future for the East Timorese people. Madam Speaker, I support the motion.
Mr HENDERSON (Business, Industry and Resource Development): Madam Speaker, in supporting the motion, I wish to pay tribute to the struggle of the East Timorese people over 26 years for their freedom, a freedom which will officially be recognised at midnight on Sunday night when the new nation of Timor Lorosa’e comes into existence.
The Chief Minister mentioned in her opening the many, many people in the Northern Territory, and people obviously across the road, but particularly in the Northern Territory whose lives have been devoted to this cause. Certainly, we on this side of the House have strong allegiances and acquaintances with many of those people.
It was a proud day for me as a new minister in a new Labor government to witness the swearing-in of the 88 democratically elected members of the new East Timorese Parliament. It was a great day. The Chief Minister and I were very privileged to be there. It was a very proud day. If members didn’t know, the new parliament of East Timor was actually built by a Darwin builder, Karl Ozolins and it really is a magnificent structure and home to the new democratic nation and democratic parliament of East Timor. Again, it just goes to show how strong those links are when Territorians actually built the new house of democracy there in East Timor alongside East Timorese people.
I feel particularly privileged to represent the Northern Territory government and the people of the Northern Territory this weekend with the Chief Minister at the Independence Day celebrations. However, my heart is a bit torn. I have large numbers of the East Timorese community in my electorate, and I would also like to be here on Sunday to witness the new East Timorese flag being raised over this parliament. I am torn: half of me wants to be here; the other half obviously wants to be in Dili amongst these East Timorese people.
I would also like to talk about the many Territory companies and businesses and people who have assisted with the Independence Day celebrations this coming weekend. I’d like to pay particular tribute to Mike Gallagher, our Northern Territory Government representative in East Timor who has been here a number of years and I would just like to read from his latest weekly report about how Territorians are contributing to the Independence Day celebrations:
- Territory business has contributed significantly to the Independence Day celebrations. Orders for products
and trade support from Territory suppliers include timber supplies, timber trusses, nuts, bolts, flagpoles,
food and beverage supplies to such groups as Eurest and Legend Nautilius, carpenters, plumbers, airlines,
shipping groups, printers, and flag supplies just to name a few. The largest flag ever to fly in this part of
the world arrived on Friday. The size 7200 x 3600 supplied by National Flags of Darwin. This has proven
to be a unique opportunity. The design, the selection of the correct colours was painstaking, but worth the
experience.
Special thanks must go to Territory companies Satlink Darwin and Mark Knudsen who filmed a three-part
segment Territorians at work in East Timor. Part one showed the rehabilitation of the Army garrison,
involving Nortruss, Territory suppliers and a variety of contractors. Part Two showed the restoration of the
stadium, Darwin City Council and CUB participated. Part Three showed the re-building of the old market
place Territory contractor KarlOzolins, Queensland engineer John Nancarrow and a huge team of Territory
subbies and their local workers. The film will be screened on Channel Eight shortly.
Last weekend, 36 tonnes of printing left Darwin. This massive job was completed on time by Holland Print Solutions. Next week, 3600 kilos of official programs will fly out of Darwin.
Acknowledgement should go to Jill Nicholls from DBIRD for her co-ordination efforts. She’s worked with the UN office in Darwin, the printers, the flag man, airlines, the ET Trade and Investment Unit in Dili, proof reading brochures and posters. Everything has arrived on time, supported by the correct paperwork and in good condition. Thanks should also go to Tim Arthur, Sam Cleland and the team at the Bureau of Meteorology Darwin for providing regional weather reports. We can see that Darwinians again are in huge numbers supporting and working on the Independence Day celebrations.
I would, however, like to pay particular tribute this morning to those members of the trade union movement, particularly, as the Chief Minister said, Brian Manning and the wharfies, and the Labor Party here in the Northern Territory who supported the Independence struggle over a long, lonely two and a half decades.
I am very proud to say here today, that the Northern Territory Labor Platform since 1975 supported self-determination and independence for the people of East Timor. We never wavered from that commitment. Particularly, I would like to recognise my predecessor in Wanguri, John Bailey. John was a tireless advocate for East Timor in this House for many years, a great personal friend of mine. In researching for this speech last night, I went back through the Hansard. This is John Bailey’s testament in this House to speeches on East Timor, waving the flag, holding the flag high, and certainly Deputy Leader, Syd Stirling. John Bailey, history will show you well. History has recorded your position on a very principled cause, an issue over many, many years. John, I did try to get you over there to East Timor for the Independence Day celebrations - logically, it just was not possible, but I will be thinking of you.
Darwin has a thriving East Timorese community. They have formed the bedrock upon which the resistance movement was built, and have been an invaluable addition to Darwin’s multicultural society. I want to acknowledge the contribution of the East Timorese community in Darwin, and what they have made, and congratulate them on their determination and courage. I will name a few. The Chief Minister has been through lots of names that we all know.
A constituent of mine, Robert De Araujo, who very quietly has built the sport Timor Cup over the long lonely years, a biannual competition that took place here and in Melbourne, where the local Timorese community in Darwin and Melbourne took part in soccer competitions predominantly, and other sports, with the Timorese community in East Timor who’d come to Australia and kept those sporting links, those family links alive. Robert has been a tireless worker behind the scenes for the cause.
I would also mention that, going back to 1993, I think, as a first time up candidate for Nightcliff for the Labor Party, I doorknocked Maria and Juan Federer in Sandalwood Street, I think it was. I didn’t know the Federers. They brought me into their home and asked me what did I think about the position in East Timor, what was my view, what was the Labor Party’s view? Well, I think I stayed there for an hour and a half, and they have been firm friends ever since. When I left their house that day, understanding their story, I also was an absolute committed person to the East Timor independence cause. That doorknock was one of the defining moments of my life.
I would also like to mention Dr Rob McNaughton; again as a result of a doorknock in Nightcliff and Rapid Creek in 1996. He provided me with a paper that he had written as a doctor about the conditions and the health of the Timorese people, the economic and social conditions, and also some of the atrocities that had taken place. Again, Rob McNaughton is still there in East Timor working to rebuild conditions. A great Australian.
I have to mention Rob Wesley-Smith. We might not have always agreed with his methods in terms of bringing these issues to the public light but, my goodness, he was right. The cause was just, and Rob Wesley-Smith is still today working tirelessly on agriculture and aid projects in East Timor, and somebody, again, whose life has been committed to the cause.
I acknowledge a large number of people in my electorate. I won’t go through the names, but they all know who they are. Many in my electorate, particularly in Woodleigh Gardens, the Chinese Timorese community, the Hakka Association, President John Lai, George Mu, the Vice President - absolutely magnificent people. Many, many of those people are firm and lifelong friends.
Sunday marks the beginning of another long struggle for East Timor, to build a long-term, secure society with a viable economic base that can provide for the security and prosperity of its people. I don’t think anyone has any illusions about the difficulties ahead. I have only been to East Timor once, and that was on 15 and 16 September last year for the swearing in of the first parliament. It really did come home to me what a huge job President Gusmao, Mari Alkatiri, Ramos Horta, those 88 parliamentarians that have been sworn in, what a huge job they have ahead of them to rebuild that social and economic infrastructure that was so appallingly decimated.
We, the people of the Northern Territory, the new government of the Northern Territory, are behind them and will work with them to ensure that they build a just and particularly worthwhile life for the citizens of that new country.
Over the past 26 years, the East Timorese people have displayed their determination and courage, and with the support of their friends in Australia and particularly in the Northern Territory, we look forward to working with the new government of Timor Lorosa’e to help build that future. Madam Speaker, I believe that that future is bright.
Mr REED (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I congratulate the government today for this motion. It is most appropriate as we, within a few days, will witness the establishment of a new nation, a new neighbour for Australia and more particularly the Northern Territory, further strengthening those very long ties and very close ties that existed between the peoples of East Timor and Darwin.
It will be a final close to a very long struggle in terms of the experiences that the people of East Timor have been through. Now they will achieve for themselves independence, the establishment of a nation of their own and the ability to go forward into the future. As close neighbours, I believe all Territorians will be looking forward to the ability to work with the people of East Timor and to further cement those relationships that have developed over the last quarter of a century or more.
I was very closely involved in providing assistance, as the Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services, at the time that people were being evacuated from East Timor in 1999. It was something, as you will recall, that happened very quickly. They were traumatic experiences for the East Timorese people and there was no alternative to a number of them being evacuated from their own country for a short time to experience safety and to take a breathing space, if you like, before they were able to return to their homeland.
The need to respond very quickly was evident at the time. It was remarkable to see the response from the Northern Territory Police, Fire and Emergency Services, all other government agencies, community groups - especially those closely linked to the Timorese people - church organisations, volunteer groups, community organisations such as Red Cross and others who just came to the fore and offered their assistance and provided it in so many different ways.
The immediate concern was to provide accommodation. Buildings were used in the interim for that. It quickly became apparent that the buildings available were not going to be adequate. We had to source further accommodation, and that was done in the way of tents provided by the Defence Forces. Those that were quickly available locally were used up and overtures had to be made to the federal government through the Department of Defence for additional tents to be flown from interstate.
Then, of course, came the difficulties of adequate toiletry and kitchen services, ablution blocks. Resources were drawn from all over the Territory. I recall that personnel from the Power and Water Authority were quickly transported overnight from Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, certainly a number from Katherine. Over the following night, trenches were dug and, as I recall, they were something like six or seven metres deep to get the fall in relation to connecting into mains sewerage systems.
Buildings were put in place and, what was nothing the day before, were rows of ablution blocks to service the evacuees from East Timor out at Tent City. We had a reception centre where people could be housed as comfortably as possible under the circumstances. In addition to that, all of the arrangements had to be put in place for medical services and support. The Department of Health managed that in a very professional way.
The provision of food, clothing from a number of volunteer and community groups - everything that was needed was provided in such a short space of time. To reflect back on the response from the community and government employees at the time is something that I still wonder at just how it happened, how it happened so efficiently, how quickly, to meet the needs and to settle down those people who had been so traumatised and whom we were hosting at the time.
There were some very poignant times - one in particular that I experienced in relation to these events, and that was the advice - as I recall one Sunday morning. I was not going home for two or three weeks, did not go home over that period because there was so much work to be done and the demands were such of a minister overseeing these activities that I stayed here. They were early starts and late finishes.
One Sunday morning, I recall the staff in the Chief Minister’s and my office working on a range of issues and approving this and organising something else and liaising with the federal government at very high levels. We received advice that Xanana Gusmao was to arrive in Darwin that evening and it was a confidential matter and we had to find means to house Mr Gusmao and to ensure that he had adequate levels of safety.
The federal authorities had placed a very high security rating, as you would understand, on Mr Gusmao and, as he was coming to our jurisdiction, it was going to be our responsibility to ensure that the levels of security and his safety were put in place. We had never had an experience in the Northern Territory of this kind. We sat and pondered as to how to work with it. The federal government had put the responsibility on to us. We did not get offended about that but it was something to which we had to respond and we had to find what type of accommodation would be appropriate to meet security requirements.
We were quickly advised that for the short term, at least, it would have to be very secure, preferably isolated until things settled down a bit and we knew precisely what Mr Gusmao wanted in regard to his own personal requirements. That was because no-one had had an opportunity to speak to him. He had been released from detention in Indonesia, was placed on an aircraft which flew through, from memory, to Sydney. He got off that aircraft on to a Qantas flight to Cairns and then on the Cairns flight across to Darwin. All we knew was the arrival time.
We then started the task of trying to find where we could securely house Mr Gusmao and his personal staff. That is when we realised we had a great difficulty in terms of security. The Tactical Response Group was going to be responsible for his personal safety and that of his staff, and for security. We received advice from them in relation to some possible locations. We then checked them with the owners and for all sorts of reasons all of the suggestions that we came up with were eliminated. We found ourselves at about lunchtime still no further advanced in relation to a secure place and this was to be only for a matter of a couple of days until in Darwin we could find accommodation that would be secure and suitable for whatever the longer term was going to be in relation to Mr Gusmao’s stay here in Darwin.
At that time we went down to the Buzz Caf for lunch, four or five staff and myself, and that was quite an unusual experience. At the time I likened it to the movie Casablanca because we were sitting in the middle of a restaurant at quite a long table and we were surrounded by the world’s media. You will recall that these events did attract media from around the world and that was an issue that we had to deal with in itself. But everyone around us was wanting to find out because the word was then out that Mr Gusmao may in fact be heading for Darwin and they were wanting to find out indeed whether he was coming here and what was going to happen when he got here.
We were sitting in the middle of all this activity having a bite to eat, and each of us were on mobile phones continuously phoning people who we thought might be able to provide accommodation that would be suitable. It became apparent that none of those options were going to work. It was then that I determined that a place - and it has not been revealed to this time - that perhaps would be suitable was the Gurig National Park, Cobourg Peninsula, the ranger station there.
I contacted the head of the Parks and Wildlife Commission, spoke directly to the Ranger in charge at Black Point Ranger Station, and that in itself was difficult because I could not tell them what the issue was. I simply could make inquiries about who was staying there at the time, whether there was spare accommodation, and whether we could have someone arrive there perhaps in a short space of time and what would be the ability for us to achieve that. You can imagine the curious nature of the questions that followed from that.
It became evident that Cobourg Peninsula was in fact a place that would be suitable. We conveyed that to police. They were somewhat familiar with the place and that was eventually determined as the place that we would take Mr Gusmao who subsequently arrived, I think it was on the Cairns/Darwin/Singapore flight that evening. It was then known fairly publicly that he was thought to be on that flight. I recall the dismay and the dissatisfaction from the media when we made arrangements for Mr Gusmao to be taken off the plane directly down a set of stairs on to the tarmac, into a police car, and around to the general aviation area to an aircraft, a police aircraft, that then conveyed him to Black Point.
Having kept the federal government informed, bearing in mind that we are not responsible for international affairs but are very much a provincial government, I found it appropriate to travel out to Black Point the following day to meet with Mr Gusmao and explain to him why in fact he’d been bundled off.
It was then that I had one of those life experiences in terms of meeting someone who had been exiled in the hills, the mountains of East Timor for many years, had been incarcerated for the best part of a decade, and to find this very humble man, this very understanding man, this man that didn’t demonstrate one little millimetre, fraction of a millimetre of hatred or dislike towards anyone, even the people who kept him in detention. It quickly became apparent that I was talking to a most extraordinary person, that this was a most unusual time in history, that I was living through it.
There was some thought as to whether or not a United Nations representative should go on that flight, and they had certainly approached me to do so. In fact, we had advised them that we were going out. We had cleared with Mr Gusmao beforehand whether or not it was appropriate to take him with us and the first thing I said to him was: ‘I must, in welcoming you to the Northern Territory and offering you a safe haven here, please ask you to understand why you, now a free man, have been whisked away to a place of some secrecy, and you have not met with anyone else. This is very difficult for me and I hope that you can understand the situation’.
We had a very long conversation, I think it went for something in the order of two hours because there were a whole lot of things that he just wanted to talk about. He had never met anyone much in the way of people from a democracy for many years. I believe that I was the first elected member of a western government that he met since having been released from incarceration in Indonesia.
Of course, all this time the United Nations representative was cooling his heels outside wanting to get in. It was not up to me to say to Mr Gusmao: ‘I am going to call this conversation to an end; there are others’. But, eventually, we got to that point and I left him and he had the discussions, in the first instance then, with the United Nations representative.
I was, shortly after those discussions, in the difficult position of having to explain to him, notwithstanding his desire that he wanted to come straight back into Darwin to start the business of perhaps getting his country together and doing what he could as a free man, to advise him that unfortunately, I could not allow him to return to Darwin until the following day because we were seeking in Darwin accommodation that suited his security status, and that in itself was not easy. It had to be cleared by police in conjunction with arrangements that they had to put in place with federal authorities. We eventually found a block of units that had been recently completed where there was a suitable place on the ground floor to station Tactical Response Group forces, and a unit on a floor on its own for Mr Gusmao so that security for him could be ensured.
I did explain to him that that was going to take a little bit of time and, unfortunately, that would be at least tomorrow. I must say that that’s when he was a little bit perturbed and really did express very strongly that he was coming back on the plane with me. For a man who had been through so much, and who was now free and still virtually being kept captive, it was very, very difficult to explain to him that we did not believe that there was a threat to his security, but we could not accept any level of risk at all and that by tomorrow we would have a place for him to go to. It would be furnished, because all of the units were unfurnished, we would have all the cutlery and everything else that was required for him to live a comfortable life for as long as he wanted.
He accepted that, and I could see the feeling of anguish on his face that he had to stay another day because uppermost in his mind was his desire to come in to Tent City and to meet his people as a free man, to experience the contact, for the first time in many, many years, with so many of the thousands of people who were housed at Tent City.
The following day we had made arrangements for him to come into town. I think I went out there on the aircraft, actually, and came back with him. We had made arrangements for him to have a press conference at the Plaza Hotel, for him to address the world, as it were, in relation to the circumstances in which he now found himself.
Probably the most moving experience that I have ever had was to travel with him to Tent City. He asked me, specifically, if I would accompany him into the hall where the East Timorese evacuees were all gathered. Of course, they were just waiting to see no one else except Xanana Gusmao. That was, I think, the most moving time in my life in relation to the feelings that crossed the floor, just so moving in terms of this man walking into that place and being able to meet his people, how he addressed them, how he was received and what events followed from there. Those are matters that have never been disclosed previously, not for any particular reason, but at the time, of course, it was most important that security be maintained.
I subsequently travelled to East Timor to meet Xanana Gusmao. I recall that I received a request from him that they were starting to look at what laws could be introduced in East Timor and they had nowhere to start; could I bring copies of our legislation across to him so that someone could have a look at it and start to implement some legislation or at least start thinking about it. We soon realised that would be a truckload of paper, and I organised for all that to be downloaded onto a computer which I duly presented to him in East Timor on a subsequent visit, and had another chat to him about progress.
I am just so pleased that things have worked out the way that they have for this man, who suffered so much over so many years, together with his people. To have been able to meet him at that time, to be able to extend some assistance to someone who was so understanding of the circumstances that he’d been through and so humane about it, yet so focussed on where he was going.
Another very poignant moment was when I did return that following morning, as I did, to bring him back to Darwin, the Tactical Response Group officer said to me: ‘We had a very worrying time this morning’. ‘What happened?’ I became very anxious. He said: ‘Well, Mr Gusmao insisted on going for a swim’. Of course, the waters at Coburg Peninsula are beautiful: they are very attractive, they are crystal clear, tropical waters. ‘We could not stop him’. So, as I recall, they had people looking down on the beach, very apprehensively, to make sure that no crocodiles or sharks came while Xanana Gusmao was having a swim.
That morning, I walked in to the room, introduced myself again, and said: ‘Well, today you really will be a free man’. He said: ‘I experienced that this morning for the first time’. I said: ‘In what way?’ He said: ‘This morning, I walked down to the beach, and I went for a swim. And, as I was in the water and looking around this beautiful coast line, and just totally relaxed and totally safe, it came to me then, this is the time that I appreciated that I was free. And I so much thank you for your assistance and the fact that you’ve been able to do this’.
He expressed his understanding as to how difficult it must have been for me to keep him, as it were, in captivity, but today he appreciated whilst swimming on the beach at Coburg that he was, in fact, a free man.
Those experiences will live with me forever, and they are things that I never thought I would experience. But in a very small and humble way, I understood what Xanana Gusmao - and, indeed his people - had been through. That is why I look now with such warmth as to the establishment of the new nation of East Timor this coming week; what it means to the people of East Timor, and the President-elect, Xanana Gusmao, as a mate and someone who was able to help him, very directly, at a time of great need and great relief to him, I guess. I am able to look back and say: ‘Mate, all the best for the future. I wish the new country of East Timor of which you are going to be President all the very best. I hope that the people of East Timor progress, as I know they will, as very good neighbours and very close neighbours with all us Territorians’.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr AH KIT (Community Development): Madam Speaker, a few days and a few more hours away, our closest neighbour, Timor Lorosa’e, will become the newest member of the family of nations. I use this with the greatest respect, the Tetum language name for our new neighbour.
As an indigenous Australian and, along with my indigenous parliamentary colleagues, this event has special importance to us, as I’m sure it does to many of my countrymen and countrywomen. The experience of the peoples of Timor Lorosa’e over 400 years of Portuguese colonialism and 24 years of military occupation, has been a mirror to the narrative of indigenous peoples throughout the world since 1492. At midnight on Sunday, a chapter on this history of colonialism will close.
On 30 August 1999, the peoples of Timor Lorosa’e voted overwhelmingly for the freedom to establish their own nation. Many of us watched the immediate aftermath of that vote with horror - and a degree of helplessness - as the nation seemed to face the real possibility of extinction at the hands of militia and rogue army elements. The fact that we are now witnessing the birth of a new nation is a tribute not just to the international pressure and peacekeeping presence that followed, but more importantly to the enormous bravery of this new nation’s citizenry. This bravery had been starkly demonstrated to the Australian people during World War II. For supporting Australian commandos, occupying Japanese forces killed many thousands of Timorese. To Australia’s eternal shame, we never repaid that blood debt in 1975 by opposing a subsequent occupation by Indonesia. We abandoned the hand of friendship in their hour of need.
The peoples of the island of Timor have a long and rich history stretching from pre-colonial times to the present. The indigenous peoples of the island, east and west, are culturally and linguistically diverse while being ethnically distinct from the Indonesian Archipelago. That the island was divided between the Portuguese and Dutch so long ago is something indigenous peoples have experienced in different ways throughout the world. The fact that post-colonial Indonesia sought to suppress the peoples of the eastern half of Timor from the time of the December 1975 invasion was a cruel irony. It is worth noting that during that quarter century of occupation, the indigenous lingua franca of Tetum became the language of the resistance. And it was this resistance that we should find so inspiring.
Despite enormous odds, the peoples of Timor Lorisa’e refused to abandon their heritage and birth rights. It was not just a military resistance, though the names of guerilla leaders such as the late Nino Konis Santana will always live in the annals of that struggle. It was the resistance of peoples represented by the peasants of the countryside and the students of the towns and cities. It was a resistance bravely supported by the Catholic Church despite hostility at times from the Vatican.
It was also a resistance that was supported by people around the world including Australia. Darwin was one of those places where support was always strong. Many post-1975 refugees have settled in Darwin and have become valued citizens of this place but never forgot the plight of their countrymen and women such a short distance away.
Despite open hostility from the Northern Territory and national governments, many other Australians have campaigned for an independent East Timor over the years. During that time, many were regarded in Darwin and elsewhere as trouble makers and rat bags. We should acknowledge the value that their solidarity with our neighbours has had to the process of achieving peace and freedom in the Timor Lorosa’e.
This is of particular relevance today as we face the possibility of draconian so-called anti-terrorist legislation in the federal parliament. Under this legislation, many of those Australian activists in their support for people such as Xanana Gusmao and Bishop Belo could have been held without charge by ASIO at the behest of the federal Attorney-General.
Organisations that supported the East Timorese resistance could have been banned and their membership gaoled. I do not believe this is the kind of Australia that commandos in World War II East Timor sacrificed their lives for.
As I have mentioned, Darwin has become home for many East Timorese refugees since 1975. September 1999 saw around 1500 refugees flood into Darwin. The response of Territorians to that humanitarian crisis began what I believe was one of the first repayments of our wartime debt to the East Timorese. Of particular note during that time was the work of the Danila Dilba Aboriginal Medical Service. They established a clinic for the 450 East Timorese who were at the time released into the Darwin community. Assisted by 50 volunteers, Danila Dilba turned over its McLachlan Street clinic on the basis of access and equity and in recognition of the fact that mainstream services were not appropriate. It was a great example of the indigenous community in Australia helping others in need, in this case their indigenous brothers and sisters across the Timor Sea.
Those two months in 1999 demonstrated that the people of Darwin do not react with the sort of hysteria about refugees that many people down south appear to exhibit. It demonstrated that the people of this city are capable not just of tolerance, but compassion and understanding. Even though we are objectively in the front line of this so-called threat, we can work out sensibly that the world is not going to end if people fleeing deprivation, tyranny and oppression turn up on our shores. Indeed, many so-called boat people live on in Darwin as valuable members of our community.
Darwin is also the home base to many members of the Australian Defence Forces who have been assisting the United Nations in East Timor since the withdrawal of Indonesian troops and the retreat of the militia. Many of them have commented on their happiness to be able to repay the wartime debt to the peoples of East Timor. I would like to take this opportunity to thank those men and women of the Army, Navy and Air Force for the work they have done and will continue to do for our neighbours.
In welcoming independence for Timor Lorosa’e, I believe we should continue to extend the hand of friendship across the Timor Sea to these neighbours of ours. It is clear that our neighbours will remain relatively poor in material terms for some years to come. It is my hope that the people of the Northern Territory will continue to assist in areas we are able.
There is much we can share with the East Timorese for the mutual benefit of us all. Trade and commerce are obvious areas of cooperation, but we should also be talking in terms of health, education and cultural exchange as well as sharing our knowledge and tropical agriculture, architecture and sustainable energy.
Paramount in this is the possibility of indigenous Territorians working with the people of Timor Lorosa’e in anything from joint indigenous and ecotourism packaging to mutual programs on language and cultural maintenance. Our developing models of comprehensive primary health care in the Northern Territory including the Aboriginal Health Worker model may provide the inspiration for our brothers and sisters across the Timor Sea.
I applaud the coming independence of Timor Lorosa’e and salute their bravery over those many years of colonialism and military occupation. In their newly won freedom, I wish the peoples of Timor Lorosa’e peace and prosperity. Madam Speaker, I look forward to the Northern Territory developing a close and enduring relationship with its peoples.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I also rise to congratulate the people of East Timor on the achievement of Independence on 20 May. It has been a long and painful process which will culminate in the raising of the flag on Sunday, and I fully concur with the sentiments that have been raised here today, especially from the previous speaker, the member for Katherine and the Chief Minister.
The Minister for Business, Industry and Resource Development just jogged my memory about a couple of people who had an influence on me. I suppose in some ways it’s all been due to I suppose the changes in East Timor. One is Karl Ozolins, a constituent. I suppose one doesn’t realise how close our neighbour really is until - when I was working at Howard Springs Mitre 10, you get a phone call and you think it was just some local constituent ordering a couple of shovels or something and it would be Karl Ozolins talking from Dili wanting 20 shovels, a couple of grinders, some cement or something all loaded up that day to get on the barge or get on an aeroplane or something. The changes that were occurring with the new Assembly building in some ways affected all of us. You knew that there were changes happening in Timor.
Another person is Jimmy Lay and the Lay family. My office is in the Howard Springs supermarket. The Lay family came from Timor during the troubles and have had quite an impact in the Darwin region, especially the Darwin rural region, with the development of not only the Howard Springs supermarket area, which has doubled in size, but they also completely redesigned and expanded the Humpty Doo supermarket which was so good that Woolworths decided to take it over. So here’s a bloke who has come over to this part of the world and done very well. I gather he’s gone back, part of his family has gone back to East Timor and established a new supermarket and other facilities there.
Personally, I had very little to do with the struggle for independence in East Timor, although I was involved in a minor way in approving funding and distribution in East Timor in the early 1990s of the Tetum dictionary. That was done through the Australian Catholic Social Justice Council of which I was a member for about 12 years. Of course the Australian Catholic Social Justice Council was one of those leading groups that continually advocated independence for East Timor.
There were many other people who did far more than I ever did, and they were the ones who risked their lives and gave their lives to fight for independence. Some of the politics during that time were confusing as East Timor itself had different factions. That made it difficult for some of us to know what was happening. However, in the end, regardless of that, the vote for independence was a clear statement of the voice of the East Timorese. Sadly, that statement was the start of a devastating period for East Timor which directly affected Australia, especially Darwin. I do not intend to dwell on that today.
Rather, I would just like to say a few words about one person, and that person’s been mentioned a number of times today. He was involved in the East Timorese struggle for many years. Of course, there were and still are many people like Xanana Gusmao, Ramos Horta and Bishop Belo who were involved in the struggle. But I speak today of Rob Wesley-Smith. Rob Wesley-Smith is a constituent of mine who lives in Howard Springs. Rob has been a well-known activist on many issues for many years. He is someone who I certainly have not always agreed with, even on aspects of East Timor. I know many people here may have had a run-in with Rob on lots of issues, but I feel if there’s one thing you can say about Rob: he is genuine in his beliefs.
He was and is still passionate about East Timor. He raised issues when it was not popular, he raised them in ways that were not always popular. He has been arrested here and in Indonesia. He debated. He wrote letters. He was tenacious in his efforts to help the people of East Timor. No matter what your opinion of Rob is, it cannot be denied that he spoke up when others were quiet. He did what he thought was right and just, and no matter whether you agreed with him or not, Rob was true to his cause. I am therefore pleased that Rob will be attending the flag raising ceremony in Timor. It is appropriate that he does. I know he has mixed feelings about that because he still has concerns about other ongoing issues in East Timor.
In summary, I hope he and many others, and especially the people of East Timor, will see the fruits of their work culminating on 20 May. I congratulate the people of East Timor and I hope our nation will continue to support and strengthen our relationship with East Timor, our neighbour, not by words, but by actions, and I refer there to something I mentioned in my speech yesterday regarding the gas. We are all hoping the gas will come onshore to Australia but that gas, I believe, is rightfully part of East Timor’s future, and we should acknowledge that and do our best to make sure they also have rights to that gas so their economic future can be established. Madam Speaker, I hope we work with our newest neighbour so that they can establish themselves as the world’s newest nation.
Mr STIRLING (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, there can be no more important nor more proud day for any nation than, of course, the proclamation of its very being, its independence. Along with many other Australians, I followed very closely the history of East Timor post-1975, but of course the history of East Timor and its links with Australia go back much earlier, and it’s no secret - and other speakers have mentioned the fact - that many Australian servicemen’s lives were saved due to the efforts and courage of East Timorese during Japanese occupation of islands to our north in the middle and latter stages of World War II.
Perhaps what is not so commonly known, at the cessation of hostilities of World War II, Australian Air Force planes flew over Dili and East Timor and they dropped leaflets from those planes saying thank you for your efforts, on behalf of the Australian government, in saving our troops during the war years. We will never forget you.
We will never forget you. I always feel such guilt and shame that we could do that in 1945 and then post-1975, successive federal governments turned their back - turned their back on the plight of the East Timorese whose own courage had saved so many Australian lives during World War II.
Despite that attitude of successive federal governments, we in the Northern Territory Labor Party can stand proud. We stood for a free and independent East Timor from day one and never resiled from that. My colleague, the member for Wanguri, made mention of the efforts of his predecessor in this House, former Deputy Leader of the Opposition, John Bailey, and the speeches that he made in this House; the speeches that he made at rallies and demonstrations around Darwin; and, of course, Warren Snowdon, in the federal House of Representatives. I know a very proud day for John Bailey was when he was in Dili when Mr Xanana Gusmao made his first speech to the people of East Timor. John was there, and so proud and so happy was he to be a part of that crowd.
Many years ago, I was perturbed and angry in picking up The Weekend Australian and the supplement, the Weekend Australian Magazine, because it contained photos - and it was a cover story - of Fretilin fight for independence in East Timor. It contained photos of a Fretilin hideout in the hills presumed to be where Xanana Gusmao himself was in hiding. I don’t think it’s any secret that there was a link. It was within eight days Xanana Gusmao was captured by the Indonesian authorities.
Now, I don’t doubt that the intent of the journalist and the heart was in the right place in their support for Fretilin in their struggle for a free and independent East Timor, but I believe it was the publication of those photos in an Australian newspaper that led directly to the capture because no doubt that person was followed and tracked by the Indonesians, and they were able to pick up Xanana Gusmao at will some time after that journalist - if you can call him a professional journalist - left the country. Seven years imprisonment for Mr Xanana Gusmao - seven years in which he never lost his dignity, he never lost his humility, and he never lost sight of his dream for a free and independent East Timor.
I’ve got to pay tribute to the contribution to this debate by the member for Katherine. It’s not often that we hear the member for Katherine speak from the heart in the tones that he did today, and to share something so obviously very important to him and, I thought, important to share with this House. I thank him for his contribution because he was able to draw a picture of a man whose outstanding quality is great humility.
East Timor is a story that arouses such emotions from hurt, anger, horror, but at the same time, great pride. I remember standing in here with the member for Wanguri the day or two after the Santa Cruz massacre in the early 1990s, and the shock that reverberated through Australians and the lack of support from the federal government in relation to that. So that was anger and horror and, again, repeated of course after the overwhelming vote for independence by the people whose courage you simply have to admire. They walked in under the guns and the knives of the Indonesian military and the militia to record a yes vote, knowing in the bottom of their hearts that they were going to cop it, that they were going to cop it for their courage in a democratic vote for a free and independent East Timor.
Again, courage in relation to the 50 UN force who refused direct orders to leave the UN compound when they said: ‘It is all over, get out of here, save your lives.’ They knew if there was one piece of Territory in Dili that had to be respected, it was that UN compound. To this day, I do not think Australia has commended and fully recognised the courage of those 50 people who stayed in that compound to save the lives of those so desperately crowded into the compound in those dark days.
I am proud also of the role the Northern Territory played - the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Opposition mentioned some of the detail. A huge effort by the public service, a huge effort by non-government organisations to come to the fore and help out people in such great need.
We look to a bright future indeed between the governments of the Northern Territory and Australia, and the emergence of East Timor. I want to congratulate East Timor itself and the East Timorese who live in our midst and who are equally proud, and deservedly so, of the huge effort and the sacrifices and the commitment over so many years to see this through to fruition.
Madam Speaker, I am proud to stand with our Chief Minister and pledge that the Northern Territory will be a good neighbour and a good friend to East Timor in the years ahead.
Mr VATSKALIS (Lands and Planning): Madam Speaker, I rise today to support the motion congratulating the people of East Timor. I also want to congratulate not only on my behalf and behalf of my family, but also on the behalf of the Greek and Cypriot community because the success of the fight and the proclamation of independence of your country gives all of the Cypriot community a glimmer of hope.
For the same reason many of these people come from an island that has been invaded and been divided. Twenty five years ago, the year before East Timor was invaded, Cyprus was invaded by Turkey, and while you are going to gain your independence in about three days, Cyprus is still divided and invaded by a foreign army. I believe the Leader of the Opposition knows very well what I mean because I believe he served in Cyprus in a peace keeping force.
The invasion of East Timor was reported widely in 1975 in Greece. You see, we are very familiar with what happened in East Timor because a year ago, Cyprus was invaded. I became aware of East Timor when I came to Australia in 1983. I was still learning about Southeast Asian affairs, especially about the murder of five Australian journalists during the invasion.
I learned more when I came to Darwin in 1993. Coming from Greece and being very interested in political affairs, I learnt, I read, I listened, I watched some of the documentaries that came out of East Timor and I became aware that sooner or later, East Timor would become an independent state.
People who are prepared to fight in the mountains and the forests for 20 years against their invader, people who are prepared to give their own life for freedom inevitably one day will establish a free country. I know that very well. My own people did that for centuries. They gave their life for freedom. One of our messages was ‘freedom or death’. One or the other. You did exactly that. You gave your life and today you stand free.
I was very privileged in 1998 to work with the Health Department when 2000 of your people came to Darwin. I remember very well the feelings of the Greek community there when I personally rang the President of the Kalymnian Hall and asked him for his assistance to house the Timorese refugees. His answer was immediately yes and in addition, opened the fridge, opened the kitchen, opened the storeroom and gave Timorese people anything they liked. I also have to add that neither the Kalymnian community or the Cypriot community received any payment for offering their halls to the Timorese people.
I worked there with my colleagues from the Health Department - nurses, doctors, environmental health officers - for days and days. I remember very well, like the member for Katherine, the day that Xanana Gusmao arrived at the hall. I was taken aback. I could not believe how much these people loved him. I could not believe what a simple person Xanana was, and I was speechless. I was very moved, and I was left speechless.
One of the things that impressed me and brought back memories was the day the first bus loads of refugees arrived at the Kalymnian Hall and they got down from the bus. The expression on their faces was exactly the same expression that I saw in the faces of the refugees when they arrived in Greece after the Turkish invasion of Cyprus. They were different people, but their feelings were the same; they’d both lost their houses, their families, their properties, their country.
We worked there for days and days, and I was very, very happy when finally the world community decided to step in and rescue East Timor and the Timorese people.
Sometimes failed military campaigns have unexpected results. I have seen that in my own country when the failed campaign in Cyprus by the Greek Army resulted in the reinstatement of democracy in Greece. The same thing happened in East Timor. Not only did East Timor gain its independence when the Indonesian army failed to control the Timorese people, but also all of a sudden Indonesia started to become a democratic society and that’s a very positive result.
I said before that in a few days you are going to become an independent nation. I am very proud to be here today and congratulate you for that. We offer you our support, our political support, we offer support to your people for education, training and commerce. You have stood by us in tough times during the Second World War, and our promise is we’ll stand by you in this time of peace. We will be together with you in the future. We will always be your friends. Once again, congratulations.
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): I’ll keep it brief, Madam Speaker. It is with great honour that I stand here today to represent the people of Karama and Malak to say to the people of Timor Lorosa’e what a joyous time it will be this weekend as we celebrate the independence of Timor.
I have been given the great honour by the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory to be Master of Ceremonies at the flag raising ceremony we have here in Parliament House, so I’m sure we will have many celebrations that evening together.
This is a very special moment for me personally. As a child in Darwin, living in a city that had been devastated, in 1975 when Indonesia invaded Timor, my mother, then the Independent Member for Nightcliff, was at the forefront of speaking out publicly against the invasion, calling for Australia to rally behind the indigenous people of Timor and to support their struggle for true independence. I attended many rallies as a child from the age of eight years and, as I say, I am very proud that I have never, ever throughout my entire working life departed from my desire to see true independence for Timor.
When I worked in Melbourne in the 1980s, I worked very closely with Maria Gabriella Carascalao for Radio 3EA. She was a very popular broadcaster who was broadcasting weekly to the Timorese people. I was alongside Maria when the call came through from Dili about the Santa Cruz massacre. I remember spending many, many days - angst-ridden days - with Maria Gabriella working through, trying to find out who had survived. Her brother’s house was besieged for quite some time during that period because many people had gone in there to seek refuge and try and save their lives. Unfortunately, the tyranny continued. That house was invaded and people were taken away, never to be seen again.
Through the union movement in Victoria, I gave time, money and energy to Fretilin to support their struggle for a true independent Timor. As a mother of young children, having returned to Darwin in 1999 - I only got here about a month before the oppression of the Indonesians came to the fore in Timor. What heartened me then was to see the children of Darwin rally around the Timorese people who were flooding into Darwin as refugees.
Every school in Darwin was collecting toys, clothes and books to give to the children of Timor. I was delighted, some two decades after my experience as a child, to see the response from the children of the Territory who really embraced in a very loving and giving fashion the people of Timor and their great needs at the time. I commend the then Territory government for its decisive, quick and generous response in giving shelter, food and safety to the refugees from Timor.
We still have people from Timor living amongst us in Darwin who have no permanent residency in Australia and who, indeed, for a decade now have been seeking that. It is with pride that I say that our Northern Territory government is supporting the rights of those Timorese people living amongst us to be able to choose whether or not they return one day to Timor and to assist their nation in its rebuilding. That freedom of choice has not been granted by the Australian federal government yet, and I will continue to fight to secure the freedom of choice of people as to whether or not they continue to live here amongst us in the community that they have very much become a part of, or whether they choose to return home.
Madam Speaker, I look forward very much to the celebrations that will occur on Sunday evening, and I congratulate the people of Timor for never, ever giving up their struggle for freedom.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: I thank honourable members for their contributions to that motion. I particularly want to thank the member for Katherine for sharing with us his very personal experience on a very historic occasion. You have had an experience that many of us would envy.
Mr BURKE: A point of order, Madam Speaker. Just before the vote is taken, whilst it is not appropriate to have a division, is there any way we can record that the vote was unanimous?
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, we will.
Motion agreed to unanimously.
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
Pass all stages
Pass all stages
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent bills entitled Criminal Property Forfeiture Bill 2002 (Serial 60) and Criminal Property Forfeiture (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2002 (Serial 61) (a) being presented and read a first time together and one motion being put in regard to respectively, the second readings, the committee’s report stage and the third readings of the bills together; and (b) the consideration of the bills separately in the Committee of the Whole.
Motion agreed to.
CRIMINAL PROPERTY FORFEITURE BILL
(Serial 60)
CRIMINAL PROPERTY FORFEITURE (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL
(Serial 61)
(Serial 60)
CRIMINAL PROPERTY FORFEITURE (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL
(Serial 61)
Bills presented and read a first time.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bills be now read a second time.
The existing Northern Territory legislation in this area, the Crimes (Forfeiture of Proceeds) Act, is ineffective and outdated. This is not a recent phenomena, not something restricted to the nine months since this government came into office. The original act was introduced in 1988 and has been largely useless since that time. The relevant records reveal that there were 64 cases where offenders were arrested or summonsed for matters involving possession or receipt of the proceeds of crime under the existing legislation.
Of those matters, only three proceeded to a court hearing. Of those, two resulted in confiscation of proceeds. Only one of these matters involved the proceeds of drug crime. In that case, only $7000 in cash was successfully confiscated.
The purpose of the bills I am introducing today is to repeal the existing scheme, replacing it with a non-conviction based civil scheme that reflects best practice in this regard. This scheme will bring the Northern Territory into line with developments occurring in most other Australian jurisdictions.
This legislation is aimed at preventing the unjust enrichment of certain individuals as a result of criminal conduct. Criminals should not profit from their criminal activity or benefit from their ill-gotten gains. This legislation provides a mechanism outside the criminal jurisdiction for forfeiture of property used in, or in connection with, the commission of a criminal offence. In particular, the legislation makes provision for the forfeiture of property of a declared drug trafficker, a person convicted of three serious drug offences.
The proceeds of crime are derived at the expense of the rest of the community. They are earned through harm and suffering of others. They can be used to finance future criminal activity and they are tax free. Criminals have no legal or moral entitlement to the proceeds of their crimes and, where property is used to facilitate criminal activity, that property will be forfeited to the Territory.
The need for strong and effective laws for the forfeiture of proceeds of crime is self-evident. The objective of such laws is threefold:
(1) to deter those who may be contemplating criminal activity by reducing the possibility of
gaining a profit from that activity;
(2) to prevent crime by diminishing the capacity of offenders to finance future criminal
activities; and
(3) to remedy the unjust enrichment of criminals who profit at society’s expense.
Since the 1980s, all Australian jurisdictions introduced laws enabling proceeds of crime to be confiscated after a conviction had been obtained - that is, conviction-based laws. These laws have not been fully effective. In particular, they have failed to have an impact upon those individuals involved at the more serious levels of criminal activity. Advancements in technology and the ease of national, even global communication allow individuals to be involved in sophisticated and large-scale criminal activity while being distanced from the actual criminal act. These individuals are able to evade conviction and, therefore, place their profits beyond the reach of conviction-based laws.
In its 1999 report entitled Confiscation That Counts, the Australian Law Reform Commission concluded that conviction-based laws were inadequate. Several Australian jurisdictions have now enacted or are in the process of enacting more effective laws enabling proceeds of crime to be frozen and confiscated through civil proceedings without the need to obtain a conviction.
The Criminal Property Forfeiture Bill 2002 achieves a complete overhaul of our existing conviction-based system for confiscating proceeds of serious crime. It represents a concrete demonstration of this government’s tough stance against crime. All forfeiture proceedings under the Criminal Property Forfeiture Bill 2002 will be civil proceedings. The bill provides a mechanism for civil forfeiture which does not require a conviction for a criminal offence as a condition precedent.
Civil forfeiture can occur when a court is satisfied that it is more probable than not that criminal conduct has occurred. Such a finding by a court does not constitute a conviction, and no criminal consequences can flow from it. The scheme is concerned with accounting for unlawful enrichment in civil proceedings, not the imposition of criminal sanctions. The object or focus of the proceeding is the recovery of assets and profits, not imprisonment.
The bill provides mechanisms for restraining orders over property so that, for example, where the police believe that property is crime-used or crime-derived, then the Director of Public Prosecutions may apply to the court for a restraining order in respect of that property. Crime-used property is that property used in or in connection with the commission of a forfeiture offence, or property of equal value. Crime-derived property is property derived directly or indirectly from the commission of a forfeiture offence.
A forfeiture offence is defined in the bill as an offence punishable by imprisonment for two years or more or any other prescribed offence. Where the court is satisfied that it is more likely than not that the property was crime-used or crime-derived, then the court must order forfeiture of that property.
The court will also be able to make forfeiture orders in relation to declared drug traffickers, unexplained wealth, criminal benefits and crime-used property substitution. The court may declare a person to be a drug trafficker when that person has been found guilty of three serious drug offences within a period of 10 years. For the purposes of the declaration, a serious drug offence includes cultivation, possession or manufacture of a commercial or trafficable quantity of an illicit drug.
Unexplained wealth is described in the bill as property equal in value to any amount by which the total value of a person’s wealth exceeds the value of the person’s lawfully derived income - the difference between the person’s total wealth and the wealth for which they can lawfully account.
A crime-used property substitution order may be used, for example, where the person has engaged in unlawful activity but does not own the property used in the commission of the criminal activity. That person will be ordered to pay an amount equivalent to the value of the crime-used property.
Forfeiture orders in relation to criminal benefits will prevent criminals exploiting their notoriety for commercial purposes such as by selling their stories to the media because such profits fall within the definition of criminal benefits and as such forfeit to the Territory.
The objects of the legislation can only be achieved if law enforcement officers are provided with appropriate powers of investigation. The bill provides for information gathering powers including monitoring, suspension, examination and production orders and search warrants. There is also a power to detain a person where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the person has property liable for forfeiture or property tracking documents in his or her possession.
Suspension orders allow for the suspension of financial transactions so as to provide law enforcement officers with 48 hours in which to investigate appropriately as to those transactions. This prevents the possible transfer of funds out of the jurisdiction while such investigations take place. The legislation makes it an offence to disclose any financial information collected under such an order; such offence being punishable for up to five years imprisonment.
The bill does provide for legal assistance for people who are indigent because their assets are restrained. Legal assistance in forfeiture proceedings can be provided by the Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission in accordance with the organisation’s guidelines. Restrained assets are to be ignored for the purposes of the means test. The bill enables legal aid commissions to be reimbursed for the provision of such legal assistance from the restrained assets of the person and to the extent of any deficiency, upon application to the minister, out of funds realised from the forfeited property. Such provisions will prevent any possible negative impact on the operation of legal aid organisations with respect to their legal aid priorities.
A number of consequential amendments are also necessary to facilitate the operation of the new forfeiture scheme. The Criminal Property Forfeiture (Consequential Amendments) Bill will amend the Sentencing Act, the Misuse of Drugs Act and the Director of Public Prosecutions Act so as to facilitate the operation of the new scheme.
As I previously outlined, under the new legislation a person may be declared a drug trafficker and as a result of that declaration, all properties subject to a restraining order owned or effectively controlled by the person and all property that was given away by the person will be forfeited to the Territory. The Misuse of Drugs Act is amended to provide for that declaration and to provide which offences are relevant for the purposes of a hearing of an application for a declaration.
The Sentencing Act is amended to allow a court to take into consideration, in sentencing an offender, any cooperation shown by the offender in resolving any action taken against the offender under the proposed legislation. It also provides that the court may have regard to a forfeiture order to the extent that the order forfeits property that is not crime-derived in relation to the offence for which the offender is being sentenced. Finally, it provides that the court must not make allowance for any other property that is being or may be forfeited when sentencing an offender who has been a respondent in those proceedings.
The Director of Public Prosecutions Act is also amended by providing that where the Director has conducted proceedings related to forfeiture, the property is forfeited to the Territory under a court order. It is a function of the Director to take any further proceedings that may be required to recover the amount or enforce the order.
Finally, the bill repeals the Crimes (Forfeiture of Proceeds) Act and provides that the operation of that act continues in relation to any proceedings commenced under that act before its repeal until the proceedings are finally determined.
Madam Speaker, this is long overdue and important legislation. It will greatly assist in fighting serious crime in our community. The profit of those who traffic or trade in drugs or participate in other criminal activity is at our expense. These bills will ensure that an effective, broad ranging scheme is put into place to recover those profits and deter people from participating in criminal activity.
I commend the bills to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT (WITNESS INTIMIDATION) BILL
(Serial 48)
(Serial 48)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now a second time. The purpose of this bill is to provide witnesses with protection from intimidation. The new provisions will protect a witness who is about to give evidence, will have to give evidence in the future or has already given evidence.
As part of this government’s commitment to drug law enforcement, this amendment will strengthen the operation of the three point plan. A successful drug conviction is often dependant upon a witness giving evidence. If we do not prevent witnesses from being intimidated, it is likely that they will be reluctant to come forward and give their evidence. This can result in a witness disappearing on the day of the trial which will effectively undermine our criminal justice system. This must be avoided at all costs.
Witnesses must feel safe and secure in the knowledge that there are measures to protect them if they give evidence. It is therefore an important part of our tough-on-drugs strategy that a witness who is about to give evidence, whether that be just before the trial or months or years prior to the trial, should not be threatened or intimidated by any person nor suffer abuse or threats by any person after having given that evidence. Nor should any person suffer intimidation by way of indirect means. For example, if one family member is called as a witness, it may be that intimidation is directed at their partner, their children, other family members or friends. Such intimidation will also be caught by this amendment to the Criminal Code. Any person who exhibits any intimidating behaviour towards a witness or others will suffer severe penalties.
A concerned parent also raised this issue with me when her son had been subjected to threats and abuse from an accused after her son had given evidence in a court case. Whilst police were aware of the problem and are sympathetic to the situation, they were unable to assist because it is not an offence under Northern Territory legislation to intimidate a person who has given evidence. While the Criminal Code contains offences of broad application which can be used in some circumstances of witness intimidation, there is no specific offence as contained in section 36A of the Crimes Act of the Commonwealth. Section 36A makes it an offence to intimidate a person for or on account of his or her appearance as a witness in judicial proceedings.
Consequently this bill will insert a similar provision to section 36A of the Crimes Act of the Commonwealth into our Criminal Code to address this issue. The maximum penalty of seven years will be imposed to deter such behaviour and provide consistency with sections 95, 100 and 101 of our Criminal Code that deal with corrupting or threatening jurors and corrupting and deceiving witnesses.
Madam Speaker, the criminal justice system relies on the cooperation of members of the community to come forward and give their evidence, and it is totally unacceptable that anyone who does so should be harassed and threatened. This type of behaviour will not be tolerated. I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
PRISONS (CORRECTIONAL SERVICES) AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 51)
(Serial 51)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to omit the current section 8(1) of the Prisons (Correctional Services) Act and substitute a new section to permit the Director to appoint only those persons who are employees within the meaning of the Public Sector Employment and Management Act to be prison officers. Since 6 June 2000, the legislation has provided for the Director to appoint any person whether they be a public servant or not to be a prison officer. The then shadow minister for Correctional Services, the Honourable Syd Stirling MLA, opposed the amendment with the strong support of the Northern Territory Prison Officers Association. In fact, he gave an undertaking to repeal the amendment if the membership of the Association supported its repeal. The Association strongly supports this action.
The argument for the amendment at the time was to create the potential for savings. However, it is interesting to note that there has not been one single person other than a public servant appointed as a prison officer since the amendment in June 2000. This indicates that there was little if any purpose in amending this act in the first place. Further, employing private security guards within the prison system is contrary to this government’s policy. We prefer to work with the Prison Officers Association rather than against it, and I have every confidence that we can work together to achieve the required outcomes that ensure an efficient and effective prison service. I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
MOTION
Note Paper - Auditor-General’s Analysis of the 2000-01 Treasurer’s Annual Financial Statement
Note Paper - Auditor-General’s Analysis of the 2000-01 Treasurer’s Annual Financial Statement
Continued from 27 November 2001.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, since November 2000, the Auditor-General has prepared a special November report on the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Statement and Report rather than include these comments in his February report.
Given the importance of the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report in reporting on the outcomes of each financial year, this is appropriate. I am pleased to report that the Auditor-General has recognised the noticeable improvement in the latest report as a result of the change in government. However, he states that further improvements could be made.
I agree with him on both these points. It is a matter of deep regret that the previous government did not see fit to utilise the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report to provide a more open and transparent accounting of the budgetary performance of each year. Again, this reflects the deterioration in the budgetary and reporting culture that occurred under the previous government. One of the key reasons for this was that previous reports focussed on comparing the actual outcome of the latest financial year with the actual outcome of the previous year.
While year-on-year comparisons are valid and important, so too is the reporting of actual outcomes against the budget for that year. This is one of the key changes that I made with respect to the latest report. Prior to this report, Territorians and parliamentarians had to go through a complicated process of analysis to compare the outcomes with budget. That complete lack of transparency, I am pleased to report, is now a thing of the past.
As with past years, the Auditor-General has also had to reconcile differences between the headline deficit of the budget sector with the published debt figures which are on a uniform presentation basis. The Auditor-General has been critical of the way in which the Conditions of Service Trust, traditionally treated as an off-budget entity, was brought into the public account and used to mask the real increase in estimated debt for 2000-01 contained in the 2001-02 budget papers which were published in May of last year.
The changes instituted under the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act mean that this sort of ambiguity will be relegated to the past. With regard to final consumption expenditure, the Auditor-General has noted that the estimated outcomes reported in the 2001-02 budget papers in May of last year contained adjustments to the health and education amounts. This is, of course, subject to inquiry by the Public Accounts Committee, and I look forward to its report being tabled in the Assembly next week.
However, of equal concern is the identification by the Auditor-General of the $70m blowout in final consumption expenditure compared to the original budget. This highlights the former government’s approach to budgeting and reinforces the findings of Professor Percy Allan. 2000-01 provides a clear example of how the former government failed to provide appropriate fiscal discipline and simply kept adding to the bottom line through the year.
Some of these items clearly could not have been foreseen at the time the budget was brought down, such as the collapse of HIH and repairs to flood-damaged property, but a number appear to reflect poor estimation of future expenditure. For example, $8m additional funding was required by the Department of Education to meet its personnel costs, including retrenchment costs but, as well, the normal costs of its operational staffing level. ITMS needed supplementation of $3m related to the implementation of IT outsourcing. Both these items seemed to indicate that either estimates provided by the agencies were less than satisfactory or that the estimates were kept artificially low.
The Auditor-General also is critical about the lack of adequate information on capital spending, particularly with regard to the capital works program. This criticism applies to both the budget information as well as that contained in the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report.
My government is well aware of these concerns, which are reflected in the wider community, especially the construction sector. We all got used to the CLP announcing with much fanfare its capital works program, and then finding that there was little cash allocated against the item in the year in which it was announced. Further, items on the program would simply not proceed, sometimes for years, and then be re-announced at a later date. You only have to think of the Alice Springs Hospital which was announced more times than you could remember and finally, 10 years after the first announcement, actually got a very timely and excellent refurbishment and redevelopment.
As a consequence, I’m investigating ways in which this information can be improved and made more relevant for the community, and for parliament in the 2002-03 budget papers in August. Similarly, I can assure the parliament that reporting on outcomes in future Treasurer’s Annual Financial Reports will also be improved.
In total, capital expenditure was close to that originally budgeted although, within the components, there was substantial variation. Chief among these were transactions related to the railway, and to the purchase of the Darwin-Katherine transmission line for $43m.
The Auditor-General makes the disturbing link that, given the outcome for capital expenditure was very little different from that originally budgeted, a significant part of the increase in debt reflects borrowings to finance recurrent expenditure. In other words, putting the weekly groceries on the Bankcard. This is a damning outcome of the previous government’s financial mismanagement. The Auditor-General has also undertaken an examination of the previous government’s fiscal strategy, with the recommendation that the strategy be reviewed by the new government.
My government acknowledges these comments, although a revised strategy was incorporated in Labor’s financial statement. It is clear that the move to accrual accounting from the next budget will necessitate the update of that strategy. This will be incorporated within the budget documents in August. As part of that review process, the government will examine the strategies and standards utilised by other jurisdictions. I believe it is clear from my comments and actions that my government is dedicated to the improvement of budgetary and financial information including its reliability, its accuracy, and its transparency.
It is pleasing to see that these efforts are being recognised elsewhere. Access Economics, in its March 2002 Budget Monitor, includes a chapter of fiscal transparency, and I lay on the Table an extract from the Monitor.
The Territory’s ranking by Access Economics is a C+, on par with South Australia and ahead of New South Wales, the ACT and Tasmania. Last year, the Territory was ranked worst among the states and territories, and had a score of D-, which is a fail in terms of Access’ score card. Access Economics in that Monitor makes a couple of pertinent comments. First, and I quote from them:
- Good fiscal reporting goes a long way towards establishing public confidence in budgetary practices.
The more fiscal reporting practices are seen to be independent of the government of the day, and best
practice, the greater will be the public’s confidence in those reports.
My government agrees with these comments wholeheartedly, and they lie behind the introduction of the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act. The public’s confidence in the CLP’s budgets has been shattered by blatant political interference in the budget process. The Martin government is committed to rebuilding that confidence, and I’m confident next August’s budget will be another step in that process.
Second, referring again to the Monitor, Access Economics says:
- Once the Northern Territory introduces accrual reporting in the forthcoming budget, its ranking will improve further.
Only since reporting improvements have been introduced by the new government has the NT’s reporting reached
acceptable levels. Prior to that, our view was that the NT’s public finances were the least transparent… including
being a good deal less transparent than even Tasmania.
Here is an independent commentator providing their opinion on the reporting performance of the CLP. Quite simply, it was unacceptable. And what is it under the new government? It is already acceptable and is set to improve further with the introduction of accrual reporting from the next budget.
I would like to thank the Auditor-General for his comments. They form a valuable contribution to public and parliamentary debate about the financial performance of the Territory government, both past and present. I know that this House would like to thank now-departed Auditor-General, Iain Summers, for an excellent job over seven years and, as I announced this morning, welcome Michael Blake as his replacement.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr REED (Katherine): Madam Speaker, if rewriting history was a crime the Chief Minister would be in gaol. For example, the reference that she just made to her government introducing accrual accounting, it was I as the then Treasurer in May last year who announced that the Northern Territory would be moving to accrual accounting. I think that is as good as an example as anything else to demonstrate just how deceitful this Chief Minister can be in terms of rewriting history and trying to take credit for things that she has had nothing to do with.
Another example - and you will see this on the coming Saturday week - is notwithstanding the abhorrence that she has for the alleged black hole, there are parts of the black hole that she is prepared to embrace with great alacrity. We will see it on Saturday week as she embraces and launches and opens the convention centre in Alice Springs. She won’t say this is the part of the black hole I like and all the gathered throng here in Alice Springs who will benefit, or have benefitted, in terms of the construction of this facility and will benefit in the ongoing business that it will bring to town. I daresay she won’t give any credit to the former Northern Territory government in relation to the fact that had it not been for them, she would not be there on that occasion opening the new convention centre in Alice Springs.
It is rather like speaking out both sides of the mouth for the Chief Minister …
Ms Martin: Do you suggest I refuse to open it?
Mr REED: Well, whoever’s going to open it. In terms of the duplicity of the Chief Minister and we saw …
Ms MARTIN: A point of order, Madam Speaker! This is totally inappropriate. Totally inappropriate talking about duplicity and other things. He should talk about the Auditor-General’s statement.
Madam SPEAKER: I don’t think there is a point of order. Continue, member for Katherine.
Mr REED: It all relates to the period of the document but, of course, the Chief Minister would not want to hear this and I can understand her sensitivity.
Another fine example of it of course we have seen throughout the course of this year is the opening of sleeper plants. A lovely part of the black hole; something we can embrace and get a bit of warm glow from in the public arena. Let’s just forget about the black hole in relation to the sleeper plants. This is a nice part of the job that I can enjoy and I would not be enjoying much else if it had not been for the former CLP government had they not put this railway in place.
Of course, following that, we had the great spectacle of the laying of the first track in Katherine. Yet another part of the alleged black hole that the Chief Minister finds to be quite attractive and provides the opportunity for her to strut the stage.
Rather a shame that the Katherine Times of that week in reporting that had a front page story with a photograph of the member for Lingiari and the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory at the opening; 40% of those papers did not sell in Katherine. Quite amazing. The first time it has ever happened. They were left on the shelves in the news agencies and other newspaper outlets in Katherine. The only thing that the locals could put it down to were the two faces on the front page. They were so repugnant and of course people saw through the fact of ‘Oh, this must be a nice part of the alleged black hole. We can see through this so there is no point us taking that newspaper home because of the deceitfulness of the two people on the front page trying to take credit for it’.
Mrs AAGAARD: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I think the word ‘deceitful’…
Mr REED: So, Madam Speaker, let’s just…
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Katherine, we have a point of order.
Mrs AAGAARD: Madam Speaker, I do not feel that the member for Katherine should be referring to the word ‘deceitful’ in relationship to the Chief Minister. I think he should withdraw.
Madam SPEAKER: I do not understand that point of order. No.
Ms Martin: How come deceitful is different from lie, though? Hey, hey?
Mr REED: It is a word you use regularly. You have used it these sittings. But it is all right for you and we understand that because you are deceitful.
Madam Speaker, can I say that I reject the assertions made by the Chief Minister in relation to the comments she has made as regards this document. I think the few examples, and there are many more, that I have given in relation to just how tricky she can be, and selective. She suffers very seriously from selective amnesia. When it suits her in the public arena to embrace something that the Northern Territory government did whether or not it contributed to the alleged black hole, well, that’s all right for the Chief Minister.
Well, can I say to her that if she thinks that this is going unnoticed by the general populace, she is terribly wrong. People are alert to it and they are talking about it quite extensively. In that regard she would do well to take a little bit more notice of them and just have a few pangs of guilt next time she stands up to take credit for something that was put in place by the former government and perhaps to even recognise it.
They are very pertinent points in that regard. As I say, so too is the accrual accounting that she’s now trying to take credit for. Her Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act, when you look at it, when you read it, there is nothing in there that makes it necessary for the current government to change anything in relation to reporting.
The processes are generally followed and have been and, of course, what she’s also chosen to very cutely overlook is the fact that over the last five or six budgets there have been changes every year in the reporting process, and they’ve been recognised by the financial people, the reporters, in terms of how budgets are being reported and the improvement and the extension of budget reporting processes over the years.
As I indicated at the outset of my contribution to this debate, the fact that accrual accounting was alluded to in the last budget I introduced and was to be accompanied by a range of other initiatives to further improve the accounting process and the reporting process, it ill behoves the Chief Minister to try and rewrite history. The people of the Territory are very much familiar with how she operates now and it’s just a matter of correcting the record when she attempts to do it. But I reject the ridiculous assertions she made, and in terms of the examples I’ve given, I think they adequately illuminate the situation.
I take this opportunity, though, in closing my remarks to thank the former Auditor-General, Iain Summers, for the contribution he made to the Northern Territory during his holding of that very responsible position. I am sure the incoming Auditor-General will do the same. Not an easy task but an essential one in terms of reporting to this parliament. The government does not own the Auditor-General. This parliament owns the Auditor-General and this parliament is the entity to which the Auditor-General reports. It rather downgrades the position of the Auditor-General for the Chief Minister to try and make some assumption that there’s some close contact in terms of relationships - working relationships, I’m talking about - and responsibilities between the Auditor-General and the government.
The Auditor-General clearly reports to this parliament and is responsible to this parliament and all of its members. I look forward to meeting the new Auditor-General. I’m sure that he will perform to a very high standard and keep the members of this parliament so informed.
________________________
Visitors
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, before we go on with the next speaker in this debate, I would like to advise you of the presence in the Gallery of Vocational Education and Training students from Ali Curung. On behalf of all members, I welcome you to our parliament and it’s very pleasing to see you with the teacher, Kevin Diflo, who I think many people will remember. A warm welcome to you all.
________________________
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to the Auditor-General’s November 2001 report but before doing so, I would just like to digress and thank you for a very pleasant evening last night. Members from both sides of the House certainly enjoyed your hospitality and also enjoyed meeting the new CEO of the Northern Territory Tourist Commission. It was a fine night, and I know others join with me in thanking you for that.
Members: Hear, hear!
Dr BURNS: I, too, have prepared something in thanks to the Auditor-General, but I thought I would wait to the next debate which is about his very last report, his 2002 February report.
Looking at this November 2001 report, looking at that report as a report card, it appears to contain little good news regarding the previous government’s fiscal stewardship.
One of the major issues raised by the Auditor-General in this report is the $116m increase in net debt compared to the budgeted increase of $45m, which is approximately $70m difference. The Auditor-General, in his report, reports that most of this $70m was to do with increases in recurrent expenditure. He also observes that, at current interest rates, an extra $4.3m per year will be required to service this extra debt.
I believe Professor Percy Allan commented on consecutive blow-outs in final consumption expenditures of between $65-70m per year under the previous government. Whilst the former Treasurer might try and argue that this was because of natural disasters, the Auditor-General and Professor Allan are very clear that these blowouts were due to additional recurrent expenditure. I believe it is quite wrong of the former Treasurer to pretend that the Alice Springs Convention Centre, the sleeper factory are actually part of the black hole. They are not. These are blowouts in additional recurrent expenditure. To me, this indicates poor budgetary practices. Indeed, probably the major disaster was the financial management of the former Treasurer himself in allowing this to occur.
The Auditor-General has raised some questions in relation to some of the accounting treatments used in relation to railway funding, in particular the write-down of the $25m loan to the AustralAsia Railway Corporation. These matters aside, I believe the railway project is a wonderful investment for the Territory and I do compliment the former government, particularly the opposition leader, for all the hard work that he and others, such as Barry Coulter, did to secure this particular project.
The Auditor-General also makes an important point in relation to capital works for the 2000-01 financial year. He states, and I quote from page 5:
- The government should provide a more comprehensive accountability for capital works expenditure. This should
reconcile the announced capital works budget with the cash allocation to projects and to agency capital items
provisions and subsequently identify and report where variations occur in the actual capital outlays.
- There is great interest in the government’s capital works program from private sector businesses, yet sufficient government accountability for actual performance in capital works delivery is still not being provided.
Similarly, in his November 2001 report, the Auditor-General challenged the new government to take the opportunity to adopt better fiscal management performance measures. That is an important message that this government will heed. We will not head down the same path as the former government of systematically ignoring the advice of the Auditor-General.
I commend the Auditor-General’s November 2001 report to honourable members.
Motion agreed to; report noted.
MOTION
Note Paper - Auditor-General’s Report to the Legislative Assembly, February 2002
Note Paper - Auditor-General’s Report to the Legislative Assembly, February 2002
Continued from 28 February 2002.
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Madam Speaker, the role of the Auditor-General is important in a democratic process. It is one of the checks and balances in government accountability. The Auditor-General raised several key issues that arose during his term of office, and I wish to speak specifically on his report relating to the auditing of the public account where he addressed the inadequate controls over the Community Benefit Fund.
The Auditor-General had a look at this whole question of the Community Benefit Fund and his investigations laid bare several quite serious concerns about the use of public monies under the former government. The Community Benefit Fund accumulated as a result of additional taxation levels on hotel poker machines following their introduction on 1 January 1996.
Barely 18 months after those machines were introduced in the community in July 1997, disbursements from the fund to community groups ceased pending a review of the gaming industry. The funding of amelioration programs to Anglicare and Amity Community Services continued, but the rest of the fund was frozen from July 1997. This parliament never saw a review in relation to the reason given as to why the Community Benefit Fund was frozen; it never saw the light of day. Nothing was ever tabled by the former government in relation to the review.
In March 2001, the former government decided to use part of the accumulated fund to make grants under the Small Grants Program to grassroots community groups. Although not mentioned by the Auditor-General, the fact is that the money started to flow in 2001, an election year. For some reason, - again, never explained - the responsibility for the fund passed from the Minister for Racing, Gaming and Licensing to the Treasurer at that time. The Auditor-General also found that, after initially setting the pool of grants to be distributed at $1m in March 2001, on 16 July it was upped to $1.6m, just four weeks before the election.
Public servants were left with the job of processing 520 applications for grants with very few specific criteria. In the haste to process payments during July, a matter raised by the Auditor-General meant proper controls were not in place. According to the Auditor-General, the CLP government was so eager they overpaid some recipients and they paid five recipients twice. Two payments totaling $9000 were made to the Casuarina Security Association Incorporated, an organisation in the Auditor-General’s words ‘that was dormant’. That money has still not yet been acquitted.
So, what was the government of the day doing in making payments to an organisation that was not a grassroots organisation in the first place? Why wasn’t the money paid directly to the target groups - the recipient groups, the ones who were going to do the community work and community benefit for this money? I think the answer to that is because the organisations that were going to do the work were found after the grant had been processed and the money paid.
The Auditor-General has been very generous in describing the Casuarina Security Association Incorporated as ‘dormant’. Even when it was operating, it had nothing to do with soccer clubs or playground equipment. Its original charter was to provide security around the Casuarina Shopping Centre using money from other government sources, but it stopped doing this some considerable time ago.
The Auditor-General said there was no indication that any check was made to ensure that the purpose of the grant was in accord with the basic objectives of the association. In the Auditor-General’s summary of key findings, there was a lack of evidence to support how the committee arrived at its recommendations. There was no feedback from the Treasurer to the committee or the Director of Licensing to identify why grants approved differed from the recommendations of the committee and, further, there were payments made without the benefit of recommendations from the committee, and there were recommendations for payments from the committee that were not actioned.
The Auditor-General spoke of unsatisfactory procedures. I suggest that it was blatant pork barrelling, without decent administrative procedures in the dying weeks prior to the 2001 election. I think that the former government had a view that they couldn’t lose and none of this would ever be exposed.
A lack of consideration of the taxation implications of the grants meant that in some cases tax invoices to properly account for GST had to be subsequently requested from recipients. The committee was required to consider over 520 applications under the Small Grants Program in a very short period of time. The committee relied on a long standing interpretation of grassroots which meant entities which were not umbrella organisations applying on behalf of a series of smaller entities.
The committee did not seek to determine whether any member of parliament was also a member of an organisation seeking funding assistance; it was not considered to be a relevant consideration. There is no requirement for a minister to provide feedback on why decisions differed from recommendations.
The whole exercise was far from perfect. Public servants were put into very awkward positions over this fiasco. They had legitimate processes hijacked from them and they were directed to make payments in such a way as to possibly leave them embarrassed in the future.
How will things be done differently by this government? The Martin Labor government will finalise a proper review of the Community Benefit Fund. That review will set parameters about how the fund should be used and it will put up clear accountability and transparent processes.
I also briefly mention the Auditor-General’s comments on CEO separation arrangements. The Auditor-General claimed there was insufficient documentation to support the extent of termination payments to former chief executives and executive contract officers. The Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment agreed that documentation needed to be improved and I am assured by the department that they will address the issue of adequate documentation in the future. However, the Commissioner for Public Employment asserts, and the government agrees, that the net outcome provided throughout that exercise did provide considerable savings to government.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, that was fairly selective reporting of the Auditor-General’s report. I notice it went to one item only and that is the extent of the government’s contribution.
Mr Stirling: No, it is not.
Mr BURKE: Well, it is pretty selective reporting. If I could address the issues very quickly that were raised by the Deputy Chief Minister and member for Nhulunbuy who makes much of the community grants that were paid out. I put it on the record that I have read the Auditor-General’s findings very closely and I can say that as Chief Minister at the time, I am proud of that grants program.
Mr Kiely: That was the ex-member for Casuarina.
Mr BURKE: It was done precisely for this reason: there is a whole range of organisations that do not have the ability to lobby for funds from government.
Dr Burns: That’s not the point.
Mr BURKE: If I could just pick up on the high handed, high moral position that a couple of the members on the other side are putting now, you will find in government, particularly as MLAs without the entre into Cabinet, to lobby for your own electorates that such a grants program will be of immense benefit for you in your own electorates. There are a whole range of organisations out there, many of which are not incorporated associations, many of which do not have access through their peak bodies, or if they do have access through peak sporting bodies, are very poorly resourced from the generous funding that certainly we provided for those peak organisations. They struggle from day to day to conduct what we believe were essential community services to their own constituency; some small, some larger, but in the general sense, mostly disorganised. For the most part, these organisations are not incorporated associations.
The member for Nhulunbuy makes the gross generalisation that this was essentially pork barrelling by the CLP government. If it was pork barrelling by the CLP government, it was a pretty poor effort at pork barrelling because if we were going to conduct a program of pork barrelling the electorates, we certainly would not have done it this way. You only have to go to the Auditor-General’s report itself to see there was a committee that was set up to look at these grants and to oversee where these grants were paid.
Of a total of 316 grants, 261 were paid on the recommendation of the committee; another 10 were paid although not recommended by the committee; there was one paid without recommendation; there were 10 that were paid more than recommended; there were five that were paid more than once, and that recovery action was in place; there were 11 that were paid less than recommended; and not paid although recommended totalled 34.
So if you look at the whole regime of that program, if you’re trying to pick holes or to suggest somehow we were pork barrelling the electorates, it was a pretty poor example of pork barrelling. All I can say is that - I know the member for Nhulunbuy was the recipient of some of those grants. I proudly in my own electorate handed out grants to a number of organisations. I know the work that they do in my own electorate; I know how difficult it was for them to get their funding and I was proud to be part of that grants program.
If the government is going to take the high moral attitude that they’re going to improve the program, well and good. We’ll see what you do and we’ll see how well it works and we’ll see exactly how those sorts of organisations that benefitted from those grants in the past are looked after by the government in the future.
This is the last report of this Auditor-General after seven years of service to this parliament and the Territory. I would like to put on record our appreciation of Mr Summers for his efforts while noting we did not always agree with his comments or his recommendations. The role of the Auditor-General is a crucial one in any true democracy, not only in the role of being an independent check on executive government but also as a direct advisor to the parliament.
I note the member for Johnston made much of the fact that under this government, the recommendations of the Auditor-General will not be ignored. Well, that’s good. I’ll hold you to that because it’s not an issue for the government per se; it’s really an issue for the Public Accounts Committee and the Public Accounts Committee needs no direction from the government of the day to walk in and decide to investigate any aspect of the Auditor-General’s report.
Dr Burns: One issue in seven years!
Mr BURKE: You’ve made the statement …
Dr Burns: One issue in seven years.
Mr BURKE: The member for Johnston has made the statement. He said that under his tutelage and in this government’s time, they’re going to really ensure that the Auditor-General’s recommendations are taken note of. I can say that the response by government so far to this report has been off handed, to say the least. The member for Johnston has set himself the task. He’s going to ensure that as Chairman of Public Accounts Committee, the government will make sure that they look at these reports. I just reiterate, particularly for the member for Nelson - and I’m not trying to lecture him - it is not for government to recommend what the PAC looks at. The Auditor-General puts down this report and the PAC itself can walk in and look at any aspect of that report at any time. So you follow up on what you claim you will do, Mr Chairman.
Madam Speaker, the role of the Auditor-General is a crucial one in any true democracy, not only in the role of being an independent check on executive government but also as a direct advisor to the parliament. The PAC, as I said, is the recipient in many respects of that parliamentary advice. Iain Summers has performed that job admirably in the past seven years and, as he himself noted in the last paragraph of his final summary to this parliament, and I quote:
- Throughout my term as Auditor-General I have been able to perform my professional duties free of any real or
implied interference from government. The government of the day has respected the independence of my role
despite audit findings and comments which at times have reflected adversely on the actions of the government.
I look forward to my successor enjoying similar professional independence.
I am quite sure that will be the case with his successor.
Let me turn to several of the matters reported on in this final report by Mr Summers. We’ve already heard the very selective reporting from the other side about one aspect of his findings but I believe it’s worth expanding on what he had to say about this new government. One of the first points he makes is that he is encouraged by the current government’s policy to introduce a Code of Conduct for parliamentarians. The trouble is that Code of Conduct has remained so far just that. It is a stated policy of the new government that they will introduce a Code of Conduct and we wait to see exactly how that Code of Conduct will be presented.
Certainly, the Code of Conduct could include a whole range of new clauses. It could include a clause on language in the parliament and the drafting of this new dictionary of language in the parliament could include the member for Nhulunbuy himself. I mean the ‘f’ word is a fairly favourite word of his; it could include the member for Sanderson who likes the ‘w’ word …
Mr Kiely: I love the ‘w’ word.
Mr BURKE: He likes the ‘w’ word – there you are, he has just said, Madam Speaker, he likes the ‘w’ word. The member for Nhulunbuy is very keen on the ‘f’ word.
If we are going to look at and draft a new Code of Conduct in parliament, this new government is setting new standards of parliamentary debate, new standards for the conduct of politicians in this Chamber. I would imagine that if we let these two, at least, loose, Madam Speaker, you could have a proposal for a new dictionary of parliamentary language.
It would be interesting to see what Territorians think of what that dictionary said. Respect for the parliamentary Chamber - now there’s a clause we could put in the new Code of Conduct. There are certainly staffers in the Chief Minister’s office who have some very clear ideas as to how this parliamentary Chamber should be used. They seem to think it’s …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! To which staffers is the Opposition Leader referring?
Madam SPEAKER: I think the Leader of the Opposition will clarify that.
Mr BURKE: Well, Madam Speaker, we know - and you have conducted the investigation - that certainly the incident in this Chamber was aided and abetted by at least one staffer who is currently on staff who I know presented some sort of an apology to the Speaker, and I believe that that was fairly inadequate.
But the thing is we are talking about this new government. This new government has standards of conduct, it wants to lay down those standards of conduct in a new Code of Conduct for the parliament, so I would be very interested in who drafts that clause. Certainly, there are one or two staffers up there and some of the MLAs, including the Chief Minister, who seemed to think it was quite a giggle when I saw her reaction on television. It might set a whole new approach as to how we treat this parliamentary Chamber. I would be interested to see how the Speaker handles that.
How we settle disputes in the parliament, now there’s one. The member for Millner has some very clear ideas. If you want to get your point of view across, at what point in debate do you say ‘Righto, that’s enough’ and decide that a good old stoush-up does the job. It might be that this parliament really has not been able to get to the real nub of issues using the current system of parliamentary debate. It might be that we set up a boxing ring in the middle of the Chamber here. We could have clear rules of how we actually conduct debate, and there is a point at which you move from this very stilted, very structured approach and just get into it.
The member for Sanderson’s really keen on this. You can see he is so frustrated by the constraints that are currently on him in this Chamber that he really would like to see some greater flexibility not only in language, but probably in the way we interact with each other. This is something that we should really throw on the table. This is something that really needs to be debated. I could not think of anyone better than the member for Millner to be involved in that sort of drafting. The member for Millner clearly has some ideas as to how we could move from debate to real interaction, and where and in what circumstances a good old punch up gets you the result that you want.
Participation in sport. Now this is something. The Minister for Sport and Recreation gave us a lecture the other day …
Mr STIRLING: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition can justify these remarks in relation to the Auditor-General, but I am having trouble putting a context on it. I ask from the point of relevance.
Madam SPEAKER: The Auditor-General did mention Code of Conduct in his report.
Mr BURKE: Madam Speaker, it is one of the first points he raises.
Madam SPEAKER: I think that is what the Leader of the Opposition is speaking to.
Mr BURKE: The Auditor-General not only mentioned the Code of Conduct, he said he looked forward to seeing the form in which this Code of Conduct was presented to the parliament. I am taking the opportunity in my response to reflect on what that Code of Conduct could be.
The minister for Sport and Recreation lectured this Chamber on participation in sport, said that we all need to be more active, said that he set standards for himself and his staff about how they need to engage more in sport. His views need to be put alongside the Chief Minister who believes that MLAs are too busy to participate in sport.
We need some clarity on exactly how the government believes ministers and members should keep themselves active. Should we be more active? Should we participate in sport and therefore under what circumstances would you ban a member from playing sport? Perhaps he is too busy, but we know that there is at least one member in this Chamber who has been banned from participating in sport.
How do you get your hand on taxpayers money to aid your election campaign? There are members who come into this Chamber, they say they need more information on how to undertake the rigors of not only parliament, servicing their electorate - but the real issue is how do you get yourself elected. In this Auditor-General’s report, we can see that through the misuse of taxpayers’ funds directly the members for Johnston, Sanderson, Millner, and Karama directly benefitted from taxpayers’ funds from the Leader of the Opposition’s office to win an election campaign. So, they’re a few …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The Auditor-General mentioned none of these things within his report.
Madam SPEAKER: But he did mention a Code of Conduct and I think the Leader of the Opposition is very broad in speaking to that.
Dr BURNS: He did mention a Code of Conduct, but if the Opposition Leader is referring to the matter of paper within the Opposition Leader’s office, there was no mention of me or any of the other candidates, and I ask him to withdraw it.
Madam SPEAKER: Well, he was not referring to the paper used by the Leader of the …
Ms Scrymgour: He was, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: … the current Leader of the Opposition’s office. I didn’t hear it that way. You know, when speaking to these reports that people do tend to take a broad view. We heard the Leader of Government Business concentrate on one element of the report. The Leader of the Opposition is now concentrating on another element of the report.
Mr BURKE: Madam Speaker, we are waiting to see how this government – it is now nine months - how they settle down, what sort of other misdemeanours and foibles and punch-ups and whatever they get into before we sit down and say we can really see how the new government wants to conduct business and what sort Code of Conduct we have.
One foible they have fallen for is paying to get rid of people, irrespective of the legal niceties of what are the different entitlements of someone who resigns or is sacked. The Auditor-General was in no doubt that something shonky had gone on; he makes it quite clear in this report that if the former CEOs ousted by this government on the day of the long knives, November 13, had resigned, they would not have been entitled to the payments that they received, payments, I would add, we are still waiting to have fully explained to this House and to Territorians.
The government had no compunction in revealing the payout of a former employee of the previous government in detail; the payment he received when he lost his job due to the change of government and a payout to which everyone knows he was clearly entitled after many years of service. I am sure if the government did their figures and brought forward the new rules - they claim two weeks for every year of service - the member would have got more than he actually received.
The Deputy Chief Minister took delight in standing up in this place revealing who it was and how much money that person received. What he or his leader won’t do is give us the same details about the CEOs that they sacked or forced to resign, or whatever mechanism they used to get rid of them. It was the government claiming that these CEOs were not forced out. It was the government saying these CEOs were not terminated, that they had chosen to go. Now, the Auditor-General doesn’t believe you and nor do Territorians.
The Auditor-General says that if you didn’t sack them, you didn’t terminate them, you paid them out too much money. Let me quote from the report:
- Public announcements by the government at the time indicated that no employees other than the Chief Executive
Officer of the former Attorney-General’s department would be terminated.
Of course, the Labor Party’s got a pretty long history of paying to get rid of unwanted people from their ranks. Once they got rid of old Bob Collins because he was an encumbrance as the leader. They offered him a Senate candidacy in order to get him out of the leadership in the Territory parliament …
Mr Stirling: Rewriting history again? Making it up again?
Mr BURKE: He has told us that himself. It’s one of the things that he holds with great bitterness about the Labor Party in the Northern Territory was not only the fact that they got rid of him – and you well know it – but the reasons they got rid of him.
So when you start running a high moral ground here - the member for Millner knows it very clearly - if you don’t, ask him. He’ll tell you, and he’s still bitter to this day for the reason that the Labor Party of the Northern Territory dumped him as leader.
In this report I am pleased to see that they have been caught out by the Auditor-General. Sadly, this new government’s reaction to the Auditor-General’s condemnation has been effectively to laugh it off. Their attitude has been: ‘Well, we’re the government now and we can do what we like and explain it how we like’. Of course, this report reveals that being over-enthusiastic with the use of taxpayers funds for their own ends is not something they have embraced only since reaching government.
The Auditor-General also investigated the legitimacy or otherwise of expenditure on inhouse photocopying in ministerial offices, and that included the office of the then Leader of the Opposition and now Chief Minister, the member for Fannie Bay. The investigation only covered the period between June 2000 and April 2001, a few months before the election - so it ended at that high period before the election - but in that period alone, the then Opposition Leader managed to use taxpayers funds to churn out 872 256 photocopies. That was three times as much as the then Chief Minister’s office achieved and more than 12 times the amount produced in the office of the then Deputy Chief Minister.
It was no secret that the then Leader of the Opposition was using her office and taxpayers funds to run the Labor campaign. It was no secret her office was producing the newsletters for Labor candidates using taxpayers’ paper and taxpayers’ photo copiers. Again, the Auditor-General has tagged them for it. He picked on two periods: the four weeks to 23 August 2000; and the four weeks to the 28 November 2000. In that period, almost 400 000 photocopies came out of the then Leader of the Opposition’s office. As the Auditor-General found, for more than 51% of these photocopies and publications no legitimate public purpose could be clearly demonstrated because of the political bias that they contained. He went on, and I quote:
Text in these documents appears to seek advantage for the political party then in opposition, and that it was
highly critical of the political party in government, while advancing the policy alternatives of the then Leader
of the Opposition’s political party. It featured endorsed candidates from the party in opposition in these
cases. It is reasonable to conclude that party political benefit was obtained ahead of the public benefit.
So you lot over there who put your hand on your heart - probably go to church, do you? - just remember, as far as I am concerned you are a bunch of thieves. You can make allegations against the former government, but you cannot point an allegation and say anyone in this former government put their hand in the taxpayers purse and put it in their own pocket. That allegation I lay squarely at you, and you have never been able to refute it because you know it is the truth.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, your time has expired.
Mr BURKE: Madam Speaker, I was going to sum up, but I simply say that this is a government now that is not only immoral but amoral, and that finding has clearly been evidenced in the Auditor-General’s Report.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Madam Speaker, I rise to speak on the Auditor-General’s February 2002 report. As has been canvassed here earlier, we are all aware that the former Auditor-General has completed his seven year term and moved from the position. This February 2002 report is his last.
At the outset, I would like to pay tribute to Mr Iain Summers. I believe he has worked very hard over the past seven years. He has a strong commitment to transparency in budget processes and making budget information more accessible and understandable for parliament and the people. He is also a strong advocate of performance auditing.
If I could just digress there, the Leader of the Opposition was trying to point to comments made by the Auditor-General about codes of conduct etcetera, but I think when you read the context in which the Auditor-General made those comments, it says quite plainly: ‘Major issues from seven years of auditing for parliament’ so he is talking mainly about seven years of the CLP government.
I would like to quote from his report. It says:
- This will be my last report to the Legislative Assembly before my seven year non-renewable term as Auditor-General
expires. It is appropriate that I draw on my experience to highlight issues which I consider warrant ongoing attention.
So his experience was seven years of CLP government. That is why he has called for these things. That is why he called for a Code of Conduct. That is why he commented, as I will show later, that only one issue in that seven years had actually been picked up by a Public Accounts Committee. So it is a bit rich for the Opposition Leader to come in here trying to point all this towards us.
Certainly, we will take all the messages of the Auditor-General on board because it was clearly the fact that the former government would not heed the Auditor-General’s advice that the public just got sick of them because they weren’t open and accountable and transparent in their processes. My speech today will illustrate many of those things.
In his final report, as I have said, he devotes a great deal of detail to what he calls major issues from seven years of auditing parliament. One of the most striking features of the outgoing Auditor-General’s report is the graph shown on page 8 of the report which clearly illustrates the growth of actual net debt over budgeted net debt. It’s quite plain here: 1997-2001, page 9. A very large increase. So every year since 1997-98 to 2000-01 inclusive, actual net debt has been significantly greater than budgeted net debt. In the past two budgets it has been in the order of some $65-70m per year.
The former Auditor-General commented as follows:
- This illustrates that the government initiatives to control net debt have not been achieving their intended result.
Yet this has not been well reported by the format adopted for the government’s primary audited financial
accountability document, the Treasurer’s Annual Report.
So in this statement, he is pointing to a lack of clarity in the former government’s primary financial accountability document, the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Statement. This was something that they were trying to hide, this row, if you like, of overexpenditure of between $65-70m per year.
As the opposition leader has pointed out, the Auditor-General’s Report draws attention to the need for ethics to underpin public sector performance and for the need for commitment to come from the top. He says, and I quote from page 13:
- I am encouraged by the current government’s policy to introduce a Code of Conduct for parliamentarians.
The report also draws attention to the disregard that successive Public Accounts Committees under the previous government had for matters raised by the Auditor-General over the seven years of his tenure. If I could digress, Madam Speaker, I believe the Auditor-General has been a voice crying in the wilderness; no one has been heeding him. One issue in seven years. What sort of a record is that? It’s a record of a government who didn’t really want to hear.
Members interjecting.
Dr BURNS: I will quote from page 13 of his report:
- While I have provided briefings to the Public Accounts Committees about my reports to the Legislative Assembly
since my first report in February 1995, there has been only one matter raised from my audit findings which has
been investigated upon by a committee.
I reiterate the commitment I made in reply to the Auditor-General’s comments found on page 14 of the report, in which I give a commitment as Chair of the Public Accounts Committee that we will be investigating these things, but before I do, just to illustrate the past seven years, I asked the Library to extract elements of the Auditor-General’s reports. I would like to flick through a few.
Here we go. 1999-2000 net debt showing an increase. Here it is going up, going up and up and up. Nothing happened. Here is another one of grave concern from the August 2000 report. It says:
- Most agencies did not maintain adequate internal audit capacity as required by the Financial Management Act.
Now, that is very, very serious. I will read it again. August 2000:
- Most agencies did not maintain an adequate internal audit capacity as required by the Financial Management Act.
And what did we have in the Annual …
Mr REED: A point of order, Madam Speaker! It is very interesting what the honourable member is talking about, but we are talking about the February 2002 report of the Auditor-General. He is going on about matters previous, I think it is 1996 or something to that effect.
Madam SPEAKER: Well, I have allowed a lot of leeway in this discussion, so I don’t think there’s a point of order.
Mr REED: He is not even within this report, he is talking about former reports, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Keep your remarks as relevant to the report as possible.
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, I strongly contend it is relevant in the context of what the Auditor-General has said. He has raised major issues over seven years of auditing for parliament. His comment …
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! He is reflecting on a committee of this parliament. The Public Accounts Committee is a committee of this parliament and you can’t use it interchangeably with the previous government, so these are matters that went to the Public Accounts Committee, not to the previous government, and I believe he is reflecting in an untoward way on a previous committee.
Madam SPEAKER: He is speaking to the report and comments the Auditor-General made and I have allowed that licence from both sides of the House.
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, I will get to the end of all of this, even though some people don’t want to hear it.
What I am reflecting on is the Auditor-General’s February 2002 report where he is reflecting on major issues from seven years of auditing for parliament. I am also reflecting on the fact that the Auditor-General comments, in this particular report, that in seven years of reporting and briefing previous Public Accounts Committees, only one issue had ever been taken up. That’s what I am reflecting on, and I am looking at some of the issues that were put before the Auditor-General. I will come back to it. August 2000 report:
- Most agencies did not maintain an adequate internal audit capacity as required by the Financial Management Act.
Here is another one from the August 1990 report. He says:
- Incomplete answers provided in the June 1999 Appropriation Bill debate in the Legislative Assembly to questions
about the performance of public sector entities reflect the unsatisfactory status of performance information which
I have been highlighting in comments from performance management system audits.
Here we go. Here is a comment from 1996. There seems to be a bit of a theme here:
- The Treasurer’s annual financial statement, while presenting information in accordance with the requirements
of the Financial Management Act or the Treasurer’s interpretation of requirements can be further improved as
a statement of accountability.
- The $43m settlement amount in terms of the Darwin to Katherine transmission line was paid by the government
based on its desire to remove the risk entailed in an expensive legal action …
- … which had uncertain outcomes, and on its assessment that acquiring the line as part of the settlement terms
delivered strategic benefits.
Mr Dunham interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Drysdale.
Dr BURNS: Here’s another one from the February 2001 report. Public information, advertising and community attitudes research. Here he says in his highlight on page 5 of the February 2001 report:
- The potential for political advantage to be gained from publicly funded community attitudes research could be
removed by public disclosure.
- And secondly, more appropriate disclosure to elected representatives of the political parties.
- Commissioning of the community attitudes polling contract are awarded to Wirthlin Worldwide Australasia Pty Ltd,
otherwise known as Wirthlin, in June 2000 for a value of $300 000 did not sufficiently demonstrate that value for
money was sufficiently considered before awarding the contract. Results are generally not being made public.
What else can I find here? That’ll do me for a while.
So in contrast to the attitude of the previous government or successive Public Accounts Committees, I would like to read my comments in relation to the comments the Auditor-General made - those concerning comments where he said that only one matter had been acted on in seven years. I wrote to him, and it’s published in this report. I said:
- The Auditor-General reports a general lack of responsiveness by previous Public Accounts Committees to
investigate issues contained in his reports during the seven years of his tenure. Indeed, he states that in the
same seven year period, only one matter raised from his audit findings has been investigated and acted upon
by a committee.
The Auditor-General suggests that, and I’ll quote again:
- … it would provided useful feedback in future if the committee included in its annual reports comments if no
matters are selected from the Auditor-General reports for further inquiries.
We are going to do a lot better than that. Based on his experience over the past seven years, this is a reasonable suggestion that should be implemented. Moreover, the incoming government has a commitment to strengthening the parliamentary committee system …
Mr Dunham: So you’re making this decision are you, Mr Chairman? Go for it, big guy. You don’t need the rest of us.
Dr BURNS: The member for Drysdale well knows that we have a commitment to that.
… in order to provide open and accountable government to the people of the Northern Territory. This includes appropriate consideration of matters raised by the Auditor-General relevant to the Public Accounts Committee. Therefore, it is quite likely that a number of matters raised by the Auditor-General would form the basis for examination by the current Public Accounts Committee in any 12-month period. We will. We are.
Mr Dunham: Fearlessly going to investigate this current government? Put it on the record, mate.
Mr Henderson: Look forward to your contribution.
Mr Dunham: We’re looking forward to the PAC’s good work in the future, mate.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, one of the troubling issues reported by the Auditor-General was in relation to the adequacy of internal audit capacities of agencies. He said:
- A number of Chief Executive Officers have displayed an insufficient understanding of how to use the resources
of professional internal audit to achieve the expectations of the government.
In the February 2002 report, page 36, the Auditor-General drew attention to a statement in his previous August 2001 report that adequate internal audit had still not been demonstrated by many agencies during the 2000-01 year. This is obviously a matter that the Auditor-General holds as important, and one which the current Public Accounts Committee will certainly consider following up; it is a viable issue.
Another topical issue the Auditor-General has raised is in relation to the stewardship of the Community Benefit Fund. I know the member for Nhulunbuy has already touched on this. I quote from page 20 of the report:
- $1.56m of small grant funding was paid to community groups from the fund during June and July 2001.
In contrast to what the Opposition Leader tried to allege, of course, this government wants to see community groups benefit by small grants. But it comes down to the control and proper auditing of those grants, the processing of those grants which the Auditor-General found to be very, very lacking under the control and oversight of the previous government. It is not right for the Opposition Leader to suggest that we don’t want to give money to deserving community groups. Of course we do, but it has to be done correctly. Let me follow up by what the Auditor-General said:
In haste to make payments from the fund proper, controls were not maintained.
It seems to be a bit of a pattern with the previous government: in haste to do everything; not having proper controls, not maintaining proper controls. His third dot point:
- Some expenditure was not properly authorised, duplicate payments were made, and GST consideration
and acquittal processes were overlooked.
And the fourth dot point:
- Processing and approval processes were unduly fragmenting and complicated.
And if I could read a couple of dot points from page 21 of his report. Here are a few, he said:
There was a lack of evidence to support how the committee arrived at its recommendations. There was no
feedback from the Treasurer to the Committee or the Director of Licencing to identify why the grants
approved differed from the recommendations of the Committee. The Director of Licencing made payments
out of the fund without obtaining clear evidence that the Treasurer had approved the amounts to be paid.
Grant cheques were distributed by ministers and other members from the party in government without
recipients being provided any supporting paper work to identify the acquittal requirements.
So it was the previous government. It was some of the ministers and previous MLAs that put some of these community organisations in the slot and I think they should be ashamed of themselves. They did not equip them with the knowledge and the paper work to be able to properly be cognisant of acquittal requirements.
- This necessitated letters to be subsequently sent requesting acquittal of the grants by the recipients. At the time
of the audit, few of the grants had been adequately acquitted.
The final one, I don’t think it goes over the page, I think there is enough there:
A lack of consideration of the taxation implication of the grants meant that in some cases tax invoices to
properly account for GST had to be subsequently requested from recipients.
What a litany of mismanagement! It was just blatant pork barrelling that went on, but they never really backed it up with the proper paperwork to allow those community organisations to do the right thing.
It is noteworthy the control - or lack of control, I think you would say - of the grant program, occurred within the former Treasurer’s office. He can take responsibility for this debacle, for all the strong criticism by the Auditor-General that I have previously alluded to.
This government is reviewing the Community Benefit Fund. We will move decisively to ensure that proper procedures are in place governing the disbursement of grants from the fund.
In his February 2002 report, the Auditor-General challenged the new government to take the opportunity to develop improved measures of our fiscal management strategy. This is an important message that this government will heed. We will not head down the path of the former government of systematically ignoring the advice of the Auditor-General. This is constructive advice we will act on.
Madam Speaker, I commend the report to honourable members.
Mr REED (Katherine): Madam Speaker, this is the last report that we will read presented by Mr Iain Summers. I would like to read out to members, from page 13, a cogent remark that he made, particularly given the theatrics that we have just been through from a couple of members opposite:
- Independence from government has occurred. Throughout my term as Auditor-General, I have been able to
perform my professional duties free of any real or implied interference from government. The government of
the day has respected the independence of my role despite audit findings and comments which at times have
reflected adversely on the actions of the government. I look forward to my successor enjoying similar
professional independence.
That is the challenge for this government, to allow the Auditor-General to perform his duties unhindered, without interference, and, as he says in this report, free of any real or implied interference. I hope we can look forward as a parliament to the new Auditor-General being able to experience those same conditions as the former Auditor-General to allow him to perform in a way completely unimpeded, implied or otherwise, by the government.
I do want to touch on a few points and I will start with the Community Benefit Fund. The member for Johnston has just been waxing lyrical about it and made particular reference to some comments made by the member for Nhulunbuy. Unfortunately, what the member for Nhulunbuy did not tell the member for Johnston was that the member for Nhulunbuy thought it was a fairly good program. In fact, my recollection is that the member for Nhulunbuy, when the Community Benefit Fund was in place, put an advertisement in the local newspaper saying ‘If you want to apply for a Community Benefit Grant, do so through my office’. That suggests to me that it was seen as a pretty good show, an opportunity for community organisations to take advantage of the grant program, which indeed it was. It also suggests this to me because we didn’t hear to the contrary from the good member for Nhulunbuy: I suspect that all of the grants that were applied for through his office were in fact granted.
Pork barrelling. We’re blamed for pork barrelling. The member for Nhulunbuy quite rightly acted in the way that he did to provide services and access and convenience to his constituents. It was all right on the day. It was all right the day he put the ad in the paper. It was all right on the days that he processed those applications and sent them through for consideration and, of course, when he found that all of the grants applied for in his electorate were granted.
Yet today, it is different. Oh, shock, horror. Let’s find a way to create some adverse remarks in relation to the former government because that’s what they’re focussed on rather than looking to the future and trying to make some progress on behalf of Territorians.
That example is quite sufficient to demonstrate that the Community Benefit Grant Program was not a pork barrelling exercise. It was used effectively by opposition members of the day just as it was used by others. There are community organisations right across the Northern Territory that benefitted in a very constructive way from that grants program, and I daresay are still benefitting from it.
The good member for Nhulunbuy, and indeed the member for Johnston was the same, in talking about the Community Benefit Fund, were turning pages but they had a little note on page 23 that said: ‘Don’t turn to page 24’. Page 24 talks about inhouse photocopying at the Leader of the Opposition’s office. I daresay pages 24, 25, 26 and 27 in the report to the members of the government benches are all taped together. ‘Do not open this section’. Very selective in terms of the way that the honourable members opposite have made comment on this report today. Of course, there is very good reason why they would not want to open pages 24 through to 27 with the very serious comments - and indeed I’d venture to say that the most serious comments in this report by the Auditor-General in that pages 24 to 27 are a cogent example of the use of taxpayers funds for political purposes.
Quite outrageous. There are no ifs, buts or maybes made in relation to the comments made by the Auditor-General. There were party political benefits but no broad community benefits from the exercise that was undertaken in the Leader of the Opposition’s office of the day in relation to the use of government stationery and requisites valued at no mean amount, $76 000. Other plant and equipment: $114 000. We are talking about $200 000 here that was pilfered from the tax payer for use by a political party for political purposes. If you don’t think that’s outrageous, then why are you going to bother with a Code of Conduct? Let’s forget all about it. It’s just a nonsense.
One day when you have the courage, get a razor blade, slit the tape off pages 24 to 27, have a read of it because it really is a good example of what shouldn’t be done by a party in terms of access to taxpayers funds.
Members interjecting.
Mr REED: We heard much from the member for Nhulunbuy, the Deputy Chief Minister, in relation to…
Mr Stirling interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! The member for Katherine has the floor.
Mr REED: …the over payment of a few Community Benefit Grants, if he thinks it’s serious enough in relation to a few thousand dollars to have recovery action undertaken, the member for Nhulunbuy might explain to us the details of the termination payments of chief executive officers and their contracts because we are not talking here about a few thousand dollars; we are talking about many tens of thousands of dollars.
If, as the Auditor-General suggests, these people in fact weren’t terminated, they were sacked …
Ms Martin: They were not sacked!
Mr REED: Well that conflicts - okay, so they weren’t sacked so …
Ms Martin: They were not forced redundancies.
Mr REED: I thank the Chief Minister for her interjection because if indeed they weren’t sacked then they were paid termination payments as if they were sacked, so the Auditor-General was correct. That being the case, if they have been …
Ms Martin: Negotiated separations! You understand that. You were the Minister for Public Employment.
Mr REED: No, you just said it. They weren’t sacked. Too late, Clara. They weren’t sacked, we heard from the Chief Minister.
Ms MARTIN: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Let’s have a bit of propriety here, I am either the Chief Minister or member for Fannie Bay, I am not to be referred to by the member for Katherine as ‘Clara’.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes. We will remember, members, that we do not refer to members by their personal or nick names.
Mr REED: I do apologise, Madam Speaker. The Chief Minister has advised us that they were not sacked. What the Chief Minister now has to do is to institute recovery action for the payments that were made over and above those termination payments because they were paid as if they were terminated according to the Auditor-General. If the Chief Minister and Treasurer has the respect for the Auditor-General that she says she has - otherwise is it just theatrics, and are we are just being nice and playing a game here? Is it just a game of charades? - then that’s an ideal thing for the PAC to have a look at.
The member for Johnston was seeking a reference to the PAC. Well, there’s a ripper for him. He can have a look at the Auditor-General’s report to see if recovery action should be undertaken to get the money back from those persons who were terminated because they were not sacked, yet the Auditor-General says they were paid as if they were sacked.
You can’t escape from it as a government in terms of the duplicitous way that you have gone about presenting this to the community. Let the Chairman of the PAC stand by his word. Let the Chairman of the PAC take up this suggestion by the Auditor-General and, indeed …
Mr Burke interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr REED: … the fact that he has just, in his contribution to this debate, indicated that he will be looking at these anomalies raised by the Auditor-General. Well, there’s the place for him to start, and we look forward to the deliberations of the PAC in that regard.
I want to spend a bit of time on the new government’s fiscal management strategy because we’ve heard a lot about it. It is going to be the saviour in terms of the management of the finances of the Northern Territory government. Let’s have a look at what the Auditor-General says about the new processes put in place by this new government.
The new government, he says, has defined its fiscal management strategies. Page 107. Let’s look at what he thinks of the various elements of the strategy.
- Element 1 – maintain current expenditure to growth consistent with inflation and population growth.
The comment then from the Auditor-General:
- Although Mini-budget Paper No. 3 forecasts results which meet this strategy, it suffers the same shortfall
as the previous government’s expenditure strategy.
That’s what I said in the contribution to the previous debate. You have changed nothing. This is a charade. In terms of what the current government is saying as regards improving fiscal management and financial reporting, it is no different in terms of what was in place formerly, and for the Chief Minister and Treasurer to try and present it otherwise, that she has improved the reporting process, is wrong.
- Element 2 - maintain a surplus of current revenue over current expenditure except in exceptional
circumstances (such as natural disasters).
Now let’s have a look there at the comment by the Auditor-General. These might be good subjects for the Public Accounts Committee to pursue:
Mini-budget Paper No. 3 highlights that the measurement of this cannot be extracted directly from
the budget papers.
We’ve been told, month in and month out since the mini-budget was brought down, that everything is in the mini-budget papers, in the new structure, that you could ever possibly want; it’s transparent, it’s open and everything there is for everyone to see. Not so, according to the former Auditor-General.
- Element 3 - maintain Territory taxes, fees and charges to comparable state-like levels.
Comment from the Auditor-General:
- This element is similar to a comparable one in use by the former government.
I thought all things former were trashed: no good, dreadful, useless, deceitful, misleading, lies. All the other adjectives and descriptions that we’ve heard that were trashed. they were washed through the system and this wonderful new government of honesty, transparency and accountability had introduced all these wonderful things. I have just been through three and they’re all either the same or they’re useless, according to the Auditor-General.
- Element 4 - adopt a transparent, equitable, counter-cyclical capital works program that complements activity
in the private sector to stabilise employment in the construction sector through each economic cycle.
What does the Auditor-General say?
- No clear definitions of ‘transparent’ and ‘equitable’ are provided to allow likely measurement processes to
be indicated.
What more damning response could you get from an Auditor-General in relation to a foundation element of a fiscal management strategy? And he goes on to say:
- Indeed, if achieving this element requires capital expenditure each year to exceed capital revenue, this
worsens the government’s net debt result.
Where are they coming from? The extent of misleading the Northern Territory community in relation to what they have heard concerning these fiscal management strategies is alarming.
- Element 5 - reduce net debt as a proportion of economic activity over time.
That’s the wish, that’s what we’re told is going to happen. What does the Auditor-General say?
- This is similar to one of the former government’s elements, but the former government provided convincing
arguments, [inaudible] full measure of vulnerability and sustainability, because it did not take accord of the
much higher direct per capita funding which allowed the Northern Territory government to service high per
capita debt levels. The former government used a preferred measure …
- a preferred measure, bearing in mind that we’ve heard from the new Chief Minister and Treasurer that all we did is trashed; terrible, useless, was ineffective and deceitful -
- … a preferred measure of net debt to total revenues to better capture the sustainability of the Territory’s debt
levels. Unless the former government’s position can be refuted, this measure, again, should be used.
Can you believe it? I daresay these comments are also taped together. This is the last thing members opposite, especially the Chief Minister and Treasurer, would want to have read. Here are his general comments:
- The five elements of the government’s fiscal management strategy are insufficient …
- … to indicate whether they are contributing to the government achieving its overarching goal of eliminating
net growth by 2004-05.
He’s blown it out of the water. Talk about sinking the Bismarck, this has got nothing on it. The River Platte doesn’t even come anywhere near the Auditor-General’s assessment of this government’s fiscal management strategy. The report goes on to say:
- More specific measures linked to the budget, and the budget reduction targets, should be adopted within the
framework of the fiscal management strategies.
Now, the Chief Minister will get up and she will give us all those lovely flowery words which Territorians are coming so much to hate. We will have to put up with them for another three years or so, but nothing will enable the Chief Minister, however flowery her words and her presentation in closing this debate, to cover up the comments made by the Auditor-General in relation to her government’s fiscal management strategy. The flowery words, the presentations that she has given to the business community and to this House in relation to the appalling circumstances that she inherited, the inadequate processes that were in place to control and report on the financial management of government are shot to pieces by the former Auditor-General’s report.
Her new strategies, indeed, when compared to the former government’s strategies are found, not only be wanting, but to be totally inadequate and to the extent that the suggestion is there that the new strategy should be replaced by that of the former government. No better remark could be made by an Auditor-General in relation to evaluating a fiscal management strategy and telling the government how it should be improved. What I want to hear from the Chief Minister and Treasurer is whether or not she will now live by her word because her word was that the Auditor-General, and we heard it in contribution to the former debate, is God in relation to these matters. She will adhere to what he has to say in terms of fiscal management strategy.
If she is going to keep her word, if she is going to have a scrap of honesty about the way that she runs the government, she will tell us now that she will improve her fiscal management strategy, the five elements in particular, adopt the recommendations of the Auditor-General, or at least refer them to the Public Accounts Committee so that they in turn can report back to government and we might be able to see some meaningful elements put into the fiscal management strategy reflecting the concerns expressed by the Auditor-General.
Mr HENDERSON (Business, Industry and Resource Development): Madam Speaker, I will be brief. I will go to the issues particularly in relation to my electorate and the Community Benefit Fund which the previous government saw as the great big lolly jar and pork barrel in the month leading up to the last election.
In deference to the Chief Minister, and being very quick, I will just put my concerns on the table. The audit findings: during July 2001, the month before the election, in the haste to process payments out of the Community Benefit Fund under the auspices of the $1m small grants program, proper controls were not maintained. I would like to go to the issue of the Casuarina Security Association and the $9000 which we are yet to account for. Again, the Auditor-General states an organisation that was dormant up to the receipt of the grants and we have all seen the NT News account in terms of who the office bearers were of this mythical association that was purely set up to receive the pork barrelling money in the month leading up the election, and of which a government minister, the former member for Casuarina, was the public officer and the only public officer on the incorporation document.
There was no indication that any check was made to ensure that the purpose of the grant was in accord with the basic objectives of the association. What we have had since then is the current Lord Mayor, the former member for Casuarina, twisting and turning, trying to acquit this money. It certainly came to my attention when it was mentioned in the NT News - I do not have the articles here with me now - that part of this money went to playground equipment in Strele Street in my electorate.
Now, I thought: ‘Last time I drove past Strele Street, I did not see any playground equipment there’ and sent my electorate officer out to have a look. Lo! and behold, there was no $7000 worth of new play equipment. So this government really does want to see what did happen to that money. There are a lot of unanswered questions about it. At the end of the day, Territorians did see through the blatant pork barrelling from the previous government and it was so blatant it helped bring them undone. Certainly there is no play equipment there. Apparently the Nakara Soccer Club did get some goal posts but that came out of the blue.
We want to know exactly when this cheque was cashed, which bank account it went in to, what number, when disbursements were made from that account and to whom, and how much money is in that current account and when it was deposited. Until those questions are answered, there is certainly a very - the current Lord Mayor has a lot of questions to answer.
There are some other questions about some shade cloth that appeared at Nakara Primary School, again in the months leading up to the election, about $3000 worth. The request from the former Member for Casuarina was that he wanted a plaque put up, right on the race in terms of the corridor that goes into the polling booth, stating that this shade cloth was donated or was won for the school on behalf of the Member for Casuarina. It got off side the school council so much, they refused to put it up. So just in terms of the blatant pork barrelling that went on with the Community Benefit Fund, there are still many questions unanswered and the current Lord Mayor has got a lot to answer for.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, there were some very important points made by the Minister for Industry, Business and Resource Development. I need to comment just briefly on the contribution by the opposition spokesperson on Treasury matters. I think, generally, he should take his tablets. It is always a tricky performance in here when he doesn’t and he gets over excited. It is disappointing that he was not listening to the previous discussion which was on the Auditor-General as well and the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report when I said very clearly that we have taken the Auditor-General’s statements on board about fiscal strategies and we’re certainly looking at how we can hone that fiscal strategy, particularly in light of the introduction of accrual accounting and we will be doing that.
So to have an hysterical attack in here about Labor’s fiscal strategy and comparing it with one that was never kept by the previous administration anyway, no matter how fine it may have looked on paper, then it is important that he does actually get some sense of the debates that are going on in here and what he’s said previously.
I welcome the Auditor-General’s comments. We take them seriously and we are certainly looking at them. We are, as I said in the previous debate, revising the fiscal strategy whereby we will run our Treasury matters. So that is fine; we welcome it. As a measure of our determination to make sure that we don’t see the kind of blurring of the lines and the performance that we saw in the last budget of fudging figures, we have introduced the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act.
This sets the foundations of what this government is about. It is important that members in this House do listen to debates when they are going to contribute later, particularly when it could inform them better. I recommend taking appropriate tablets before contribution to debate.
The role of the Auditor-General is an important one in the democratic process and one of the crucial checks and balances in government accountability. The responsibility of the Auditor-General is to audit the public account and to audit performance management systems of agencies to determine whether they enable the agency to assess whether its objectives are being achieved economically, efficiently and effectively. The Auditor-General’s February 2002 report was tabled here on 28 February this year. Again, I recognise the contribution made by Iain Summers as Auditor-General because this was the final report of his seven year term. A significant section of the report deals with key issues that arose during his term. His observation included:
- Performance information strengthens parliamentary democracy and the accountability of government.
I am sure everyone in here agrees with his view. It is one of the reasons why this government is proceeding with Working for Outcomes. One of the key objectives of the new accounting framework is to improve performance information, both to the government and public sector managers for decision making purposes as well as to the public for greater accountability.
Another key observation from the Auditor-General is that performance information should be audited. This is a contentious area in a number of jurisdictions whereby differences of opinion often emerge between experts in agencies and the Auditors-General. There is also a danger that agencies will specify performance targets where it is easy to demonstrate improvement rather than seek a comprehensive set of targets with genuine improvement as the goal. While I respect the Auditor-General’s view on this issue, it is a matter my government will keep under consideration as the implementation of Working for Outcomes progresses.
The Auditor-General highlighted that performance information about the achievement of service and policy outcomes needs to be improved. The Auditor-General is concerned the new accounting framework focusses on outputs rather than outcomes. Working for Outcomes by its very name has as its ultimate objective a focus on outcomes. However, it has to be acknowledged that the first step in assessing realistic outcomes is to specify, in a reliable and consistent way, outputs and to develop measures of quantity, quality, cost and timeliness in respect of these outcomes. When that base information on outputs is reliable, the assessment of outcomes can be made with greater certainty.
The Auditor-General also said the profession of public administration expects outcomes to be measured but this has lacked government support. Bearing in mind my comments earlier, this government will progressively move towards greater specification and valuation of outcomes as Working for Outcomes is implemented.
The Auditor-General says:
- Without performance information, the major efficiency initiatives of the government are not being
satisfactorily evaluated.
The Auditor-General has cited concerns with both Planning for Growth and the November 2001 mini-budget. Ultimately, it is the prerogative of governments to set expenditure levels for agencies or to alter the priorities of the functions undertaken. However, the initiative of my government to provide agencies with a single net appropriation will give CEOs and managers more flexibility in running their agencies, enabling them to focus on the achievement of the outcomes specified rather than line by line program budgeting. Ultimately, the evaluation of the government’s mini-budget will be measured in terms of whether the longer term deficit reduction strategy has been successful.
The Auditor-General considers that the changes initiated through the Planning for Growth and the new agency arrangements accompanying the mini-budget have involved insufficient consultation with staff and has relied too heavily on a directive style of management. My government is seeking to maximise the involvement and cooperation of agencies. However, given the financial situation my government inherited, it was imperative that we acted quickly. As mentioned earlier, the government is providing management with increased flexibility in the management of their budgets which will also allow greater consultation within agencies as to how improvements in productivity can be made.
Referring to the restructure of government agencies, we did put in place the task force to manage the process of the restructure and probably overall, about 200 people in the public sector actually had to move places following that restructure. The task force had union representation on it and I think it has proved very effective in managing that process of change. We have had good feedback from every department, through having delegates in each major area and overall - and change can be difficult, of course - the process has been managed very well.
The Auditor-General suggests that financial information now available to managers may not be sufficiently reliable for them to understand the impact of their decisions, and they do not yet have expertise in using accrual financial data. To deal with this statement from the Auditor-General, this is one of the main reasons underpinning the adoption of Working for Outcomes, by providing much enhanced financial and performance information for government and public sector managers. However, it is acknowledged that the substantial change to accrual accounting will take some time to settle down, although, it is likely to occur more quickly in the Territory than in other jurisdictions due to the quality of the information it has currently and its centralised accounting systems.
I add to that accrual accounting has been adopted by every other jurisdiction but ours. We are certainly looking at the experiences of other states and how they adopted accrual accounting. Treasury is working very effectively with agencies to bring the critical people in those agencies up to speed about accrual accounting and what is required. There is no doubt this is a big change, and it will take time to implement.
The Auditor-General has also raised concerns as to whether agencies have the necessary expertise and systems for managing contracts for outsourced services and for grants. Since last August, the new government has been examining a range of areas concerning outsourcing and grants management. My colleague, the Minister for Corporate and Information Services, is on the record as saying the IT outsourcing contracts are subject to particularly close scrutiny. The issue of managing grants, and especially small grants program for the Community Benefit Fund initiated by the previous government last year in the lead up to the election, is also subject to review and subject to comments during this debate. In these two cases at least, I am not convinced that some of the difficulties encountered were necessarily the fault of the departmental officers involved. On the contrary, the policy framework and/or political interference has more to do with these areas.
The Auditor-General commented on the physical assets record and reporting, saying they weren’t adequate, including those relating to the NT Land Corporation. In response, the Working for Outcomes framework, will place far greater emphasis on the management of physical assets than the current cash framework, and this is one of the additional benefits of moving to the full accrual framework.
The Auditor-General said:
- The Public Accounts Committee should have a more evident involvement with audit and
performance information.
My colleague the member for Johnston has made comment on this issue. Nevertheless, I would like to reinforce my belief that the committee processes of this parliament need to be reinvigorated, and I am certain that under the chairmanship of the member for Johnston, this is already happening.
The remainder of the Auditor-General’s report relates to auditing of the public account, on which I wish to touch on only a couple of issues. The first of those is the then opposition’s use of paper. The Auditor-General has found the allegations raised by the former Chief Minister that the Leader of the Opposition’s office produced ALP campaign material were false. We all remember the brochures that the then Chief Minister held up, and the stunt organised by him out the front of this Assembly, inappropriately using large amounts of public servants’ time for political purposes. Members might remember that the now Opposition Leader tried unsuccessfully in this House to allege that I was guilty of rorting Territorians and laundering taxpayers’ money in the lead-up to the August 2001 election.
Did the Auditor-General find any substance in the then Chief Minister’s allegations made in this House on 31 May? Absolutely not! The facts are that the Auditor-General found that the Leader of the Opposition, 12 months before the election, in August and November 2000, produced parliamentary newsletters and position papers on business and property crime. These documents accounted for the large amount of usage in those months - some 290 300 copies. What constitutes political material is a grey area. The previous government had no guidelines and no budgetary control. We have always argued presenting and articulating our message on important policy issues and communicating with the Territory community is the legitimate business of opposition, and this remains our view.
Since taking office, this government has instigated many accountability measures including budget controls on ministerial offices and the Leader of the Opposition - something the opposite side couldn’t manage to do in 26 years of government: budget control and accountability.
A final issue I would like to comment on: the Auditor-General claims that there was insufficient documentation to support the extent of separation payments to former chief executives and executive contract officers. The Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment agrees that documentation needs to be improved, but asserts that the net outcome was that there were considerable savings to government.
Finally, I want to thank the Auditor-General for his efforts over the last seven years. The opinions and recommendations of the Auditor-General are an important element of the open and accountable processes inherent in any robust democracy.
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Madam Speaker, in reply, closing debate, I thank members for their contribution. I can assure the member for Katherine that the relevant pages of my copy of the Auditor-General’s report at least were not stuck together; I had a look at that.
He was very coy in response to matters that I wished to raise. As much as he may choose to accuse me of selectivity in the issues that I brought out of the Auditor-General’s report, I suggest very much the same applies to him. We have just heard the Chief Minister’s explanation in relation to the printing of those newsletters that occurred back in 2000 and subject to comment in the Auditor-General’s report. We don’t intend to post someone down the bottom of the chain to see how many reams of paper were …
Member interjecting: 50 boxes
Mr STIRLING: … deposited from the Leader of the Opposition’s office, but already there are reports of some 50 or 60 boxes lying about when the member for Brennan was heading out of the building the other day.
It is appropriate that some sort of guidelines are put in place, as the Auditor-General suggests. The Chief Minister has taken that on board, and I’m sure that will happen. I can assure the member for Katherine the pages of my copy weren’t stuck together. I do wonder about the pages in his copy relating to the Community Benefit Fund because he didn’t want to talk about that.
Motion agreed to; report noted.
MESSAGE OF APPRECIATION
Mr Iain Summers, Former Auditor-General
Mr Iain Summers, Former Auditor-General
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, as this report, which the Assembly has just noted, marks the final report by the Auditor-General, Iain Summers, I think it is appropriate to record the appreciation of the Assembly for the effective and diligent work of the office of the Auditor-General under his leadership. His reports to the Assembly and advice to the Public Accounts Committee have been exemplary and facilitated the scrutiny of the financial accounts of government by the Assembly and its committee.
In particular, I refer to Mr Summers’ recommendations over the years over in respect of program evaluation, performance management and requirements for internal audit and risk management. He leaves a legacy of independent analysis and reporting on government financial management performance.
I also record the sincere appreciation of officers of this Assembly for the professionalism and the cooperation of Mr Summers in the conduct of his role as an officer of this parliament. The Clerk has written to Mr Summers expressing thanks and extending best wishes to Mr Summers and his family.
Members: Hear, hear!
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Drugs and Drug Crime
Drugs and Drug Crime
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, the Martin government was elected with a clear mandate to tackle illicit drugs and crime. This government is committed to building a safer Territory by attacking crime and the causes of crime through its comprehensive crime prevention strategy. Our Tough on Drugs three point plan is one of the corner stones of that crime prevention strategy. This evening, I would like to speak on our policies and our plan to attack illicit drugs and drug related crime in our community. Among the steps were are taking…
Mr BURKE: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Dr TOYNE: Oh, we’re going to get cute are we?
Mr BURKE: I was advised by various sources that a new statement was to be distributed.
Madam SPEAKER: It has been.
- Mr BURKE: Okay. Thank you.
It is irresponsible to pretend, like the opposition did when in government, that drug related crime in the Northern Territory, is, to quote the opposition leader, ‘minuscule’. The government is acting to implement its three point plan to get tough on drugs. I do not want to preempt any of the debates that will be held in a comprehensive package of bills I’ll introduce this week. Those debates are scheduled for the June sittings of this parliament. I understand that the shadow Attorney-General and his colleagues have already contacted my office for a briefing on the proposed legislation, and I’m heartened by their obvious interest in our initiatives. Let me say that I am very much looking forward to contributions from all members of this parliament. I am sure the debate will be constructive and we will see all members working in a bi-partisan way to address this serious problem in our community.
But tonight, as I have said, I want to talk about this government’s policy to tackle illicit drug trade and drug related crime. Our Tough on Drugs three point plan is a comprehensive, multi-faceted attack on the illicit drug problem and its links with property and other crime. The plan operates on all fronts by disrupting the illicit drug supply, by providing treatment and rehabilitation to those that need it, and by preventing illicit drug uptake.
Our Tough on Drugs plan tackles the illicit drug problem three ways. First, through law enforcement with zero tolerance on drug production and distribution. Second, through compulsory treatment of addicts arrested on drug related crimes, and third, with a sound drug prevention strategy including family support policies and education campaigns directed at our young people.
Tough law enforcement with properly targeted police powers will enable the police to lead the attack on those who are behind the drug trade; those drug dealers and pushers who are willing to make money out of the addiction of drug users and who don’t care about the suffering of their families or friends. Drug courts will link offenders with treatment and rehabilitation to help drug users, who often have to steal to support their habit, and beat their drug addiction problems. The development of a sound drug prevention strategy will ensure that we are doing our utmost to discourage our children and young people from seeing drug use as an attractive option.
Trafficking drugs is a serious criminal offence and causes serious harm to our community. Drug dealers prey on our kids and on other vulnerable people. It is disturbing, but there is clear evidence that drug manufacture and distribution is carried out by organised bikie gangs and organised crime around Australia and in the Northern Territory. We need to know some facts about the state of illicit drug use and drug crime in our community today. We know there is an opiate problem in the Northern Territory. Figures from the Health Insurance Commission show that in 1999 the prescription of morphine in the Northern Territory was almost 15 times higher than the national average. Because of intervention by the Health Insurance Commission, not I note by the now opposition, that alarming statistic dropped, but it is still seven times the national average.
Research shows that indigenous people are emerging as users of morphine and opiates, that more people are using opiates, especially young people, and they are using more of the drug. But in the report Northern Territory Drug Trends 2001 shows not only the increasing use of morphine but also amphetamines. This is confirmed by the 2000-2001 Australian Illicit Drug Report which says the use of amphetamines in Australia has been increasing in the last few years which it describes as ‘probably the most concerning trend in the illicit drug environment’.
This trend should be of concern to all of us. Amphetamine is a potent drug that can be swallowed, mixed with drinks, ingested nasally or injected and the effect of long term or binge use includes aggressive, irrational and unpredictable behaviour often described as psychotic.
As the Australian Illicit Drug Report finds, the use of amphetamines presents a threat both to our community and to law enforcement. In the Northern Territory, research shows injecting is the most common way of using amphetamines and there is evidence that young people and indigenous people are increasingly becoming users. In fact, it is likely that new injecting drug users will use amphetamines as the first drug they inject. The research shows that amphetamines are either very easy or easy to obtain in the Northern Territory. The increasing availability of amphetamines can be seen in the arrest rates for amphetamine use or supply which have increased from 26 in 1997-98 to 124 in 1999-2000 to 160 in 2000-2001.
Amphetamines are manufactured in clandestine laboratories, commonly called ‘clan labs’, from common chemicals like pseudoephedrine available in over the counter medicines such as Sudafed. These chemicals are known as precursors. The Illicit Drug Report says that:
- A coordinated group of criminals can purchase or steal large quantities of pseudoephedrine, the base
medication, and manufacture amphetamines in a very short time, often less than 24 hours.
The findings of the 2000-2001 Australian Illicit Drug Report on cannabis are alarming. The report says that the cultivation and distribution of cannabis is big business and cannabis is often transported several thousand kilometres from cultivation to final sale. There appears to be little doubt that the sale and consumption of cannabis makes a significant contribution to the profits of organised crime in Australia. Again, outlaw motor cycle gangs are prominent amongst the organised crime groups involved in large scale production and distribution of cannabis.
In the NT, we know the use of cannabis and other drugs, or polydrug use, is common. More young people are smoking cannabis and cannabis use is causing concerns on Aboriginal communities. There has also been an increase in cannabis users presenting with mental health and behavioural problems. There is evidence that the level of the active component in cannabis, THC, is increasing and hydroponically grown cannabis is becoming more readily available around Australia. It is being grown in the Territory and transported from South Australia where intelligence suggests that organised crime groups operating there are responsible for production and distribution.
If we don’t want the Territory to become a haven for drug dealers and manufacturers, it is now time to take the drug problem in the Northern Territory seriously. This government’s Tough On Drugs policy does exactly that. The opposition, when in government, failed Territorians by refusing to acknowledge the extent of the drug problem in the Northern Territory. In August 2000, the then Chief Minister, Denis Burke, when asked what he was doing to combat the increase in drug related crime, said:
- There is drug related crime in the Northern Territory, no doubt about that, but compared with other jurisdictions it is minuscule.
Mr Dunham: Interesting to see the full quote, at last.
Dr TOYNE: That head in the sand approach…
Mr Dunham: Interesting to see the full quote at last.
Dr TOYNE: What did you do about it? Come on, what did you do about it? I didn’t put that in the speech, but I had to say it.
Members interjecting.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Dr TOYNE: I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will continue. That head in the sand approach did not work and it is clear that we have an increasing drug problem in the Northern Territory. We also must not forget the research which shows the very strong link between property crime and drug use. It is estimated that around 50% of all property crime is directly related to the use of illicit drugs in the community. Just this week, the Supreme Court sentenced a man who pleaded guilty to eight offences relating to two house break-ins, a business break-in and several accounts of pawning stolen property. The court found that:
- The offences were committed to obtain money to feed your morphine habit.
There is also some evidence that drug dealers in the Northern Territory directly supply drugs in exchange for stolen property. A more telling example of the link between drug use and house break-ins couldn’t be found. We have also heard this week of a man robbing a Darwin chemist at knife-point to steal morphine. The NT Police have estimated the morphine that was stolen in that robbery would fetch more than $65 000 on the black market. In relation to this robbery, police have said:
- Our view is that these prescription drugs have been stolen to perhaps support someone’s addiction to opiate
based drugs, but most of this quantity will probably be sold on the local black market. These drugs are used
as a substitute for heroin and there is a relatively small but well entrenched group of users and dealers in
the community. We do not want to see anyone overdose as a result of the flood of drugs on to the market.
That is what the police are saying. It is clear that the illicit drug problem in the Northern Territory is not minuscule at all. Far from it.
While in opposition, my colleagues and I constantly brought information before this House on the link between illicit drug use and property and other crime. This government is determined to break the drug crime cycle with solutions that will work.
Under our three point plan to get tough on drugs, we committed to a strong law enforcement strategy of zero tolerance on drug production and distribution. We said that we would properly resource our police to operate on a front line to get those involved in the illicit drug trade behind bars. Under our plan, we committed to cracking down on drug traffickers, dealers and manufacturers; doubling the resources of the Drug Squad, from 20 to 40 officers; giving police targeted powers to attack drug trafficking and dealing; and recovering the profits from drug traffickers through confiscation legislation.
In the November mini-budget, we announced funding to implement our promise and to double the number of police officers in the Drug Squad. Those 20 extra officers are part of the government’s commitment for 50 extra police officers over its first term. The NT Police Drug Squad will lead the fight against the illicit drug trade. It is important that they have the resources they need to operate effectively at the coal face of law enforcement. Under our three point plan, this government also committed to introducing laws similar to those now operating in New South Wales to give police the powers they need to finally crack down on drug houses and other centres of supplies like nightclubs and pubs. We said that under our plan, police would be able to arrest landlords and owners who knowingly allow their properties to be used as illicit drug distribution centres.
Unlike the previous CLP government, the Martin government will not ignore the facts about illicit drugs and drug houses. Denis Burke in parliament claimed that there were one or two anecdotal pieces of evidence that drug houses exist. Well, he doesn’t get out much. That is all he would admit to, one or two anecdotal pieces of evidence. Yet it is obvious to everyone that drug houses are blatantly operating right now in Darwin; their existence and locations are common knowledge. The CLP government’s response was simply not good enough and this government, in accordance with it’s Tough On Drugs three-point plan, is determined to plug the gaps in the existing law.
The NT Police have told us that people operating these drug houses are well organised. The dealers operating through drug premises usually make sure they only have possession of small amounts of a prohibited drug at any one time. They deliberately avoid being caught with trafficable amounts of illicit drugs, making it unlikely they can be found guilty of supply charges. The dealers operate their illegal drug business by ensuring purchasers and other dealers attend at the drug house briefly, purchase illicit drugs, and leave. There is a high degree of organisation required to ensure a constant supply of illicit drugs for sale. The dealers use a range of individuals to carry out different roles, acting as look-outs, couriers, packers and retail dealers. A dealer might be charged, but the drug house in question will continue to operate by the strength of its reputation. Other dealers will move in and continue the business. The staff of drug premises simply turn over as they come to police attention.
Police indicate the same conduct occurs at certain commercial premises where the only significant commerce taking place is drug dealing. On many occasions, police also attend night clubs and hotels in relation to drug incidents. It is clear that one way to interrupt this trade - as we promised under our three-point plan - is to ensure police are able to take action to close down the drug houses which are operating openly under current drug laws. Under our plan, we have also committed to amending the law to ensure police are able to arrest people who assist in the organisation of a drug house, and those who act as look-outs or guards to warn the dealers when the police approach.
Under our three-point plan, this government also made a commitment to strengthen the NT’s criminal property confiscation laws. The ability to confiscate the ill-gotten profits and assets of those involved in the drug trade is crucial in the fight against drug dealers and organised crime. This type of legislation provides a powerful avenue of attack against drug traffickers, dealers, drug manufacturers and other serious criminals. It aims to take the profit motive out of drug dealing, and it acts as a powerful deterrent by attacking drug traffickers where it hurts: that is, by confiscating their profits and their assets. It also works to attack the resource base of dealers and organised crime which can cripple their illegal businesses.
Under our three-point plan, we are committed to replacing the scheme of the previous government which simply didn’t work. It has been very rarely used since it was introduced in 1988, and does not accord with the best practice laws in this area which were identified by the Australian Law Reform Commission in its 1999 report Confiscation that Counts. This government’s commitment to implement effective confiscation legislation is tangible evidence of our determination to tackle the illicit drug trade on all fronts. The legislative package I mentioned earlier implements those commitments from our three-point plan to get tough on drugs.
The bills have been developed by the Department of Justice, in close consultation with the NT Police to ensure that the new powers, offences and other amendments give police the tools they need to attack the drug trade. I am pleased to report it is the view of the police that a number of the drug houses are likely to cease operation once our legislation passes. It is certainly the government’s intention to make business extremely unprofitable and uncomfortable for drug traffickers, manufacturers and dealers in the Northern Territory.
I am pleased to be able to report tonight that the Witness Protection Bill passed by parliament this week will operate to support our three-point plan. That legislation enables the Northern Territory to participate in the national Witness Protection Scheme. The scheme is designed for witnesses who agree to give evidence against organised crime groups - or in relation to other major crimes - who may be at risk of serious reprisals or injury, either before or after the trial. Police already provide protection to those witnesses by locating them in secure accommodation before they give evidence. The new legislation will address longer term and ongoing threats by providing mechanisms for witnesses to change their identity and start a new life in another location if this becomes necessary. Hopefully, this will only occur in rare cases.
This legislation will support our three point plan against drug crime by protecting witnesses who are prepared to speak out against drug dealers and organised crime. A successful drug conviction is often dependent upon a witness giving evidence. We must protect witnesses and their families from being threatened and intimidated. Our Witness Protection Act will be complemented by the additional legislation which parliament will debate in June.
I am also pleased to be able to report to the parliament that I have requested my Department of Justice to work with the NT police to comprehensively review the Misuse of Drugs Act. The review will look at any additional amendments which can be made to strengthen our drug laws and ensure that they operate effectively to protect the community from drug dealers and illicit drugs. We are not going to give drug dealers any comfort zone. We want to move them on from their place of activity, we want to make it a lot harder for them to re-establish their distribution networks, and we want to confiscate their profits and cripple their businesses.
I believe this government’s illicit drug policies under its three point plan to get tough on drugs reflect the wishes of Territorians to protect our young people from harm and reduce illicit drugs and drug related crime in our community. The government went to the electorate last year with a clear plan to tackle illicit drugs in our community, and we are delivering on that commitment. I commend the statement to the House.
I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I am happy to contribute a few words to this debate. I am not quite sure where we expect this debate to go today. That is up to the Attorney-General, but anyone can spout rhetoric with regards to what they are going to do. The real issue here is exactly what the government intends to do. That is the subject of a separate debate on legislation yet to be debated in this Chamber. The only way you can contribute satisfactorily to that debate is to wait until that debate occurs. In the meantime, we have a ministerial statement which is probably the most repetitious thing I have heard in this House. It has been the subject of media comment, media reports, media releases, ministerial reports, Question Time and now a ministerial statement on essentially the same thing. I mean, you must be getting tired of it.
Mr Ah Kit: It is pretty important.
Dr Toyne: It’s about time we brought this topic to this House, Denis. You never did.
Mr BURKE: It may be important in your mind, and it is important, but I am simply saying that if you want to get constructive debate on the issue, I wonder when we will get the substance of it.
Now, can I say at the outset, if I pick up the last paragraph of the Attorney-General’s statement, he says:
- …the three point plan to get tough on drugs reflect the wishes of Territorians to protect our young people from
harm and to reduce illicit drugs and drug related crime in our community.
I agree whole heartedly that the aspirations of Territorians are for their government to deal with crime as it occurs and to ensure that almost the primary responsibility of government is to keep a lawful society to ensure that people can be safe and protected from harm, whether that is harm from being assaulted, harm from being broken into, or harm from substances such as illicit drugs. That is a fundamental responsibility of government. The fact that the government now says they are going to do that, with its legislation as an aspiration of Territorians is self-evident.
What we need to establish, though, is what exactly the government will do, and how they will do it, and the time to decide that and to comment on that will be when that legislation is presented in this House. I find it interesting, though - and I have to say I am quite confused; I hope the Attorney-General is less confused than I - but we have this all encompassing statement called, Drug, Drugs, Drug Houses, increasing use in our society, zero tolerance approach, coupled with comments like:
- …the reason drug houses exist in our community, at the moment, in many respects, is the fact that they hold
small quantities of illicit substances at a time, and because they have small amounts, the police can’t prosecute
them because you have to have larger amounts to prosecute.
If that is the case, these drug houses must be marijuana houses because the only protection that is afforded to any drug that is an illicit drug in the Northern Territory is for a very small amount for personal use by a marijuana user or a person who might in fact be a dealer, but would claim to be a user if he only has a small amount in his possession.
So if the inability of police to deal with drug houses is hampered by the fact that only small amounts are there on the premises, you are clearly talking about marijuana. You are not talking about some of these other drugs that you subscribe to be a major problem in the Northern Territory.
One of the ways I thought I might approach this debate very quickly is to take a leaf from the member for Nhulunbuy’s book and the advice he gave in the Chamber yesterday when he said that the censure motion that was run in this House was poorly presented because it didn’t prove the fundamental points which were the premise of that censure motion.
I might say, as an aside, if it was an unsuccessful censure motion, certainly it was astoundingly successful in terms of the response it got from the media, probably more attention than I've ever seen on a censure motion for a long, long time in parliament. All channels, radio reporters, NT News report. In respect of that censure motion, I would imagine the truth is that it has been a long awaited censure motion by members of the media who feel exactly the same as the opposition does and also in many respects reflect a growing concern in the community.
But if we work on the Deputy Chief Minister’s assertion of having to prove your fundamental premise, surely the Attorney-General can do that in terms of then describing and getting confidence from us as to how this strategy will be implemented. Let’s just define the problem first and then we can describe the strategy.
Dr Toyne: The problem you denied ever existed.
Mr BURKE: Well, so you claim. I have said the Attorney-General has had every opportunity to describe the problem, and whilst it’s good rhetoric and it says all the right words, we have to be damn sure that we’re on the right track in terms of what exactly the problem is and the premise for the problem in the Northern Territory rests on three fundamental factors as I understand them.
The first is that there has been a survey conducted around Australia that says that drug-related crime in Australia is 50% of the property crime problem in Australia. The government has then extrapolated that report and said: ‘Therefore 50% property related crime in the Northern Territory is drug-related, therefore we have a major drug problem in the Northern Territory’. That’s the fundamental premise that you rest your strategy on.
The truth is, as you well know, that that particular survey was conducted in five police stations around Australia, not one of which was in the Northern Territory. I don’t actually know where those police stations were, but I know that not one of them was in the Northern Territory. To then extrapolate the result of that study and say: ‘Therefore, given the immense diversity and differences in the Northern Territory population, those fundamental figures can be sustained’ is an amazing extrapolation and generalisation in my book.
That said, you have set yourself the challenge. You have said: ‘Drug-related crime in the Northern Territory is 50% of property related crime’ and you are going to fix the drug problem in the Northern Territory. Therefore, I am going to put out a press release because I’m convinced that your position is this: as a result of your strategy, property crime in the Northern Territory will fall by 50% under your government. It follows logically that if you can successfully, as you say you will, use this strategy to attack the drug problem, you will therefore be successful with property crime and you will drive property crime down by 50% in the Northern Territory.
The challenge is this: property crime in Darwin since August 2000 right through until April 2002, on the Police Commissioner’s own assessment and on the statistics that he believes and has said to Territorians are accurate, I suggest that there is a very small trend upwards over all of that time. Essentially, property related crime almost looks static on the trend line. Static on the trend line. There are certainly peaks and troughs, and the Commissioner points to the alarm that those peaks and troughs can cause, but if you look at property crime in Darwin from April 2000 right through until April 2002, the trend line is static.
It is very interesting that you run an assumption that the Northern Territory is being assaulted by drugs, the Northern Territory is in great danger of becoming a major drug distribution centre. These drugs are causing crime. That crime is 50% of crime in the Northern Territory. Yet the Police Commissioner’s own figures show that the property crime stats are static. If you are going to say this strategy is going to work …
Mr Henderson: So it’s not a problem?
Mr BURKE: Okay. Just - I am just giving you the scale of what I believe is the challenge you’ve set yourself. If you have then said that this strategy is going to work, the figures on growing drug crime does not bear that out. What you see is a trend line of almost static property crime on the Police Commissioner’s own statistics, both in Palmerston and Darwin, but you have devised a strategy that is going to drive those figures down by 50% and that is an enormous challenge for you.
The second fundamental premise you based your strategy on is a report that you refer to, called Northern Territory Drug Trends 2001. The Northern Territory Drug Trends 2001 report was conducted by Bridie O’Reilly. I can tell you that the Northern Territory Police Service had no faith at all in the methodology or scientific nature of that report. We all know that …
Mr Henderson: Contributed resources to it. They did!
Mr BURKE: Yes, I’ll answer that. It was on police advice that it wasn’t resourced.
Mr Henderson: It was resourced. The first one was.
Mr BURKE: It was resourced by a federal government program; it was not resourced by the Northern Territory government on advice from the police because the police had no faith in the scientific nature of that study. The researcher herself paid users $40 a session to dob in or give her information. You claim that report is correct. I can tell you that the previous government’s assessment, based on advice from the police - and I might add these are police who are members of the National Crime Intergovernmental Committee.
The National Crime Intergovernmental Committee meets often, shares information, shares strategies, assesses each other’s programs, and looks at the value of research that is being conducted. That report was totally disowned as not having any scientific base to it and therefore to use that report as the second foundation stone of your strategy I suggest is chancing your arm at the very least.
We have one report that doesn’t even look at one area in the Northern Territory. We have got a second report that is scientifically unsound. They are two of the foundations for your strategy. The third foundation for your strategy is essentially: drug related crime is on the increase and you point to - God help us - one reference to one statement made in one court in the Northern Territory where it says …
Dr Toyne: We’ve had the Drug Squad working on the whole thing for the last three months, for heaven’s sake!
Mr BURKE: Read your own statement. This is your own statement I am referring to here. One case that went to court, a person was convicted, the person stole morphine to feed, and it says actually ‘their own habit’. But this is now a rationale for increased drug related crime in the Northern Territory. And in relation to that robbery, it is worth quoting, again, what the Attorney-General himself has said, by quoting what the police said in that case:
- Our view is that these prescription drugs have been stolen to perhaps support someone’s addiction to opiate
based drugs, but most of this quantity will probably be sold on the local black market. These drugs are used as
a substitute before heroin, and there is a relatively small, but well entrenched group of users and dealers in the
community;
You then go on to say:
- It is clear that the illicit drug problem in the Northern Territory is not minuscule at all. Far from it.
I would suggest that is a contradiction in terms. Certainly, in relation to what the police believe is the morphine or opiate community – small, well entrenched, but small in this jurisdiction.
Using those three foundations, the government has now devised a strategy to deal with drug related crime in the Northern Territory. As I said, the legislation has been foreshadowed; I don’t intend to speak on that legislation. There will be much rhetoric from the government and the Attorney-General, prior to that legislation being debated and during the debate. That’s fine; that’s good.
What the community out there want is property crime addressed in the Northern Territory. You have made the statement that the previous government should rot in hell for their lack of action with regards to drug related crime. Yet at the same time you point to convictions for drug related crime moving right back to 1997-98 from an arrest rate of 26 in 1997-98; 124 in 1999-2000; and 160 in 2000-01. Well, who was running the show at that stage? The people who were running the show at that stage was the CLP government. But more than that, this is really a criticism of the efforts of police during that time.
You can make your comments in this Chamber and have a go at us, but the reality is the suggestion that the government is making is that the police were making no effort to address drug related crime during that period. Yet it is clear from the figures that you use to base your argument of increasing rates of crime that a greater effort was being made, and I am thankful for that.
None of that proves your fundamental premise, and your fundamental premise is that property crime is on the rise because 50% of it is drug related. Because there hasn’t been sufficient action to deal with the drug related aspects of it, you are going to attack that problem; in doing so you will drive down property crime by 50%.
Attorney-General, that’s the challenge you set yourself. If you are successful in driving property crime down by 50% in the Northern Territory, you will be wildly applauded. What you have done is you have tried to reinvent the situation in the Northern Territory. There is drug related crime in the Northern Territory. I have said that on many occasions, but drug related crime in the Northern Territory has to be seen in comparison with crime generally; it has to be seen in comparison with the causes of crime generally and much of which involves factors like alcohol. There are other factors such as the self-destructive nature of the people who are involved in a lot of that crime.
The notion that there are drug houses being supplied from South Australian and operating under our noses; that we need this special legislation to attack; that nowhere before had we legislation that was sufficient to address it is just nonsense.
Dr Toyne: That’s a good comment; that’s on Hansard.
Mr Henderson: Drug houses are nonsense.
Mr BURKE: Good! This is a jurisdiction in which I am pleased to live. I can tell you that to suggest that the Northern Territory Police Service for the last how many years, in a city of around about 100 000 people have no idea of who the Mr Bigs are and need, all of a sudden, the whole new government to give them the way forward, is nonsense. You can give them some assistance, but what you’re ...
Mr Henderson: Nonsense? So they don’t need tougher powers? Okay.
Mr BURKE: The member for Wanguri says they don’t need tougher powers. What they got from the CLP government was tougher powers. Under the anti-social legislation that you dumped or are about to dump and under the mandatory sentencing laws that, when a person was apprehended they went to gaol. What you’re going to do is you’re going to bring in legislation that is going to fix all of our problems. Well, fix all our problems. I hope you do. But do it; don’t just talk about it.
I want to know when you’re going to drop property crime by 50%. Is it going to be at the end of this first year of government? Will it be at the end of the second year of government? Or the third year of government? I will be reporting back to Territorians on how you’ve driven property crime down in the Northern Territory to achieve the benchmarks that you yourself have set. I will have plenty to say on the actual legislation which I won’t deal with today. The legislation itself will have difficulties in terms of its implementation in the courts and some of those difficulties will be sounded out in further debate.
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Mr Deputy Speaker, it seems that the Leader of the Opposition did not learn a lot from yesterday. One of the things I said yesterday was just because someone on the other side stood up and said something – that is, inveterate liar or whatever the description of the Health Minister was at the time - does not make it true. It does not make it true unless you can back it up, substantiate it and have the facts with it.
Now, he is pretty excited because he got a bit of a run on TV and apparently on radio. I note the NT News did not even dribble out one line on the censure. So if you think that is a measure of your success in here, the fact that you got a TV or radio headline, I think you have a fair bit more thought to go on this.
Probably the saddest thing about the Leader of the Opposition’s contribution is the denial factor. They denied it two years ago, that this was a problem. There are two problems in his contribution in the debate. The denial factor which is there as strong as ever and the second issue - and again, because he says it he thinks it is fact; because it is in Hansard in black and white and will come up in Hansard in the next few days, it is fact, there forever.
He now says that the Attorney-General says we have slashed property crime by 50%. No one has ever said that on this side of the House. No one has laid claim to that. Unlike the CLP, with the introduction of mandatory sentencing, it was going to do away - it was not going to reduce it by 50%, it was going to do away with it. We were not going to have property crime because mandatory sentencing was going to put them all in gaol and then there would not be any bad people left to do any property crime and we would not have any property crime. So said former Chief Minister Stone. So said former Attorney-General, one Denis Burke in this House all those years ago.
What do we find? He prosecutes my own case. He holds up the statistics released by the Police Commissioner the other day going back 2000-2002 and he says it is static. It is static. Of course, part of that time mandatory sentencing was in place for property crime and yet we see no aberration, we see no dip, no variation in that graph between when mandatory sentencing was there and when mandatory sentencing was lifted. So he destroys his own argument in trying to prosecute his case. It is quite wrong of the opposition to still grovel about in denial about the scope of this drug problem. It is a denial that they held right up until the last election and they continue to hold now. They have remained constantly in denial about this link between drug addiction and property crime.
A couple of years ago, the member for Wanguri and myself attempted to convince the government of this strong link between property crime and drug use. If we had a look at the NT News of that time - and I said at the time that they consistently report on drug related crimes - Luke Mumme, 19, charged with one count of armed robbery after a hold up at the ANZ Bank at Parap. The court heard Mumme had told police he suffered from schizophrenia and had a drug problem.
The NT News, 8 September, under the heading ‘Addict Bashed Woman, Men for Drugs’ reported:
- A morphine addict who twice attacked a woman and assaulted two men was a victim of the drug scene in Darwin,
the Supreme Court was told this week. Defence counsel Susan Cox said Andrew William Staker was in a state of
narcotic withdrawal when he committed the assault. She said Staker admitted he acted like an animal, attacking
the woman when she returned from the hospital after filling her MS Contin prescription.
That is the sort of drug half world in Darwin at a time when heroin was not a problem but prescribed morphine was.
The NT News again under the heading ‘Man robs two taxi drivers for drugs’:
- A young man charged for robbing two taxi drivers within a week said he needed the money for drugs, Darwin
Magistrate’s Court heard. The Court heard Scott Veale, 19, started using drugs when he was 11. Police alleged
he had told them he had robbed one driver to get another fix and the other one because he needed money to buy
morphine.
The NT News, 8 February, under the heading ‘Syringe threat in $6500 robbery’:
- A man threatened a video store attendant with a syringe before robbing him of $6500 dollars in weekend
takings at Nightcliff.
13 July under the heading ‘Drugs Grab: Police Hunt Man’:
- Police are hunting a man who grabbed prescription drugs from a chemist and scampered off into the city yesterday.
The man entered Barden’s Pharmacy in Smith Street at 10.45am.
And many, many other headlines over the years referring to robberies at knifepoint, break ins, property crime, assaults, all related to drugs, all related to drug use. We are serious. We are not in denial about this fact and this link. For two years we were saying this, and the former government simply didn’t want to hear it.
We intend to tackle this problem in three ways: through law enforcement with a zero tolerance on drug production and distribution; compulsory treatment of addicts arrested on drug related crimes; and with a sound drug prevention strategy including family support policies and education campaigns.
We are committed to building a safer Territory by attacking crime and the causes of crime through protection, punishment and prevention. I have been active as Minister for Police in the development of this strategy and the legislative support needed to assist our police officers to be tough on drugs. Commissioner Paul White has quite a distinguished career in South Australia in these matters where he took on outlaw motorcycle gangs, and I believe he’ll have the same view as Commissioner here. There has been clear evidence that drug distribution has been carried out by these groups for some time, but what has been particularly disturbing was the previous government’s head-in-the-sand approach to these problems described variously as ‘minuscule’ on one occasion and ‘infinitesimal’ on another.
Tough law enforcement with properly targeted police powers will enable the police to lead the attack on those behind the drug trade and those willing to make money out of the suffering of others. The government is taking the Territory’s drug problem seriously. Unlike the opposition, we won’t pretend it doesn’t exist.
We will make life as difficult as possible for those in this criminal activity. We will target the producers and distributors. Our proposals will give the police the powers they need to close down drug premises, catch drug dealers and manufacturers and advise landlords so they can take steps to remove such undesirable tenants. In short, the dealers and manufacturers won’t have a base of operations. Our commitment to seize property derived from drug dealing will enable the police to confiscate ill gotten profits and assets of drug traffickers. It will be more difficult to make a profit from manufacturing and dealing.
I am reminded of the examples in Western Australia where some millions of dollars have been claimed by the government in relation to forfeiture of crime proceeds. There was a photograph of a rather flash looking Harley Davidson motor cycle valued at $25 000 under the heading: ‘Granny wants motor cycle back’. The story was, of course, that the grandmother had bought the $25 000 Harley Davidson motor cycle for the accused who was convicted of drug dealing and unable to prove in any way where that motor cycle had come from. Now, unfortunately for grandmother, that’s gone. That is the property of the Crown, that $25 000 Harley Davidson, along with about $12m worth of other property and assets that have been taken by the Western Australian government under their forfeiture of profits from crime legislation.
As I said, $14m seized in the first 12 months of operation in Western Australia, so effective has that been. $2m seized from the outlaw motorcycle gang, the Gypsy Jokers, since November including six properties owned by the gang’s leader, Leonard Kirby. The aspect of the reforms will be critical in convincing organised crime that there will be no easy path here in the Territory. Bank accounts can be searched and, if appropriate, seized. Land, houses, vehicles, equipment, and cash are all targeted under these reforms.
We want to ensure also that all witnesses to drug dealing and other crimes are protected from intimidation. Criminals, especially those who are organised, have been known to threaten witnesses. Our new Witness Protection Act will do this and our new proposals will address the intimidation of witnesses and make such behaviour an offence.
Police believe that when we implement our three part plan, the dealers will not be able to take on the authorities and will have to close up shop. It is common knowledge that at least three drug houses selling drugs existed for years in Darwin. Under our plan, they will be out of business and if they move shop to another residence they will be targeted and forced to close operations. We as a government are adamant that police should have the powers to deal with drug manufacturers and sellers and these laws are positive moves towards that.
In wrapping up, at no time has anyone from government said that we were going to reduce property crime by 10, 30, 40, 50%. We are going to do what is necessary. We will put laws in place for a start and we will judge, in conjunction with the police and the courts, how effective these laws are. If further changes and further legislation are necessary further down the track, so be it. This government will effect it. We are not, as our predecessors were doing, standing in this place and saying: ‘We have the answer Territorians. Property crime will finish. There will be no more property crime under us because we’re going to put them all in gaol under mandatory sentencing’. We have seen the example put by the Leader of the Opposition today, nothing could be further from the truth. It ill behoves him to attribute to government members statements such as ‘we’re going to halve property crime’. We never said it and we don’t say it. What we do say is we will judge the effectiveness of these laws over time and we will revisit them where necessary for further changes.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Mr Deputy Speaker, there is no doubt that a strong system of law and order is a cornerstone to our democratic system and any person with a scintilla of community conscience agrees with the general good motives of any government to do all it can to reduce the impact of drug related crime on our community.
But there is a point where politicising the issue is one thing, but addressing it is a completely different kettle of fish. Politicians, on balance, are usually uninformed and indeed unqualified to make many of the decisions which ultimately fall to be dealt with by them in relation to this subject matter. Unfortunately, the type of rhetoric which falls from the current Attorney-General in the form of this statement is an example of rhetoric and in my view is devoid mostly of any substance. Indeed, some portions of the statement are a little misleading and headline grabbing.
There is an enormous amount of literature about, I could spend an inordinate amount of time going through some of the studies which have come out of the UK and the United States. Unfortunately, none of it can be succinctly summarised into one or two lines suitable for a headline. I feel it is important to put on the record - which I think probably is going to be a bit closer to the truth in terms of a statement which is going to be made in this House today - the facts relating to the commission of property crime and what we can genuinely do as a community to address them.
There are these new catchphrases which we are seeing bandied about. The term ‘zero tolerance’, we’ve all heard about zero tolerance, and it is a term which defies definition. It is used by employers to say this is a zero tolerance work place, it’s used by the learned Attorney-General in the second page of his amended statement:
- First, through law enforcement with zero tolerance on drug production and distribution.
It has been used in the United States ad nauseum, of course. It has been used in the UK. There are terms like ‘confident policing’. New Labour under the Blair government ran a very good campaign using the phrase ‘tough on crime, tough on its cause’ and of course secured a fairly solid electoral victory. That was one of the cornerstones of their whole policy development.
We have heard about the famous New York experiment, the broken window thesis, back in the early 1980s by Wilson and Kelly. That thesis argues that, in a nutshell, various forms of minor disturbance and activities and transgressions are allowed to go unchecked, then, over a period of time, the community becomes increasingly disenchanted, fragmented and fearful. This is supposed to lead to further disorder and crimes of an increasingly serious nature.
The state of New York introduced new laws; there were some 7000 extra police and there was a significant drop in crime. Now, there are many reports. Indeed, the member for Macdonnell has asked me to have a look at some of the material which the authorities in the New York Police Department have prepared in relation to their observations of the effect of their new laws and the extra policemen have had and the reasons why crime fell so dramatically.
There are also, of course, other quite comprehensive articles by academics both here and in the United States which show - just by way of example, I’m not going to go through them all - but in San Diego, at the same time that there were such large falls in New York, they had similar falls in that state and that city, and there wasn’t the adoption of any of the new laws and there wasn’t the increase in policing.
There seem to be, and there are no doubt that there are other factors at work which contribute to whether or not a person is likely to commit an offence. The jury is still out in terms of what the result is going to be, and what the true effect of these laws will be, but it is certainly the subject of research.
The reforms referred to in a very general way in the Misuse of Drugs Act and the other associated legislation implies or offers a promise of a police-led solution to the drug problem and the fears and anxieties which the Northern Territory community currently endure. Could I just put this on the record: the police in the Northern Territory are, in my view, amongst the nation’s very best and I hold them in the highest regard. The observations I make today are really - and I will draw upon some of the findings which senior police have made in the UK and the United States.
The type of statement the Attorney-General made today certainly is politically attractive to Mr and Mrs Malak. It also accords with the basic storylines of police culture. On its face, it seems to be straight talking, action orientated and authority enhancing. There is, however, a message which, if you look beyond that thin veneer and the two very impressive headlines which the government secured - and I suspect that is why we are getting so much of this sort of rhetoric – it is a view to sending out the message that this government is going to be tough on crime. We have that theme, the Blair government theme.
There are, if you look at what police are now saying in the UK - and I have an article. The Thames Valley Police Chief Constable, Charles Pollard - apparently it is equivalent to our Commissioner; not that I am familiar with their hierarchical system. Talking about zero tolerance, very much in the same types of legislation which had been envisaged and talked about in the ministerial statement. He states:
- Zero tolerance raises several potential difficulties and negative outcomes. It is difficult to implement it where the
law is less than clear. It involves an enormous impact on police resources when arrest is used as opposed to
alternatives such as persuasion. It increases rates of custody and imprisonment; it undermines police legitimacy
and consent to policing; and it threatens police values and standards.
There seem to be voices in amongst the senior police in the UK, when they have seen legislation and these sort of three-point plans, six-point plans, introduced to their communities. The type of statement which has been made by the Attorney-General today is indicative, in my view, of a society where people are presumed, in some situations, not to be innocent. However, we are politicians and we are in the game of politics and there is little resistance generally in parliaments across the world to this type of legislation. It is very palatable to middle Australia and in reality, party lines prevent any real and constructive debate on this type of matter.
The desire to stay in government and the desire to achieve government is not conducive or constructive to any clear and logical decision making in this type of topic. It is all about persuading the jury, which is of course the media that is being fed the exclusives, the end result being you get the front page headline. I shudder to think if the poor journalist who wrote that article had perhaps studied the area with any real closeness - would really understand that what was being fed was devoid of substance.
Obviously it is not the time to talk about the legislation, but in an indirect way the ministerial statement does touch upon, in a fleeting and a general way, a number of different pieces of legislation and uses words to the effect that there are gaps, the police need these extra powers and with this new legislation things like drug houses, things like arresting the look outs and the like are going to be capable, and then people who supply drugs and the like from drug houses, drug premises, will now be the subject of strong police action.
It does not take much intellect to really, if you have a casual glance at the Misuse of Drugs Act just how important it is, and quite genuinely, almost all the conduct which is being talked about being at the front of this police led charge is covered in the Misuse of Drugs Act. Just by way of an example, you talk about drug houses. Well, I assume a drug house relates to supplying cannabis or whatever they supply, well that is an offence, and even supplying a small amount of cannabis attracts a fairly significant penalty.
If there are such common occurrences in our community, it would not be difficult to arrest these people for supplying any sort of drug, and if whilst they are being processed they are on bail and if they breach their bail they get remanded in custody and, you know, the powers are there. You talk about broadening the net to catch all different types of people involved in the possible production of these types of illegal substances, if you look at section 8 of the Misuse of Drugs Act, it deals with a person who unlawfully manufactures or produces a dangerous drug, blah, blah, blah, and it goes from life down to about seven years. So they are really heavy penalties for people who produce or manufacture. The definition of ‘produce’, it is one of those legal definitions contained in the Misuse of Drugs Act, it expands it beyond what the plain English meaning is. ‘Produce’ in the Misuse of Drugs Act - this is how broad it is; this is how wide the net is - includes prepare, package, produce, offering to prepare and it goes on to say:
- Doing or offering to do any preparatory act in the furtherance of or for the purpose of preparing,
packaging or producing.
We talk about - not that I am an expert at it, but I can draw from my observations both prosecuting and defending on some of the Aboriginal communities where there is a really high ratio of police to residents. I can reliably take you to some statistics, but it is among the highest ratios in Australia. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence that if you have chronic unemployment and chronic social disharmony then there will be chronic crime. We’ve heard the hollow claims of there is a strong link between drug crimes and property crimes or there may be a link, but there is an overwhelmingly stronger link between unemployment and crime. Indeed, most people who commit drug offences are unemployed.
It’s almost impossible to make a general comment about a drug offender, but they tried to work out - this was done, I think, by the - it wasn’t the Law Society; it may have been the Criminal Lawyers Association - what is the average drug person and what is he? Is he the Mr Big that everyone talks about or does he prey on our kids? Who is he? They worked out that the most - if you could say this is the normal drug type person, he would be an unemployed Anglo-Saxon male living in a unit in Fannie Bay of about 28 to 32 years. So that is the type of person you are dealing with and if you think for a moment that an unemployed Anglo-Saxon male living in a unit in Fannie Bay before he commits an offence goes: ‘Hang on. The new Crimes (Forfeiture of Proceeds) Act – if I commit this offence, despite the fact that I’m not convicted, on the balance of probabilities, I might lose my car. Should I commit the offence?’ Well, it’s not even a concern. People murder other people and the last thing they think about is getting caught. In fact there is a presumption that he is not going to get caught. They used to send people, only 200 years ago, to Australia for life in penal servitude for stealing loaves of bread to feed their family. Do you think that for a moment stopped people stealing loaves of bread to feed their family?
Mr Henderson: It’s a bit like mandatory sentencing, really.
Yes. In conclusion, these comments and the - I suppose the real goal is to secure and feed the media to running a few headlines. As I said, there have been a couple of successes.
But the unfortunate reality is that - and it’s a reality which I suspect will come back to bite the government, and it’s related to the proposed amendments and the misleading statements - is that they don’t advance in reality. And we’ll carry on and go along party lines and get stuck in to each other, but the complete reality is that it’s not going to advance the situation at all from a practical perspective, and there are many senior police who share that view.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the Attorney-General does himself a disservice where he reads such a poorly prepared statement in this parliament.
Mr HENDERSON (Business, Industry and Resource Development): Mr Deputy Speaker, I can hardly believe my ears in terms of the contributions from the two members opposite in this debate this evening. I am aghast at the transformation from government to opposition that has been inculcated in to the persona of those people opposite. One would have thought that after the election defeat - and this issue in terms of crime in the Northern Territory; crime is always an election issue, and both sides of politics seek to place before the community during any election campaign strategies to deal with crime.
The CLP, during the August 2001 election campaign had a very clear strategy, and it was plastered over every single polling booth in the Northern Territory in black and white in a scary type of persona - an enormous sign I remember at the top of Dick Ward Drive in Nightcliff about how Jane Aagaard was going to throw out mandatory sentencing but you could rely on Jason Hatton, he was going to keep it. This was the opposition’s position on crime which we all know as local members - local members in the northern suburbs, bush members, wherever we come from in the Northern Territory - that the community had had a gut full. We all experienced complaints whilst door knocking during the election campaign about the impact of crime.
During the two years that I have been in this House prior to the election, all of the research we did in opposition, it became very apparent that the links between drug use in our community and property crime were evident. We prosecuted that in a number of statements in this parliament. The position of those members opposite, of the then Chief Minister and picking up on the minuscule quote, it was in comparison to other states that drug related property crime was minimal, therefore drug related crime was minimal. That was their position.
For the life of me, I couldn’t work it out. I couldn’t work it out from a conservative government, one of the most ultra-conservative right wing, red neck governments in Australia – that Australia has probably ever seen - that this was a place they didn’t want to go. They did not want to go there, and I could not work it out. I thought every other conservative government in Australia, in the western world, would jump on the evidence that was presented to them in terms of the links between drugs and crime and be seen to be getting tough, be seen to be cracking down, because they would have seen it as good politics as well as good public policy. But not the CLP government here in the Northern Territory.
It baffled me. I couldn’t understand the politics of it. I couldn’t understand why they would not go there and take this issue seriously. When we look at the lack of legislation to give the police the powers to deal with the vermin who manufacture, produce, distribute, sell, profit from illicit substances in the Northern Territory, when we look at the lack of legislation - I’ll name a few:
- no witness intimidation legislation on the books. Absolutely astounding that we as a legislature did
not have that type of protection for witnesses enshrined in our legislation;
no anti-money laundering legislation. Now, I didn’t even know that we didn’t have this provision on the
books until we came into government. We are the only state in Australia that does not have anti-money
laundering legislation or provisions on the books. I am sure the mums and dads in Malak and the
northern suburbs and across the Northern Territory won’t believe that either when we bring that legislation
before this House.
When we look at the Crimes (Forfeiture of Proceeds) Act - so vague that you could drive a truck through it, very few recoveries of monies over the years and very little in terms of successful seizures. Not an indictment on our police at all. Our police need the legislation to give them the powers to do the job. One has to wonder why we did not have the legislative framework, why the previous government, from both a good public policy point of view - even picking up on the member for Daly’s position; he’s acknowledged the good politics in this - why they would never go there.
That has been confirmed, and I continue to ask these questions, when the Leader of the Opposition came into the Chamber this evening on this statement, I would have thought we would get some sort of uniform support for the package of legislation we are presenting.
What we’ve seen here tonight is two speakers in a row basically indicating that they are not going to support this legislation. The Leader of the Opposition on two occasions - and it will be interesting when the Hansard rushes come out because, my goodness, we are after them - talked about the nonsense of the existence of drug houses in the northern suburbs. My constituents certainly don’t believe its nonsense. The many, many taxi drivers I talk to don’t believe it is nonsense and the constituents who are parents in my electorate don’t believe it’s nonsense.
Then he talked about the nonsense again in regards to the police not having the powers to catch the Mr Bigs. The Leader of the Opposition is in a continual state of denial. I find his comments on the drug houses absolutely astounding. In his comments on the drug houses, he was basically saying that if people are peddling vast quantities of cannabis in minuscule amounts through premises in the northern suburbs, that’s okay! That was essentially his line, and it is going to be very interesting to see the opposition’s …
- Ms Scrymgour interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON: Well, they don’t like to hear it, member for Arafura, because they know where we are coming from on this. I know the politics that they think that they are playing on this issue. That was the position. So never mind the dozens of households around these premises who are impacted by the premises, whose property values have devalued by these premises - the Leader of the Opposition doesn’t seem to care about that. I remember on his own side when we had this debate - I think it was the then member for Jingili admitting that he had one of these drug houses operating in his electorate; currently, Mr Deputy Speaker, in your electorate, the infamous Moil’s Foils unit there on Lee Point Road - and how we really needed to do something about it, and the ludicrous legislation that was introduced in regard to the move on legislation, whatever it was called, was going to fix the problem.
So, even within their own side they were divided on this particular issue. Then we’ve had the member for Daly come in - the learned member for Daly, the member for Daly with legal qualifications who has a bit of a track record in terms of …
Mr Elferink: Goyder!
Mr HENDERSON: Goyder. I stand corrected - who has a bit of a track record in terms of representing some of these people in a past life. Basically his contribution was: if it ain’t broken, don’t fix it. That was his line: essentially, we don’t have any problems, and it doesn’t matter what you do with this legislation you introduce, we already have legislation on the books, therefore it is not going to work, therefore don’t bother, and it’s all a political exercise.
Well, I am absolutely astounded! It will be interesting to see if there are any other comments from members opposite in this debate tonight because I can say that as a parent of three young children, as an adult who has a member of his family who has had his life devastated by the impact of drugs, as a member of parliament who knows of three constituents who have lost children to illicit drugs, and as a member of parliament who is aware of the large numbers of breaks and enters that devastate families and communities - and all of the evidence stacks up about this link between drugs and crime - I have an absolute responsibility and duty to do everything I can as a member of parliament to make sure that we have the legislative framework in place that will give the police an opportunity to start to turn this tide of drug use in our community.
We are not going to fix it, we are not nave enough to believe that. We are not nave enough to state - as the Leader of the Opposition tried to force words into the Attorney-General’s mouth - that we are going to reduce property crime by 50%. But, by God, if we reduce it by 10% or 5% it will have been worth it. We will do something, which is more than those opposite did.
The only law and order initiative that the previous government had over many years, in terms of attempting to tackle property crime, was mandatory sentencing. There was some simple logic about it, that if you do the crime, you do the time. That is simple logic. The Leader of the Opposition knows, and he knows full well, that when that Cabinet submission went round to all agencies in terms of setting up that framework, that the police opposed it. The police opposed it because they knew it wouldn’t work.
Obviously, we have no evidence to support that, but I certainly know that that was the case, and one day those documents may come out. So there was no real attempt by the CLP whilst they were in government to actually deal with this issue. The evidence that we have seen - and we prosecuted time and time again in this parliament - the evidence was that we do have a problem. It may have plateaued and we are running along a peak, but it is certainly affecting many hundreds, if not many thousands, of lives of people across the Northern Territory. We as the new government in the Northern Territory will do everything we can to make a significant dent in this issue.
It is not, as the member for Goyder stated - what did he say? - a police led solution. I do not know where he has been on this debate, but we are introducing a comprehensive range of public policies to deal with this issue. What we will be dealing with in the June sittings - and I cannot foreshadow debate - is a range of legislative measures. We have the Health Minister who has put together a task force to look at the rehabilitation issues, the health issues around people who currently have drug problems that are affecting their lives and devastating their lives, and the lives of the family and the community around them. We are also looking at education initiatives to try to do everything we can so that our children are not tempted to take up the use of substances which ultimately will lead to problems, whether they be health problems or financial problems, and only serve to make rich and to profit the vermin that push those drugs on to our kids and on to our community.
I really am astounded by the position of those opposite tonight. I am quite angry about it. I did have a prepared speech but I will move to some of the evidence in terms, again, we prosecuted this uphill and down dale whilst we were in opposition. I do not know why those members opposite think that the Northern Territory is so totally different from the rest of Australia because all of the evidence suggests - if we look at the Australian Institute of Criminology - we are part of Australia, for heaven’s sake. The studies that they released on 4 May 2000, again we prosecuted this in opposition, showed that quite clearly that 43% of all detainees charged with a property offence tested positive for opiates at the time of arrest.
Again, why we would possibly believe that we are any different from the rest of Australia when at the time that study was undertaken we had a morphine prescription rate in this community of 14 times the national average. We had the AIDS Council down there in Manton Street distributing 400 000 needles to a population in Darwin, and we had that anecdotal evidence as to what was happening with opiate prescriptions and needle distribution here at the very time the Australian Institute of Criminology were running studies in three centres around Australia and came up with this figure, that 43% of detainees charged with a property offence tested positive for opiates? Well, it beggars belief that those opposite couldn’t see that that link would hold true here in the Northern Territory. If they had been a responsible government, they would have said: ‘My goodness, we have a problem here’ and conducted their own research. But, no. All you do is try and shoot the messenger.
Those studies also showed, federal government studies commissioned by the conservative Commonwealth government - I might have some differences of opinion with John Howard on many things, but his tough on drugs policy is something I admire him for at least for trying to have a go. Eighty-six percent of adult males arrested tested positive to a drug of some type excluding the legal drugs alcohol and tobacco.
Again we have the Leader of the Opposition talking about the impact of alcohol on property crime and yes, it is there, but again this same study showed that 86% of adult males tested positive on arrest to a drug of some type excluding alcohol and tobacco. Through all of those debates over the previous two years, through the censure motions, the matters of public importance, the questions we put to those opposite, all the Leader of the Opposition, the then Chief Minister, could say was: ‘Look, we are different. These are not Northern Territory studies and they do not relate to us.
Well, I am sorry but you do not have to be Einstein to recognise that if this is the type of problem affecting the rest of Australia then it is certainly a problem that we have here in the Northern Territory.
We have the Leader of the Opposition sinking the boot into Bridie O’Reilly and stating that the police had no faith in the scientific assessment. Now, any study is going to have at the margins some element of doubt to it, but this was a study that was part of a Commonwealth Government anti-drugs strategy at the time, that all of the states signed up to in an effort to achieve some sort of consistency of information across Australia about what drug users were saying about there own drug use, where they sourced those drugs from and what was happening on the ground in those jurisdictions.
It was acknowledged at the time that the best way to elicit that information was to go out and talk to those people who were using those substances. Now, that makes sense to me and if people were paid $40 to bring that information forward, I don’t see the link that just because they were paid $40 to pass on that information that somehow the information would be flawed or they would be lying. Why would they do that?
They had no incentive to tell anything other than the truth about what was happening here in the Northern Territory, and the previous government ran a mile from it. They tried to shut it up; they tried to make sure that it wasn’t distributed. It so offended their political position at the time that an instruction was conveyed that we wouldn’t be part of any further studies because we didn’t like the message we were receiving so we would shoot the messenger.
But even with the information that was received in that study - and it’s all on the record because we put it into the Hansard and it did cause an enormous amount of alarm to myself as a local member - was flawed, given the Australian Institute of Criminology studies, you would have thought that the government of the day would have commissioned their own study to get to the bottom of this. But no, we’re just going to stick our heads in the sand and it looks as though that policy is going to continue in opposition.
Well, I look forward to the Leader of the Opposition going out there on the steps of parliament, on the airwaves, tomorrow and tell Territorians that drug houses are a nonsense and that they don’t exist because I do know his credibility in terms of making that statement will be even lower than it is now.
This is a very important issue for Territorians. It is certainly something that, as a member of this House, I spoke so passionately about in opposition with my colleagues the Minister for Justice, the Deputy Chief Minister and the Chief Minister. I am pleased to be on this side of the House introducing this legislation trying to make a difference. It might not work, but, my God, we’ll have a red hot go.
This will be complemented by a public health strategy that will deal with the health issues surrounding the people whose lives are affected by drug use, and giving those people who want to get off drugs the opportunity to get off drugs and a strategy that we're going to put in place to try and keep our kids away from drugs. Now, if these people opposite can’t support that, well, I can’t wait until the next election.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to make a few observations in relation to this statement tonight, and I thank the members opposite as well as the members on my side of the House for their contributions because it’s a lot to think about, and 20 minutes is not much time in which to discuss these topics.
In thinking about this whole issue, I have to turn my attention to the very first and fundamental role of any government. In the case of a federal system such as Australia, the first and primary role of government, which is defence, is picked up by the Commonwealth. However, another fundamental role of government to provide the framework for a civil society and to that end, this is what the Attorney-General who is, in many respects, the most important person in the Northern Territory in terms of providing a civil society, is attempting to address in his statement to the House today. I am grateful that the Attorney-General considers his role with such gravity.
However, I would like also to turn a critical eye to what he said. That doesn’t necessarily mean that I’m going to lambast what he said. I think there’s a lot of good in what he said, but I would just like to turn a critical eye over the principles that seem to be occupying the Attorney-General’s mind.
Specifically, I turn my attention to the issue of marrying up property crime with drugs. There is clearly a link that the Attorney-General makes in relation to this, and I am not going to deny such a link. I think that it would be futile to deny such a link. However, there is some debate as to how profound that link possibly is. Nevertheless, to achieve the outcomes which the Attorney-General and the government are seeking to achieve, to remove property crime by targeting drugs means that to be successful in the latter, you have to be successful in the former, targeting drugs. This is where I am a little bit concerned that the government may be somewhat forgetting the lessons of history.
I turn my attention to the very difficult problem that was experienced in the United States from 1929, if memory serves me correctly, to the beginning of the Second World War when they had organised villains such as one Alfonzo Capone operating in cities around the United States peddling their particular form of drug at the time. I found it intriguing as a lesson of history that the only way that they were able to nail Mr Capone was not by targeting his distribution networks but finally through the backdoor of tax evasion. That’s how he was dealt with.
Dr Toyne: Exactly what we’re going to do through forfeiture.
Nevertheless, the problem is that I listened very carefully to what the Deputy Chief Minister had to say. He lauded the fact - congratulations to the Western Australian government - that they’ve been able to seize some $12m worth of property and identified a very expensive $25 000 motorcycle, a Harley Davidson, despite of the fact that $25 000 is the average price for a Harley Davidson. In fact, it’s a little bit more nowadays. The fact of the matter is that in the whole drugs budget, the economy of drugs in Western Australia which I would, without knowing any of the figures, would guesstimate in the hundreds of millions, all that they’ve been able to nail down is $12m. That is an almost affordable tax regime as far as these drug operators are concerned, and that is the thing that bothers me about this approach; it is not a complete enough approach and I will return to that issue shortly.
So what we have is a policy by which the government is becoming tough on the producers of drugs, and they are nailing these producers in every way that they possibly can. However, one of the gangs which has already been spoken about in this Chamber today, the Hell’s Angels, who are a multi-national corporation by any measure of the word. If you ever talk to one when you have them in their leathers, they carry a little diamond just about here on their leathers. It is either one side or the other. That little diamond has inside it 1%. For the elucidation of members, what that means is ‘I am 1% of the true dirtbag. I am the outlaw. I don’t care about the law. The law is not worth so much toilet paper as far as I am concerned. I am 1% of the true villains’. That’s what that 1% means.
So I look at the package that the Attorney-General brings into this Chamber and the issue that he tries to raise, and he says: ‘We are going to target the Al Capones of the modern world, the people who sell the illicit drugs to our children’. I have no problem with that. It is a good idea because there is a public expectation of government, no matter what flavour that government is, that drugs are dealt with.
However, in the last year - and I could be wrong, but I’m not far wrong in terms of the figures - in the United States, the drug budget in terms of fighting it for the DEA alone - let alone the smaller police forces, the many thousands of small police forces throughout the United States - the DEA’s budget alone as I understand it was well over a $US1bn. Enormous amounts of man power and dedication go into some very dangerous and scary operations in an effort to fight drugs. Yet, am I convinced that there is one less crystal of crack cocaine on the streets of Los Angeles as a result? Am I convinced that there is less cannabis available in the People’s Republic of San Francisco?
The approach to managing these sorts of issues is made very complex by the nature of drugs themselves. What the government is intending to do with this legislation is to target or create a bogie man, the evil doer. The real arch villain is that person who manufactures, produces or sells the drugs which is no problem. That’s the bogie man that the members opposite are trying to create …
Ms Lawrie: No, no, we’re not creating them. They’re out there pushing drugs on to kids.
Mr Bonson: They’re in our community.
Mr ELFERINK: … and what they attempt to create this bogie man does – and it is a very real bogie man; I’m not disputing any of this. I am actually speaking in support of what the Attorney-General is doing as far as it goes. But when I have dealt with drug dealers in pubs over the years, I have dealt with some guy who is way down the supply chain.
According to the Attorney-General, if this is the supplier somewhere in a pub - I remember one incident in an hotel in town where I arrested a fellow. He had several deals on him; he went down for a traffickable quantity. But at the end of the day it wasn’t him; it was further up the chain.
The experience in New York in relation to these sorts of issues is that they have taken a pincer approach, and it’s something that I find quite attractive. The pincer approach is that one edge of the pincer is pushing down on the places of manufacture but the other end of the pincer approach is that on a street level, there has to be also that issue of responsibility. This is where I think that a philosophical, consistent approach in relation to drugs should be applied. At what point does the user become the supplier? I think you will find that there is a very large grey area in between the two because the guy in the pub dishing out a few bags of joints is actually supplying his own habit more often than not, and the guy above him is often working on his own habit more often than not. It is only when you start getting to those untouchables that we complain about further up the food chain that you can see this bogie man, this villain. But he is very difficult to touch, and that is what the Attorney-General is trying to touch.
What I’m suggesting is that if you are going to be consistent in the approach the villain has also to a degree got to be a user themselves. At the end of the day, they are as much a part of the market place as the producer. I, as a consumer of Coca-Cola - I nearly said coke then - am as much of the market place as the company itself. I purchase the drug and, because - if we listen to the members opposite - I need to engage in crime to purchase the drug, then I think that you should be targeting the users as well.
The second point or the second aspect as was explained by the Deputy Chief Minister was through the compulsory treatment of addicts. But this is where the philosophical shift occurs that I am concerned about because if we make drugs nasty, awful, evil at the point of sale, but don’t make them at the point of purchase, then what you’re doing is that you are engaging in an exercise where there is no act of villainy in the consumption, the possession those sorts of things as a psychological position.
This means that the pincer won’t work. If you try to clamp down on these sorts of things you are pushing from one position only and this is where I think that the major difference will be between the government and opposition in the future. I am quite prepared to make the people who use these substances as responsible for their own criminality as the people who supply the substances. That seems to be something that members opposite don’t want to do because they seem to want to treat the people who use these drugs exclusively as victims. The fact of the matter is that people use drugs because they want to. They engage in the criminal act of purchasing drugs, they engage in the criminal act of possessing drugs, in a vast amount of cases, because they choose to do so. I have never seen a person unwillingly buy drugs.
I have only in my whole life been aware of a handful of cases where drugs have been taken unwillingly by people. These are the date-rape type of drugs I am referring to now. But in terms of cannabis, in terms of heroin, in terms of cocaine, all those sorts of drugs that are out there, people who use them do so voluntarily. It is the very nature of the contract between the people they purchase from and the people who use them themselves, and that market place is part of the problem. By targeting the supply chain only, which has historically proven to be insurmountably difficult, and by not targeting the use of the street level itself as a criminal endeavour, then you are not going to succeed. I don’t say that as in any sort of gloating term. I am hoping that the government takes heed of what I am saying because I want them to succeed. I want the government to succeed in policing these problems.
It has been a bit of a Road to Damascus change from the members opposite. They have changed their whole attitude to the drug scene. They have decided to deal with drugs in terms of the public expectations that are out there. However, this process of trying to make the users the victims does also lead to what I am concerned is an inconsistent message to the users of drugs out there. Part of my concern comes from the former member for Wanguri, Mr John Bailey, who wanted to established things like heroin trials here in the Northern Territory. He put out press releases at the time where he called on the Prime Minister to reconsider his cancellation of the ACT heroin trial. He also put out a press release in 1998, I think it was, where he said:
Denis Burke must listen to the medical profession and he must also listen to those involved in law enforcement
including the Woods Royal Commission who are clearly stating that the legal prohibition has totally failed to
deal with the problems resulting from illegal drug use.
Quite contrary to the position of the Labor Party today. It is the right of a political party to change its mind as it goes through time. Indeed, both sides of this House have done so over time. But I would seek leave, so that members are aware of what the political position was only a few years ago, to table these press release by John Bailey where he argues for things like heroin trials in the Territory.
Leave granted.
Mr ELFERINK: However, that inconsistent message which is going out to the drug users in the community remains with us to this day and, of course, this deals with issues like the needle exchange program which I believe is still running in the Palmerston area. I seek leave to table, in relation to that, clippings from newspapers from 3 and 4 December 2001 where the current Health Minister has given her nod for a needle exchange program to be placed in the Palmerston area.
Mrs Aagaard: Needle and syringe program.
Dr Toyne: It’s not an exchange program.
Mr ELFERINK: If you are going to send out a clear message, then it must be a consistently clear message. I am not entirely sure that the government of today is sending out that message clearly. If drugs are bad, then they are bad. Full stop. If you want to deal with these issues, you have to deal with the issues consistently with a consistent message.
The other thing that I would ask, and part of this inconsistent message is the issue of methadone …
Dr Burns: It’s called harm prevention, harm minimalisation.
Mr ELFERINK: This is intriguing. I’ll pick up on that interjection of harm minimisation. The point is that we’re talking about zero tolerance. The minister himself has used the expression zero tolerance. Zero tolerance as a concept is fundamentally different. Zero tolerance happens at the zero level; it starts at the very basic level. The general concept of zero tolerance, which is now being used in a more general term is actually precise in its intent.
Members interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: I find it intriguing that the member for Johnston wants to interject. It seems that he doesn’t want to hear me saying things like the government’s message has to be consistent; the government message has to be consistently hard on drugs. I am curious to see from the member for Johnston’s participation in this debate whether he thinks that the message should be consistently difficult or whether he wants to tolerate drug use in the community through management.
I find the steps that the minister is talking about encouraging, but I find them incomplete and I would urge the minister to take a more consistent approach, a message which is going to be consistent to the whole community, the users as well as the mums and dads in the suburbs as well as the drug dealers themselves, that you will not tolerate drugs at any level in our community and that you will do everything that you can to deal with the issue from a street level up. Targeting the dealers only is going to be problematic because you have problems that you will face from history.
Seizing a bit of property is going to be nothing more than a small tax as far as these guys are concerned. They are going to continue finding ways to get around the legislation. If you look at tax legislation, even in the world on this side of the law, you see something like tax legislation, people immediately try to minimise their tax, look for loopholes, look for ways to get through it, look for ways around it. That’s exactly what they’re going to do with this legislation. Unless there is a consistent approach throughout the whole of government services, the process of offering a tough solution on one hand and then offering a soft solution on the other hand is going to cause you no end of grief and cause the community no end of grief.
I would hope that the minister will change the approach by targetting not only the producers and the manufacturers and the suppliers but also targetting, as criminality, the use of drugs and seeing mandated processes of sentencing
Dr Toyne: Yes, drug courts. That’s what we’re going to do.
Mr ELFERINK: No, you’re not.
Mrs AAGAARD (Health and Community Services): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of the Minister for Justice today. This government’s Tough on Drugs plan showcases our determination to jointly tackle the major issues confronting this community in a serious and comprehensive manner. The approach we are developing is characterised by the active cooperation of all key players from the police force to Health and Community Services.
Let there be no mistake: illicit drugs are a major health and social issue. Our plan tackles the growing problem of illicit drug use in three ways. First, through law enforcement with zero tolerance on drug production and distribution; second, through compulsory treatment of addicts arrested on drug-related crimes; and third, with a sound drug use prevention strategy. It is to this third arm of the plan that I will direct my comments.
One of my earliest decisions as Minister for Health and Community Services was to establish a high profile Task Force on Illicit Drugs to advise the government on strategies to help users and their families on the road to better health as part of our broader strategy, Drugs and Drug-related Crime in Our Community. Since its establishment, the task force has conducted thorough consultations with community groups, service providers, individual Territorians and their families. Task force consultations have occurred in all regional centres - Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Nhulunbuy, Katherine, Darwin and Palmerston. The consultations have been well attended and a good level of information and opinion has been gathered. Over 70 submissions have been received by the task force to date. The task force members are currently undertaking the arduous task of collating all of the information they have received, and are continuing their deliberations regarding their findings and recommendations that will be presented to me on 31 May this year.
Without wishing to pre-empt this report, I can say that the strong messages received by the task force so far have been that injecting drug use is becoming increasingly common in the larger urban centres of Darwin, Alice Springs and Palmerston. Illicit drug use is occurring within a background of high levels of licit drug use, such as alcohol, tobacco and petrol, which means that polydrug use, the use of more than one substance at a time, is common, thus increasing the associated risks.
Although the problem is not yet out of control with respect to injecting drug use, action needs to be taken now to prevent the problems from escalating because the social harms, for instance the impact upon families and the community, can be huge. Further, the public feel that the illicit drug area is one that has not received the focus it deserved in the past in the Northern Territory.
People also consider, as a result of its poor profile in the past, there is a general lack of understanding, education and competence in dealing with illicit drug use throughout the Northern Territory community. The denials of the previous administration on this issue, in the light of what we know about hard drug and injecting use in the Territory, and its relation to criminal activity, is nothing short of astounding. Police information suggests that amphetamine use is growing and heroin is on its way. There are indications that more people are using, particularly younger people, and that indigenous users are an emerging group. We also know that intravenous use is the most common means of administering opiates and amphetamines, and that most users are not in any form of treatment, given the paucity of facilities.
The importance of a multidimensional approach to illicit drugs cannot be over-emphasised. Ours is one that looks at law enforcement and education, treatment and harm reduction. Unfortunately, what we have found as a direct consequence of the head-in-the-sand approach of the previous government is that the care, treatment and rehabilitation services in the Territory are, in the main, uncoordinated and running on a shoe string. They have had little opportunity to match best practice within our jurisdictions; little opportunity to expand their capacity to give thorough psychosocial assistance to addicts through the trauma of withdrawal and rehabilitation; little opportunity to increase their quality, and thus their success rate. That is why an independent analysis of what is required to bring us into the 21st century with our education, treatment and prevention approach is so critical.
I expect the task force report to identify where we need to direct our energies if we are to provide effective treatment, education and family support to lessen the many harms associated with uncontrolled drug use in our community. I commend the minister’s statement on our government’s commitment to a comprehensive approach. I look forward to advising the House on the outcomes of the task force deliberations.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I would also like to comment on the statement Tough on Drugs and Drug Crime. I don’t feel at the present time I am fully informed about many of the issues involved in this debate and, as it has to come before parliament later on, I thought I would address a number of philosophical issues rather than deal with some of the matter which have been raised today.
As a member of the Substance Abuse Committee, I will use that as part of my education process before I comment directly on some of the matters that will be raised later. I also note some of the matters that were raised by my friend, the member for Goyder. He raised some issues that I will also raise as a matter of concern regarding this debate.
I don’t like drugs, especially those that take control of people, destroy their health and interfere with and destroy other people’s lives. Debate about drugs and crime, especially in the political arena, is often prefaced by the word ‘tough’. This might sound like fighting words, but I hope that when it comes to such a complex and serious issue, the tough talk doesn’t blur a reasoned debate on the issue.
I welcome the government’s formation of the task force - and I appreciate the report that the Minister for Health has just given us on that task force - and the establishment of a substance abuse committee.
I hope that there will be some important recommendations from the task force before the debate on legislation, based on the ‘Tough on Drugs Three-Point Plan’ is introduced. I am also concerned that this issue does not just focus on one aspect only - that is, drug control. We need to look at why people turn to drugs and we need to look at ways of turning people away from drugs and putting their efforts into more constructive pursuits.
I believe there is a need to promote, especially amongst our young people, the notion that one doesn’t need to get a high through the use of drugs. One can get a high using the talents that we are all born with. We can do that through music, art and sport; play or sing or listen to a beautiful piece of music; design, construct, paint or admire a painting, a sculpture, a building, a landscape; get a buzz from playing any sport, and even a bigger buzz from winning. Let’s encourage our children to use their talents so that they can enjoy life in its many forms as they go through life. Government need to make sure that it provides adequate facilities to allow the community to bring their talents to the fore.
Another aspect which I feel is lacking is our education system. Children today are taught many things. One subject they are taught right through school is human development. This covers lifestyle issues like health, growth, diet, sexual development and other matters. Many of these issues are dealt with without raising issues of what is right or wrong, about conscience, about morality, about natural law. I’m not talking here about religious education; I’m talking about philosophy. This may not be applicable in primary schools, but certainly I think it is needed in secondary schools. Are issues like sex, love, hate, anger just debated as if they were one dimensional issues? Do we debate the very fundamental issues like: who are we and why are we on this earth? I don’t believe they are. These issues require analysis beyond the scientific and the clinical.
I believe that many of the problems that we have in our society can be based on a society where many people have no idea where they are going, are very individualistic, are only concerned about material goods, and are looking for instant gratification and pleasure. Where is our society heading? Is drug use just a reflection of a society that is wandering along, with little thought given about the meaning of life, except ‘enjoy it now, and who cares about others in the future’?
Some of you may say that this has little to do with this statement today, but I believe it does. If we only debate this issue based on ‘my laws are tougher than your laws’, then we may miss an opportunity to develop a holistic policy, and we may miss out on an opportunity to look at all aspects of drug matters. I don’t like drugs; I don’t want people having their lives destroyed by drugs, and I still refer back to those legal drugs that do just as much damage, like alcohol. What I want is a debate covering the many views about this issue, not a debate based on political toughness but on common sense with realistic and achievable goals, and with the hope that we can help make our society a healthier and safer one.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Madam Speaker, at a time when there has been a lot of media attention about drive-through drug houses and the proposed changes to drug laws to allow police wider powers to enter and search a range of different kinds of premises, most of the focus has been on what happens in Darwin. Sometimes that concerns me because my seat is a remote area seat.
A substantial illegal drug trade has been operating for a long time between Darwin and remote Aboriginal communities. While there have been some recent media reports, this trade has substantially escaped the public and media glare. Going back on some of the instances that have happened. On Tuesday 26 February 2002, a non-Aboriginal man was caught trying to smuggle into Maningrida from Darwin about $38 000 worth - that’s 700 grams - of cannabis. The stuff was stashed into the back of a television set. While that doesn’t sound much, it’s alleged that $50 000 worth of drugs is being brought into Maningrida fortnightly and I have gone on about these amounts a couple of times in this parliament.
This pattern has been borne out by the latest bust with the police seizing $50 000 worth of cannabis cookies. We keep highlighting the issue of the drug problem and the opposition’s stance that it was minuscule. If you weigh up remote Aboriginal communities compared with every other jurisdiction throughout Australia, the Northern Territory has the highest proportion of indigenous people. And if you look at that proportion of indigenous people, 23% of this population, which is the highest of any jurisdiction, the problem associated with the taking of drugs is huge - and that is far from being minuscule.
Many other communities have been similarly targeted. Imagine for a moment the impact that this is having on communities. Quite apart from the financial burden imposed on families whose small disposable incomes have been sacrificed, anecdotal evidence suggests that almost all attempts and completed suicides are drug or drug and alcohol related. The cost of drug abuse is escalating on communities like Maningrida and changing the whole fabric of community life.
I find it absolutely beyond any rational thinking person that any individual could protest about legislation or disagree with something that will assist in stopping this illegal trade happening in our communities. If the amount of time - and if I could just point out, that protest that happened the other day -, the time that they spent and all the energies that they put into protesting -and look, I am a firm believer in democracy and protesting is fine - but sometimes you hope that some of that energy could be put into more productive means like taking the time to look at the impact that these drugs are having on our remote Aboriginal communities.
Our communities do not need another substance added on top of the two other menaces that are tearing at the very foundations of Aboriginal families. If they were to be confronted with the senseless deaths and suicides, violence, children malnourished that is currently happening in our communities, I just wonder if the debate would be a bit different. Only a Martin Labor government will deliver to reduce crime and the illicit drug trade. Our 3-point plan will be delivered by strong and committed leadership. This commitment has shown whilst working to eliminate or reduce the illicit drug trade, there will be a process in which treatment and rehabilitation programs will be put in place.
I know that with each visit back to the Tiwi Islands lately, it is to attend a funeral for some young person who has committed suicide. This was the case only last week when there has been one suicide and two attempts by young people under the age of 20. These are young people still in their prime.
However, looking at all that I would like to put a final word, and it would be remiss of me not to, of caution or context into the whole debate. While cannabis use or abuse especially by children and teenagers is a real threat to both urban Territorians and to people living in remote Aboriginal communities, we must not lose sight of the fact that alcohol abuse is arguably a far greater threat to our society across the board and petrol sniffing is a particular menace to an increasing percentage of remote Aboriginal communities.
We have reached crisis point with each of these two substances, each of which probably needs specialised strategies and laws to counter them as well. That is for the future.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I did attempt to stand prior to the member for Nelson. I am glad I was not recognised because that was an excellent contribution, an excellent contribution to this debate as was the last speaker. I apologise for missing some of the words but I caught most of them in the lobby and the rest of them here.
There is a very strong delineation between the Health Minister who has substantial responsibility for this issue, substantial responsibility. I mean, if we take out the law and order which in a drug sense is only going to address a tiny portion - I would not like the use the word minuscule because it might get misrepresented - but the act of regulating matters relating to drugs is only going to affect this in a small way and the member for Nelson is spot on.
The big interventions are social. The big interventions will be social, educative, lifestyle, parenting. They will be the big interventions that change how society views drugs, how society addresses drugs, how society tolerates and prohibits drugs.
It was very refreshing for me to hear again – well, it was saddening to hear the Health Minister parrot a speech that has been written by somebody. This is a person who today has told us that she is a temperance person, totally temperate. She doesn’t take the evil vices of alcohol or any other drug and I would have thought, as a person with strong religious convictions and a strong anti-drug philosophy, that she could have stood up here and given us a fire and brimstone sermon that would have had our hair standing up.
Dr Burns: This isn’t a church.
Mr DUNHAM: I know it’s not a church. I would have expected that we would have got a passionate, from the heart Health minister saying: ‘This is an intolerable situation’. Instead, we had a robotic routine reading out of a speech written by somebody. After that we had the member for Nelson, and he said some very interesting things right at the front. First, he didn’t know all about it and he had to learn. Great, and that is true of all of us. He had to learn. He also said that maybe there are other ways of doing it and maybe all of this muscular grab the headline stuff, you know: ‘We are really going to jam these drug pushers’ is not the be all and end all.
He talked about a linkage between drug control - and he said – ‘philosophy’. He’s right. I mean, some of these - he talked about music. He talked about things that are attractive to young people. This is spot on. What we have here is, in a mathematical sense, a binary debate. We have a binary debate. One or two. Yes or no. If you don’t support the drug policies of this government it means you must be against it. There are a million positions, a million different positions and societies around the world, not just western societies, eastern societies, all sorts of societies have had to contend with this problem of drugs. Some of them have been licit drugs. We have a massive problem with licit drugs in this society now. And they’ve had a great problem in how they handle it.
Our ears should be wide open to debate. We should be looking far and wide, and the member for Nelson has my admiration for that contribution. That was a very good - not an anti-drugs speech; it was a very good legislator standing up saying: ‘I want to give it my best shot. I really want to have a go at this thing, but I don’t know how to do it. I will listen. I will be persuaded. But please don’t give me an act of parliament that says: “Don’t worry; it’s fixed. Hunky dory. We’ve got an act here. We’ve worked out who the baddie is”.’
That gets us down to the whole point of this debate which is a series of reinforcing messages from the government about being tough on drugs. Okay. That’s good. That’s a good political thing. But I guess in a parliamentary sense - and I am an adherent to the processes in this parliament. I would like to say that whatever the rules are here, I would like to oblige the parliament and the people that have elected me here to try and do the right thing by abiding by them. So I am not going to go into the debate that is going to come in a mere few days. We have a substantial opportunity to debate all these bills. So what we have before us is a generic debate not about the bills because we have got that opportunity and standing orders would prohibit such a debate in any event as you are well aware, Madam Speaker.
So I was going to restrict my commentary to those issues in the Labor manifesto that are not picked up in the legislation and, like the member for Nelson, I would like to talk about the whole universe that we find ourselves in with this business.
Dr Burns: A cosmologist now, eh? PhD in cosmology.
Mr DUNHAM: I don’t pretend to be anything, Madam Speaker, other than a person who in his limited time in this parliament will try and make life better for Territorians, and I would hope that some of the big impacts on Territorians, including the children of some of us living here and are elected to this place, will be better because of our time in this parliament. That is what I am trying to do.
While others may think I have all sorts of nefarious motives, I would suggest that the minister, too, has some motivation that is not entirely evident in the words that are in this debate. I think this is the old trick, and it is not a Labor party trick, Adolf Hitler used this trick, lots of people use this trick. What you do is you say: ‘Look, our life is not good. Our life is not good because we have a problem’. Okay, what’s the problem? ‘Well the problem is X and if we can just address X our life will get better’.
That was the Port Arthur thing, you know, the problem is people own guns. So everybody who owned a gun was put in the same category as some deranged murderer. What we have here is a statement parading as ‘We have found the baddie, we know who the baddie is. We’re organising the posse, going to go out, going to get Mr Big. We’re going to get those drug dealers, and after we do that, everything will be sweet’. Now, I don’t like to use the Hitleresque sort of picture.
Ms Lawrie: Well, then don’t. It’s offensive, absolutely offensive.
Mr DUNHAM: It may well be offensive. Your statement is quite offensive. But it does go to the fact that a simplistic solution that would say: ‘Big problem, complex problem. One answer: eradicate that. Got it fixed’. This is a nonsense in a complex society that we live in. I have spoken about drugs on a number of occasions in this parliament, and I can tell you that I proudly claim to have several generations of heritage in this place, in the Northern Territory. My grandmother grew up here as a young girl, went to school here as a young girl. She told me stories about Chinatown, the opium dens in Chinatown, well before the Second World War, the drugs that they contended with then were seen as manageable proportions. I was a publican’s son, I grew up in a pub. We dispensed a drug, we dispensed alcohol, we dispensed tobacco - both legitimately, I would add. Nonetheless, they had a very big impact on society and I recognise that that impact still exists today.
We have had drugs like petrol sniffing that have been a fairly recent phenomena that I hope my colleague the member for Johnston will talk about, being learned in this area. We’ve had problems with drugs like kava that have been fairly recent introductions, including by the Church, well meaning people introduced it on a harm minimisation basis. They said it would be better for people to abuse this drug that is a soporific than this drug which is alcohol which causes violence. That is a reasonable argument to have; we’ve had it in this parliament before. We have said: ‘Okay, if you zonk everyone out in the community, it’s got all these other problems, but is it as bad as grog?’ I have been to probably 20 community meetings where we have talked about kava, and in all of them the discussion is: ‘We don’t like kava. Kava is a bad thing’. It comes right around to: ‘Well, without kava, we have grog. Okay. Therefore we have kava’.
If you want to run harm minimisation arguments, and drug replacement arguments like you will do eventually with methadone maintenance programs, let’s have the debate, but let’s not be blind about it because it doesn’t matter which drug you are abusing, it is a problem for you. It is a problem for you to abuse drugs whether they are licit, whether they are illicit, or whatever. Let’s get that straight in our heads at the start. This statement that says: ‘We know who the baddie is. We’ll go and get the baddie. Everything is sweet.’ That is a nonsense. The very first sentence I read:
- Madam Speaker, the Martin government was elected with a clear mandate to tackle illicit drugs and crime.
No! You were elected to fix it. When that word ‘fix’ was used before, I note the member for Wanguri said: ‘No, no, no. Tackle. We’re not going to fix it; we’re going to tackle it’. Basically what they’re saying is, we’ll have the good fight; we’ll have the good and honourable fight; we’ll kick up a big mob of dust, we’ll come out with our nose bloodied and at the end of it we’ll say: “Well, we gave it our best shot”.’ A red hot try, I think the member for Wanguri said. No, we don’t want that.
Members interjecting.
Mr DUNHAM: We want some objectivity about at least defining a goal. If it is property break ins, define that; if it is the number of arrests, whatever it is, define that. Then what we want to know is are you encroaching on the goal? That is, is it getting better, is it getting worse?
We come to the vexed issue of statistics, and this open, honest, transparent government has at least quashed one form of statistics.
Mr Stirling: Nothing to do with us.
Mr DUNHAM: I can understand the argument: it wasn’t us, the Police Commissioner didn’t like them, so he did it. A bit of a nonsensical argument because we need a variety of statistics here; we need a variety of goals. There’s no one goal; there’s no one baddie. My colleague, the member for Macdonnell, spoke pretty well about that. What he said was: ‘Okay, all the dealers are baddies and then it’s barleys. So, you can use, abuse, whatever, you are okay. You are a mere victim of one or two Mr Bigs’.
The sad fact is – and I’ve been to a few places that treat people with drug addiction including people who were withdrawing, who still had a drug addiction or whatever - and it is a very difficult business to procure illicit drugs, very difficult. If they’re very expensive illicit drugs, you have three options. There is a fourth option, but it’s rarely used. The fourth option is to be so independently wealthy like Howard Hughes that you can do anything you like - or the Rolling Stones or something. But even they have a difficulty with being able to procure, travel - all those sorts of things – their drugs.
Failing that, you deal, you steal or you prostitute yourself. You deal, you steal or you prostitute yourself. If to this group of victims we’re saying: ‘Sorry, we’re not going to look at you; we’re going to look at the people who sold you the drugs’, the people using the drugs are still dealing in the main. Many of them are dealing and on-selling; many of them are still stealing and on-selling; and many of them are involved in the trade of prostitution which has some very unhappy travelling companions including the various Mr Bigs you are looking for.
So, let’s get away from this business of the House having a bill and fixing the problem. I hope the bill helps fix the problem. Instead of this wording about ‘we will tackle it’, I hope we talk about goal definition; we talk about: ‘We will get to this point: X’. If you don’t get there, there’s a debate about that. But at least if you are going there, you have a pretty good rejoinder for us. You can say to us: ‘Okay, we didn’t get all the way to that destination but, by golly, we are on the way. We are on the way; we have some data that would show you that some of this stuff is pretty good’.
The other thing I could talk about – I have a couple of minutes left - is that, in a debate like this, you get a lot of mythology and pseudo name calling – head-in-the-sand approach. If people have these various little electric books here that can hit up words and you put in ‘head-in-the-sand’, it would probably come up …
Mr Kiely: Dunham.
Mr DUNHAM: No, no. How many times? How many times?
Members interjecting.
Mr DUNHAM: How many times? You either have done it or you haven’t. He’s probably told the parliament another little porky, he probably hasn’t done it. But, anyway, what I’m saying is that it is a bit like finding out who the baddie is; calling him a baddie. You know: ‘If it was only for getting rid of the Hell’s Angels, everything would be sweet’. This is not going to work. The Hell’s Angels could disappear tomorrow and we’re going to have a drugs problem. This is what I call a Hitleresque policy. I know it offends some people opposite, but it is to say: ‘Our life would be hunky dory; we would never have a break in if it wasn’t for those people in leather jackets on those Harley Davidsons. It is them who are causing my life to be a misery, and my child, who I brought up so well, is smoking marijuana and I’m sure it’s those bloomin’ Hells Angels doing that’.
Look, I’m not a friend of the Hell’s Angels …
Mr Kiely: Some of you are. For some of you it becomes a qualification.
Mr DUNHAM: I’ll pick up the interjection Madam Speaker: ‘Some of you are’.
Dr Burns: No, he didn’t say that, he did not say that.
Mr Elferink: That’s exactly what he said.
Mr DUNHAM: What I would say is they are probably not terribly nice people, I don’t know. But, as I said, I have talked to many people who have used drugs. I was an employee in premises - many premises - that dispensed drugs. That particular drug is called alcohol. While those opposite will run this line of Denis Burke saying: ‘Oh, it’s minuscule’, you have to take a sense of proportion. There must be a sense of proportion.
There is a big problem with drug abuse, 30 m from this parliament in that park. There are people there, illegally consuming drugs tonight - illegally consuming drugs tonight. Those people, I would say, their prognosis of going into prison, the watch house, the back of a police car or hospital is about 100 times greater than the various people we are talking about in here. So I am not saying that illicit drugs is a minuscule problem. What I am saying is let’s work out what your big problems are. Let’s get the health minister to say: ‘The big things that worry me are…’ whatever.
Now, as the former Health minister, I will give you the list: grog. Right up the top. Grog. Big problem. And lots of things happened in this place. All this ‘We never did anything, head-in-the-sand, 27 years of neglect’. Rubbish! The best grog policies in Australia, probably the world, came out of this place.
Number two: tobacco. Okay, I will agree with various members, maybe we could have done more. But I mean, even a tobacco zealot like my colleague, the member for Johnston - and I admire him for it, I’m not being negative - still has difficulty in his own family circumstances, as he once said on the radio, of controlling this commodity. It is not an easy thing to get people to desist from human behaviours that they find attractive. There are many people, particularly young people, who will persist with risk taking behaviours. It happened with Julius Caesar’s generation. It has happened and happened that young people will take risks that are injurious to their own health or their family.
Enter the member for Nelson again. This is where we have to go. What you have to have is a multi-pronged approach, not a three step approach or whatever. The business about your three pronged approach, that’s a rip snorter, that is a rip snorter. What you are talking about here is a compulsory treatment of drug addicts and drug courts. Where’s that?
Dr Burns: New South Wales.
Mr DUNHAM: We want it here, mate. It is your promise. Compulsory treatment of drug addicts is a very vexed issue. Unless you can actually incarcerate them, lock them up, take them away from society, it is pretty tricky. That is actually called mandatory sentencing. To exclude somebody from society because of their drug taking behaviour is mandatory sentencing. If you are going to have them compulsorily attend a treatment centre, ‘Yes, I promise. I’ll sign this form’, you don’t know much about drugs because it is a very persuasive habit and lying, duplicitous behaviour and all that stuff is not just the monopoly of those opposite. Drug addicts exhibit it probably even more than them.
The issue for them is to describe to us the drug courts. How do they work? Compulsory treatment. How is it going to work? Are you going to put people in some sort of a detox centre? Buprenorphine? Naltrexone? What are you going to do to these compulsorily treated people? I would like to know.
So in keeping of the parliamentary tradition of only talking about those things that are not being anticipated, I would like to talk about the absence in this statement of those fundamental bench marks of the Labor Party. I would like the minister in rejoinder not to talk about and anticipate debate coming up, but to talk about these big holes in his statement. Tell us about the drug courts. Tell us what compulsory treatment means. Tell us about stuff like that because we would like to know. There are some of us on this side who may well support the majority of the stuff, but we would like to know. We do not like being snowed and we do not like this little posse act, Madam Speaker. The statement is not supported by me.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Johnston, haven’t you spoken yet?
Dr BURNS (Johnston): I haven’t, Madam Speaker, and I hope the member for Drysdale might listen to what I have to say.
Mr Dunham: I’ll listen closely.
A member: Run away!
Dr Burns: I have not prepared for this particular speech, but his comments have had their effect and probably spurred me into action.
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I heard the words ‘running away’, and I hope they were not levelled at me.
Mr Stirling: No, I don’t think so.
Madam SPEAKER: Well, member, you know that you should not refer …
Dr BURNS: I didn’t say that, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: I am sure you wouldn’t.
Dr BURNS: No. I, too, agree with the member for Nelson. I thought his speech was excellent because we do hear lots of facts and figures about drugs. The committee which the member for Arafura heads is going to be meeting tomorrow about substance abuse, and we’re going to be hearing a lot of facts and figures. But I felt the member for Nelson went right to the heart of things in terms of young people having activities that are fulfilling and satisfying. Through my own experience – the member for Drysdale mentioned that I have done a lot of research on petrol sniffing. At Maningrida, one of the major things that was successful there in ridding that place of petrol sniffing was the fact that the young people had work. They were given the opportunity to work; they were given the opportunity to actually contribute back in a meaningful and constructive way to their community. I think that’s very important.
We can have all sorts of strategies, but that valuing of young people is very important. I could speak for hours about why young people take up drugs. I wrote a PhD on it. There are many different theories, but it comes down to influences on young people – some of them are positive, some of them are negative. It’s about young people making choices for themselves and young people being valued, and that is probably one of the most important things. It is one of the most important lessons I’ve learnt through my work in lots of different areas to do with drugs.
Mr Elferink: Don’t qualify it. Just people. Just people.
Dr BURNS: Well, young people – the challenges are a little bit different. I believe in the good of young people. A lot of things are said about them that are negative, but by and large, I think young people are good; they want to do good and they want to be good. Let’s encourage them to be good. So in that respect, I agree with what the member for Nelson had to say.
Now, we talked about social situations. The member for Drysdale reflected on my social situation in regards to tobacco. My mother was a smoker for many, many years. It wasn’t until she was nearly 80 that she gave it away after she had a stroke. That was hard for her. Other members of my family who I think the member was referring to have actually given tobacco smoking away since I last made those comments.
Members: Hear, hear!
Dr BURNS: Whether a person smokes or not, I have been tagged as a tobacco zealot. I’m certainly not a tobacco zealot. I don’t judge someone if they smoke tobacco or whether they don’t. The thing that I dislike is tobacco and the things that tobacco companies have done over many decades to try and pull the wool over people’s eyes, to try and disguise the fact that tobacco is a very lethal drug because unlike alcohol which can be used in moderation, the use of tobacco leads to ill health so I’m dead set against tobacco. I’m for the use of alcohol in moderation. I’m not a tea totaller. As I’ve said in this House before, I’ve been known to have a shandy on a hot day and I’ve been known to have a wobbly boot.
Mr Wood: In that pub over the road.
Dr BURNS: Possibly. Social situations are very important, but the fact of the matter is that people, for whatever reason, in increasing numbers are taking up drug use, whether it’s tobacco use – particularly amongst young women – or some of the figures that we’ve heard about here today, drug use among young people in the Northern Territory – I’m a believer in Bridie O’Reilly’s research. It was commissioned by a very august body, by a recognised institute in research that has some pretty heavy hitters in it. It just amuses me – it always has amused me that the member for Katherine used to get hysterical about Bridie O’Reilly’s work. I’m a supporter of Bridie O’Reilly because I think the work she’s done is right.
We all know anecdotally that amphetamine use has been growing here in the Territory steadily over a long time. We know that intravenous drug use amongst young people has been growing a long time and that’s an alarming statistic. I was dismayed on the way home from work sometimes on Drive Time, I used to hear the former Treasurer get hysterical about Bridie O’Reilly. In fact, the former government wouldn’t endorse the grant that she was getting from the Commonwealth government. They didn’t even want the Commonwealth to give her money because they didn’t want to hear the story that she had to tell. She is a woman of courage and a scientist of repute. It made me angry, the way that she was treated by the former government. I know the former Health Minister didn’t address this issue.
It comes down to harm reduction. Okay, in an ideal world, our young people would not be taking drugs. Unfortunately, they do. It comes back to harm reduction and harm minimisation, a strategy that worked so well for Australia in the AIDS epidemic. The fact of the matter is it is a public health measure to have needle exchange; it is a very important public health measure, and I support it.
Mr Elferink: It’s also a very mixed message.
Dr BURNS: Well, it may be but the fact of the matter is that basically it is supporting people to try and get through their problem. It appears to me that a lot of the ordinary drug users in their drug use career - and you might have an idea about this, member for Macdonnell - they might take drugs for a specific time during their lives and usually when they get to about 30 or so - we are talking about heroin and other drugs here, and morphine - they decide for whatever reason, they’ve got a family, that they’ll give it away. The whole thing is to try and support them through that.
That brings me to methadone. I was a bit dismayed to hear the edge in the member for Drysdale’s voice about methadone because he seemed to indicate to me, in former sittings, that your side of the House was prepared to shift ground on this issue. Methadone treatment is a well recognised treatment. No one is saying it’s the be all and end all of drug treatment, but it should be available as a support to help people get through this period I just mentioned. I know some people in my own life, personal friends, who are now doing quite well in life and methadone helped them. It helped them through a very bad period in their lives and it helped to bring some consistency in their lives.
Dr Lim: How many methadone clinics did you check out? Your own. Your own. How many of those clinics did you check out?
Mr Ah Kit: Dr who?
Dr Lim: How many methadone clinics did you check out?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: That brings us back to supply. I am going to finish very soon.
Mr Kiely: You wouldn’t have a clue.
Dr Lim: Wouldn’t have a clue? I would be the one that does know a lot about it.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: The essence of what the minister for Justice was talking about with supply. The member for Drysdale talked about kava and how it was introduced by well meaning missionaries as a sort of harm reduction, harm minimisation strategy. Kava worked well. I have done research in kava as well, as you might be aware. It worked quite well for a considerable time
It worked quite well for a considerable time, but what was its downfall? The profit makers came in. The dealers came in. It ballooned out to a $10m industry in East Arnhem. It is the same with the other drugs, whether it be cannabis or morphine or amphetamine. It is the dealers who come in. They are the ones who should be targeted. I truly believe that the minister’s statement was right.
Of course, coming back to what the member for Nelson said, that end of the equation is not the be all and end all, but we can do a lot through the supply end of the equation. I have no hesitation in supporting measures that will reduce the supply of these drugs in our community.
I did have a lot more to say, but I’ve run out of time. I apologise. I haven’t really prepared what I have said today, but what I have said comes from the heart. It is what I believe.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, this has been a very interesting debate. I thank all the members for their contributions, with perhaps the exception of the Leader of the Opposition. It has been very interesting in the sense that it has given a good indication of not only the issues that are involved in what is a complex problem, but also of the various attitudes around the House and amongst the opposition in particular about the measures we have put forward not only now, but in the election before we got down to the detail of some of the initiatives that we are bringing forward.
I will start with the Leader of the Opposition. I must admit I was absolutely stunned by some of the assertions he made. If you could read out of his lips the opposition policy or position on drug issues in the Northern Territory, it would go along these lines: First of all, pretend that there is no problem in the face of overwhelming evidence both at the formal level of research and the informal level of what is known throughout the community here in the Northern Territory.
I really wonder whether the Leader of the Opposition gets out much because he would only need to go doorknocking around his electorate or to talk to any of the people who are involved in these issues - whether it is the social services that deal with addicted people or whether it’s the police who look at the patterns of this sort of activity in our community - he would know - talking to any of those people; it would take him less than a week to find out - how extensive this problem is and how urgent the search for solutions is also becoming.
For the CLP, through its leader, to be saying that we can still deny that there’s a problem out there is absolutely beyond belief. He deserves censure for his continual denial of this problem over the last few years.
The existence of these problems is common knowledge around our communities. Even in the last few months of my contact with people around the Northern Territory, I have not only heard about the drug problems here from people like taxi drivers or from people who get out around the city of Darwin, I have heard it from the people who live in the town of Alice Springs, I’ve heard it from people in the remote communities that we visited in recent times. As an example, Mutitjulu and Kintore communities where there is increasing concern by the senior members of those communities about the degree of intrusion of drugs into those remote communities. This isn’t just an urban problem; it is also a remote area problem.
If you could look at a secondary position that we have heard from the opposition today, which is to say: ‘Well, we don’t think there is a problem, but if it’s a problem it’s such a difficult and complex thing that you can’t possibly do anything about it’. That pretty well sums up the contribution of the member for Drysdale in that he spent near on 20 minutes on his feet telling us that there are 150 things that you can’t do anything about because they’re all too difficult. ‘We know this is out there, there are all sorts of other things that you should be working on instead’. Well, we don’t accept that. We’ve got a three-point plan, not a one-point plan. What we’ve been talking about in the last few days in the sittings with the introduction of this legislation is largely the enforcement arm of our three-point plan.
I can assure the member for Nelson that you’ll be getting a lot more than a piece of legislation from this government. You will be getting a multi-faceted and a very complex response to what is a complex problem. I accept his assertions entirely that we have to look very broadly across this issue if we are going to make any inroads on it. I think that the announcement we made earlier on about the creation of the Office of Crime Prevention is specifically to take that sort of action where we can put the various initiatives that this government is going to take in combating crime into a coherent picture across the various sections of government.
The Office of Crime Prevention will have the job of measuring the impact that the legislation makes alongside the impact that the recommendations that the drugs task force will make, and the Parliamentary Committee on Substance Abuse will make, along with things like our school programs, our recreational programs. By multifaceted we mean whole-of-government; we mean a coordinated approach that the Office of Crime Prevention will be helping us to implement as we get these various elements in place.
The objections that were being raised by the Leader of the Opposition and, to some extent, the members for Goyder and Macdonnell, I accept that. I accept that this is a complex problem and we are going to have to do a lot more than just purely put in the punitive enforcement aspects that are embodied in the legislation that we have before the House to be debated in the next sittings.
I would ask members to take the initiatives that we are putting forward in that context. We are building up a range of responses to what we see as being one of the key areas of crime prevention that we need to be working on. We have no doubt, despite what the member for Drysdale said, that we have a mandate to do this. We went out very clearly to the electorate. We went out clearly and explained the elements of our three point plan on drugs and our six point plan on crime and the electorate, in the response they gave to our candidates, clearly indicated that they found our proposals acceptable to them.
What you can say is this is a very good example of why, in our democratic system, we have opposition parties and that, from time to time, the government changes between the two parties. The CLP had run out of energy on law and order issues. It is inevitable, if a government stays in power for a long period of time, that the vitality, the energy, the urgency goes out of their governance. In this case, there could not be a greater contrast to the attitudes that we have seen today on the other side of the House and the attitudes that we have been expressing from this new government. The least you can say about this is there is going to be a comprehensive and energetic attack on these problems on our community. We want to not only attempt to fix it, we want to fix it to whatever degree that we can accomplish through these initiatives.
I must deal with the assertions by the Leader of the Opposition about if we think there is 50% of property crime coming from drug use, therefore we can expect to get 50% off the property crime figures. What a silly assertion! Really, even speakers on his own side of the House rebutted that silly, simplistic position he was taking. In framing our crime prevention policies, we have accepted the fact that crime has very complex antecedents. There are complex relationships between the various contributing factors to someone taking up some criminal behaviour, whether that is a break in to a house or whether it is to go and buy an illicit drug.
These issues and inter-relationships are very complex, so to be putting any sort of figure, in terms of an impact of a particular initiative that you take in crime prevention, is very silly whether you are a politician or whether you are a policeman or whether you are an academic.
All we can say is that we will be taking account of a raft of contributing factors to this type of behaviour in our community. We will deal with them in a multifaceted way. We will put enough weight into the campaign that we intend to wage against drug use in our community to the point where the combination of the initiatives we are going to launch will have a discernible impact on the pattern of illegal activity, whether it is the trading of drugs, whether it is the breaking into houses to gain the means of getting hold of drugs on the part of users. All of that has been taken into account in the broad approach that we are taking to this problem.
I would like to finish my remarks in terms of these initiatives by saying - along the lines that the member for Nelson took when he contributed to this debate - that we do want to end up, while starting at the point of enforcement legislation to enforce against the supply of drugs into our community, we want this whole process, this roll out of our initiatives, to end up in the classrooms, to end up on the sports fields, to end up in intervention at individual level with people who are either at risk of taking up high level drug use or kids who are being approached by these people in the street for the sake of building up their clientele, we want to be there. We want to have some programs that are going to operate across the full spectrum of this problem and how it generates into our community.
I can give an absolute undertaking that that breadth will be in our approach to this problem. It has never been there in the past and I would again like to say that when the Leader of the Opposition holds up the statistics that the Police Commissioner put on the public record earlier this week, he neglected to mention one thing that that data series shows beyond doubt, and that is that the repeal of mandatory sentencing had absolutely no discernible effect on breaks and entries in Darwin and Palmerston.
That is yet another piece of evidence that says that relying on such a simplistic strategy as mandatory sentencing was doomed to failure. The police said it was doomed to failure. It has been proven to be a failure. We are not going to fall for that trap. We are not going to go out there with just one shot in the locker. We’re going to build up a complex response on the part of government to what is a complex set of problems.
We expect to get results. We very much look forward to seeing bipartisan support for the measures that we’re putting into place. We’ll be listening to the detail of the debates as we go through introducing these various measures, not only the legislation against drug dealing but also the follow up action into the parliament on the Drug Task Force and what comes out of the Parliamentary Committee. This will gradually build up the layers of what we need to be doing as a parliament, as the leadership of our community to try and get these problems under control and build a better future for the next few generations coming through.
With those remarks, Madam Speaker, I will conclude the debate. I thank all members for their contributions.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr STIRLING (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to advise the House of the wonderful successes of the children and teachers at Anula Primary School at the 2002 41st North Australian Eisteddfod conducted at the Darwin Entertainment Centre.
A significant and increasing number of Darwin and Palmerston schools encourage students to enter the Eisteddfod. Schools throughout the Top End are similarly motivated to contribute, to receive feedback, to build confidence and to have the chance to earn accolades. These are strong motivational factors to schools and their students.
This is a wonderful event. It is a premier event and competition is of a high standard. Students are involved in presenting as members of groups, in solo instrumental performance and so on. The Eisteddfod reminds me of the fact that a complete education includes cultural appreciation. In an original form, the Eisteddfod was an annual gathering of Welsh bards. Globally, regionally and locally, it is defined as a gathering for competition in music and other performing arts. To be able to participate in a program of this nature develops within students an appreciation for artistic and expressive elements of social development. It builds confidence and gives them an opportunity to develop skills in expression and communication that will forever stand them in good stead.
The Eisteddfod offers a multitude of benefits to our community. It provides performers with the chance to go public and build self-confidence. It offers the Territory a showcase for the viewing and appreciation of Territory talent. It provides performers from different fields and children from different schools with the chance to see, hear and learn from and to appreciate each other’s contribution. It helps performers and artists of all ages and all disciplines – dance, song, musical instrumentation and speech – to gain the advantages associated with public performance. It provides opportunity for self and comparative insight in the arts and cultural areas. It enables those who are performing to be offered quality feedback through formal adjudication, audience applause and so on.
It builds confidence and communication skills in young people which will stand with them through all the days of their lives. It provides the opportunity for healthy competition in a positive, embracing and warm environment. Audiences are supportive, adjudication professionally and positively encouraging; the whole situation is very constructive. It brings children of all ages and cultures together in a context which fosters appreciation and enhances goodwill and understanding.
On Monday 13 May this year, the Anula recorder group was awarded a Highly Commended with a score of 85% in the Recorder Group Primary Year 3 and Under section. This was only two points behind first place which went to Moil School. I have met quite a number of children who make up the Anula School Recorder group, and I am honoured to be able to place their names in Hansard as an historical record of their wonderful achievement. They are: Jackson Clark, Douglas Crane, Elaina Kirby, Jessica Dally, Gina Harold, Sean Iji, Melissa Tan, Maddison Fletcher, Casey Glennon, Vaanathy Kandiah, Claire Kiely, Tiffany Kindell. Jamie Miller, Chloe O’Doherty, Gabriella Parker, Caitlin Tiernan and Camilla Gonzales-Quintiero.
In the Recorder Trio 8 and Under section: Jessica Bailey, Gina Harold and Melissa Tan were the winners with a score of 87%. I am sure the whole school community will be delighted with this news and will wish to congratulate these students for their wonderful effort. I also congratulate Ms Robyn Ferguson for encouraging and building the children’s spirit which resulted in both awards. Considering the school hasn’t been in the Eisteddfod for at least 10 years and the children only spent the past 12 months in practice, the result has been remarkable.
Mr Deputy Speaker, as a parent of one of the children who participated in the Anula School Recorder Group, I would also like to give my personal thanks to Ms Ferguson for the generous giving of her time and the valuable life experiences she has provided not only for my own daughter, but for the children of all other parents as well.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise tonight to raise the issue of the needs of women and electorate offices in the Northern Territory.
As I see it, my electorate office is not my office. I occupy it only for the duration of my term. It in fact is an office that belongs to the taxpayers and, accordingly, an office that should be frequented by members of the community. Having said that, I am aware some elected members allow community groups to use their conference rooms - those who have them - and I certainly encourage community groups in the electorate of Araluen to come in to use my conference room. In fact, I suspect the use of conference rooms has been the main function of electorate offices for the community over many years.
For my own part, I would like to see all members extend the use of their electorate offices, or at least pause to consider whether their office really is available in every sense to members of their community. In particular, I wonder whether people’s electorate offices are friendly to women, and when I say that I am referring to both sides of politics. In particular, at my own electorate office of Araluen, I have introduced some new things which may be of interest to members.
The first observation I make, before outlining the measures I’ve introduced, is the reality is most of our electorate officers are women. My electorate officer, Tracey Wise, has two children under four, and as we all know, child care is not always as easy to get as it should be. From the outset of her employment, I made it very clear that she was welcome to bring her children into my electorate office in the event that she could not obtain child care. It worked so well and was so easy that her four year old, William, comes into my office about two or three times a week after pre-school. He sits in the conference room, which is generally rarely used during business hours. In fact, to accommodate young William, I brought a spare television from home and put it in the conference room, and accordingly he sits there quietly and patiently in the afternoons when he is in my office.
When we were getting established in the electorate office, Tracey and I wanted to make and ensure that the office was open and accessible. We also wanted to ensure that women with young children could feel welcome. In addition, we wanted to create an area for children to occupy themselves when mothers were calling in to see the local member of parliament. We therefore purchased a children’s set of tables and chairs, and some toys and books and we created what we call Kids Corner. We have been given more toys and more books since its creation, and it is an area set aside in our waiting/reception area, and it is invariably used. It is a sensible service to provide to members of the community and in particular women coming to see their local member of parliament.
I also introduced an area for breast feeding in my electorate office. In Alice Springs in the CBD where my office is based, there are very few places for mothers to breast feed. As a result, I determined that it was sensible to advertise the fact that women could feel free to come into my office and use a spare room for breast feeding and changing their babies. I’ve advertised this in a number of newsletters including my own, and fliers have been sent to various women’s groups around Alice Springs.
None of the matters I’ve outlined seem particularly remarkable to me but, increasingly, I have been told that in fact the initiatives I have introduced are quite remarkable. Having seen members’ electorate offices on both sides of politics, I have formed the view that my electorate office is quite different from many, although not quite all. The purpose of raising these matters tonight is to alert all of my parliamentary colleagues to this issue. It’s not about politics, it’s about serving the people of the Territory well, and in particular women. So I’d issue the invitation to all of my colleagues to ensure that their electorate office really is available to all members of the community and in particular that members pay attention to the needs of young women with children.
I might say in closing, Mr Deputy Speaker, that my wonderful electorate officer Tracey Wise is leaving at the end of June for family reasons. She is going back to Queensland and I wish Tracy, her husband Dave and her two children, Jackson and William, every success.
- A member: Hear, hear!
So together, we stumbled through. We rose to the challenge and I’m very proud to say that my electorate office is up and running and that’s in no small part as a result of the efforts of my Electorate Officer Tracey Wise.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Mr Deputy Speaker, everyone in this House has some association with junior sports either as patron or as a sponsor in some way. I am very pleased to be the Patron of the Central Australia Junior Soccer Association and this year they have started their 2002 season and they have 400 registered players ranging from three and a half to 16. That’s right, Mr Deputy Speaker, three and a half and you can just see from this photo how gorgeous it is to see these three and a half year olds running around so enthusiastically playing. You have to go down and see them to believe it; that these little tackers just enjoy themselves so much with their introduction to soccer. And what a way for soccer in Alice Springs to be promoted, that they start them so young, care for them so that they will eventually go into the senior league.
The committee of the Central Australian Community Soccer Association are a tremendous bunch of people. They give so much of their time in a voluntary capacity to the young people, and Sunday morning at Blatherskite Park, they’re all in their shiny uniforms, the goalie in his special uniform. They are there all day playing and it’s just a great thing to see. This year they’ll be hosting the Northern Territory Championships from 8-10 June and this is a really great occasion for them. They will have teams competing in all age groups, seeing the championships are in their home town with older junior girls competing in the senior women’s team.
Not only will the competition be held for 14 year old girls, but there will also be 13, 14, 15 and 16 year age groups and senior women’s and men’s games. Teams have been invited to attend from Darwin, Katherine, Gove, Borroloola and they’ve all indicated they will be sending teams in most of the age groups. There may be a team from Tennant Creek, as they are also interested in going to Alice Springs for the 2002 Championships. Last year, a team from Borroloola came down - and there is a gentleman in Borroloola who is just so great at promoting and fostering the young players from that town.
The 12 year championships will be held in Borroloola from 22-24 and the 11 year championships will be held in Katherine on 3-5 August. The Central Australian Junior Soccer Association will be sending two teams for the 11 and 12 year old age group to compete in South Australian Zone Championships following an invitation and sanction by the Northern Territory Soccer Federation.
These games are played at the same time the championships are being held in Alice Springs. So on their return, the 12 year old team will travel later in June and the 11 year old later in August to compete in the Northern Territory championships. It is all go down there for junior soccer. Lots of support, lots of families involved. You see so many parents down there on Sunday morning, it is great. Their president, Barb Glover, is an exceptional lady in the way she handles that association. She seems to generate people’s enthusiasm to come along and help her. I certainly wish them all the best for that.
I started with that positive talk about junior soccer because the next story is about a group of young footballers, the under 16 team from Alice Springs that travelled to Darwin just a couple of weeks ago to participate in the Australian Rules Under 16 Carnival for secondary schools. They had Danny Measures - and many people will know the Measures family. He is a great dad; he volunteered as coach. Ian Taylor was manager and Cal Dean, who is now retired, who gives his heart to the game in the Centre, also accompanied them.
Mr Deputy Speaker, each player contributed $500 towards the cost of getting them from Alice Springs to Darwin and the Central Australian Football League contributed $2000. I say this because it is difficult for teams in the Territory to travel so far. It is a great cost. What made it even harder for this team is that on the night they were travelling, the air flight was delayed for six hours and they eventually arrived in Darwin at 1.30 am. You can imagine these people having this group of kids at the Alice Springs Airport waiting, waiting, waiting for their plane to go.
So when they did get there, how did they perform? Well, first they defeated Sanderson High School, then they accounted for Elliott, Palmerston were the next to go down, the Katherine side was then beaten, next they took on St John’s who are a bit of traditional rival in the competition and in the grand final they beat Dripstone High. So they won every game they played. Fantastic!
What was the result of it? They did not get the trophy. And this is what is making people so very cross in Alice Springs. They were not awarded the trophy. Why? Because they had sent up a composite team of young players from a number of high schools. They did not have a team from one particular junior school in Alice Springs or another team from the bush schools. They had a composite team. Now, you can understand why they had a composite team. It is the cost, it is the distance, it is getting volunteers, it is getting billets when you get there. There are many reasons.
But suddenly they are in this competition which they win outright and are told by this ridiculous School Sports Council that we seem to have that they are not eligible. They are not eligible for the trophy. Now, what sort of message is that sending to these young under 16 year olds? Is that any sort of encouragement for them to continue to play football? What message are they getting from these adults who run this football carnival? Winning does not count?
Ms Lawrie: They need the Braham Trophy.
Mrs BRAHAM: Well, I will tell you what: they should have won this trophy. I am asking the Minister for Sport and Recreation to look in to this matter. They deserve this trophy. To send a team so far, to win every game they play and then be told by these bureaucrats: ‘No, you are a composite team so you do not qualify to win the school trophy,’ is the pettiest decision I have ever heard of. I cannot understand how we allow these rules to be made that disadvantage and discriminate against teams who come from so far away.
Might I add, Mr Deputy Speaker, we have had much publicity in the papers from this: No prize for the winners and then you see all these great kids there. Anger is growing; No logic in NT school decision. We all know it is unfair and unreasonable. So I ask the Minister for Sport and Recreation to have a look at that, to see if he can rectify it and change the rules.
I also ask the Minister for Education if he would look at the Schools Sports Council. I believe there are some people there who have been there too long, who are making these decisions unilaterally without involving the schools concerned. They have to get rid of the mentality that they have; they have to understand that sport is about participation, rewarding good performance, not saying to kids: ‘Here’s a slap in the face. Although you won, you don’t deserve the trophy’.
I am quite incensed that this has happened because these kids are really great sportsmen and some of them will grow up to be great sportsmen with a great future. So I urge the Minister for Sport and Recreation and the Minister for Education to address this problem and come back to us and say: ‘This was unfair. Give the kids the trophy’.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise tonight to pay tribute to the efforts of Manunda Terrace Primary School which this year celebrated Anzac Day in a very wonderful and special Assembly held on 23 April, a couple of days before Anzac Day itself.
It was my great pleasure to attend this Assembly at Manunda Terrace Primary School and to witness the extraordinary efforts that the teachers and the students had gone to, to celebrate Anzac Day and to make Anzac Day a day that, for many Australian adults, is incredibly meaningful, to give it some meaning for the future leaders in our society, the children attending our schools. They sang songs, they did a re-enactment of the Aeroplane Dance that is famous amongst some of our indigenous Territorians. We heard a story from a member of the Royal Australian Navy, Warrant Officer Lawrie, about Anzac Day and just what meaning it had to the service personnel of Australia.
It truly was a wonderful and very moving morning. The Assembly went on for quite some time. But watching the children, they were never restless; they never lost interest. It was something that touched they hearts. The dramatisation, the song, the story telling was all delivered in a way that was engaging for these young students at Manunda Terrace Primary. So I would like to commend the Principal, Ron Abbott, and the staff and the students for the efforts they went to give true meaning to Anzac Day to a very young generation of Australians.
I make this adjournment speech about Anzac Day with great sadness as well. I discovered that Australia’s last Anzac, Alec Campbell, the Tasweigian, died at the age of 103 today. It is a very sad occasion for Australia. We’ve lost our last Anzac. The Anzacs, to me, helped form the strength of what Australia is and what Australians are. They went into the unknown. They went with a great deal of trust and faith in their hearts, but they went into an impossible and unenviable, tragic wartime disaster. They dug in and they fought, and they fought beyond any measure of expectation. Their successes were beyond belief for many of the strategists who saw the situation that those troops were in.
They fought and sustained themselves on the strength of mateship, and the individual tales of mateship that came out of the Anzacs at Gallipoli are truly phenomenal. I pray and I hope that as Australians, we continue to tell the stories to the young generations of the Anzacs, why they fought, why the battle had particular meaning to Australia and why we honour the Anzacs and their courageous efforts in World War I. My heart goes out to the family of Alec Campbell. He was a tremendous man, a great supporter of Labor and a man who devoted his life to keeping the knowledge and the spirit of the Anzacs alive, and it is with sadness that we note his passing today.
Also, tragically, it appears that my electorate is losing a special person in our community. Ray Gigg is a person who has been wheelchair bound for some time now. He is a popular and regular fixture at the Karama Shopping Centre. Ray wheels around the place and always has some witticisms to impart; he has a smile on his face. He knows so many people in our community of Karama. He is highly regarded and well liked by so many people within our community. It is with sadness that I know that Ray has a terminal illness, and indeed his days with us appear to be fading fast. So I extend my prayers and best wishes to Ray and his family at this difficult time.
Finally, on a happier note, I would like to say that it is often the individual energy and commitment that helps to weave and create the fabric of a community. I want to pay tribute to a parent at Holy Family School, Sabina Horvath, who has dedicated years to running the annual Holy Family School fete. That fete is a terrific fete, and I encourage all people to get down there on Saturday 25 May and have a fantastic and very affordable time, and in some measure contribute to the fundraising efforts of the school that is very community minded. To Sabina Horvath and the Parents and Friends Committee of Holy Family school, I pay tribute to your efforts. I look forward to participating on the day at the Chocolate Wheel in a small token of effort that I can make to contribute to that school community who do a terrific job.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise tonight to add my words of support to Madam Speaker in her statements in relation to the decision taken about the young footballers who competed in the competition recently and were, in fact, deprived of the prize rightfully earned for basically a technical infringement - or not even an infringement; a technical breach of the rules.
They were thrown together as a disparate team, they came together, fought the good fight, went over the top, so to speak, beat team after team, won the competition only to be told that because they didn’t qualify on paper, they couldn’t have the prize.
I urge the minister for Education, whose department it was that organised this competition, to enquire into this issue and to obtain a result for these young fellows who, at the end of the day, triumphed despite the odds that were stacked against them. They didn’t have much time to train together. They had to raise $500 a head as I understand it, and had to come together. The young fellows involved, I think, bear mentioning: Nelson Kenny, Russell O’Keefe, Dan Gorringe, Braydon Buckley, Ken Morton, Isaac McLean, Henry Peckham, Richard Watts, Michael McDonald, Darcy Brooke, Dan Measures, Luke Adams, Toby Bens, Patrick Ah Kit, Luke Ross, Daniel Molloy, Darren Porter, Matt Campbell, Nathan Flanigan, Eric Campbell, Ben Kenny, Ivan Presley and Eric Williams.
I notice the Ah Kit name in there, and I wouldn’t be at all surprised if there was some sort of relation to the minister for Community Development. I would urge the minister for Community Development, no less, to take an active interest in relation to this matter because I think it is an important one. I have some newspaper articles, one from the Centralian Advocate, the other from the Alice Springs News of the 14 and 15 of May respectively. I seek leave, Mr Deputy Speaker, to table those documents, also for the purposes of Hansard as those names appear.
Leave granted.
Mr ELFERINK: On the subject of football, I rise tonight to speak of the Hermannsburg Football Carnival that went ahead despite of the minister’s decision not to throw any money at it, or not to support the people of Hermannsburg’s football carnival over the Bangtail Muster weekend, which was Friday 3 May through to Monday 6 May.
Several teams turned up; one from Ali Curung, no less, which was a long way away. It has been a very, very long time since Ali Curung had turned up to a football carnival in Hermannsburg. Indeed, it’s a trip of some 500 km, but nevertheless they turned up and did their bit. I have to say that of the days that I spent there, I thoroughly enjoyed the competition that I saw. Indeed, I mentioned this the other day in the Chamber, and I would urge members to look up my web site, on which there are several photographs – in fact, some 20 or so photographs of the sports day involved. You get an impression from those photographs of the level of athleticism that has been demonstrated at Ntaria by all concerned including the women’s basketball, the softball, and of course, the football itself which was the highlight.
The final was ultimately played between the teams from Utju, more commonly known to the rest of us as Areyonga, and Ntaria, or basically the Western Arrernte team. I have to say that is was looking like an absolute whitewash at one stage. However, Utju fought back passionately. Unfortunately, they were to go down at the final whistle.
Nevertheless, the game was played in good spirit; there was very little strife. I noticed that the police made the effort to put in an good amount of work to make sure that the carnival ran smoothly, but to the credit of the people there, very little grog – in fact, I wasn’t aware of any grog whatsoever. The place was great. I was there until, I think, about 8 pm or 9 pm on the Monday, and I was fortunate enough to be able to offer a little bit of support to the local football team out of my own pocket as well as dish out some of the trophies that I’d bought for the evening.
These sorts of competitions in the bush are one of the few highlights that people who live out there can avail themselves of. I think it is incumbent on a government to support these things in a minor way. It’s irritating to me that on the very same day that the Minister for Community Development wrote a letter and said: ‘No, you can’t have a few thousand dollars to run a football carnival’, a press release goes from the minister’s desk out to the people of the Northern Territory saying: ‘I’m going to spend $1.25m on the Marrara Sports Stadium’ and then only a short time later doubles that amount - doubles that amount to the abandonment of these small carnivals in the bush. These carnivals don’t cost a lot to throw together. The cost of putting these things together is largely borne by the participants and the communities themselves. It is not an enormous ask to support some of these competitions and to support some of these communities in what is an otherwise difficult environment for them. These communities don’t operate on huge budgets. Indeed, a $1.25m amount could run several communities for quite some time. So it is frustrating to deal with this and to see this sort of thing occurring. I hope it doesn’t keep occurring, that the government – despite its new windfalls - continues to pull in the belt where it’s not necessary to do; where it is absolutely not necessary to do so. We’re starting to see spending in Darwin which is not commensurate with the rest of the population.
I thank members for their attention this evening, and I do want to hark back – I know it’s not strictly within the rules but I’m sure that members will grant me some latitude in relation to this. I picked up on the member for Johnston earlier and his comments in relation to younger people being the ones who are drug users as a general rule. I’ve taken the time – or I should say the library has taken the time …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. I didn’t say that at all.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Withdraw that comment, member for Macdonnell.
Dr BURNS: If the member for Macdonnell would like to discuss the matter further with me, I am happy to do so after he consults with Hansard where he can see what I actually said.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Macdonnell, can you substantiate your allegations?
Mr ELFERINK: Well, without having the Hansard published, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am not in a position to substantiate. However, I will say this - perhaps I will rephrase it. The member for Johnston said that as a general rule, drug users tend to be the younger part of the community’.
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I did not say that all. What I said was that drug use often starts in youth. That was the point I was making. I did not try to ascertain or report the magnitude of drug use through life.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Macdonnell, might I suggest that you substantiate your comments and then reincorporate them in some way in a later speech.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Deputy Speaker, I am actually not disagreeing with him and I will accept exactly what he says there, it often starts in youth. The statistics I was about to lay on this table actually accord with and agree exactly with the comments of the member for Johnston. There is no attempt to put words in his mouth. And I thought that for his elucidation and for future reference, if I lay these statistics on the table, it would be useful for him to make his points. That’s all I was going to do. But unfortunately he is so obsessed with disagreeing with absolutely everything anybody ever says that does not agree with him, that he does not even realise that there was nothing in it. Christ! I mean, golly - I withdraw that.
Dr BURNS: A point of order!
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, I have withdrawn it. I mean, it is infuriating, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am actually trying to do the guy a service and he cannot even have the grace, does not even have within himself the grace, to listen to what people have to say before he climbs up on his soap box complaining bitterly about all sorts things.
It really is dismaying, Mr Deputy Speaker. The member for Johnston seems to think that it his job, that his sole reason for existing in life is to dispute what this side of the House has to say. What a limited existence. What a puerile reason for drawing your next breath. I cannot believe that that is the reason he exists. He gets out of bed in the morning and he thinks, ‘What are the CLP going to say today. They are all a pack of bastards. I’ll tell you what …
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Macdonnell!
Mr ELFERINK: They’re all a pack of so and so’s, and I’ll tell what I’m going to do …
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Did I mention about unparliamentary language, member for Macdonnell?
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Deputy Speaker, absolutely, and with your vast experience in the area of unparliamentary language, I will take guidance from you and I withdraw the ‘b’ word.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am glad that you defer to my greater knowledge on the subject.
Mr ELFERINK: I am just fascinated. All I really wanted to do, honestly - dib, dib, dib; dob, dob, dob - was going to do was lay these statistics on the table.
Dr Burns: Well, why can’t we discuss it over a beer? - it is 8.30 - instead of trying …
Mr ELFERINK: Actually that is an interesting interjection. Last night I invited the member for Johnston to discuss his doctoral thesis with me and you know what his answer was? ‘Yes’. I tried last night; you were not interested. I am trying to build communication. It is like piddling into the wind. Well …
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Macdonnell.
Mr ELFERINK: No, I won’t withdraw it.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Macdonnell.
Mr ELFERINK: I would like to take some advice as to whether that is unparliamentary.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would suggest that if the term ‘sloth’ is unparliamentary, then the term ‘piddle’ would also be.
Dr Lim: Piddling means small.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Are you challenging the Chair, member for Macdonnell?
Mr ELFERINK: Well …
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will take some advice and we will see about this. Member for Macdonnell, you are to withdraw that comment.
Mr ELFERINK: I will withdraw it, Mr Deputy Speaker. I seek leave to lay these statistics on the table for the elucidation for the member for Johnston.
Leave granted.
Mr ELFERINK: Thank God for that.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016