2003-11-25
- Madam Speaker Braham took the Chair at 10 am.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of the Year 6 and 7 students from Nakara Primary School, accompanied by their teacher, Mark Rowan. On behalf of all members, I extend you a warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
PETITIONS
Homosexual Activity
Homosexual Activity
Mr BONSON (Millner): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 66 petitioners relating to homosexual activity. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms to the requirements of standing orders.
Homosexual Activity
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 135 petitioners relating to homosexual activity. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms with the requirements of standing orders. Madam Speaker, I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
- To the Speaker and members of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly, we the undersigned citizens do respectfully request that the government does not lower the age of consent to 16 years of age for boys to consent to homosexual activity, and that the government does not change the anti-discrimination laws so that church schools can no longer refuse to employ homosexual teachers in the schools they run. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
Protection of the Daly River
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker I present a petition from 1284 petitioners praying that the Daly River be protected for the benefit of all Territorians. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms to the requirements of standing orders. Madam Speaker I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to, petition read.
To the Speaker and members of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory, we the undersigned respectively showeth that the Daly River is a Northern Territory icon and needs to be protected now for the benefit of all Territorians. We petitioners therefore humbly pray that:
1. the Northern Territory government immediately halts plans to subdivide pastoral leases in the
Daly catchment for large scale irrigated agriculture;
2. that the Northern Territory government immediately stop issuing tree clearing permits or water
extraction licences in the Daly basin; and
3. that the Northern Territory government start public consultation and research into economic
strategies for the Daly catchment that do not result in large scale tree clearing or irrigation.
- and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
RESPONSES TO PETITIONS
The CLERK: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 100A, I inform honourable members that responses to petitions No 37 and No 38 have been received and circulated to honourable members. The text of the response will be included in the Parliamentary Record.
- Petition No 37
Speed Limit in The Narrows
Date Presented: 12 August 2003
Presented by: Ms Martin
Referred to: Minister for Transport and Infrastructure
Date response due: 25 November 2003
Date response received: 27 October 2003
Date response presented: 25 November 2003
Response:
The streets identified for a reduction in speed limit from 60 km/h to 40 km/h were: Narrows Road,
Fleming Street, Wilmot Street, Shiers Street. Are all under the management and control of the
Darwin City Council.
A public meeting was held on 15 September 2003 at the Narrows Road Park to discuss this issue
and other traffic management issues. In addition to the public, this meeting was attended by the
following key people: Hon Clare Martin, MLA; Ian Fraser, Alderman; Robyn Lesley, Alderman;
Carole Miller, Alderman; Dave Perry, Acting Director Technical Services, Darwin City Council;
Ernie Wanka, Director Road Network, Department of Infrastructure, Planning & Environment.
The Darwin City Council’s traffic analysis of the area does not indicate that the speed limit
needs to be reduced at this area.
Domino’s Pizza are currently operating from the Winnellie Shopping Centre and are a major generator
of the traffic in the area. Management of Domino’s Pizza has confirmed that their operations will be
relocated in two stages over the next six months out of the Winnellie Shopping Centre.
There are associated and other traffic management issues at both Bagot Road/Narrows Road and Shier
Road/Stuart Highway intersections that requires further investigation by the Department of
Infrastructure, Planning and Environment.
The resolution of the meeting were as follows:
Narrows (ie Narrows Road and Shiers Street) to discourage through traffic from using the local
area streets;
Pizzas from the Winnellie Shopping Centre; and
issues associated with the access to and from the Stuart Highway and Bagot Road and develop options
for improvements to the Stuart Highway/Bagot Road intersection.
- A further meeting will be held after assessing the response to signage and Domino’s relocating to reassess the
need for reduction in the speed limit from 60 km/h to 40 km/h in The Narrows. It is also worthwhile noting that
the government is still considering the introduction of the 50 km/h national default speed limit.
Petition No 38
Palmerston Boat Ramp – Improvements
Date Presented: 20 August 2003
Presented by: Mr Mills
Referred to: Minister for Transport and Infrastructure
Date response due: 27 November 2003
Date response received: 19 November 2003
Date response presented: 25 November 2003
Response:
Access to waterways is an important part of living in the Territory. For this reason, the government maintains
16 boat ramps located across the Territory as well as platforms, wharves, jetties and artificial reefs that
support recreational fishing. The government recognises that recreational fishing should not be restricted
to anglers with boats and that land-based fishing is just as important to the public. A fishing platform
associated with the Palmerston boat ramp is worthy of consideration. Any land-based facility, however, must
be functional, cost effective and be consistent with the needs of the community. Any land-based fishing facility
must also consider public safety because crocodiles are an ever-present danger in the Top End, as a recent
incident at the Palmerston boat ramp highlighted. I consider public safety to be paramount and I will
not compromise on this.
The Palmerston City Council also has a role to play here in regard to amenities for its ratepayers.
Any improvement to the Palmerston boat ramp by government would need the close involvement of the council.
The safety of vehicles and trailers at boat ramps is also an important consideration and I would support the use
of a caretaker or commercial operator to provide security at the Palmerston boat ramp. The Leaders Creek
boat ramp is a good example of the success of this type of enterprise. However, this also requires
careful consideration because boat owners and land-based fishermen must have unfettered use of the
infrastructure against the choice of using a commercial service similar to Leaders Creek.
The government has committed $1.5m, a significant amount, over three years to improve recreational
fishing infrastructure. Work is currently under way at Buffalo Creek to provide lighting to the car park
and boat ramp and an upgrade to the Dinah Beach boat ramp is planned to commence in the near future.
My colleague, Dr Chris Burns, Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries, is soon to invite by public
notices, further proposals for recreational fishing infrastructure. He expects significant support for land
based fishing access around Palmerston and looks forward to considering such proposals along with
other submissions.
MOTION
Law Reform (Gender, Sexuality and De Facto Relationships) Bill (Serial 186) – Referral to Select Committee
Law Reform (Gender, Sexuality and De Facto Relationships) Bill (Serial 186) – Referral to Select Committee
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I seek leave to move a motion referring the Law Reform (Gender, Sexuality and De Facto Relationships) Bill 2003 (Serial 186) to a select committee with terms of reference to be authorised by the Assembly by subsequent motions forthwith.
Leave denied.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving that the Law Reform (Gender, Sexuality and De Facto Relationships) Bill 2003 (Serial 186) be referred to a select committee with terms of reference to be authorised by the Assembly by subsequent motion. Madam Speaker, the reason that I am seeking …
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Leave is not granted for this motion. Opposition members, as will all members of this House, will have the opportunity to debate this bill later today. I move that the motion be put.
Motion agreed to.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, thank you! The question now is that the suspension of standing orders be agreed to.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 10 Noes 14
Mr Baldwin Mrs Aagaard
Mr Burke Mr Ah Kit
Ms Carter Mr Bonson
Mr Dunham Dr Burns
Mr Elferink Ms Carney
Dr Lim Mr Henderson
Mr Maley Mr Kiely
Mrs Miller Ms Lawrie
Mr Mills Mr McAdam
Mr Wood Ms Martin
Ms Scrymgour
Mr Stirling
Dr Toyne
Mr Vatskalis
Motion negatived.
OPPOSITION OFFICE HOLDERS
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader)(by leave): Madam Speaker, on 14 November, I had the honour of being elected leader of the CLP parliamentary wing by my colleagues and, thereby, Leader of the Opposition. Whilst this may not be the most appropriate time, I wish to place on the record my appreciation of my predecessor, the member for Brennan. He led the CLP parliamentary wing for almost five years, serving as Chief Minister for two-and-a-half years and as Leader of the Opposition for two years and three months. He has made an enormous contribution to the development and governance of the Territory and to the CLP. I, for one, hope that contribution continues for many years.
as Leader of the Opposition, I will take responsibility for Chief Minister’s, Treasury, Territory Development,
Asian Relations and Trade, the railway and Racing, Gaming and Licensing;
Committee. He takes on the shadow responsibility for Employment, Education and Training, Transport and
Infrastructure, Ethnic Affairs and Central Australia;
responsibility for Health and Community Services, Senior Territorians and Arts and Museums.
Community Development, and Regional Development;
COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP CHANGES
Motion agreed to.
WARRANT
Deputy Chairman of Committees
Deputy Chairman of Committees
MINISTERIAL REPORTS
GST Revenue
GST Revenue
The most vociferous commentator spelled out, helpfully, how he arrived at the figure and, in doing so, revealed that he had counted the GST revenue increase twice in his figuring to come to a figure of $389m in extra revenue. He counted the increase in GST payments under grants and subsidies, and then counted them again in the overall receipts - so you get a double count. At the same time, he ignored the offsetting reduction in the budget balancing assistance - not a small figure, $78m - that we did not get because we had reached the threshold. Under the arrangements, when you reached a green field level under GST, the budget balancing assistance, which ensured that states and territories were not worse off under the GST arrangements, the budget balancing assistance was foregone - $78m down. So, double counting on one hand, and including a $78m that we simply did not get.
The fact is that Commonwealth revenue to the states and territories has increased steadily over the last 10 years. It is determined by formula and inter-governmental agreements between the states and Commonwealth and, of course, it is required to meet the normal increases in the cost of and demand for government services. Revenue has grown solidly since the introduction of the GST but, at the same time, states and territories forewent some of their own taxation as part of coming on board with the GST.
The amounts of funding we received have been the amounts of funding we expected to receive, and which were put into our forward estimates. Over the last 10 years, the Commonwealth has increased its revenue take, in particular since the GST. A proportion of that revenue is distributed amongst the states under the deal that was signed, and each state forecast the expected revenue that it would get. Of course, it goes into the forward estimates. When we make these estimates, about how much we have to spend, what our deficit level will be, and our fiscal strategy we, of course, take into account those predicted increases in Commonwealth revenue. What money we get, we spend, and then some. Of course, the evidence is there that we are still running an underlying deficit out of 2002-03, so it indicates the money is used fully.
Even the most basic understanding of accrual accounting would tell anyone that there is no such thing as hollow logs any more. There is no place anywhere to hide any money, let alone $389m. The vice president of Moody’s said to me upstairs - it does not get better than this; this is a guy who audits in 36 countries around world – that we had the most transparent and the best presented budget figures that he has come across. You do not have to take his word for it, there are others who will vouch for that as well. However, he knows, and I know, that everything we receive is in the budget papers; there to be seen. There are no unexpected windfalls. The growth is the reason why this previous government, and other governments in Australia, signed up to the GST.
The day we do receive a massive increase – and we would like to see one in the order of $350m to $390m - I will be out there shouting it from the rooftops so everyone would know of our good fortune. There is no war chest, there is no hidden barrel of money, there is no hollow log, such as we used to see under the previous government, and no salting away of money. Money is spent by this government to pursue its priorities of developing the economy, supporting jobs, making our streets safer, improving education and bringing about a healthier Territory for everyone.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, it is rather predictable that there would be a response or a report of this nature brought to the parliament today. It just so happens that the small to medium business confidence figures were reported to the Northern Territory media and community this morning. Support for the Northern Territory government has fallen from minus-8% last quarter to an all time low of minus-22%. That is the lowest it has ever been.
The issue here is it is already acknowledged that there has been an increase in revenue flow into the Territory - that is accepted - to the magnitude that is uncertain and unannounced by the Treasurer. However, we do know that recently there has been a $78m spend on the police review; you have been able to find $27m for tourism, after incredible pressure; and you have found $160m for a job strategy, which you announced. When you came to the last election, you said you had it, but last year you had it designed by a South Australian company. Now we have $160m behind this job strategy which you have had significant mileage out of. And you wonder why we have such a drop in confidence in the Northern Territory small to medium size businesses.
They are the very drivers of our community; the ones that will do the employing, which have not had the tax relief, and have had the increase in the HIH levy, which we argued should be removed – for the very purpose that this is the very agency that is able to take on the employment prospects and the hopes of young Territorians. That is why we have the highest levels of unemployment and we have 5000 Territorians who have left the Northern Territory. That is why small to medium size business has no confidence in this government.
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, the new Leader of the Opposition is going to have to do a lot better than misquoting figures out of the Yellow Pages Surveys and employment and unemployment figures. The facts are, since we came to government, we had a record capital works program in 2002-03 of $439m cash, $434m in 2003-04. $100m in those two years is more than they managed to scramble into the capital works program. At the same time - I am glad he reminds Territorians on the Parliamentary Record - $75m goes to the police over three-and-a-half years to fix up what was a badly neglected and under-resourced police force; $27.5m to tourism - $7.5m this financial year, $10m next and $10m following - to get tourism right up back there where it belongs following the external shocks that it has had over the last couple of years.
The $160m jobs grant, an absolute winner …
Madam SPEAKER: Your time has expired, Treasurer.
Communications Technology to
Remote Communities
Remote Communities
Dr TOYNE (Communications): Madam Speaker, as Minister for Communication, I have the pleasure today to report to the House of yet another successful step in our industry development process. I led a delegation to Yuendumu, Lajamanu and Kalkarindji in October. The business representatives were Dennis McKenzie, CSG Technology; Trevor Oliver, CSM; Andrew Hodges from the Australian Information Industry Association; Robert Chirgwin from Original IT; Doug Smith, Commercial Capital; Mark Sweet from Telstra Country Wide; Jo Blignaut from CSC; Karen Timmers from SRA Information Technology; Nigel Sellers, Singtel Optus; Jim Carew, ITS; Bill Treacy from the Centre for Remote Telecommunication Solutions of Charles Darwin University; and Howard Pullen, the manager of ICA Solutions.
It was a trip full of valuable lessons for the information and communication technology industry, not the least being the discovery of bull ants and that some small pains are actually smaller than others. The aim of the trip was to build on ICT industry development by taking steps to forge partnerships between ICT industry and our remote communities, particularly in areas of development of relevant digital content and ICT methodology. We achieved our aim.
Industry members experienced first-hand the issues for communities, students, remote area staff, residents and businesses in trying to live and work in a remote area. The trip gave the industry the chance to see how their ICT solutions can have an impact on how to make them more applicable to remote communities. The industry also focussed on digital content, and several opportunities are being explored already in these areas in with the communities. The communities showed us what they want. We saw enthusiastic kids wanting to access the Internet and training after school, and innovative graphics created by a 14-year-old boy. The industry heard, first-hand, the plea from a community elder wanting access to technology that will provide people with education and work opportunities. The exposure to a variety of community-based organisations gave the industry representatives an experience you only get by going out bush.
I was encouraged by the interest and enthusiasm of the group, who wanted to learn about each community and identify each community’s requirements. The delegation attended the bilingual production units at Yuendumu and Lajamanu, the Warlpiri Media Association, the school and clinics of the communities, and met with the proactive Daguragu Community Government Council which articulated their priorities for the community. The Deadly Mob Organisation from Alice Springs, which is training remote young people in IT skills, came out and presented to the delegation, and we sat in on an IT class at Kalkaringi School who have graduated five Year 12 students this year, which is fantastic.
There are very successful organisations in the bush and two that we visited were the Warlpiri Media Association – which has original multimedia material – and also Warlukurlangu Artists which has a $4m turnover from its small office at Yuendumu. All these organisations demonstrate the wealth of opportunities for communication systems that can make a real difference to these communities and offer enormous potential for export once the products are proven.
I am working closely with the NT’s ICT industry to expand their opportunities and markets. The development of technologies and software for remote communities can provide the industry with a substantial niche market, specialist expertise and export opportunities.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I respond as the shadow minister for Central Australia, considering that the member for Stuart spoke very highly about the visits that were carried out by the ICT industry in the Territory visiting his electorate of Stuart. Never mind that he did not bother to take them anywhere else in the Territory, just the electorate of Stuart. If the minister was really the Minister for Communications, he should be interested in the whole of the Territory, not just Stuart.
I congratulate the ICT industry for making this bush trip. It allows them to be aware of what the needs are in the bush. You have spoken about the electronic divide that occurs between the haves and have-nots, and this is an important way for the industry to understand what the have-nots need. However, I am sure there are other bush communities that also should be visited by the minister and his delegation and I suggest that the minister does so.
The CLP has always supported IT exposure for kids in the bush communities, because we have always known that this technology is what is attractive to young kids. The kids in the gallery today are all very interested in IT and introduction to IT in a very easy and conceptual way. Through that method of learning they will enhance their education because, to interact with the Internet, with web sites, you need to have literacy, numeracy and some degree of technical skills. That is how you can give the bush kids some incentive to then learn. However, at the end of the day, the minister must also be aware that, somehow, he has to convert this interest into employment and jobs. If he cannot do that, he is just wasting his time because he is just going for a sound and light show with nothing at the end.
Dr TOYNE (Communications): Madam Speaker, I thank the acting deputy shadow spokesperson for communication for his comments. I offer the new shadow – whom I welcome – a briefing on these matters so that she can feel comfortable to get up and speak about them.
However, taking the member for Greatorex’s point, he continues to theorise about what we are or are not doing in the bush. He never goes out there himself so he probably would not know. To take his point about going to my electorate, why wouldn’t I? Why wouldn’t I take the industry out to see the communities that I indicated? They have a 25-year history in working on these things and I am very proud - and they should be very proud - of the work that they have done.
We will be going across to East Arnhem early next year. I am sure I can bring back further information to help the member for Greatorex understand the other part of the Territory.
Ministerial Visit to Japan
Mr HENDERSON (Asian Relations and Trade): Madam Speaker, I would like to provide the House with a report on my recent trip to Japan from 3 to 7 November.
My visit was primarily gas development and customer focussed, to meet high level executives of key companies that are investing or have the potential to invest significantly in the future of the Northern Territory.
My key messages during the visit were: that the Territory government considers the investment companies as partners in the development of the economy of the Northern Territory; we welcome Japanese investment and look forward to a prosperous relationship that can grow and mature for many years; Timor Sea gas presents many opportunities for future investment and its resources, and those of the Territory; the Territory has the resources, skills, land, stability, security and close geographic location to Asia that makes it attractive for developers and investors; and the current major projects, Bayu-Undan and the railway, are the beginnings of a long period of expected economic growth for the Northern Territory.
In Osaka and Tokyo, I held meetings with the following companies: Osaka Gas, including a visit to the LNG receiving terminal; Japan National Oil Company; Mitsui; Tokyo Electric Power Company; Tokyo Gas; ConocoPhillips Japan; Mitsubishi Gas Chemicals; Japan Bank for International Cooperation; and Impex, a joint venture partner in the Bayu-Undan project and other exploration projects in the Timor Sea.
I also conducted briefing sessions with the Energy Committee of the Australia-New Zealand-Japan Chamber of Commerce, the Consul-General and Austrade representatives in Osaka, the Australian Embassy Councillors and advisors in Tokyo, and a further presentation to invited guests hosted by Australia’s Ambassador to Japan, His Excellency John McCarthy.
Impex, Tokyo Electric Power Company and Tokyo Gas hold the combined 20.608% in the Bayu-Undan project, which translates to about $A1bn of investment at today’s exchange rate. The Japan Bank for International Cooperation is providing finance for all of these companies in this project. Osaka Gas has a 10% interest in the Sunrise and Evans Shoal fields, with the former a possible supply source for an onshore LNG project via expansion of the Wickham Point gas plant. Also included were meetings with key potential gas-based manufacturing companies, Mitsui and Mitsubishi Gas Chemicals, to outline the advantages of establishing projects in the Territory.
It is important for government to engage and develop a high level of relationship with these companies. These are partnerships that can develop into long-term benefits for all parties through further major investments.
Because of their preliminary nature and to preserve commercial confidentiality, it is not appropriate that I report in detail on the specifics discussed with individual companies. However, I can report to honourable members the following key findings and general outcomes:
Japan is in a major review of its energy policy. It is considering its future energy mix from a combination
of gas, nuclear, coal and oil. This review is expected to be completed in mid-2004;
the Japanese economy is said to be emerging from its recession over the past years and, consequently, the
energy issues will be important; and
recent events with the nuclear power stations being taken off line have led to the general consensus that gas
will play an increasingly important role as a proportion of the total energy mix.
the Japanese government also wishes to lessen reliance on the Middle East for its energy supply. LNG is
probably going to have a greater demand in Japan as, indeed, Korea and China.
Australia was consistently viewed by all the companies with favour, particularly as a supplier of gas to Japan.
Tepco and TG are the first Japanese utilities to purchase upstream interests by buying into the Bayu-Undan project.
From my discussions, it is clear that the Timor Sea and Darwin, as sources of LNG and other gas-based commodities, remain of great interest to Japan. All of these companies have been invited to the SEAAOC Conference in Darwin in June next year to better understand the emerging investment opportunities in the Northern Territory.
Madam Speaker, my visit was both informative and productive, and I am pleased to provide this report to the House.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I welcome the report. It was interesting that the minister used the occasion of my questioning, as I would in opposition, to issues relating to Asian Relations and Trade, and tried to spin it as though I am opposed to the trip and was querying travel. There were more serious questions that were asked and needed to be responded to.
One issue, however, minister, is: are you aware that there was a very similar trip conducted by the member for Brennan, visiting practically the same people? From the trip that you have just completed, my concern was that, notwithstanding someone in the media had prior information on it, I did not have much. Also, a number of other commentators within the media were unaware of your plans to travel to Japan. I would have liked the opportunity to be aware of the issues that would be discussed on behalf of Territorians.
I fully support your intentions to travel but, to come away from that with an expression that the Japanese have an interest in gas was quite acceptable and a bit of an understatement, I would say, particularly in light of the fact that Hu Jintao, the President of China, was in Australia with a high level delegation, and there was no one from the Northern Territory government to be there to advance the case of the Territory with regards to gas.
I am also interested to hear from the minister whether the 41 high level delegation from China will be matched and interacted with by the Northern Territory government. I am also waiting for the free trade agreement between Australia and Thailand to be reported to this parliament and the Northern Territory business community, so that we know what on earth is going on, and what advantage Territorians can make of the free trade agreement between Thailand and Australia.
Mr HENDERSON (Asian Relations and Trade): Madam Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his contribution. Again, the offer is there to the Leader of the Opposition; I know he has been busy since the last sittings. We are working in a strategic and planned way in our engagement with the region. In the last sittings, I did offer the member a briefing on the strategy that we, as a government, are deploying in regards to Asian Relations. The Leader of the Opposition said he would take it up but we are still waiting.
Yes, I was aware of the member for Brennan’s visit and, of course, I was fully briefed on the outcomes. Part of the reason for the visit, specifically, is for the first time a Japanese utility company is actually purchasing equity in the upstream of a major LNG project. That only occurred, in terms of contractual sign-off, in June this year. It is very important to display to those Japanese companies who do invest billions of dollars over decades, that there is bipartisan support for this investment in the Northern Territory and that, regardless of government’s coming and going, we as a Territory support that Japanese investment. So, of course I was briefed on the outcomes of the member for Brennan’s visit.
In regard to the free trade agreements with Thailand, it is yet to be ratified. We are looking at that. However, again, if the member had had a briefing, he would know that last year our total trade with Thailand in the non-petrochemical areas in exports was $28 000. That was it from the Northern Territory in exports to Thailand. Therefore, we are looking at the opportunities, and we really are targeting those countries that we already have significant relationships with and exports to. We are looking at the opportunities for Thailand. However, at this particular point in time, it is not a huge priority.
Federal Government Tourism White Paper
Dr BURNS (Tourism): Madam Speaker, I report to the House on the Northern Territory’s response to the federal government’s Tourism White Paper. Most members would be aware, a very welcome announcement was made by Joe Hockey and the Prime Minister last week of $235m over four years - a substantial investment into tourism, some organisational changes with Tourism Australia and support for Brand Australia. I believe they are, generally very welcome, and I welcomed the announcement last week.
The initiatives that were announced by the federal government through their White Paper dovetail with what the Territory is doing in our Northern Territory Tourist Strategic Plan over the next few years in development of regional destinations, indigenous tourism and also ecotourism. It is going to work in very well. I was pleased to speak with Joe Hockey prior to his announcement. I told him that we certainly welcomed the announcement, and we would work very closely with the federal government, the Australian Tourist Commission and the new Tourism Australia body that will be created.
One thing we particularly welcome is the Australian government support for a national tourism accreditation system. That is important in the Territory, and it builds on the work that has already been done by the tourism industry here in building up an accreditation system. That is very important in assuring quality of the product and business viability.
I have focussed on many of the positive things. However, most members would be aware that the Northern Territory Tourist Commission made a submission to the Green Paper before the publication of the White Paper on a couple of major issues that, I believe, affect tourism in the Northern Territory. One suggestion that we made through our Green Paper submission was seasonal tax averaging as an option for regional and remote tourism businesses because, like primary producers, for whom taxation relief is currently available, tourism also is significantly affected by seasonality and other conditions outside of their control, such as SARS and terrorist attacks. We believe that the federal government should - and we will continue to advocate to them that they should - look very carefully at seasonal tax averaging because it will enable these tourism businesses to ensure a cash flow in a bad year while, at the same time in the better years, put money aside against their tax liability. It would allow the businesses to average out the peaks and troughs.
Also, very importantly - and I notice that the shadow Tourism minister mentioned last week about aviation capacity building. It was disappointing in the White Paper. I feel there was not enough emphasis given to that and not enough commitment. It examined various options in relation to building aviation capacity with things like charters, own stopover and seventh degree of freedom arrangements with airlines. These are important aspects that are flagged within the White Paper, but which we do not really believe have been seriously explored by the federal government, particularly the federal Transport minister, Mr Anderson. I know that Joe Hockey is very keen to further aviation capacity building, and we would like to see a lot more activity in that area.
I have already mentioned indigenous tourism initiatives, which are very important to the Territory. There is a lot of potential there, particularly with the parks initiatives that will be debated here later today. There is real capacity and potential for Aboriginal people and communities to have joint initiatives, joint ventures, with a whole range of people, and provide economic and employment benefit to Aboriginal people, particularly those in the more remote areas of the Northern Territory.
In summary, we certainly welcome the initiative - $235m over the next four years. It is very welcome. We certainly welcome the structural changes within the Australian Tourist Commission and Brand Australia. We will all cooperate with that overseas, and there will be efficiencies there. However, once again, I flag the issues that are missing that we flagged to the federal government: tax averaging and real plans to build aviation capacity into the Northern Territory.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I also welcome the initiative by the federal government for the $235m to tourism. Tourism industries have been doing it tough around Australia, but especially in the Territory. I welcome this boost to the advertising and marketing, but we need to be very careful that we structure our marketing and advertising to the targeted audience.
We need to make sure that we spend a lot of this money on infrastructure to improve and increase our product in the Territory. Our aviation capacity certainly needs to be improved; however, what is the point of doing that unless we have new product to encourage people here? Our indigenous tourism will increase interest within the Territory, because we are still considered an outback community as far as the rest of Australia is concerned, and are considered adventure Territory.
I certainly welcome this, but I believe that we must ensure that we target new infrastructure, development and product within the Territory to encourage people to come here.
Reports noted pursuant to Sessional Order.
BUSHFIRES AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 187)
(Serial 187)
Continued from 16 October 2003.
Mr BALDWIN (Daly): Madam Speaker, I say at the very outset that the opposition will be supporting this bill. However, I point out that it is about time that it got here. It is a bill that, like others in this parliament, has come about at the urging of the opposition. I know that some of my colleagues are going to speak on that issue particularly. However, it is worth pointing out that this government seems to wake up just before the sittings and decide that there is some work to do in parliament. In the case of this bill, it follows on from a bill introduced by the opposition. I know that the minister had a bit of a go in his second reading speech relating to that; that the bill did not go far enough. The principle that we were urging was for an increase to penalties for those people who are illegally lighting bushfires. That should occur in a very timely manner, and that would have been before the bushfire season.
We now have the Wet upon us, and here we are debating a bill that will increase those penalties - as we have been saying for a very long time - when the urgent need for it has passed. That is typical of this government and their agenda, that it has to be driven by others. It is the same as the Traffic Amendment Bill. I saw the minister for Infrastructure on television the other night, claiming that they are going to do this wonderful amendment to the Traffic Act and impose all these restrictions on people who drive cars illegally, hooning around the suburbs, when our parliamentary colleague has introduced the very same bill.
Ms Lawrie: No, there are differences.
Mr BALDWIN: You can debate whether there are differences in the bill, but the principle is still the same.
You are a government that follows; you are not a government that leads. That is happening right across the board, as is evident in this bill today and the bill that the member for Nelson has introduced: you are followers, not leaders, and that is disappointing. It is certainly evident in the business community that we see the government hoarding substantial amounts of monies while, when you walk down the mall, you can count how many shops have been closed there and in Casuarina Shopping Centre. Followers, not leaders; that is your problem.
Mr Henderson: Back to the bill.
Mr BALDWIN: I am on the bill, picking up on the interjection. I am talking about the principle of this government being followers of others and not leaders. That occurs right across the board, particularly in the economic community at the moment. They are following - well, they are not following anybody at the moment; they are leaving them out to there to dry. There are shops closing all over the place, and businesses closing down. Why don’t you stand up in this …
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The bill before this parliament to be debated is the Bushfires Amendment Bill. I call the honourable member on relevance in regards to the general economic climate, to the bill before the House that is currently being debated.
Mr BALDWIN: Speaking to the point of order, the issue of relevance is very acute here. What I am saying is this bill follows on from another bill that has been introduced, the very same subject. I am pointing out a principle that this government is just following the lead of the opposition and the Independent members. Indeed, I could bring up some issues that you have placed before the parliament, Madam Speaker, that they are following on as well. If they do not want to hear that, then they should not sit in here while I speak.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Daly, you should restrict your remarks to the Bushfires Bill and, although I understand what you are saying, try to keep to the point.
Mr BALDWIN: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I take your point, and the point that the government does not want to discuss these other issues because they know them to be true.
As I said, we will support this. However, I will point out that, for the minister who is apparently- and I will say that ‘apparently’ underlined - in charge of the Bushfires Council through his mega-department, should take note that right now the Bushfires Council’s has unbelievably strategic integrity problems within their organisation and structure. They have problems in management, and technical problems within the whole organisation that is limiting their ability. I will go through a few of them …
Ms Martin: Have you written to the minister about them?
Mr BALDWIN: I will pick up on that interjection, Madam Speaker, ‘Have I written to the minister?’ I have been to the meetings. I have been to the regional meetings and who don’t I see there? I see all the members represented from the region, but I do not see the minister! Why should I do his job? Why should I lead his job? He is the minister. Tell your minister to get out there and talk to the regional councils.
Let me tell you some of the problems. The most important one, I guess, is that one of the most senior officers of the Bushfires Council has not yet been replaced. How long has he been gone? Nearly two years. In fact, I believe it is two years. What you have done is changed the management within the Bushfires Council; you have made an officer of Parks and Wildlife the Senior Fire Control Officer over the whole of the Northern Territory. You have also split his job, whereby he looks after weeds. He is a fairly senior Parks and Wildlife officer who has to look after the Bushfires Council, and then you have split him off to look after weeds as well as other things.
The position that was under him – and it was filled in the past by a fellow named Tim McGuffick, a man of much experience, who has left to go to Queensland and take up another position in bushfire control – has not been filled. I know you have advertised. I know there have been suitable applicants, too, but it has not been filled. You have an inherent strategic problem within your structure there.
The other problem is the issue of training, planning and policy. You currently have an officer on recreation and long service leave until his retirement date in April. This is the Training Officer, the person responsible for the 3500 accredited and trained volunteers of the Bushfires Council - your senior training person - not replaced. You need to have a look at what is going on. Another issue is that you have people who need to take leave. These are senior people. As you know, there are not many paid public servant officers in the Bushfires Council, and there are issues with leave and who is going to replace them. That is one issue. You have a management problem that is occurring under your nose that you need to address right now.
There are other problems. On the issue of training, there is a problem because the training that has previously been carried out by the District Control Officers - that is the public servants - has been referred, I believe, to Police, Fire and Emergency Services and they will carry out the training. How is that going to work? There is a lot of confusion within the ranks of the Bushfires Council as to how that would work. Apparently, the current officers who have been doing the training do not have the required Certificate in Workplace Training and Assessing to continue that training, and it will be transferred over. That is an issue that has to be sorted out because the Regional Fire Control Officers just do not have those qualifications. Do you upskill them, or do you pass it over to Police, Fire and Emergency Services and then they go out to the regional centres? That is one issue that needs to be addressed.
Regarding the infrastructure issues, there is a problem at the moment with the vehicles. As you know, the fire tenders are usually Toyota traybacks. The latest Toyotas are different from the other Toyotas, so the slip-on units that go on to those Toyotas will not fit the new ones. There is a need to upgrade and change them so that they will be compatible. I understand the difference is about $4000 per vehicle. There is money in the budget to upgrade 10 vehicles but, because of the shortfall in funding that is due to the need to upgrade these slip-on units, this year they will only be able to upgrade six. That is an issue that should be addressed because, if you have a shortfall in the capacity of the Bushfires Council and its brigades, then you need to address it. If it is only a few thousand dollars that has to be put in – in fact, probably about $20 000 – then that should be addressed. They should be given the extra capital to maintain their level of capacity.
There is another problem with vehicles, and that, I understand, is that the vehicles that the public service Bushfires Council officers currently use - usually they are Toyotas – do not comply with the one-tonne rating that needs to be in place, and there are a couple of vehicles coming up for replacement. Toyota cannot offer them the GMV rating they need. My understanding is that Nissan is looking at upgrading their GMV rating, but it has not happened yet. Therefore, the only vehicle that would comply would be Landrovers. You might like Land Rovers, but it is another issue that goes towards the capacity and capability of this organisation to respond to bushfires around the Northern Territory.
There is a whole set of issues that are going on within Bushfires Council that, really minister, you need to get yourself across. You have officers who are off sick at the moment, and the Acting Senior Fire Control officer in the south who is also the Director of Fire and Weeds – these people are getting overloaded. Not only that, their numbers are being reduced and not filled, and their capacity to do the job is being severely affected. When that happens, the morale of the organisation is affected, and it is affected in a very big way. When you affect the morale of volunteers, they start to leave in droves. I am not certain that that is happening yet. I hope that it is not happening. However, I know that there is a fair bit of disquiet within the ranks. I understand that some are saying that there has been a loss of volunteers. Whether that is to do just with morale or with training difficulties - because training is in a bit of a mess at the moment – or whether it is to do with the budget amounts. There have been budget decreases that go to the actual brigades, and you might like to address that,. There have been issues to do with the budget that, certainly the Bushfires Council, the regional councils and the brigades have made some noise about and they are not very happy with.
Whilst it is great to see the minister finally come in here with a bill that lifts the offence penalties for a number of things - setting fire to bush, burning without permits, and so forth – he also needs to address some of the structural issues that are going on within the Bushfires Council. I know this bill also contains the provisions for Bushfires Council officers to enter land immediately following a fire and so forth, to investigate at any time that they feel is needed. It introduces bushfire infringement notices that can be issued by delegated people, that will speed things up in terms of the penalty process. That is a good thing and I am fully supportive of that. I know you will have something to say about that.
However, whilst supporting those, I am raising all of these other issues for you to address. I believe that you should get about your business. Go to some of these brigade meetings and regional council meetings, and explain to them – explain to the Edith Farms Bushfire Brigade why they had to apply for federal government funding to build infrastructure that is supporting all Territorians. I helped them get that, as did our Senator Nigel Scullion help them with that application. They received quite a sum of money - I believe it is in the order of $33 000 - to build their headquarters infrastructure.
Here is an example of what you have – and you should never underestimate what you have sitting in the Bushfires Council organisation as a group of volunteers. It is the single cheapest force of people who are trained and accredited to look after the interests of Territorians. And I am talking cheap. Minister, you know what is in the budget for the Bushfires Council, and it is not a lot of money. When we get down to these little finicky items we can say: ‘Ah, well, it is only – you raised a couple of minor issues about training and slip-on units and, in the scheme of things it is nothing’. However, I tell you, it is everything to those people. They are the most passionate people when it comes to giving their time and energy and doing the right thing, so that they protect the Northern Territory environment and assets.
Edith Farms, by the good grace of one of the members, formed their own branch because they are a growing area. I am sure you have had, minister, letters about roads and power to other ministers, where they have written to you. You have written back and said: ‘It is not on the program, but that is another issue that we will get to’. By the good grace of one of those members, he donated land for headquarters in the Edith Farms area. Then, obviously, they wanted to build some infrastructure to protect the vehicles and the tankers, and to have a meeting place. Where did they have to go for money? To the federal government. Where is your government, minister, in all of this? Where is the little money that you could add into the whole bushfires program, to make sure the infrastructure is appropriate to allow the capacity and capability of those members - the cheapest organised force of volunteers that you have in the Northern Territory? It is just amazing that they have to go off and get federal money when they could get it from you.
I would like you to address all of those issues and take more notice of this organisation. I know you are a busy man, but I would like to see you out at some of these meetings - that would be great - and, do something in the forthcoming budget to substantially address the issues that they have. Once you are across them, I would like to see you returning into this House with a position on some of those and, indeed, some answers to those questions in the positive. This will ensure that our bushfires network, particularly the officers who support them, which is a very small bunch of people who are, at the moment - or have in the last couple of years - been working under great stress because of non-replacement of officers, officers on leave, acting officers and so forth.
There is, as I said, an inherent problem within that system that needs addressing and addressing very soon, otherwise you might find that you do not have any officers running the show, and that would be a crying shame. As I said, we certainly support this, at long last.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, this is a very important bill and I am a little surprised to see no other members on the other side of the House jumping to their feet. However, I would like to make a few comments and to follow up on some of the things that my colleague, the member for Daly, was talking about, specifically in relation to some of the things that are happening with the Bushfires Council.
I am also aware of the problem, with the GMV issue that surrounds a lot of these vehicles that the Bushfires Council is using. Because of the new tray system, the gross vehicle mass, GMV, of these vehicles has altered and it takes the vehicles into a higher category for which you need different certificates, compliances and licences to drive.
It is not a case of simply saying: ‘Oh, just half-fill your tank and out you go. You will be right’. That is not the way it works. If you have a vehicle which is capable of being filled up to a point and you drive it half empty, it is still considered, for the purpose of any legal proceeding, fillable. Therefore, you have to be very careful about jumping into a vehicle and driving like that. So, you have a Bushfires Council which now has to look at trying to find new ways in which to deal with their Toyotas. I am aware that Nissan is looking at different ways to address this problem in the design of the vehicle and the like. However, the problem is that is a Nissan in Japan, and I am wondering if the minister has spoken to Nissan in Japan and asked them whether or not they are going to be ready for this year’s bushfire season, because this year’s bushfire season in Central Australia starts now.
I am not going to touch on the fact that we are now having this debate a second time in about eight months, because I am certain the member for Araluen will have one or two things to say about that. I support this bill in the sense that it is long overdue. However, it is typical that this is the sort of bill that we now see from a minister who probably reads the Notice Paper two or three days before he comes into parliament and suddenly realises that some of the legislation sitting on the General Business Day is some stuff that he has to respond to. We see it in the Bushfires Bill, we see it in the ‘hooning bill’ that the member for Nelson brought to this House months and months ago. This minister has the habit of being a little tardy in being across his areas of responsibility, not only in relation to this particular Chamber, but in his ability to do the job properly.
We have seen the backflips in relation to flying over Nitmiluk, and acquisitions of people’s private property and houses by the stroke of a minister’s pen. All I urge this minister to do is slow down. Slow down a little, take it easy, start paying attention, watch what you are doing, think about what you are about to say, think about what you are going to do, and actually read the material in front of you that you might be able to glean some information as to whether people live there or not. Those are the important things that ministers should do, in an effort, I hope, to be able to improve his performance in the way that he responds to the people in this House as well as the people of the Northern Territory.
I also ask a couple of questions of the minister, and he may be able to advise me - it may also come from the Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services who, incidentally, is my new boss, now that I have my Certificate 1 in using a Macleod tool. I am now working with what is commonly known as the Emily Hills Fire Brigade in Alice Springs. However, I digress. What I would like to know is if the minister has any details as to exactly what occurred at Longitude 131 in Yulara where an out-of-control bushfire caused millions of dollars in damage to private property. I have heard little whisperings and things around the traps. I have more questions than I have answers. I do not know what happened in Yulara; I have only heard rumours. There was some concern about the response of the fire service. I am wondering if the minister can enlighten this House as whether there was any problem, if there is a debriefing being held, and if there is any way to improve the response in that area. You also have to remember that the Police, Fire and Emergency Services lost a very expensive truck through that fire as well.
The last I heard or noticed was that the findings into the cause of that fire were open. I am wondering if the minister would be kind enough to lay on the Table, or at least give a briefing to this House, as to how an open finding in relation to that fire was arrived at, and whether there were any suspicious circumstances at all in relation to that fire. I would like to know if there are any further steps that can be taken to protect property in Central Australia and, in fact in the Northern Territory, into the future. This was a very unfortunate fire and, if it can be prevented - and these sorts of fires can be prevented - then every step should be taken to prevent these fires.
I know that many other fires in the last 12 months in Central Australia were the product of deliberate lighting. We had some pretty major fires last year. I remember seeing cattlemen cutting firebreaks with graders who probably had not slept for 48 hours and were still driving graders. That cannot be good, but they had to do it because the Bushfires Council had to respond with the meagre resources they had available to them, and they responded as best they could. However, at the end of the day, their budget is not big. The member for Daly is quite right; the budget is minuscule. If you look at the size of these fires, they chew up millions of acres of country when they burn as fiercely as they did.
This year’s fuel loads are also going to cause major fires if the weather dries up. For the first time in 11 years, just around the time of the Yulara fires, we had total fire ban days already this year. Total fire ban days are very rare in the Northern Territory for various reasons. Basically, the Weather Bureau has a formula whereby they crunch all sorts of little indicia and factors that spit out a number at the other end. If that number is at a certain point - and if memory serves me correctly it is around the 50s - that indicates a call for a total fire ban day.
Apparently, the total fire ban day when the Yulara fire occurred - and we saw the minister himself clutching a fire hose fighting that fire - was several points over the limit of that formula, so it was a very dangerous day: hot, dry winds, high temperatures, very dry fuel loads and very high-speed winds, blustery and gusty. It was a recipe for disaster, and summer has only just started.
I seriously hope that this minister takes his responsibilities very seriously indeed, and that, if there are vehicles with problems in Alice Springs regarding gross vehicle mass and those sorts of things, that those problems are rectified soon because it is going to be another tough fire season, I would guess.
I also touch on what the member for Daly said in relation to the Bushfires Council and the organisation of the Bushfires Council. This is a fiercely independent organisation. It has its own philosophy on how to deal with fire fighting. It approaches that philosophy with 3500 volunteers and a handful of paid officers. It appears that the processes which the minister is using to administer this fire service is leaving it vulnerable to being managed from sources outside of the Bushfires Council itself.
I have some concerns that the minister is looking at finding ways to absorb the Bushfires Council deeper into a department. That should not happen. This minister needs to look at the way that he is organising his department and the Bushfires Council, and respond in a way which means that the property of the people of the Northern Territory - be it a pastoralist, private property in the form of a land trust, or private properties in towns - is protected during what will be a horrible fire season. However, I support the bill.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Madam Speaker, not only is it good manners but it is also good academic practice to acknowledge an individual or an organisation whose idea you are going to seize upon. The member for Daly touched upon it, but the member for Araluen was the one who first suggested these very sensible changes. It was the member for Araluen who had the vision, the tenacity, to propose a bill that contained most of the suggestions that are in Serial 187 bill, which has been presented by the minister.
Full credit to her. Any fair-minded Territorian would have reasonably expected the minister to state that he, effectively, stole the idea. At the 11th hour he decided: ‘This is such a good idea, I cannot give any credit to anyone else. I had better seize upon it and introduce a bill myself’. The purpose of my comments is to put on the record that it was the member for Araluen who suggested this, and full credit should go to her.
If you were the average Territorian hearing the second reading speech for the first time, you would be forgiven for thinking that it was, in fact, this minister’s own work. There is not a scintilla of thanks or acknowledge that perhaps not all that is contained in this bill, in terms of the ideas, were his. The comments and the context in which they were made is disappointing for a number of reasons,. I understand that one other member is going to elaborate on that point. If you look closely at the second-reading speech, there are a number of other matters which the minister touches upon. Of course, he goes on to acknowledge the hard work which the volunteers undertake every day, their stressful and dangerous conditions, and also records the wider community’s thanks and support for the work that they do. Those comments, I suspect, are really aimed at the young journalists sitting in the media area or listening to what is said in parliament, because we know that on the ground it is a different kettle of fish.
There is no doubt that, under the term so far of this Martin Labor government, there has been an exponential decrease in the condition of bushfire control units; that is, the cars and the equipment which these people use every day. Cars, pumps and trucks are, quite frankly, not being replaced quickly enough, and it is coming to the point where some of these pieces of equipment are in such bad condition that it is almost an occupational health and safety issue. There have been meetings - certainly in my electorate, where there are several volunteer brigades - to discuss these exact topics. There is a real and desperate need for the government to take seriously the work that these people do, and to support them in updating, renewing and fixing the equipment which they use.
The Bushfires Council has a huge responsibility. They are not only charged with the operational responsibilities, they supervise and support the numerous Volunteer Bushfire Brigades across the Northern Territory. Indeed, the Volunteer Bushfire Brigade of which I am a member, the Elizabeth Valley Volunteer Fire Brigade, also come under the scope of the Bushfires Council. About 12 months ago, I was informed that the Bushfires Council were doing it tough. They also need their support. There are a couple of paid employees who work enormous hours. Their phones are forever ringing, on weekends, in the early hours of the morning, every time there is a problem in the rural area, or there is a grassfire. It seems the first people to get the call are these very hard-working and dedicated souls working for the Bushfires Council.
It seems that the Martin Labor government’s response was to ask them to review their funding to the extent that they actually had to reduce the number of incoming lines into their Batchelor office. I am not sure whether that has been corrected or not. This is the sort of support which we see this government giving those important volunteers on the ground.
It is well and good to come in and make some motherhood statements about the great work which our volunteers do. It is one thing to come in and usurp the ideas of the member for Araluen and try and claim some sort of credit for these initiatives. However, the truth is, if you go and talk to volunteers on the ground, the brigade captains and the people who give up their time for free to provide this service, they will tell you that the service, the volunteers, are not being properly supported and they are not being properly financed.
In closing, of course, we support the bill; it is one of ours.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I will be fairly brief, having regard to the comments made by the member for Goyder and others. Of course, I am not wanting to make the minister feel even more uncomfortable or embarrassed than he is already.
I support the bill, and why wouldn’t I? The increased penalties could have been passed in the August sittings, but the minister refused to do so. He could have had - all Territorians could have had - higher penalties in place had the minister had the wit and the sound judgment to agree with the bill which I introduced. However, sadly, in typical fashion, he did not and he elected to do it his way.
One wonders what the expression on the minister’s face would have been had the fires at Yulara been deliberately lit. I know that the member for Macdonnell touched upon this. I am not sure whether it is an open finding as such, but I understand that there is insufficient evidence, certainly at this stage, to warrant a view being formed that the fires were deliberately lit. However, for the sake of this exercise, I wonder how the minister would have felt had there been a finding that the fires were deliberately lit? He would have had good reason to feel very embarrassed, because the effect of the bill that I introduced in February this year - and it came before us again in August – was that there was an opportunity for the minister to pull his finger out and get these penalties increased. Alas, he arrogantly refused to do so, despite my very sincere, I thought, urgings of him in August to increase the penalties. Members may recall that there was about a $5000 difference between the penalties that he said that he was going to introduce and the ones that were already before us in the bill that I introduced. Members will also recall that I urged him to split the difference so that we could get on with the job. However, to his shame, he elected not to do so.
I note, with interest, that the minister said in November 2002 that he was going to do something about higher penalties. It has taken him one year to do it. So, happy anniversary, minister. It seems to me and others that you pulled your finger out only after our bill was presented. Of course, you were forced to deal with that in August, during the course of the last General Business Day. I would suggest that the minister has not covered himself in glory in relation to his actions regarding this piece of legislation. However, like so many of us, no doubt he will learn from his experience.
Moving to other parts of the bill, I will, as a matter of courtesy, acknowledge that there are parts of this bill that were not included in the bill I introduced some time ago. The other parts are welcome; they are certainly not objectionable, in my view. It appears that the regulations will provide for the issuing of infringement notices for regulatory offences, as well as other penalties. It also appears that we will have to wait to see what the regulations are. However, certainly clause 7 of the bill is, as I say, not objectionable. I note that in the schedule attached to the bill, there are new penalties included. However, the prescribed amount for the regulatory offences is not. I make that point in relation to the regulations which will, no doubt, be considered in due course.
We hope that these amendments will assist those investigating fires and finding those people who deliberately light them. Like so many other places in Australia, the Northern Territory has so much to lose. Our ground cover, because of our size, is much more significant than in other parts of Australia. Therefore, in the Territory we all need to be ever vigilant. What both sides of this Chamber have in common is a commitment to ensuring that we all do whatever we can to discourage firebugs. The human and other costs are too significant and, frankly, just too grave to consider without an increase of penalties.
On that basis, Madam Speaker, we support the bill. In conclusion, it is very unfortunate that the minister has played catch-up politics in relation to it.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I will be relatively brief. I will just make a few comments and I have a few questions in my comments. One of the biggest issues with fires is actually catching the offenders. I know that we can say: ‘Oh well, my penalties are bigger than your penalties and this will stop more fires’. However, until you catch people, the actual penalty is irrelevant.
I would be interested to see whether the government has any new ideas on how to catch these people. I know in my area, which comes under the Northern Territory Fire Service - there is a small portion of it under the Bushfires Council – it is certainly difficult to catch people who deliberately light fires. If they drive through on a motorbike or something, throw a few matches out and keep going, it is very hard to catch those people. Minister, it would be good if you could look at that issue and see whether there are ways. Whether it is ‘Dob in a Lighter’ or something, or have programs which basically say: ‘This is not the way we should be going’, we have to send the message out to the community that it is not the done thing, as you might say, for people to light fires. If they do see someone lighting a fire, or they know that someone is lighting fires, at least they should report those to the various authorities.
I have also had a concern put to me that one of the problems in the Bushfires Council is that some of the positions in the Bushfires Council have not been filled for a long time. These positions have been left vacant. I do not think I would be out of step to mention the person’s name. Tim McGuffick, who lived down near Berry Springs, was a member of the Bushfires Council. I believe he left that position two years ago and I am told that that position is still vacant. I would be interested to know why it is still vacant and whether there other positions similar to Tim McGuffick’s position that have not yet been filled?
The other issue, of course, is that we have two fire services in the Territory. Sure, the Northern Territory Fire Service does concentrate, you might say, on urban area. However, in my electorate, of course, which is not urban, it controls most of that area. There are areas around Alice Springs and some of the farms around Tennant Creek and Katherine which would come under the Northern Territory Fire Service. I would be interested to know what sort of coordination from your department versus the Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency’s department has there been to try to make the regulations compatible - not only just from, say, the fire breaks are four metres wide. Does one fire service say they should be graded and the other one say they should be slashed? Are the penalties the same? Do the same rules apply for when a fire can be lit? If you have a day when fires should not be lit, is that applied to both services? Also, I suppose, are we looking at sharing equipment more?
In my area, they actually overlap. There is the Bushfires Council and Northern Territory Fire Services. They work on the same fires, but how does that work in principle? Do they have difficulties talking to one another? Have those issues been looked at? I am just trying to think of other areas where it would be nice to make sure that we are both doing the same thing. For instance, the date on which no more fires can be lit or permits are issued. Is that going to be the same for the NT Fire Services and the Bushfires Council? Also, what date will permits not be given? When it comes to permits being issued to light fires again, again, will they both be the same, at the same time? I know that will vary across the Territory but, where you have this area where both fire services meet, is there anything that has been discussed so the rules and regulations are pretty well the same?
I do not have any difficulty with the bill, minister. I certainly think it is worth increasing the penalties. If you could take up some of those matters that I have just raised; at least they will be in Hansard and people will be able to look at them and judge on what you say.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, what also should be in Hansard, picking up from what the last speaker said, was the total silence from the government benches on this very important issue. There are members on the other side who have electorates that have vast tracts of land that are affected by bushfires. It is a matter that has come to the notice of the environment committee: the horrible effects of the weeds, the weeds intrusion, the hot fires that come from it. In fact, that featured in the minister’s rebuttal of the private member’s bill when we brought this matter to his attention. He talked about weeds and some of the pasture grasses that have been chosen to be used. I am surprised that the people, from an electorate perspective, an environmental perspective, and the primary industries perspective, have not contributed to this debate. I am particularly surprised, given that this debate and the matters relating to the Bushfires Council featured largely in Alice Springs, as you will recall, Madam Speaker, when the government tried to portray a lack of interest on behalf of opposition in that we would not attend a small adjournment of parliament to go and drink intoxicating liquor with members of the Bushfires Council.
I did, being not only a friend of bushfire volunteers but also partial to intoxicating liquor. So I was quite happy to go and mingle with them. However, if one recalls that debate, there was a lot of finger pointing about just how committed we were to these volunteers, the brave men and women who face the hazards of fighting these flames. Let us not diminish their job; their job is very important. I have survived both cyclone and flood and, in previous times, I have fought bushfires. I have never been in the position where I have personally suffered loss or property or loved ones through fires. However, they are immensely devastating. The whole of Australia has a goosebump reaction to this issue because it features so largely as an Australian problem.
Matters of fuel build-up, of the social impact on people, of how it affects your electorate, or rangeland and pasture uses, are immense features of this debate. I am stunned - absolutely stunned - that the only contributors to this debate have been members of the opposition and an Independent.
It would appear, therefore, that some the words of great admiration for people who work in this area, and the finger pointing engaged in at Alice Springs, are mere stunts because, unless the government can show that they really do believe that this is something that had to be deferred. I do not know whether the tourist facility in Alice Springs could have been saved if the bill proposed by the member for Araluen had gone through. I do not know whether it would have featured in the mind of the arsonist that there were some penalties attached. I do not even know whether it was arson.
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I cannot let this go uncorrected on the Parliamentary Record. There is no evidence of arson being the cause of the fires at Yulara and if he has any evidence I would ask him to provide it the appropriate authorities.
Mr Dunham: Make it a personal explanation.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, you are not in your seat. Resume your seat. You cannot speak from the Chamber floor, you know that. Member for Drysdale, you know you cannot make accusations without proof …
Mr DUNHAM: I fully say I am not certain, Madam Speaker. What I will say is that bushfires are an enormous problem for our society and they were in Yulara. Indeed, the member who is so offended and calls the point of order was actually in Yulara at the time. One would have thought he would have made a contribution to this debate. One would have thought he would have been able to talk about the crackle of the flames and the pall of smoke that came over that community.
For this to pass as some mere administrative tweaking of some pens for the minister, should shame those people in government. They should hang their head in shame. Whether it was arson or not, I do know. I am quite happy to put that on the record. What I will say is that we must have a strong repertoire of sanctions against people who engage in these behaviours. Whether we catch them or not is a moot point. The issue is that it is offensive to us in this parliament to the extent that we believe that the law should hit them hard and fast.
In choosing to delay that action, it may well have contributed to that problem. That is an academic argument, I agree, but you should be very careful when you are the minister responsible for sanctions such as these and you choose to delay them. In debate we talked about how the bushfire season was upon us and how a delay of these months was problematic. I do not like to say, ‘I told you so’, but there are problems that have occurred as a result of bushfires since this minister chose not to proceed with the bill that was before parliament. So, hang your heads in shame.
I hope I am not the final speaker on this, apart from the minister. I hope that the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries and the Chairman of the Environment Committee would speak. We have received evidence on this. It is an immense issue for our environment and for native flora and fauna, and it leaves cane toads into insignificance in the relativity of its potential for devastation. I would hope that we would hear some more people on this, particularly from the government benches.
Mr VATSKALIS (Lands and Planning): Madam Speaker, I thank members for their contributions. However, I am really surprised that they stand up and say that it is too late, we have not done anything, we should have done it earlier – the members of a party that was in government for 27 years and they did not make any amendments to the Bushfires Act.
As a matter of fact, five years ago they were asked by the Bushfires Council to amend the act to increase the penalty, and they did not do it. They failed to do it. Also, the Bushfires Council, and a number of citizens, asked the then minister Reed to proclaim a new fire region in Arnhem. The member for Drysdale mentioned the environmental impact of bushfires, and scientific information which indicated a significant quantity of greenhouse gases are emitted by bushfires in Arnhem. The previous government failed to do anything about it. It was this government that declared a new fire region, the Arafura Fire Region, and also provided $210 000. These are the members of the party that had been in government for many years and, when I asked the Bushfires Council members what money for them would provide, they said protection equipment. That is why we gave $20 000 to specifically buy protection equipment.
They stand up here and they say there are unfilled positions, and we have one nothing about it. As a matter of fact, we have. The senior officer position that become vacant a year ago has been advertised twice and there were no suitable applicants. We will do it again; we will advertise again.
Over the past 10 years, there have been 3500 people trained, but we have only about 400 registered volunteers.
With regard to the vehicles, the vehicle design has changed. I noticed that one. I am committed to provide the money for the vehicles to be fitted properly with the appropriate equipment. We do not just say words, we mean business, and we are providing support to the Bushfires Council.
The members mentioned: ‘You are too late, if you were earlier probably things in Yulara would be different’. However, they failed to understand that Yulara is not covered under the Bushfires Act, it is covered under the Fire and Emergency Act.
I acknowledge that it was the member for Araluen, to her credit, who said: ‘I am going to make some amendments to the Bushfires Act to increase the penalties’. That was fine, and I acknowledged that in my second reading speech. However, I said: ‘Hold it, we need to do more than just simply increase the penalties. We have to have a comprehensive review of the act, have a look at the amendments, and let us put them together’. Two months later, and out of the amendments introduced, we have increased the penalty in this act; the only two elements.
We substantially increased the penalties for offences under five sections to a maximum of $25 000 or five years imprisonment. These offences are the most serious under the act and have the potential to cause serious property damage and pose a threat to life. We also increased the penalties for a further eight sections to a maximum of $5000 or two years imprisonment. These offences include non-compliance with a fire break notice and throwing down smouldering or burning matter.
These were the amendments. The member for Araluen was prepared to amend the Bushfires Act. Those two were the only ones. We went further. We want to effectively pursue investigations into bushfires immediately, so we gave the power to the investigators to enter land as soon as possible to examine physical evidence. That was not in her amendments. Authorised officers now have the power to enter land to conduct fire prevention activities, undertaking fire breaks inspection. That also was not in her amendments.
Also, we try to recoup the money that we spend to fight bushfires when we find out somebody intentionally lit a fire. So, now the person will not only get a fine, and pay a penalty with a prison term, but also will have to pay for it when convicted and found guilty of arson. That also was not in her amendment.
Also, we are introducing now the ability for officers to issue infringement notices for minor offences. So, instead of actually trying to put the penalties in, as the member for Drysdale quite rightly said, the last thing an arsonist will think is how much it is going to cost him or her if they are caught out. We do more than that. We increase the penalties and give more powers to authorised officers to enter and inspect land, to provide fire prevention measures and also to issue infringement notices in minor offences.
It will be silly of us to come in and say ‘Put these amendments in’; have them go through, and then come back later with some others. Of course, parliament does not work like that. Other things come in the way and things might be delayed for a long time. However, what we did now is something that the previous government refused to do for five years. Five years ago, we asked them to amend the act, and they did not do it. Years ago, they were asked to provide another fire region in Arnhem, and they did not do it; I do not know for what reasons. However, the reality is that we are prepared to stand by our bushfire volunteers; we fully support them. We are providing money for safety equipment. I increased their budget, and I am prepared to do it again. I am prepared to provide the money to address the issue with their vehicles …
Mr Baldwin: You have decreased it again. You better go out to some of their meetings.
Mr VATSKALIS: As a matter of fact, currently NT Fleet is addressing the issues with the changes of the capacity of the vehicles, and will be resolved to the satisfaction of the bushfire volunteers and the Bushfires Council. As for Edith Falls group - well done guys, congratulations. They applied for a grant under the community enhancement program, and they got it. Also, congratulations to the people who helped them get it, especially to Scullion, a federal member who is quite active in contrast to some other federal members who are sitting down doing nothing.
As for the member for Goyder, what can I say? Anything that goes wrong in this place, from the weather to earthquakes, is the Martin government’s fault. Can I remind you of the Steve Irwin fiasco? ‘This government named the train Steve Irwin!’. Oh well, it was not the government. ‘Anyway, that have too much to answer for. It must be their fault’. Whatever goes, it is Clare Martin’s government’s fault. We can live with that. Your side’s problems must also be Clare Martin’s government’s fault.
However, the reality is we are here today putting comprehensive amendments to the Bushfire Act, not just increasing the penalty. We are prepared to stand by our bushfire volunteers. We will stand by them, and we will provide all the necessary resources - money and resources - to support them in their worthwhile work.
- Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time
FISHERIES AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 177)
(Serial 177)
Continued from 8 October 2003.
Mr BALDWIN (Daly): Madam Speaker, my contribution to this debate will probably be as long as the second reading speech of the minister, which was, I might point out, only a page. We will certainly support this bill. Like the previous bill, this is an amendment to the act that will allow the Director of Fisheries to do a number of things across the board of penalties, both for commercial and recreational fishermen, and we certainly support that.
There has been a lot of issues in the past, particularly on the commercial side, with the abuse, if you like, of the various fisheries and the taking of fish stock. This certainly gives the Director of Fisheries a lot more power. Similarly, with the recreational fishing activities, there has been an enhancement of the fines in how you can catch and keep fish. We all know how many people in the Northern Territory like to fish, so the act of recreational fishing comes with responsibilities. This certainly makes those enhanced responsibilities clear.
I note that one of the amendments is to allow provision for the director to:
- revoke an approval for a person to engage in a fishery in a capacity that the Director must approve;
Or:
- refuse, for a specified period not exceeding five years, to approve a person to engage in a fishery in a
capacity the Director must approve.
That is a good thing. That takes somebody who has been convicted out of the actual act of commercial fishing, if convicted. However, I assume it has been written like that because there is an inherent property right with fishing licences. So this is just removing the person from engaging in fishing under that licence, but does not actually remove the licence. I assume there is a property right there. Whilst I am sure it is the best way of doing it, and it has the approval of the Seafood Council and Amateur Fishermen’s Association and what have you, I guess it is a moot point to say that, whilst you might remove the person, you have not removed the person’s licence and they can still engage, albeit indirectly, in that fishery. That is my reading of it anyway. I will seek some clarification on that.
The increase in penalties and the extra provisions is very good and we will definitely support it. However, while the minister is on his feet, I would like to raise one other issue, and that is that he might like to give us an update on where the combined task force that you have – which includes amateur fishermen, the Seafood Council, commercials, land councils and what have you. We know the issue of the Adelaide River has been resolved - you are just waiting for the right political moment to announce that – but I would like to have an update in this House. You might say: ‘Come and get a briefing’. This is a forum that you could do it in and give us an update on how you are going on land access across the Northern Territory, in particular, and what is happening in regard to your promises of increasing land access and how the land councils, the task force, the committee that you have established, are dealing with that, and what progress you can report on that matter. That is of interest to, certainly all recreational fishermen. I am referring, particularly, to the northern part of the Northern Territory and in regard to access through Aboriginal land that you might want to give us an update on. I understand there are some difficulties, and you might like to make some comment on that.
As I said, mine is a short contribution. I am sure my other colleagues have some contributions to make, and we certainly will be supportive.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Madam Speaker, there is no doubt that heavier penalties do provide a measure of deterrence, but it is not much good having heavier penalties when, at times, the Marine and Fisheries Enforcement Unit do not have a boat they can use. There is a situation which has arisen on a couple of occasions where, for whatever reason, the Marine and Fisheries Enforcement Unit could not engage a private contractor and use their boat. The boat they normally use was being repaired; there was an emergency and there was absolutely no way that these hard-working law enforcement officers could go to sea, and into our rivers to make sure that the current legislation is being enforced.
This is the very first step which the new minister for fisheries has taken. We have a situation where we know that, prior to the last election, the Martin Labor government made a number of promises aimed at the amateur fishermen in the Northern Territory. They included the closure of Adelaide River and the closure of Bynoe Harbour to commercial fishermen. The Martin Labor government, so far, has reneged on both of those promises. It has been two-and-a-half years. There has been a change in ministers, yet the only action we see is this minor amendment increasing the penalties, and no action where amateur fishermen want to see it; that is, the closure of those two rivers. That is the government …
Mr Henderson: We closed the McArthur.
Mr MALEY: I pick up on the interjection. The McArthur River was closed. They opened it, then re-closed it. Really, they have done absolutely nothing. I would not be taking too much credit for undoing a decision and then remaking it. The bottom line is that there are 2700 amateur fishermen in the northern suburbs who you told you were going to close the Adelaide River and Bynoe Harbour. It has been two-and-a-half years. We have had Martin Labor government ministers turn up at AFANT AGMs and imply that it is all go and ‘We are going to close the rivers. Don’t you worry about anything; it is under control’. Well, it is time for the Martin Labor government to scratch the cheque out, get on to it and close those rivers and Bynoe Harbour.
The Martin Labor government’s conduct demonstrates that they are treating Territory people like fools. They are trying to drag it out. Perhaps they will close the river and Bynoe Harbour in the last year of their term, and they will say: ‘Look, this is an election sweetener. We have done what we promised’. Let me tell you that amateur fishermen are not easily fooled. If this government was serious about promoting our lifestyle, protecting our fish stocks, and doing the right thing so average Territory people can go fishing and catch a fish, they would have moved straight away to close Adelaide River and Bynoe Harbour.
This is a core promise of this government. This government has not delivered and, if they think that by dragging it out for four years, they are going to somehow persuade people that they are a government that cares - a government that can make a decision, that can implement a promise - then they are sadly mistaken.
Madam Speaker, this baby minister has taken his very first steps by introducing a fairly minor amendment increasing penalties. This baby minister has a long way to go before he is walking, running or playing for the Territory. Madam Speaker, we support the bill.
Dr BURNS (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Madam Speaker, I conclude the debate on this bill and I thank members for their contribution. It has been a long time since I have been called a baby.
I am a keen fisherman and I take a very active interest in this portfolio. I love this portfolio; it is great. It was great that the member for Goyder mentioned attending the AFANT AGM last year. A number of issues from that meeting have been raised again today; for example, the Adelaide River and access issues and the very issue in one of the major points of this bill about, let us say, multiple offenders regarding professional fishermen who break the Fisheries Act, and that there is no current provision for them to lose their licence. I took that on board and here, today, we have an amendment to the Fisheries Act. As the former shadow for Fisheries would know, there is also an overall review of the Fisheries Act. We are foreshadowing that too, and it is about time that that was done.
I am a Fisheries minister who likes to fish. I caught some the other day: five barra out of six; that is not too bad. I only lost the one …
Mr Baldwin: What size were they?
Dr BURNS: They were a very edible size. Of course, they were. They were legal size.
These are important amendments to the Fisheries Act. They have been widely welcomed both by the Amateur Fishermen’s Association of the Northern Territory and the Seafood Industry Council. There has been widespread acclamation by those groups about these changes beefing up the penalties for those who break the law and try to take more fish than they should, or use inappropriate methods.
I am very proud to bring this bill into the House. I am glad that, in general, it has been supported by the other side.
The member for Daly asked some questions about the licence. It appears that the licence can remain intact. I am advised that the courts do have the power to suspend the licence if the offence is serious enough. That is the advice I received from my advisors. I just hope that I clarified that. Also, sometimes the person caught offending is the skipper of a boat rather than a licence holder, so these amendments address that particular issue as well. The member for Daly, and also the member for Goyder - although he missed ‘Chardonnay-swilling’ in his little tirade there; he just missed out a little - mentioned issues to do with access, Adelaide River and Bynoe Harbour. In relation to Adelaide River and Bynoe Harbour, these are election promises that we made. There has been substantial progress made in terms of Adelaide River, with the different parties coming together to come to an agreement about the closure lines and the conditions of the closure. Government is now in the process of looking to negotiate with licence holders.
Progress is being made; it is not something that happens overnight. We are a government that believes in being fair to people, and we will continue to be fair. We recognise the importance of the seafood industry and the hard work done by our professional barramundi fishermen. We are not just about to give them a kick in the guts and ride over roughshod with their rights. We are going to work with them. Another excitement for me as fisheries minister was to go out with a professional fisherman and see how it is done. I had never done that before. Those people work very hard, they work long hours, and we are not about to diminish the value of what they do. So, there will be negotiation.
In relation to Bynoe Harbour, the Aquatic User’s Group Forum, which encompasses the main interest groups, will now turn its attention to Bynoe Harbour, now that the Adelaide River issues have been settled. We are moving forward on that. I am keen to see models of other marine parks elsewhere in Australia so that we can address some of those issues and get a model that fits the Territory and Bynoe Harbour. That is what we will be doing there and, once again, I give the undertaking that we will fulfil our election promise.
In relation to access, this government is working hard. We want to work with Aboriginal groups and interests on access through Aboriginal land, as the member for Daly mentioned. I believe, through the parks negotiations, we have shown ourselves to be a government that can work well with Aboriginal organisations, with the issues related to opening up more land for prospecting, for mining. We are also a party and a government that can work well with Aboriginal people. The access committee has been formed and they are looking at a number of locations. I am not going to flag those negotiations in public. However, I can assure Territorians that we gave an election commitment on increasing access - not just through Aboriginal land but also through pastoral land. Let us cut out the dog whistling here; let us not just focus on Aboriginal people. There are a whole range of lands through which access to fishing can acquired.
One important issue that is arising is in relation to Shady Camp and silting there. We are going to have to negotiate there, as well, about trying to get access because it is getting increasingly harder for boats to navigate in that silted-up water. Therefore, let us not focus just on Aboriginal people here; let us look at the access issue in toto. I can assure this parliament and the people of the Northern Territory, and all the other anglers in the Northern Territory, that this government counts fishing as a very important recreational activity. We are going to try and open up more access, we are safeguarding the resource, but we are also working with the professional fishermen. Madam Speaker, that concludes my part of the debate.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Dr BURNS (Primary Industry and Fisheries)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, we are going to have some visitors in the gallery, and I would like to introduce them before we get into Question Time. We have the participants of the Fifth Pacific Parliamentary Retreat. Our visitors are members of parliament from Fiji, Papua New Guinea, Samoa and the Solomon Islands. This is the first time we have hosted the retreat, and we are very pleased to have them here, particularly as the Northern Territory parliament co-hosted a seminar that was held in Samoa and then in Alice Springs. As members are aware, the Northern Territory has a lot in common with these Pacific nations: a unicameral parliament; a small number of members; and, of course, some indigenous issues in which our visitors are interested. On behalf of all members, I extend to you a warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
Move Motion of Censure
Move Motion of Censure
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving the following motion:
- That this Assembly censures the Chief Minister for her government’s appalling handling of the economy and, in particular, for the loss of 5500 jobs this year alone, a shrinking work force, a declining population, lack of business confidence, and failure to use extra revenues flowing from the GST and Territory taxes, fees and charges to help the economy.
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, the government will accept this censure motion. It is the most important motion that can be brought before the House.
Madam SPEAKER: Before we go any further, I advise media crews that you need to leave the Assembly. We are going into a censure motion now. If you keep in touch with my office, we will advise you of times in respect of other debates.
MEDIA ARRANGEMENTS
Madam SPEAKER: I advise members that I have given permission for ABC television and Channel 9 to broadcast or re-broadcast, with sound and vision, the debate on the Law Reform (Gender, Sexuality and De Facto Relationships) Bill 2003 in accordance with established practice. When that debate comes on, media representatives will be allowed to return to the Chamber.
MOTION
Proposed Censure of Chief Minister
Proposed Censure of Chief Minister
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, today we were confronted with the unpleasant news as to just how our economy is performing. In the Chief Minister’s response, she attempted to draw at threads, perhaps, which could be interpreted in a positive light.
How could we interpret these figures? Business confidence has fallen 11%; that is, confidence in the future is at 23% below the national average. There has been 6% decline in sales in October. It is now at 5% and is the lowest sales trend in the nation. Tasmania is at 48%; the Northern Territory is 5%. It has the weakest profit performance. This is a report to be reflected upon and it is deadly serious. It is a result of 2% profit performance for this quarter - 2%. Tasmania is 35%. This is small and medium-sized businesses, the very lifeblood of our economy; the employer of the young ones that this job strategy is designed to assist. The employers have little confidence and declining hope for the future when they have profit performances of that order - 2%.
You may count a slight improvement in employment which is, in fact, a shift from a negative trend which, in other terms, is more people leaving than arriving. In this quarter we can have, I am sure, a spin from the other side to say it is an improvement. All we have, in this case, is that about the same number of people left as arrived; it is neutral. You call that an improvement? It has gone from more people leaving than arriving, to about the same people arriving as departing. It is neutral; I would not call that an improvement. That is a bit like going into business and working for a year and coming out just breaking even, whereas every other quarter, it has been spending your hard-earned days and nights, taking risks and losing, time and time and time again. If you call it an improvement to at least break even, that really is not satisfactory.
The Sensis business index of small and medium enterprises, in its survey conducted in the past five weeks, reveals the situation in stark simplicity. It says this: ‘Business confidence was lowest of any state or territory’. The result for the rest of Australia: ‘Business confidence for the rest of the nation improved significantly during the quarter’. In the Territory, sales and profits slumped. Nationally, sales performance recorded a noticeable rise and profitability recorded strong growth. In the Northern Territory, support for the Territory government ‘fell sharply’. Nationally, support for the federal government’s policies improved. The Sensis chief economist, Steven Shepherd, said that business confidence among Northern Territory small and medium enterprises dropped 11 percentage points to the lowest in the land.
Small and medium enterprises, the backbone, the lifeblood, of the economy, recorded declines in many of the indicators that measures the health of the sector. ‘It is therefore not surprising’, said Mr Shepherd, ‘that the weakest perception, the weakest outlook on the Australian economy’ – and in your travels, Chief Minister, you would have noticed the buoyancy in Queensland, the moves forward in South Australia and Western Australia; there is a sense of confidence. In these places they have a positive view of the Australian economy. Everyone seems to be in on the action. However, the view from the Territory is quite different. The weakest perception of the Australian economy comes from the Northern Territory, the report reveals, with Northern Territory small and medium-sized businesses with a score of just 44% against the trend of every other state - every other struggling small to medium-sized business.
He went on: ‘This is 25 percentage points below Tasmania’s results, which is the highest scoring state or territory’. Is it any wonder that the same survey revealed that small and medium enterprises have lost all confidence in this government? When asked whether the policies of this Labor government were supportive of small business, work against small businesses or have no real impact, 46% said that the Labor government was actually working against them. You are working against them. That is what they are saying and that is what they believe. They believe you are working against the small and medium size businesses, owned and operated by Territorians; the businesses that employ Territorians. Only 24% said that the government’s policies were supportive. This produces a negative rating for this Labor government of minus-22%, the worst performance in the sorry history of this government. Only the Labor governments in Western Australia and Victoria are more on the nose than this Chief Minister’s efforts. This is not the opposition talking down the economy; this is real business people speaking. This is not the opposition undermining confidence in the economy; the government is doing that, as the survey reveals.
Let us look at what this Chief Minister has presided over. In this year alone, 5500 fewer Territorians had jobs in October than they did in January – 5500 jobs; 5500 Territorians who no longer have a job. That is what this Chief Minister has presided over. Consider that for a moment: 5500 jobs are 5500 pay packets going into many families that do not arrive. These are families who, perhaps, have translated that result into decisions to leave the Northern Territory. The work force is shrinking; that is, fewer Territorians are either participating in the economy or even want to. This year alone, the work force has shrunk by 5700. To a small economy, with a small population, that is a mighty effect – 5700 people. When we think of it in terms of a community such as Katherine or Tennant Creek - I could even imagine a suburb of Palmerston – if 5500 pay cheques no longer flowed into the families of that suburb, we would have massive social dislocation. Is there any more potent indicator of the state of the Territory economy?
The Chief Minister and her Treasurer try to claim that the ABS figures are wrong. I happened to have a beer with a senior ABS official not so long ago. He takes the allegations of this government very seriously, and they are assessing the claims of the players in this field disputing the decision of the umpire, being ABS. They take it very seriously.
Ms Martin: I should hope they would.
Mr MILLS: They take it very seriously. The wider community cannot help but note that the intent of this government appears constantly to offload responsibility and to make excuses - either of the former government, the shoddy approach that the ABS have had in their collection of data, or some other factor such as those out of their control such as SARS or world downturn. We have a national economy on the rise and the Territory is missing out. They say: ‘Oh, but you are not taking into account the 1200 people who are working at Wickham Point’. Well, I was at Wickham Point on Friday. There are no 1200 Territorians working out there …
Mr Stirling: No one said there was, not yet.
Mr MILLS: This Chief Minister took the media there on Thursday and they could not find all these jobs either. That is one of the key problems with this Chief Minister. All the good things that are going to happen and they are sitting back and hoping that things will improve. The Chief Minister has done nothing to help it improve. She has done nothing for 27 months except pursue the initiatives that the CLP began. Where are her ideas? Where is the help for those who are trying to do business in the Territory right now? The economy is shrinking along with the work force and the population.
The latest state accounts released by ABS on 11 November show gross state product declined in the Territory by 0.8% in 2002-03. The previous year it had risen by 2.2% and, in the last year of the previous CLP government, it rose 6%. The Treasurer’s own economic review shows that state final demand less the offshore influence of Laminaria oil fields and Bayu-Undan Stage 1 fell by 1.3% for the June quarter. In the June quarter of 2001, it was increasing. The government investment in the economy - again according to the Treasury’s own review - fell by almost 40% in the last financial year; that is, the government’s own investment in the economy fell by almost 40% in the last financial year.
That is what drives the economy more so in the Territory than anywhere else in Australia. Yet, this government is cutting back. The Treasurer’s own financial report for 2002-03 reveals the government revenue has increased by 7%, made up of an increased take from Territorians in taxes, fees, and charges, and Commonwealth grants. Taxes rose almost $20m; fees and charges brought in an extra $17m; and Commonwealth funding jumped by $128m when you exclude the specific railway grant. All this will rise again this year.
The report also reveals government spending only increased by 2.3%, or right on line with inflation. In 2003-04, the government’s budget book indicates its general government expenses will actually fall this year on last financial year. The government under this Chief Minister has done nothing extra for Territorians, even though the economy has been screaming out for help.
The Chief Minister tells us, and keeps telling us, that the economy is going to grow. She relies on the glowing predictions of Access Economics and BIS Shrapnel. In July last year, the Chief Minister said Access was predicting 4.6% growth per year for the next four years. Last month, the Treasurer told us Access was predicting 3.7% growth for the five years to 2006-07. Hasn’t the Chief Minister noticed that Access keeps revising downwards its predictions for the Territory? Hasn’t she noticed that the longer she hold the reins of power, the less optimistic Access gets about where we are actually going? Business has noticed; that is why we get reports like the one we have got today from Sensis.
The Chief Minister has relied on past CLP initiatives but, as they are completed - like the railway, the port, the redevelopment of our major hospital - Labor has been incapable of producing any effort of its own to stimulate activity. Except in one area. The real growth area is this: strategies! Producing strategies! Printing glossy brochures and delivering them to letter boxes of Territorians and Territory businesses. The Chief Minister has produced. This is the production: an economic development strategy; an international trade strategy; a building stronger regions strategy; an indigenous arts strategy; a building industry participation strategy; a building a better future for young Territorians strategy; an indigenous employment and career development strategy. That is not all, there is more! There are draft strategies covering manufacturing, aviation, population, transport and indigenous tourism.
The trouble is that, with all these strategies, nothing real is being done. In yesterday’s $7m jobs plan - and that is what it is, a $7m jobs plan because the rest of the money is already committed through various ongoing programs in our skills and training areas; an extra $7m, not $160m - it was announced that an employment task force would be established made up of chief executives across the public sector; that is, our top public servants. This new task force, charged with coordinating employment and training across government, will get advice from the Ministerial Advisory Board of Employment and Training.
You would think that seems okay when we all talk to each other, but, no, that is not the way that this government works. It is going to be a priority action of this government, the government jobs plan 2, and I quote:
To initiate a process for the employment task force to gain advice from the Ministerial Board of
Employment and Training.
That priority task is set down for some time next year. That is how this government works and that is, apparently, how this Chief Minister works. The Chief Minister does not set up a task force and tell it to talk to appropriate bodies. No! They are going to initiate a process next year. They are going to begin working out how they can talk to each other some time next year. Meanwhile, more jobs will be lost, more people will have left the work force, and more businesses will have closed.
The Chief Minister is busy prioritising; she is getting her processes right. She is producing strategies. Will there be any economy left in the Territory by the time this government is finished thinking up strategies and initiating processes? That is not the Territory way, or it was not until this Chief Minister took charge. The Territory way was to get out and do it. The Territory way was to take a risk, to act, not to develop strategies; to build, not initiate processes; to lead, not follow.
The eminent former public servant and former Administrator, Dr Neil Conn, at the Charles Darwin Symposium in July this year demonstrated how depressed he was about the future of the Territory by quoting from the Territory government web site. I checked out the page today to see if Dr Conn’s criticisms were still relevant. Listed under the government priorities were: Darwin city waterfront; Timor Sea oil and gas; AustralAsia Railway; and pool fencing legislation. The top three priorities are either finished, under way or 18 months away. The third adds little to development, although it may provide extra jobs as the number of pool inspectors increases to ensure Territorians comply with the nanny state.
Dr Conn then looked at news and events to see what was happening now; what was the government doing right now? Today’s list is: public liability insurance pointing to the legislative changes that have already taken place; ICT training and study award, announcing $10 000 is available for two scholarships; Getting Set for the Wet; Aboriginal customary law; Round Table for Young Territorians; Seeking the Calligrapha beetle and New PrimeNotes CD-ROM. Perhaps, as Dr Conn put it, when examining the list in July:
… all admirable areas of government action or inaction, but they are inward looking and they are
development free.
The cruellest part of the inactivity presided over by the Chief Minister is that they have the revenue to be active. This government has the revenue to be active, to be making decisions, to be acting rather than reacting, to be outward looking, and to demonstrate confidence in your own ability. You have that revenue.
In 2001, the Chief Minister’s economic guru, Percy Allan, told her to expect $1.755bn in GST payments and grants in 2002-03. The Chief Minister’s mini-budget of 2001 predicted a figure of $1.799bn. What they actually got was $1.885bn, an increase of $130m on Percy’s predictions, or an extra $86m on Treasury’s forecast. In contrast, in 2000-01, the last full year of the previous government, the Commonwealth contribution was $1.594bn. Last year, this Labor government received an extra $291m on what it received the year before, 2000-01. That is an extra $291m. This year, they expect to get $1.902bn, a further increase of $17m. That is based on a very conservative estimate by the Territory Treasury on how much the GST will raise – a very conservative estimate, deliberately so, I would suspect.
The federal government is expecting the GST pool to increase by 5.5%. Conservatively, our Treasury is, of course, working on 2.5%, and somewhere between those two will come the slush fund. So there is another windfall in revenue waiting for this government, that is not actually factored into the budget. Money the Chief Minister should be using to help Territorians and not let it be squirreled away, where it will be returned to Territorians in the form of a Labor campaign at the next election.
In 2002-03, a loan, an extra $208m, was squirreled away in investment loans and placements. Territorians need to know this. Even the Health Department, which is forever looking for more money, ended the financial year with $17m in the bank, and Employment, Education and Training had $11m in cash and deposits. Read your reports. The government failed to spend $20m on capital works that it promised to spend in 2002-03. Despite the spruiking, there was $20m that did not flow to small contractors. $20m would have made one heck of a difference to families, to contractors. That would have helped to keep some of our businesses alive - $20m. That would have provided jobs for Territorians.
The figures are there for everyone to see and examine. However, you do not need to examine the books, all you really need to do is just go for a walk, as I did at lunchtime, down the streets of the Darwin CBD. That is all you really need to do. Look into the faces of currently struggling business people, look at the signs - vacant, for sale - go and visit the people at Casuarina Square and talk to those who have had their superannuation invested into businesses and are looking for a way of leaving. Look at the empty shops; look at them and consider; look at the closed restaurants. Listen to the stories of the people who have gone broke or just handed the keys back to the landlord and walked away, as the President of the Darwin Business Association said the other night:
The Chief Minister has engaged an interstate marketing campaign, complete with tours and television advertising. It is a necessary job and it is pleasing to see she is using the slogan developed by the previous government, despite the misgivings of her Treasurer.
But while the ads paint a picture of a booming economy and a great future, the Chief Minister is doing little to actually achieve that back here in the Territory. The Chief Minister needs to undertake a marketing campaign within her government, and actually get them to start building, developing and being creative. All the social policy in the world - the nicest nanny state in the world - is worth nothing if we have no jobs and a declining economy.
For 27 months, the Chief Minister has been in charge. For 27 months, we have had to endure draft plans, developing strategies, the hiring of southern consultants, but no real action and no real development. How long do we have to wait for this Chief Minister and her government to learn how to govern?
If we understand Territorians, we know that the heart of the Territory are those small business operators. I sometimes go for a run in the mornings. The road down the centre of my electorate opens out from Woodroffe and, early in the morning, you see contractors departing for work. You see the electricians, the brickies, those small business operators going off early to work on building sites.
When I visit them in their homes they are not grumbling, just as those would say that small business always grumbles. I come from a primary industry background and I know there are those who take risks and try every day to see an improvement; they take risks carrying on work to produce something for their own children, their futures, so that they can produce wealth. They will grumble, of course they will. However, the grumbling we are hearing today is not just grumbling; this is pain - serious pain. I see it in the faces of small business operators when I visit them door-to-door. They have said for two years: ‘We are hurting’. That chorus has increased and deepened and there has been increased desperation in that. If you were to listen, you would actually hear that pain in their voices. There was the deep tragedy of a young contractor who saw a future ahead and the place for his children growing up here in the Northern Territory. Somehow, when his guts had been kicked out and he could not see a real future, the lifestyle issues such as catching a barramundi in the mangroves ain’t that sexy anymore when you cannot really look forward to a future where you can grow wealth for your children. Then you have to consider after a visit, perhaps to Queensland: ‘Hey, this is how the Territory used to be’. Once there was an attitude that we could square up to difficult situations, call it honestly, and to move directly forward.
I heard an expression the other day that encapsulated this feeling. You often hear the expression when someone who is struggling, crying out in pain, has taken risks and has a huge debt that they are carrying and endeavouring to service. They want to get their message through to their elected representatives and to the relevant ministers. Time and time again, they make an appointment for a meeting, and they are met with a minder. They feel, again and again, thwarted in their attempt to even explain their situation. I have heard that too many times to be acceptable. The expression that I heard last week was that this government is, in fact, being governed by a clique which has surrounded them. They have surrounded themselves with like-minded people of a particular ideology, which seems to buffer them from the reality of that which is truly Territorian - the capacity to take risks.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, your time has expired.
Ms Carter: I don’t think so, not yet.
Mr Stirling: Not yet.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I beg your pardon. Sorry.
Mr MILLS: How long do we have to wait, Chief Minister, before they finish initiating processes and get down to doing something? We have waited too long while Territorians have suffered. We have waited too long while Territorians have lost their jobs and their business and have left. I am tired of saying goodbye to friends.
The Chief Minister deserves censure now for her inaction because, if we wait any longer, there will be no one left to do it. I commend the motion.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, we have had half-an-hour from the Leader of the Opposition …
Mr Stirling: Hand wringing.
Ms MARTIN: The words are ‘hand wringing’. We have had half-an-hour of hand wringing, talking down the economy, rhetoric.
I would respect the Leader of the Opposition if he came in and actually dealt with the issues without the hyperbole and rhetoric that we have seen, and the gross inaccuracy. What we have is the Leader of the Opposition deciding to prosecute a case, regardless of the facts, driven by some kind of ideological bent that says that this government is captive to some group, this government is captive to strategies. You are not even listening, Leader of the Opposition, and you have come in here and I believe, wasted this parliament’s time with a lot of rhetoric when it is a very important question that we can be discussing. But you have wasted it …
Mr Mills interjecting.
Ms MARTIN: No, no. You have had your half-an-hour. You have wasted your time.
Let me just go back to what I said during Question Time when you asked a series of questions and then stood up and puffed your chest out and said: ‘I am going to censure you’. You have a lot to learn about these things.
In some of the aspects of what you have talked about over the last half-an-hour, you are in fantasy land. I do not think you can read budget papers. I do not think you understand some of the principles that are now in place in our budget process - and it is called the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act - which means things like the CLP tried to do, squirrel away funds, doing the things that you are accusing us of, do not happen. I say that quite clearly: do not happen. We now have a level of financial accountability in the Territory that we have not had before. You scathingly say: ‘Your economic adviser, Percy Allan’. He came in here to help us sort out the mess and the lies that were left by the CLP in government.
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! Even though it is a censure motion, the Chief Minister cannot allege that lies were told, even by Percy Allan.
Mr HENDERSON: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. It is certainly convention within this House that this is a censure motion and the prosecution of the word ‘lies’ has been supported before.
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! The lie cannot be used against those who are censuring. It can only be used against those whom are censured. I suggest that the Leader of Government Business reads his standing orders and the Chief Minister desist from using the word ‘lie’ and withdraws.
Ms MARTIN: Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I will say the ‘mis-presentation of budget matters’ rather than lies, because that is established.
Let me quote somebody who was one of yours, from October 2001 - Grant Tambling. This government had just come into power. Grant Tambling told the Press Club in Darwin that four years ago the Territory had a balanced budget reserved for the building of the railway – so he is talking back four years from 2001 – and glowing economic prospects, but now he said – this is October 2001:
There is an unbalanced budget requiring dramatic surgery, no money in the bank and economic prospects shot to hell. The deficit and dissipation of the conditions of service trust amount to hundreds of millions of dollars and give the NT no fall back position in unforeseen circumstances like the Ansett collapse and 11 September disaster.
Grant Tambling, a life member of the Country Liberal Party, probably snipped that association, but then was a life member of the CLP. When the CLP opposition comes in here and says: ‘In two-and-a-quarter years, what have you done to turn the economy around?’, it is not recognising how far down on that slippery slide that economy had been allowed to go, and the deceit that surrounded that, going into 2001 election year. Let us just make that very clear. It is not just my words; it is the words of one of your own, Grant Tambling, who said that you had done smoke and mirrors, run reserves down, and had not planned for the future.
This government is planning for the future. This government is both planning for the future and taking action now. Let us just give a little example of what this new government found when we came into office. We found a capital works budget that was struggling. The role of government in supporting the construction industry, the repairs and maintenance industry, is very key in the Territory. One of our long-term ambitions has to be to see that role more balanced by the private sector, and that will underpin a stronger and steadier economy. However, when we came into government, we saw some elements of that very important construction budget, there was nothing. In about three months after the budget had been put in place, in the repairs and maintenance area - a big zero! No funds were allocated because no funds were left to allocate.
Mr Dunham: Rubbish!
Ms MARTIN: No funds were left to allocate. It was the economic dissipation that the CLP got up to in their last couple of years of government that you should be ashamed of. You should be ashamed of it.
To listen to the new Opposition Leader, who has taken on the Treasury portfolio, try and give an analysis of where the economy is, based on a fantasyland background is inaccurate as a first point, and is plain political rhetoric and not dealing with the real issues in front of this Territory, in growing our economy and growing our jobs.
Mr Mills: You must not have been listening.
Ms MARTIN: Let us just look at some of the issues - I listened to half-an-hour of this hyperbole and rhetoric from the Opposition Leader. It is my time now to respond.
The start of it was when the Opposition Leader said: ‘You have simply been relying on CLP projects. What are you doing of your own?’. Those are your words, a paraphrase, but an accurate paraphrase of your words. You said: ‘We built the rail’. It was a bipartisan project. I have always put on the record my recognition that the hard work was done to get that rail project done. Also the port - we continued that work with the port, an important part of our new trade route.
Members interjecting.
Ms MARTIN: Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, if we are going to talk about the port, it had a history when the CLP was running the place. How wide was the crack? It was about a kilometre long and about a metre wide right down the middle of the port. For the member for Daly to start talking about a pure history with the port - building ports are difficult. We worked with what happened in the past and we will continue to work. We have a very fine port - $200m of investment in that port - and it is the key to one of the drivers for the Territory’s economic future.
Let us not quibble about this. This is about how we build for the future. The new AustralAsia trade link is in place now. Come January next year, the opportunities of growth are there. Currently we have 5000 TEUs go across that port every year - 5000 containers - and we believe in three years - this is a strategy underpinning this - there will be 50 000 containers. It will not be a matter of chance; it will be a matter of pursuing a strategy to reach that achievement. I will deal with strategies a bit later, but let me say just with the rail and the port, what we have is a completed railway project. I paid tribute last night to all those involved in ADrail, from Al Volpe, the Project Manager, down to the track workers who were involved in that fantastic project. We have a rail and a port – yes - started by the previous government – yes - completed under this government and, I believe, completed very competently. I have paid tribute to those involved.
This is why I say this is a censure motion full of hyperbole and rhetoric because we have, with great passion, the Opposition Leader saying: ‘But what has this government done in two-and-a-quarter years?’ Let us just talk about gas. We could go back to where the gas negotiations were when we came into office. They were, to use a colloquial word, ‘stuffed’. They were stuffed, and they were stuffed by the political rhetoric and game playing of the then government. New relationships, a much better and more positive attitude saw those back on track.
When you have the opposition trying to pretend that gas onshore from the Timor Sea means nothing, you know there is no understanding of our future, of how to grow our future, because gas onshore from the Timor Sea represents the biggest step change in our economy. But there is no recognition from the Leader of the Opposition in the censure motion, while he is bagging this government for strategies. There was no recognition of 15 June this year, when it was finally agreed that the project would go ahead - no recognition that that was an achievement, a lot of players involved, but a moving forward of this economy with real jobs growth, real economic opportunity and the start of the Territory being a major player in gas, which is most significant. Did anyone hear that mentioned in the Leader of the Opposition’s address, in his half-an-hour of talking down this economy? No mention.
He said: ‘I went out to Wickham Point, and the Chief Minister is talking about 1000 jobs’. I did not see 1000 people employed there. There are 280 employed on that site now. There will be 1000 at peak of construction. In about seven months, there will be 700 and it will grow. That is what I mean: unless you get your facts right, it undermines your entire argument, Opposition Leader, because it makes it sound ridiculous - and you did sound ridiculous. There are 280 on site, there are 333 employed on the project and, of those 280, 200 are Territorians.
You talk about a strategy - yes, we have had a strategy. We have put in place accelerated training in general construction and in welding, so that Territorians are in the positions. We will do other accelerated training. So, knock the training all you like, but it is giving Territorians the ability and the skills to get jobs on that project. It is the biggest private sector investment ever in the Territory economy. The whole project, the liquids and gas at Bayu-Undan, is $5.5bn. That, in terms of the Territory economy, is of great significance for our future, and yet a flick about what is really happening - you only picked up CLP projects’. Well, let me tell you, the CLP nearly sunk that project.
We all in here should be proud of being part of the gas industry, because it is a complex industry, a very capital intensive industry, and a very competitive industry. However, we have now achieved first gas, and that is very significant. We, as Territorians, have achieved first gas – we. I know the CLP does not understand the collective ‘we’, but we as Territorians have achieved first gas. When you look at the size of the second gas project that is now in its feasibility study stage, to which $40m is committed to the feasibility study for that major expansion of the Alcan mine, which is associated with a $1.5bn expansion, there is the $500m for the offshore at Blacktip, the $500m for building a pipeline from Wadeye through to Gove - another significant private sector project for the Territory. For us Territorians, it is another driver for this economy. That feasibility study is now under way, and I certainly welcome Leightons back to participation in the Territory, a major national company working with the Canadian CNC-Lavalin. The confidence in that project is growing. Of course, there are some difficulties; no pretence about that. There are land access issues, renegotiation of lease issues and, certainly, there are environment issues.
However, this government, strategically, has put a task force of experts across government together to work with the companies involved - Woodside, ENI, Alcan, with other players as they come on board - to make sure that that project can meet its time lines. Again, there was a dismissal, and not even a mention from the Leader of the Opposition of the significance of that project in growing our economy.
However, let us just talk about projects that do grow our economy, like the LNG plant, and the amount of work that has gone to Territory businesses. $230m worth of contracts have gone to Territory businesses already in building the LNG plant. That is not insignificant - dismissed by the Opposition Leader, but it is not insignificant.
The Opposition Leader quotes the former Under Treasurer, our former Administrator, Neil Conn, saying: ‘There is no sense of risk taking, there is no sense of adventure left in this economy’. What about the waterfront? What about the $100m? What about that sense of creating a future with taxpayers’ dollars, not only for our tourism industry, but for our small businesses? We had the opposition, which has more positions than lots of other things …
Mr Dunham: More positions than lots of other things?
Ms MARTIN: Well, I was going to be personal, but I will not. Who has many positions on these issues. We had the opposition saying: ‘Build the convention centre as quickly as you can, just go for it’. Then you had the opposition, when we made the announcement saying: ‘No, no you are moving too fast. Do not do it. Take more time, you are moving too fast’.
This is a major commitment from this government, and a convention centre is long overdue for the Territory. We are moving quickly to have that built - we are moving quickly. It is a very exciting public/private partnership for the convention centre and the associated private development of the waterfront. There is interest - considerable interest - from Territory companies and national and international developers to be part of that project, and I am delighted.
So when the opposition says: ‘You are doing nothing for this economy’, and quotes the former Under Treasurer saying that sense of risk and building for the future is not happening, one element of that is the waterfront and that convention centre, and a $100m commitment from Territory taxpayers to support that. It is overwhelmingly welcomed.
Some of the other projects coming on line which bring benefits to smaller businesses are the Defence relocation of the 1st Aviation Regiment and the $75m in infrastructure associated with that. The 17 Tiger helicopters will be here in the next couple of years, and the maintenance of those is something in the order of $100m a year.
Let us look at some other key factors. Again, we have the Opposition Leader saying: ‘All this government can do is strategies’. Let me tell you the difference between having a strategy to have things happen and playing politics about not having things happen. I would like to quote from the NT News of 4 April this year. One of the biggest drivers for state product is mining - over 20%. It is the biggest driver in our economy. I quote from the NT News, because this is the difference between having a strategy that makes things work and playing politics. The editorial:
- Nothing illustrates the difference between the Territory’s Labor government and the previous CLP governments more clearly than mining exploration.
CLP governments cleared fewer than 60 exploration licences a year in the last four years of power.
Less than 60 exploration licences a year over the last four years. So, we are talking 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001.
- Labor yesterday …
So this is on 3 April this year:
- … signed off its 500th deal since winning office 20 months ago.
That means Clare Martin’s government is opening up the Territory to miners at five times the rate of the CLP, which was, supposedly, the party of business.
Mining is the Territory’s biggest industry and brings enormous wealth; indeed, the Territory would be a wilderness without it.
For example, the 500th exploration agreement - with Newmont - could yield hundreds of millions of dollars worth of gold. Newmont is to spend $8m a year just looking for it.
The CLP allowed a huge backlog of mining applications to build up because it didn’t want to process them under native title.
This was a shortsighted strategy. Native title is here to stay - whether we like it or not - and it is sensible to do business on that basis.
Labor has decided to engage Aboriginal groups to negotiate with them on an equal footing.
This has led to the healthy explosion …
- … in exploration licences.
Of course, native title costs - Aboriginal groups don’t allow miners on their land for nothing.
But the CLP’s never-ending legal wrangles with those same groups also cost taxpayers dearly.
Therefore, if we are looking at the difference with a strategy that works, that gets things happening, just take mining. Miners are now looking at commodity prices increasing. For the first time in a long time, that downward trend of commodity pricing is turning the corner, and they are very optimistic. They are working with the government which shows that there is opportunity for them to access land, not the kind of political game-play that we saw from the CLP, where we had a minister come in here endlessly, month after month, and say: ‘I am accumulating exploration applications and I have over 900 now’, and blame someone else.
We, under the same rules, regulations and legislation, have opened up something like 600 000 km of land …
Mr Dunham: The Native Title Tribunal did that. It was the tribunal.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale!
Ms MARTIN: … 600 000 km of land for exploration. And the Leader of the Opposition says: ‘You have done nothing’.
Mr Mills: Nothing to improve confidence for small business. Nothing!
Ms MARTIN: That is where your arguments fall down! Small businesses in Alice Springs gained $80m and more each year from having a miner like Newmont in the Tanami - $80m a year and more. What is that doing for small business in Alice Springs? That is underpinning the success. And Madam Speaker should smile; her daughter played a significant part in that, which is terrific.
When the Opposition Leader comes in and says this government has strategies, processes, and is doing nothing - well, if a mining strategy to open up land to see miners being able to explore, to actually add to our gross state product, if that is a bad strategy, then accuse me of it and I will accept it. Accuse me of it!
Then he went on and ran through a list of strategies: ‘You have a strategy for indigenous arts’ – funds against it; $1.3m for three years extra funds to grow a very important industry and jobs for this Territory. Let us just look at some figures. There are 25 000 artists, or people who describe themselves to the Bureau of Statistics as artists, in Australia- 5000 of those are Territorians; indigenous artist, predominantly, who work in remote communities. They produce something like $80m to $100m in economic growth every year. They are an important generator for our economy. Yet, never has there been any Territory government funds to support those artists. Never! The only funds that ever went to them were from the two lobby groups, DESART and ANCAA. They were the only funds. The rest of the funds came from the federal government. We have now increased the funds from the federal government through ATSIC and through initiatives like the Myer report. We are working with Territory funds to grow that industry, to support jobs growth in those remote areas, to sustain communities, to build our tourism product and contribute significantly to the economy.
How devastatingly bad a strategy is that? Yet, we have the Opposition Leader come in here and accuse us of doing nothing. The doing nothing is a strategy with extra funds to grow jobs, employment, and businesses - very small businesses in art centres in remote communities running from Ramingining to Yuendumu to Nyirripi; right across this Territory. And the Opposition Leader said: ‘You are doing nothing for small businesses’. Oh yes we are! And it has funds, and a strategy to guide it.
We heard the Tourism Minister in here talk about the additional $27m over three years into tourism, and a strategy for how that money will be spent. What do you want us to do? Do you want us to just throw it up in the air and hope?
Mr Mills: It would be good if they had confidence in you; but they do not!
Ms MARTIN: You criticised the strategies, Leader of the Opposition, and yet the Tourism Minister described how those additional funds will be targeted to encourage extra international flights, to look at destination marketing. Talk to the member for Katherine! Does she thinks destination marketing is a stupid thing? To have a strategy for that? Not at all! She would not be so silly.
We need to grow the Katherine market. We need to grow the Alice Springs, Tennant Creek and Nhulunbuy markets, and all along the track and around. That destination marketing and the new funds into that will be significant. It will be good news for an industry sector that is important to both business and jobs growth across the Territory. It will grow it with a strategy and new money. There have been tough times in tourism for two-and-a-quarter years - tough times - yet our tourism operators have been resilient. The refocus on the domestic market certainly assisted over the last couple of years, but we want to see our international market grow again. The $27.5m over the next three years will assist in doing that, accompanied by the much maligned and condemned strategy that the Opposition Leader thinks is a waste of time.
Let us look at something else where new money has gone in to assist small business, a very important issue: $5.3m this financial year for an itinerant strategy. What did the previous government do? Nothing! The best they could do with the problem of antisocial behaviour right across the Territory was to do nothing. A previous Chief Minister recommended a bit of monstering and stomping.
We have strategies in place. We are dealing with those who are on our streets by providing temporary – I stress very temporary - accommodation in Darwin and other towns across the Territory. We have strategies to deal with what is a problem in the Territory. If you are going to ask what we are doing for small businesses, the small business operators I talk to found antisocial behaviour and the problem of itinerancy one of the major downs for their businesses. We are doing something about it. We have strategies in place with funds to make sure there is change. That compares starkly with the previous government, which did nothing.
We had a previous Chief Minister who said: ‘I fixed the problems in Port Darwin; I shuffled the problems into Fannie Bay’. That was the ‘let’s shuffle it somewhere else’ attitude. We are dealing with it, and we put funds in to do it. Again, it is a much maligned strategy that is going to work for the Territory and work for small businesses.
We talked about the ICT industry. It is growing because we have strategies in place and a minister who is committed to seeing the entrepreneurialism of our ICT industry grow, both to Asia and nationally. That is happening. That is assisting small business with clever government strategies and real commitment.
I recognise that we need to grow our economy. I recognise that we need to grow our work force. I recognise that it has been hit in the last few years by factors that were outside our control. However, when the Opposition Leader comes in here on the basis of a censure to say that this government has done nothing, he has no credibility because we have built fiscal credibility back into the budget, and we have money to spend on important projects like the $100m on the convention centre that the CLP could never organise. We recognise you achieved it in Alice Springs, good, but never in Darwin - the only capital city without a convention centre. You were missing on those opportunities. Every dollar that is spent going to convention, for small businesses ranging from florists to hairdressers to tour operators, to restaurants and bigger ones, like hotels- $9 goes into the economy. For every dollar you have spent at a convention centre, $9 goes into our economy, a very important driver.
We can have the Opposition Leader say the predictions for this economy are heading downwards, but Access Economics, in its latest report, says 4% over the next five years. Access Economics is an independent forecaster. They understand and know our Territory economy very well. They look at the strengths and the weaknesses, and they are saying that, on the balance, they are putting their name to 4% growth over the next five years.
Madam Speaker, I say to the opposition: join us in growing this economy, our work force, confidence of Territorians, of Territory businesses, and in our future together.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, a couple of times there I closed my eyes and pretended I was in Melbourne listening to the Chief Minister, in a crowded room where she was running this great case for the emigration of people to this Northern Territory. I would have thought that, if that was the speech, I would not have been seduced by any of those lies either, because there are obviously lies, damn lies, statistics in the speech the Chief Minister has just given us.
Ms MARTIN: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Drysdale has just used the word ‘lie’, and he …
Mr DUNHAM: And I will do it again - you are a liar. You are a liar.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, withdraw that.
Mr DUNHAM: It is a censure motion, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: I do not care. In a censure motion you will not use that phrase as directly as you have. Withdraw it.
Mr DUNHAM: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Is this a new change?
Madam SPEAKER: No. In any censure motion I have …
Mr DUNHAM: So we have never used the word ‘lie’ before and we are not to in the future?
Madam SPEAKER: Not to say ‘you are a liar’ as directly as you just have. I always pull people up on that.
Mr DUNHAM: Really? Okay, in that case, Madam Speaker, I withdraw and I will seek clarification at a later time, because this is a major departure from censure motions of the past.
Madam SPEAKER: No, it is not. I have always said you cannot use it as up-front as that.
Mr DUNHAM: No problem. The facts speak for themselves. We have a former Treasurer here, and the reason that she is no longer Treasurer, as we well know, is it was getting pretty hot in there so she has flicked it to poor old Syd.
The Treasury figures are very interesting. We have been told it is open, transparent, first time in the history of mankind we have seen such good figures, there are eminent people who have come from across the world who tell them their budgets are good - and they cannot tell us how much additional money is coming through GST funds. The Deputy Chief Minister stood up this morning and said: ‘People are out there peddling the wrong figure and they have to stop doing it’, but he did not tell us what the right figure was. He had two opportunities this morning. The Chief Minister had a go. She told us that things were rosy and going along well, and the budget was good, and she could not tell us what the GST monies are. I am inclined to believe they are $380m extra money. That is what I am inclined to believe, because it did not sound too bad coming from the Leader of the Opposition.
We know we have some cash to splash; we know that. We also know that Access Economics feature largely in the rhetoric of the Chief Minister. When she goes away and presents these glossy documents - and we are even getting them now in our letter boxes in the Territory, complete with CDs and colourful brochures, and a photo of the smiling Chief Minister and various other Territorians, very buoyant about their future. We know that Access Economics are right up there.
The question I have for the Chief Minister – and I did say by way of interjection – is: does she agree with the figures? Because, if she does agree, she is actually saying that Treasury’s figures are, again, abysmally wrong. If Access Economics are that good, Treasury are very bad. If Access Economics are the figures to use – and we want to use state final demand, that was mentioned today. We have some documents here and they are Treasury documents, where we can see that annual growth of state final demand, Access Economics, 5.3% for 2003-04 budget forecast. That looks good when you are sitting in the hall in Adelaide hearing this stuff. Treasury reckon it is 1.2%. Treasury do not agree with Access Economics, and there are a whole lot of reasons why they do not. So, if the Chief Minister is going to go down to southern climes and tell them how good they are, if we go to another figure of gross state product Access Economics reckon it is 4.3% in 2003-04. Well, Treasury reckon it is 3.4%. I would have thought that the Chief Minister – if she has set up Treasury, if she has these boffins in there who are able to advise her on the future growth - she would use Treasury figures, and Treasury figures are derived from ABS.
I am not about to say that Access Economics are wrong. I just would have preferred that the Chief Minister sourced figures that she believes to be the most credible and the most correct. I would have thought that, if she had the confidence in her Treasury, she would have used Treasury figures. There we go, we have the roadshow on the way, and the Chief Minister gave us her little litany of the type that she is obviously giving to other people. We have had an ad in the weekend press: ‘Congratulations Palmerston, here is to your future’.
The completion of the AustralAsia Railway: well, that is not yours. The opening of East Arm Wharf and the Darwin Business Park: well, the Darwin Business Park is a raging success, as I understand it. I understand businesses are just lining up, flocking to get in there. The reason is that land is so cheap, it has been facilitated by government, there are massive incentives to get in and, therefore, the whole thing will be sold out. The East Arm Wharf: well, that is going along swimmingly too. I understand that there are no problems at all out there, and that people who are hand-wringing, using rhetoric and hyperbole about problems at East Arm are probably talking down the Northern Territory’s future. Well, you have to come clean because this is a small village. People know there are big problems with East Arm Wharf, the Darwin Business Park and the railway because you built the terminal in a bloody - sorry - industrial area, which is pretty stupid. If you are going to congratulate Palmerston on having a railway, why wouldn’t you have built the terminal there? Why wouldn’t you have given a spin-off to Palmerston and built the terminal?
Okay, there is a third one: development of Timor Sea gas and oil. The Chief Minister is quite keen to sign her little moniker on this; to brand this particular item as something that belongs to her. She divulged some great news to us today that we had never heard before. She said that the project was - let me see if I can get the word right – stuffed! She said the project was stuffed under the CLP, and she was the great saviour who trapezed in and saved ConocoPhillips from a fate worse than death with Bayu-Undan. That is pretty interesting, and it is certainly not my recollection of what people at ConocoPhillips have said to me in recent years, and recent months, even. I am interested to know whether she has verballed those people on that issue, but we will find out at a later time.
The other thing on this little congratulations to Palmerston is the inevitable head of the Chief Minister, again - which makes you wonder whether this is election-type paraphernalia - and this funny dot with a big bird on it which looks a bit like a turkey. It is a giant turkey with the wings out and it says: ‘Twenty-five years of self-government of the Northern Territory - building the future, celebrating the past’. Well, that is an appropriate logo for the Labor Party, and I notice they have departed – in fact, it is probably a native species, it is probably a bustard. It is probably a bush turkey, if I look closer. Yes, it could be a bush turkey. I think it is a bustard. That is where we are heading. That is where our economy is heading – busted. That is a really good logo for them to use.
The Labor Party is to an economy like Ratsak - like Ratsak. What they have done to this place is nothing short of poison it. They have resorted to their usual techniques of trying to force feed anything that happens down south into what happens here. They have tried to replicate every law that happens in other places. She has a catalogue of things that demonstrate her bona fides. She talks about high levels of accountability - well, we have put that to rest. We cannot even find out how much additional money is coming from the Commonwealth – a pretty significant issue. We are talking about $3bn here.
I would have thought that the Treasurer, if he is saying: ‘Figure X is a lie’, would have been able to say: ‘Here is figure Y’, and we could have all used figure Y. We could have all said: ‘Okay, this has come straight from the Treasurer’s mouth. He has never been known to lie; he is the sort of fellow who can look you straight in the face and say that this figure is the appropriate figure to be using instead of the $300m’.
Let us have a look at the little catalogue of wonderful things that are happening. The Chief Minister is a bit schizophrenic in how she has run this argument. First, she has told us she is really disappointed – ‘I am disappointed’ - and things are bad out there. Then she tells us we should be celebrating. Well, it is pretty hard to do if you are disappointed. If you are sitting around, swilling champagne on the wonderful figures Access Economics have provided, I would have thought that the Chief Minister’s disappointment might have been shared by others. For her to allege that this was an attack on Territorians and all the rest of it - we are merely sharing her disappointment. What we are trying to show her is that, if you are really serious about this, you will analyse the fact that you have a problem. Start there; start with the fact that you have a problem.
I will now go through the little strategies. $20m was cut from construction. Earlier today, the Treasurer told us that for every $100 000 in construction - no, sorry, it was the works minister - there is a job. Well, that is 200 jobs that were cut from construction - 200 jobs were cut from construction last year. So you can talk about your record budget, and how much you have appropriated. We need to know how much you have spent, because that is where the hollow log is.
What we say is that Health with spend X amount of money, and they come in, through good management, at some number below this. So this money is then deployed for other purposes. What has happened is they are overestimating how much money will be spent at the end of the year, and governments are coming in under. That is the sort of stuff that was alleged to be very naughty by Mike Reed. It was alleged that, unless you can really accurately forecast what that end of year number is, somehow you should be censured and pilloried by this department.
The Mike Reed case was $8m. Health this year have come in at some factors above that, and that is the hollow log. You did the same for tourism. Tourism last year came in $2m under, and now you are saying you need this extra money and: ‘Aren’t we good, we have given the extra money’. We know they needed extra money. We always knew they needed extra money. We argued they should not have been cut last year.
Dr Burns interjecting.
Mr DUNHAM: We argued, two months ago, Malaga, when you were trying to tell us that last year there was – sorry, a couple of months ago - no need for extra money. All of a sudden you are patting yourself on the back and saying: ‘Look, I have extra money’. Well, we know. What we are trying to tell you is that you have other problems. You still have not fixed tourism, but at least Muggins here, has twigged that he had a problem. At least he was able to take it to Cabinet and come up with a set of solutions.
You have a similar problem here once you start giving us your list: ConocoPhillips – well, you had very little to do with that as we know. Alcan Blacktip - you have had very little to do with that, as we know. The convention centre - you have moved very quickly in an effort to have it built. Hands up who knows when it will be open? I know. Mid-2007. This is the Labor government going at speed, right? We are moving really quickly and there will be a convention centre. That could be another term away, the way this mob go. So, okay, the convention centre is probably a good thing for the Northern Territory. But that has to be weighed up. You cannot have a convention centre at any cost. What you have to do is look to the best interest of the Northern Territory. Somebody has to be able to push the abort button because, if you say we will pay anything to have a convention centre, you will get a convention centre and it will cost you a lot of money. We have had this argument before.
Defence: we have a lot of Defence money. Well, so have we. In opposition we have done that too, because it is very little to do with you. It is excellent to see that additional money come in, it is excellent to see that Defence is being built up here.
Mining: mining is a wonderful thing to talk about because what the Chief Minister has said is: ‘We found a new path’. Well, the new path was a thing called native title that none of us had ever come across - no jurisdiction in Australia had. We had grappled with the thing called the Aboriginal Land Rights Act - unlike any other parliament, I might add – for many years and we came along with native title. I will tell you what broke the logjam of native title; it was not the Chief Minister’s great negotiating skills sitting around the table talking to Aboriginal people. That had nothing to do with it. It had to do with the fact that the tribunal said: ‘This is the way through’. It was done by an independent group. Nothing to do with this mob claiming any credit - no credit at all.
In fact, if you want to look at our bona fides with mining, you will see that this bloke here, the member for Arnhem, was given the sack by the current Chief Minister because …
Mr Ah Kit interjecting.
Mr DUNHAM: Yes, you laugh. You were given the sack because of your attitude to mining and miners. In opposition, they were entirely anti-mining. They twigged when they came along and Treasury came into their room and said: ‘Guess what? It is $20m of GDP’. Oh, so that is where the cash came from. All of a sudden they have discovered miners. They are out there, that is what they have been doing out in the desert all these years.
If you want to encourage mining, small business, and buying local, why don’t you come up with a scheme like – let us see - an exploration exemption program? You know what? This mob have cut it. It was a program that existed. We had a program for years that encouraged miners to explore here and buy here. Not just explore. Do not give me this ‘We are spending $80m in the desert’. Spending $80m, and how much is coming in? That is what we want to know.
The government has the potential to encourage mining and purchasing here. They did it with exploration exemption certificates. You can say ‘Rubbish’ and all the rest of it. I sat in a room with miners who actually do this and saw the current Resources minister get brutally mauled over this issue. If you really want to know about it, do not talk to Treasury. Chief Minister, do what you are doing about Access Economics: pretend Treasury are giving bad advice. Okay? Same trick. Instead of saying: ‘Treasury’s figure is 1.2%. Hmm. Access Economics’ figure is 5.1%. I wonder which figure I’ll use? Let’s say growth is at 5.1% because Treasury are a little bit frugal’. I reckon you should do the same with exploration exemption certificates. Do not listen to them; listen to the miners. The miners will tell you a good way to go. By all means pick up our old program; we do not have a problem with it.
Artists! Aren’t they great? I can remember the current Minister for Central Australia denigrating artists, in Ti Tree I think it was at the time. This was some little chintzy business that should have been aiming for more lofty things. We have always supported Aboriginal art. Aboriginal art has been a very strong foundation of CLP economic development policies. My colleague, the member for Daly, has not only been at the forefront …
Members interjecting.
Mr DUNHAM: The Chief Minister started with: ‘No NT funds were ever provided’, and then said: ‘Hang on, hang on! They did fund a couple of things’. I know she went to Merrepen once, but I have probably been about 10 times. Go to the Merrepen Arts Festival; go and have a look. There are plenty of Aboriginal artists who have been supported by governments in one way or another. For her to just wake up and discover Aboriginal art is her problem, really. If she has only just discovered it and thinks: ‘Well, this is here and I am here, therefore, it must have been facilitated by the Chief Minister’. Wrong.
The itinerant strategy: business is going to be so pleased to hear about this. ‘We are really going to help small business. Don’t worry about laying off staff. Don’t worry about the fact that our own source taxation revenue is up. Payroll tax is up. Don’t worry about that because we have an itinerant strategy’. The itinerant strategy ain’t working - it ain’t working. You can say that former Chief Minister Shane Stone wanted to monster and stomp itinerants. He is quoted as saying that. The Chief Minister is quoted as saying she is going to declare war on them - war. All you mob over there: ‘We don’t want to go to Iraq and war. How terrible. We are all peaceniks’. You actually said you want to declare war on itinerants. I would have thought that is a bit worse than monstering and stomping, but the same ethic is there.
The ethic is that people who are living hard in our towns, getting too drunk, inhabiting our mall, bashing each other – there have been three deaths, one just across the road here. Three deaths; one across the road here. Some poor lady was killed down the track. Three deaths! If you reckon your itinerant strategy is really kicking in, ask yourself why three people have died in the last week! It is disgusting to run this sort of stuff out as some sort of a business strategy.
The ICT industry - great. I hope that every Aboriginal child will have a laptop in Lajamanu – where else did you go? – Daguragu and Galiwinku. I hope it really kicks in.
Mr Ah Kit: Stop making a joke of Aboriginal people, you idiot!
Mr DUNHAM: I’m an idiot?
Mr Ah Kit: Yes.
Mr DUNHAM: Thank you.
Mr Ah Kit: Stop denigrating Aboriginal people.
Mr DUNHAM: No, no, no. I am just saying as a strategy, to be taking this little team out to the massive IT market of Lajamanu. We took out eight or 10 people who sell computers out to Lajamanu …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order, thank you!
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker. I was having trouble hearing the member’s abuse over the other members’ abuse.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, before you continue, you are being very provocative in your remarks. As time is going by, let us conclude the debate.
Mr DUNHAM: I am trying to get through quickly, Madam Speaker.
It may work. I hope that Lajamanu becomes the laptop computer mecca of the Northern Territory because, if all those people can go out there and see all this wonderful, burgeoning trade that could come out, I hope that happens. I am very proud of it and pleased about it. I hope that happens.
What I would like in the rejoinder, because someone is going to stand up and say pretty much the same things as the Chief Minister. Okay, we can do all that again, because we are used to it. Please put in the number there of how much extra you are getting - above and beyond what Perce thought - from GST. Whatever these figures are, can you please make sure they are Treasury sourced? I would like to see them in budget papers because I have a number of documents from this mob - documents like this - that have platitudes and promises that have not been met. I have documents like audited statements that say payroll tax is up, own-take of tax is up. This government has to come clean. If it really has open, fiscally transparent bookkeeping, give us a look.
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): I find the bitter cynicism sad, Madam Speaker, it really is sad. This is a guy who has not coped with election defeat.
Mr Dunham interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, you have had your turn.
Mr STIRLING: Two-and-a-half years on, with the bitterness, the cynicism, he just finds it hard to control himself in here and the bitter taste of defeat still runs strong in his mouth, unfortunately. He will get over it. He should get over it; he should get a life. If he cannot get over it in here, he should get another life.
I listened fairly closely to both speakers. It is interesting to reflect back a few years ago, when the now Leader of the Opposition was thinking about what sort of next role he might play in his life. It was the party that he now leads that was devastating and vandalising over the Northern Territory economy. They destroyed our budget going back from the mid-1990s on. Piece by piece, they gradually stacked up the deficits and the debt so that you simply could not do anything. It was the highest debt in the nation, on any measure you want to take. They cut a swath through the public sector, time after time. They let the tourism industry simply whither on the vine. The Territory construction industry’s Cement Index plummeted to its lowest level in 10 years.
We have turned that around, and we will continue to turn that around. We have put, as the Chief Minister said, $27.5m into the tourism industry, over the next two-and-a-half years. We have produced. We are implementing a jobs plan, as I speak. We have put in place the two highest ever capital works programs in the history of the Territory. They do not want to recognise this - $439m in 2002-03, $434m, our second record, in 2003-04.
What we came to in August 2001, by way of inheritance, was an economy with a major budget deficit, there and then, but an economic situation that had had a deficit on deficit on deficit. Of course, that was just totally restricting government’s ability to invest in any job creation because of the accumulating debt – over $500 000 a day in interest. We ran that line hard because it was the truth, and Territorians needed to know what damage the then government was doing to their future prospects.
We had employment projects that were tied significantly to a major project in the rail, the Commonwealth investment in the Defence build-up during the 1990s, and an industry sector in tourism that was susceptible to major external factors, such as we saw internationally. Also, a capital works program, with the money that was in it, focussed on two projects - the railway and the hospital redevelopment program - so that there was not a spread of money around the smaller contractors. It was under-cashed. They used to get up and announce project after project, but they simply were not implemented because they did not put cash behind those other projects they put on the capital works list, because the two major projects were soaking up every available dollar. Therefore, we had a boom/bust employment cycle throughout the mid-1990s on. There was a mobile work force that was attracted to the Territory when a construction boom generated, either by the Defence build-up or one-off major projects, and then they left. They got in their utes and left when that work dried up, or they worked on a seasonal basis because of the tourism dependence.
There was complete failure throughout all of those years of the CLP government to take any strategic overview of the labour market or the economy. There was no attempt, ever, to produce a jobs plan, labour market analysis, or any way of developing the work force or understanding the labour market which would identify the needs coming forward and allow government to form strategies around that to develop it. Of course, we saw a failure to develop industry outside of the major centres. There was no attention paid to the regions; to provide adequate training, skill development and jobs outside of the major urban areas.
What we have done, in 2002-03, is have $439m in our first full budget, $434m in the current budget. Almost $900m over that two years was in capital works, $102m more than the amount of the last two budgets from the CLP government. I said this morning that we estimate one job for every $110 000 worth of expenditure. That means in the first two full budgets, we sustained around 3800 jobs per year. In two budgets, we have secured 900 more jobs than the former government had done in their last two budgets.
We also inherited a budget where the majority of cash available, as I said, was soaked up again by one major project, the new wharf, with the hospital redevelopment soaking up the rest. Other smaller projects included road works - and haven’t we come across that recently! It was just simply not done - under-funded for 20 years in the Territory, to the extent now where we have really degraded our roads network. There was no money for those smaller civil projects; they simply did not get cashed up on the capital works.
We have just not only massively increased the cash against the program on the capital works; we have spread that work far and wide. It is interesting, again, to hear the Leader of the Opposition say that when he goes jogging early in the morning as he is want to do down around Palmerston, that he sees the contractors getting into the trucks and utes - the blockies, the electricians. Well, at least they are going to work. At least they are going to work, because I will tell what was going on in 1999-2000: they were not going to work! They were sitting on their bums down here drinking coffee all day because there were no jobs to be had. The rest of them were out in the regions. I will tell you where they were - they were flooding Gove, mate. They were picking up every little maintenance job you could get in Nhulunbuy because there was no work to be had across the rest of the Territory. So, at least when you go jogging …
Mr Mills interjecting.
Mr STIRLING: … you ought to pause and reflect a bit and say: ‘Well, at least these blokes are getting in their utes; at least they have a job to go to. If you have been jogging two-and-a-half to four years ago in Palmerston, you would not have seen the utes going to work, mate, because there were no jobs for them to go to!
Mr Dunham: Oh rubbish! We are doing better, are we?
Mr STIRLING: That is the difference between you blokes and us. You are getting up and rewriting history, spinning it out the side of your mouth as you do. You are just so bitter, mate! You should see a counsellor, you really should!
Members interjecting.
Mr STIRLING: Get a bit of counselling …
A member interjecting.
Mr STIRLING: I tell you what: I will pay for it if it improves your demeanour around here, because I tell you that I get sick of you!
We have initiated several projects that will fill this void of major projects over the next few years. I will start with the Darwin waterfront and the convention and exhibition centre - $100m of government money up-front; a $600m to $700m project rolling out that will provide work over the next six, eight, 10 years, stage by stage, project by project. Here is a project the previous government could not get off the ground. They had a bit of a go at it; I do not know what happened. A bit like the railway - they had a bit of a go at that over the years and, eventually, these sorts of plans gathered dust on the shelves. But we got it up and it will happen. We estimate with that, with that sort of spend, around 5400 jobs.
The LNG plant. This is a government that has done nothing – absolutely nothing! It was not going to happen before we got in. A lot of time and energy has come from the Office of Territory Development and the Office of the Chief Minister. The Chief Minister spent time talking to the Foreign minister. She had quite a number of phone calls with the federal Treasurer, I recall, at the time and with the companies involved, and discussions with the government of East Timor. She began to repair that pretty disastrous relationship that the former government had with the government of East Timor. Jobs on that over the next three years are likely to peak at around 1500, and there will be a lot of local workers. We heard those figures earlier. They are saying: ‘Oh, you said there were 1200’. No one said there were 1200 jobs.
Mr Dunham: You said 1500! Yes, you did.
Mr STIRLING: No one said there were 1200 jobs out there. There will be! There will be …
Mr Dunham: 1500, mate.
Mr STIRLING: Clear out the ears! Listen! No one said there were 1200 or 1500 jobs out there now. There will be at the peak of the construction.
Alcan’s feasibility study rolls on and they are ticking off more and more elements of the project and putting company names beside different parts of the work. There will be 1200 jobs in the construction phase. With the rail port connection, of course, we now have Toll investing in the Darwin Business Park. In the mining sector - and we heard a little of this from the member for Drysdale - we have progressed mining exploration on Aboriginal land. In two years, we have issued 600 exploration licences over 376 000 km2 of the Territory – and are considered the most progressive and successful jurisdiction in the nation for progressing and resolving native title issues. A stark contrast. We heard that former ministers used to come in and say, ‘Another five’ – that is something like 900 sitting on the desks that could not be progressed. That was just such a shocking waste of time and effort, really, that should have been getting going.
There is a Peko rehabilitation project, Tennant Creek, 25 jobs, $8m; Chariot Mine, Tennant Creek, 25 jobs; mineral deposit Tanami being developed; Garnet Sands Operation; and Harts Range is coming forward. We picked up and resolved the problems between Panizza Phelps and the NLC over the native title and there is a large prawn farm, well under way now on the Blackmoore River. We found land for the Sun Tai Pty Ltd, which is establishing an aquacultural project near Bynoe Harbour. The previous government could not assist this group, despite their best efforts, for over seven years. That is remarkable - a better group of people to work with you would not meet. There was an absolute mess in native title negotiations because they simply wanted to go to court and tie up the issues in legalities. We have resolved those issues relating to the prawn farm. We have freed up 20 hectares of land in Alice Springs to allow that town to grow. We have freed up land in Katherine to allow development in that community, and we have a number of land negotiations under way in other centres.
We know that the belting that the tourism sector has had: the Afghan war, SARS, the Iraqi war, and the collapse of Ansett. We have come to the party with tourism and put $27.5m into that budget - $7.5m for the rest of this year with is a little over seven months, and $10m for the next year and the year beyond.
The information communications technology sector has been boosted by a $1m investment to develop localised ICT products, creating around 100 new jobs and $40m in export potential over the next three years.
What is coming forward? The Commonwealth government’s Tiger helicopter project; the relocation of the 1st Aviation Regiment; the Bradshaw Field Training Area; Defence housing in Katherine; Defence housing in Lee Point; and the replacement of the patrol boats.
I will look at a little of this external commentary on the way forward for the Northern Territory because, apart from the fact that it gets up the member for Drysdale’s nose, it is a good story to tell. BIS Shrapnel state industry prospects 2003 to 2018: according to BIS Shrapnel our Territory gross state product will average 4.5% per annum over the five years to 2007-08 compared to Australian growth of just 3.3%. Their forecast for Territory economic growth is the highest of all jurisdictions, driven by a number of major oil and gas projects, a strong upturn in dwelling investment and the recovery of tourism. Strong economic growth is expected to boost employment and population. Territory real state final demand is forecast to grow at an annual rate of 4.5% over the next five years. Territory employment growth is forecast to average 2.5% over the five years to 2007-08, higher than the national rate of 2.2%. In the same period, BIS Shrapnel forecast an average Territory unemployment rate of 5.1%, lower than the forecast national rate of 5.4%.
Access Economics, whilst more conservative, run along similar lines. Over the five years to 2006-07, they say average GSP growth will be 3.7%. Access forecast for Territory economic growth is still above what they forecast for Australia as a whole, at just 2.9%, so they are conservative across the board not just in relation to the Territory. Access forecast Territory GSP growth to weaken in 2003-04, but points to 2004-05 as holding promise. Growth is predicated on a number of investment projects including Bayu-Undan Stage 2 and continued strength in non-residential building activity. They forecast an unemployment rate at 6.5% in the five years to 2006-07, equal to the forecast national rate.
What did we get? What did the GST mean to us? Well, Treasury work on the estimates on what they think will be the size of the GST pool and what we would expect to get as a share, and that goes into forward estimates for planning the budget five years ahead in revenue and expenditure. Even the member for Drysdale should understand this. When the GST was introduced and the amount collected, and the pie divided up between the states and territories, initially the GST pool was not big enough to ensure that every state and territory would get the same or more than they were getting under existing arrangements. Therefore, they came up with what they termed ‘a budget balancing assistance’. You got budget balancing assistance to make sure that you got what you would have got when the GST was introduced.
Mr Dunham: Yes, I am still with you. And the number is?
Mr STIRLING: I am taking it slowly so you will understand. In 2001-02, the budget balancing assistance figure for the Northern Territory was $98m. What does that tell you? That tells you that we were not better off under GST because if we were, we would not have received budget balancing assistance, because budget balancing assistance brought you up to where you would have been. Okay? The GST pool was producing for us $98m less than we would have had, had the same arrangements and GST never came into place.
What did we get extra in 2001-02 from the GST? Answer: zero, because we were getting $98m in budget balancing assistance. What did we get extra in 2002-03 as a result of the introduction of the GST? Did we get any budget balancing assistance? No, because we had gone over the threshold into the new system. What was the extra accruing to us as a result of the GST? $9m. Write it down: $9m more received in 2002-03 than we would have received under the old arrangements.
Those myths will continue. There is a lot of mischief to be played out about GST revenue. However, we predict, based on our expectation of GST receipts from the time when the deal was first signed, and, of course, those expectations form the basis of our forward estimates and have been built into the budget. We received the money we expected and have spent it on police, jobs, tourism, and developing the Territory economy.
I want to touch on taxation because here is another one: the levels of taxation on a small business. Let us look at a business of, say, $600 000 payroll in one year. In the first place, what we have done in taxation since we came to government, is reduce the payroll tax rate from 6.5% to 6.2%; we introduced the new stamp duty exemption to assist restructuring of assets within corporate groups - a couple of million dollars going back out into the business world as a result of that; a new exemption from stamp duty and commercial leases with rent of $30 000 or less is help for small business; increased the hiring stamp duty threshold from $36 000 to $90 000; and a reduction to stamp duty payable on the grant or renewal of a franchise.
I want to look at the comparisons here. If we take a small business with a payroll of $600 000 and look at the outcome of adding things like payroll tax, land tax, insurance stamp duty, workers compensation insurance, stamp duty, HIH, motor vehicle rego, fire services levy, banks transactions duties, you get a bottom line in New South Wales of - guess what? - $25 880 against $7554 in the Northern Territory. The next closest jurisdiction is the ACT at $15 259. If you look …
Mr Dunham: And you want to make it comparable.
Mr STIRLING: I will table this for the benefit for the member for Drysdale. It will help a bit with his bitterness.
Going across the bottom, New South Wales, $25 880; Victoria, $23 879; Queensland, around half at $14 650; WA, $17 000; South Australia, $14 000; Tassie, this jurisdiction and state government - good luck to them with Jim Bacon, he must be doing all right - have an enormous satisfaction rating with small business - they tax a small business on a $600 000 payroll at $17 675; ACT, as I said, $15 200; and the Northern Territory, $7554.
You need to study this, Leader of the Opposition, because I understand you want to go out there and reduce taxes. Well, good luck to you because, if you are going to do that, you have to tell people where you are going to get your revenue in the first place. You have to have revenue. Alternatively, if you are not going to have revenue, start telling us what you are going to cut because it will be education, health, housing, or sport programs. Somewhere you have to take big belts out of the budget because, if you are not going to collect revenue, you cannot then go and spend it. To advise you on the way forward on taxation, I table that for the benefit of the Leader of the Opposition.
Madam Speaker, all of those actions that I have mentioned there has meant that jobs are turning around, the economy is starting to grow and lead indicators such as motor vehicle sales and housing approvals, as opposed to trailing indicators such as employment figures, are all up and growing …
Madam SPEAKER: Treasurer, your time has expired.
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the question be put.
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: The question now is that the censure motion be agreed to.
Motion negatived.
LAW REFORM (GENDER, SEXUALITY AND DE FACTO RELATIONSHIPS) BILL
(Serial 186)
(Serial 186)
Continued from 15 October 2003.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, let me begin by stating the opposition’s position on this piece of legislation. It is simply this: you are trying to do too much, too quickly, in too many different areas for it to have support. There are areas of this bill that the CLP does support, and support enthusiastically. There are areas where we have some reservations. However, most importantly, there are areas that question the very morality of our society. The very basis of that morality and those areas are not a matter of politics, but of conscience. Like society itself, in the community of the Northern Territory, we in the CLP have different views on such questions. We come from different backgrounds and cultures. We have grown up in different places. The ways our morality and belief systems have been formed are different.
While we agree on many things, we in the CLP acknowledge that, in some areas, MLAs have sincerely and very deeply-held views that differ. We acknowledge that, if the CLP is to truly represent - or rather, be representative to Territorians - then those differences should be present and should not be squashed by some political machine, or imposed from on high by some political ideology, as is happening with the Labor Party. Because, in all the things I said about the CLP and our differences in culture, upbringing and belief systems, that can also be said about the 13 MLAs on the government benches, as it can be said about yourself, Madam Speaker, and the member for Nelson.
In the CLP, we acknowledge, respect and celebrate our differences. In the Labor Party, you do as you are told. I was always taught that my conscience was paramount when it comes to making decisions. No one ever said that that changes when you become a politician or a member of parliament. My colleagues agree, and that is why the CLP MLAs have decided that, because a number of elements of this bill go to such basic questions of morality, we will each and individually vote our conscience on this bill. Again, I call on the Chief Minister to allow Labor MLAs to do the same.
Before I go to the substance of this bill, there is another issue that should figure large in this debate; that is, what do Territorians know about it? What have they been told? Why were they not consulted? How many indigenous communities have been told that their traditional customs related to marriage are being fundamentally changed? How many have been told that their fundamental beliefs and laws relating to sexual relations, and who can have sex with whom, are being changed? Why has this Labor government tried to hide its very fundamental changes to our moral code with a welcomed tough stance on sexual crimes, particularly against children?
The Attorney-General, in his second reading speech, made it quite clear that this bill has two distinct parts. There is, in his words: ‘… a package of reforms developed to strengthen laws protecting children from sexual abuse’. That should have been one bill entire of itself. Then the controversial element of lowering the age of consent for boys could have been adequately debated in its proper context amid the other changes to sexual offences against children.
The other major package - the huge number of changes this Labor government is bringing forward to equate any relationship with marriage - should then have been included in another bill. The Attorney-General, when he announced he was bringing forward this bill, put out two press releases. ‘Package to Toughen Punishment for Child Sex Offenders’, one was headed, and the other one said: ‘Law Reform to Ensure Equity for Territorians’. The only aspect common to both press releases put out on the same day was the lowering of the age of consent for boys. When he was about to introduce the bills into parliament, the Attorney-General again put out two press releases. ‘New Tougher Child Sex Package Detailed’ was one, and the other was: ‘Gay and Lesbian Law Reform to Implement Equality’. The Attorney-General clearly sees these as separate issues.
Why, then, has he wrapped it all up in this omnibus bill? Can it be that this Labor government thinks they can slip these very controversial changes through because there are just so many issues hidden in this huge bill? Or could it be that the Labor government thought that, if they wrap it all together and the CLP opposes it, they will be able to make a lot of noise about the CLP rejecting harsher penalties for sex offenders? Would this Labor government be so cynical, so devious, with such fundamental questions of morality? Would they play politics with issues such as the sexual exploitation of children and other vulnerable members of our community? Sadly, I believe the answer may be yes. They are forcing people who do not agree with these changes and such despicable tactics, to vote against their conscience for some cheap political advantage.
If the government was truly genuine in its efforts with these so-called reforms, they would have brought in two bills. They would have consulted all levels of our community, allowed Territorians time to understand exactly what it is that they are doing, allowed members of this parliament time to consult their electorates, and then come into this House with plenty of time to address and debate the issues. Instead, we have no consultation except with a select group that agrees with the Attorney-General’s view, and we have limited time in which to debate, not only the enormous changes they are bringing forward, but also the details on how they will be implemented. However, the government is determined to pursue this course, so I will turn to the bill itself and attempt to address the issues in the order in which they were presented by the Attorney-General in his second reading speech.
In his opening remarks, he revealed just where he was coming from in this debate, when he said the purpose of this bill:
- … is to reform the law of the Territory, to remove or modify illegal distinctions based on a person’s gender, sexuality or de facto relationship with another person.
It is going to remove or modify illegal distinctions. I would have thought that, at present, any distinctions are not illegal, but you are going to make them illegal from now on. Perhaps in your view they are wrong but, surely as Attorney-General, you would know they are not illegal. Your passion for the changes has carried you too far. The Attorney-General continued:
- The bill also includes a package of reforms to strengthen laws protecting children from sexual abuse.
As I said earlier, this is one of the major problems we have with this bill. It is several packages on different issues wrapped up into one bill.
The first major area addressed by the Attorney-General was the amendments related to the Anti-Discrimination Act, or Part 3 of this bill. The proposed new section 37 of the Anti-Discrimination Act, on the one hand, narrows the basis for discrimination on two grounds, and widens it in another aspect. The narrowing occurs by only allowing discrimination on the grounds of an irrelevant criminal record, when the area of work principally involves care, instruction or supervision. The act, as it presently stands, allows discrimination on the grounds of sexuality when the area of work simply involves care, instruction or supervision. It has been widened by changing the area of work from just involving children to the new category of vulnerable person, which includes children, aged persons, and persons with a physical or intellectual disability or mental illness. Whilst I understand and accept the logic of the Attorney-General’s intention with these changes and, certainly, welcome the extension to vulnerable persons, I am not sure how it is going to work. As the Attorney-General explains, the use of the irrelevant criminal records has meant the Criminal Records (Spent Convictions) Act needs amending, but those amendments do not get over the hurdle that those records are only available if the person involved agrees to them being released as per section 12 of the Criminal Records (Spent Convictions) Act.
The Attorney-General said in his second reading speech that he would not be changing that restriction. Therefore, we have the situation that, if a prospective employee says ‘No’, then obviously this proposed new section 37 cannot come into play. If you are trying to ensure that a bad character does not get a job caring in any way for vulnerable people, why would you expect that bad character to shoot themselves by allowing the records to be released? These changes to the Anti-Discrimination Act sound good but, in effect, what they are achieving is removing any grounds for an exemption in relation to work. Instead of providing children and vulnerable people with protection from potential abuse, they remove the chance of any protection. I cannot support this part of the bill unless the government is prepared to back up its intentions, and amend section 12 of the Criminal Records (Spent Convictions) Act to allow access to those irrelevant criminal records.
The proposed new clause being added to the Anti-Discrimination Act, section 37A, allows some discrimination for religious schools, colleges or universities. The Attorney-General seemed nonplussed that anyone thought he was going to abolish the discrimination that religious schools presently can choose when hiring teachers. He might want to go and have a look back at his press releases. On 24 June, he issued a press release that said his proposed reforms included:
… amendments to the Anti-Discrimination Act to repeal exemptions that currently allow discrimination in employment on the basis of sexuality, and to limit the exemption for religious bodies to religious observance only.
That is why there was fear and concern within the community. The Attorney-General said he was going to repeal the exemptions. My problem is whether this new proposed section 37A still allows religious schools to discriminate on the grounds of sexuality or religious belief when employing teachers and others to work at the school. Is it wide enough to allow this discrimination, or can it be read as only allowing discrimination where the prospective teacher or employee is involved in the religious aspects of the institution? Does it extend to the English teacher, or the maths teacher, the gardener and so on?
The other concern with this new section are the words ‘wholly or mainly for students of a particular religion’. Does this mean that a school established with a strong religious ethic and run by a particular religion will only be able to exercise this discrimination if it can show that most, if not all, its students are adherents to that particular religion? This goes to the very heart of freedom of choice, something this bill is supposed to be all about. Any family should be able to choose the school for their children, to decide whether they want to use the state-funded system or go to a private school. They should be able to be free to base that selection on ethics, religion or beliefs - the beliefs of the people or organisation running that school. If the school cannot exercise discrimination to the extent it wishes to ensure its employees share its ethics, religion or beliefs, then that choice is false.
Anti-discrimination legislation should not be aimed at eliminating choice because equality does not mean sameness. A democracy that purports to respect freedom of religion and the right of people to practice or not practice a religion, must allow a degree of discrimination. Let me pose the opposite question: should a parent have the right to send their children to a state-run school and declare their children should not be taught religion at any stage or have any of their teaching influenced by religion? The answer, of course, is: yes, that is the family’s right. All I am saying is that, if a family makes the opposite choice, they should be also free to exercise that right. I hope the Attorney-General, in his closing remarks, will be able to assure me that his amendment and the addition of section 37A to the Anti-Discrimination Act means that that right has not been lost.
Just as the Attorney-General did in his speech, I turn to the amendments relating to de facto relationships. Again, I note that the Attorney-General said:
- These are by far the majority of the reforms contained in the bill ...
Once again, why didn’t he put them into a bill of their own so that they were not jumbled up with penalties for sexual offences? The two areas are completely unrelated. It is an abuse of the process of this parliament to come in here with a bill that purports to do so many different things in so many unrelated areas. However, we have to deal with it because that is what this government has dictated.
The Attorney-General, in his second reading speech, makes it quite clear what the intention of all these changes relating to de facto relationships were all about. It is the intention of him and this government that all sexual relationships are equal to and the same as marriage. In the second reading speech, he said:
… ensure people of same-sex relationships have the same rights and obligations under Territory law as married persons …
And again:
- … these reforms will ensure that the de facto partners and relationships are dealt with under Territory law in the same way as marriage.
I have no doubt that, if there was not a federal law under the Australia Constitution that declares marriage to be the union of a man and a woman, then this government would have extended marriage to same-sex relationships.
I cannot debate this area of the bill dispassionately. I cannot put aside the fundamental beliefs I have when it comes to marriage. To me, marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman; a union that was created to provide a loving and nurturing environment for the man and the woman and any children they may have. It has been and remains, for me, the fundamental unit of our society; the basic building block that leads to new generations.
These changes that say marriage is nothing more than two people getting together crushes that belief. It says to me and my wife of 20 years that there is nothing special about our marriage, and our commitment to each other and our children. It says that the thousands of years of Christian tradition are worth nothing. It says that the thousands of years of tradition in other religions are worth nothing. It says the traditional marriage customs of the indigenous people of this land are worth nothing. After years of recognising traditional Aboriginal marriages entered into according to customary law, this bill now says they are the same as a de facto relationship, whether that relationship be between a man or woman or a same-sex couple.
Elsewhere, by inserting a new clause in the Interpretation Act, this bill limits the use of the word ‘spouse’ to men and women legally married under Australian law and traditional Aboriginal marriages. You have to ask why. Why has this new section been put into the Interpretation Act to differentiate between married people and all those others in relationships, when the clear and stated intent of the government is to eliminate the differences? Is it simply to give the government an out, a bit of confusing legalese if it ever gets around to try to explain these changes to the people of the Territory, and particularly the Aboriginal people of the Territory? I know the member for Nelson intends to move several amendments in relation to this area of de facto relationships and, while I have no intention of stealing his thunder, I am indebted to him for explaining to me what he is doing. To put it simply, as I understand it, his amendments will provide the protections and rights for same-sex relationships without either limiting them to sexual relationships, nor equating them with a lawful or a de facto marriage between a man and a woman.
I acknowledge that some reform of the law is needed to recognise the many relationships that exist in our society. I acknowledge and accept that there are loving, caring, long-lasting relationships that exist outside the traditional notion of a relationship between a man and a woman in marriage. I acknowledge that these relationships should not be used to discriminate against those involved in many areas of the law, such as property rights, inheritance and those matters that pertain to the rights and obligations of co-dependants already visited on married couples. However, I really do not believe that this bill is the right way to achieve that end. The member for Nelson may have provided us with a way to solve some of the genuine problems relating to the rights and obligations of people who choose to live together without offending the majority of Territorians, as this bill certainly does.
Some of the details of the changes that this bill will impose also need close examination, and I intend to do so during the committee stages. For instance, why have various clauses of various bills been changed from ‘establishes a relationship’ to ‘enters a relationship’? It has been recognised in the past that a relationship that does not have a definite starting point such as a marriage ceremony needs a time element to show that it exists. If I enter into a relationship today, am I immediately entitled to the protection of all those changes and responsible for the obligations, or is it a one-night stand? Look at clause 29 of this bill, which lists a number of matters to be taken into consideration when determining whether two persons are in a de facto relationship. Do they all have to be ticked, or only some? If it is only some, how many? Take the example of a man or a woman who separates from their partner in the new household that has a housekeeper or nanny. Without trying too hard, you could tick at least six of the nine criteria. Does that mean that the housekeeper or nanny is entitled to all the rights and obligations of a de facto relationship?
What about siblings who choose to live together? It is not an unusual situation. Again, you could tick at least seven of the nine criteria. In proposed new section 3A(3)(c), in determining the existence of a de facto relationship, the fact that either person is already in a de facto relationship is irrelevant. Does this mean a person can be in any number of coexisting de facto relationships, and the rights and obligations are visited on all the partners of those relationships?
There is also the question of the recognition of the female partner as the parent of a child born to the other partner by use of the fertilisation procedure. Leaving aside how this mum-and-mum situation totally turns the natural law on its head, why has the government then said it will not change the current arrangement for access to IVF treatment? Why has the government not removed the total exemption in relation to artificial fertilisation procedures that exists in the Anti-Discrimination Act at section 4? All these areas will have to be closely examined in the committee stage if the government pursues its determination to push this bill through today.
I now turn to the second act that is incorporated in this law reform all-purpose bill. These changes mainly relate to the Criminal Code and that part of the code that deals with other offences against morality. Most of these changes are welcome, as they increase the penalties for sexual offences against children and other vulnerable persons. They also ensure that the law covers all children in the Territory, irrespective of any tradition of child brides. They make sexual activity illegal for children under the age of 16, whether they are married or not, and impose hefty penalties for any adult who engages in sexual activity with a child under 16. The changes make it harder for an offender to escape the consequences of their action by placing the burden on them to ascertain the age of the child. They are, basically, a sensible and probably overdue overhaul of this section of the Criminal Code, although there are some problems. For example, under the present law, a girl under 16 who engages in sexual activity is regarded as a victim, no matter the age of the other person. There is no such similar clause for boys under 16. In attempting to take gender out of the act, and attempting to provide similar protection for boys under 16, the government has created another problem.
If anyone under the age of 16 now engages in sexual intercourse or an act of gross indecency with another person under the age of 16, while there is no offence, there is no offender; both children are regarded as the victim. What happens where a 15-year-old boy or girl engaged in this activity with a younger child of 10 or 12? Under the proposed new section 127, neither child is criminally liable. Therefore, we have the situation where the government says any consenting sexual activity between someone older than 16 with someone under 16 is a crime, but any consenting sexual activity between those under 16 is okay.
The government, in pursuit of its equity argument, has been blind to some of the consequences. The loophole has to be fixed by this government. Generally though, these changes would certainly have had my support if the government had chosen the proper course and introduced a Criminal Code amendment bill. However, there is one exception and it is one of the most contentious issues of all the packages of so-called reforms in this bill. I am referring to the lowering of the age of consent for a child to consent to male homosexual relationships.
The government argues that it is doing this because female children can consent to any sexual activity, be it heterosexual or homosexual, from the age of 16. Therefore, in the interest of equity, boys should be able to as well. The Attorney-General said that the government was also persuaded that a higher age of consent led to higher health and suicide risks. The Attorney-General did not provide this Assembly with his persuasive evidence, or whether the evidence relating to suicide had anything to do with the law regarding the change of consent, rather than the struggle to come to terms with a sexual identity. Is he really saying that the emotional trauma some boys of 16 or 17 may suffer as they come to terms with their sexuality is all related to whether it is legal or illegal for them to engage in homosexual activity? Is that what you are saying? Is he really saying that the lowering of the age of consent for 16-year-old and 17-year-old boys will solve the emotional turmoil some may be experiencing? He has not provided any figures that show when the change was made in Victoria or Canberra that the number of suicides dropped and the health of boys improved. Nor has he provided us with any evidence with what has happened since Western Australia changed its law more than 12 months ago, or in New South Wales, where it was changed earlier this year. Perhaps, in his closing argument, he will produce this evidence.
The government has tried to give the impression that they are, as usual, doing what everyone else in Australia has done, but that is not the case. In both South Australia and Tasmania, the age of consent is 17 years and, in Queensland, the age of consent for anal intercourse is 18 years irrespective of gender. New South Wales and Western Australia, both with Labor governments, moved to a uniform age of consent of 16 years only in the past 14 months. I am not persuaded that the equity argument is valid. Not only do I not believe boys and girls mature at the same age but, as the father of a teenage boy and girl, I am sure of it. Even the government has grave doubts about the maturity of 16-year-olds or 17-year-olds to consent to sexual activity. The Attorney-General said in his second reading speech that he still perceives 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds as vulnerable, despite being legally able to engage in sexual relationships. To use the Attorney-General’s words:
- … young persons aged 16 and 17 can still be emotionally vulnerable and easily influenced.
He went on:
- They still need to be protected from predatory behaviour by adults who could take advantage of their youth and inexperience ...
Well, I could not agree more. So why are you exposing these vulnerable children?
A law that says 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds can have sex with whoever, and however, they choose, and then starts listing those they cannot have sex with, is an illogical law. Predatory behaviour by adults is not limited to step-parents, school teachers, or religious, sporting or musical instructors. Children are subject to the influence of adults in all sorts of ways, in all sorts of situations, and all sorts of relationships between the child and the adult. You recognise that by the inclusion of this section, but then limit the protection to only those close to the child. You have left the child vulnerable to the influence of all but a select group of adults.
However, vulnerable and immature the girl is at 16 years, a boy is more so when it comes to sexual matters. I do not believe we should stop protecting boys just for the sake of equity. I do not agree with the lowering of the age of consent in this case. I believe the majority of the Territory community does not support it. I believe that, if you were to go out into the suburbs, and particularly, the communities, of the Territory, and told the people what you were doing, you would not get their support. A group of indigenous ladies called me to a meeting last week. They had only just heard of this law and they told me: ‘Please, do whatever you can to oppose it for the sake of our children’. To just argue it is equitable, is not good enough. Tell me one positive thing this change will affect. I will not support this change and urge others to reject it.
I have attempted to outline why I have problems with this bill. My conscience will not allow me to support quite a number of elements of this bill. However, I accept that some of my colleagues have also searched their conscience and believe those same elements are right and deserving of support. I accept that. The CLP accepts that because we believe that when it comes to fundamental questions such as this, you have to rely on your conscience and not politics. It is shameful that the Chief Minister will not allow government MLAs to vote according to their conscience. It is shameful that government MLAs, whom I know share the same beliefs as me, will vote against their conscience today. I cannot do that and I will no do it. I do not understand how you are so easily able to set aside your conscience for politics. Those who truly believe in these so-called reforms have my respect. I understand you are as passionate about making these changes as I am in opposing them. I understand when the Attorney-General says he is proud to be introducing these laws. I know he believes in what he is doing, and I respect him for introducing his own strongly-held beliefs. Unfortunately, I disagree with him, but he has the power to force his beliefs on me.
However, those who are just playing politics with basic morality, those who have abandoned their beliefs, those who are just following orders despite their conscience, you have lost all respect and entitlement to respect. Some may think you will be able to get away with it by not speaking in this debate. Some may think they will be able to reconcile their consciences by saying: ‘My vote does not really count; it will pass away’. Do not kid yourself! You owe it to all Territorians to stand up and be heard on these matters. Silence will not save you in the final vote. Whatever it may be will not salve your conscience. I hope and pray that, during the course of these next few hours, all members of this House will honestly speak on these issues. I just hope that all other members of this House are prepared, as we are on this side, to put politics to one side and make this what it always should have been: a conscience vote.
Madam Speaker, I cannot support this bill and I will not. My conscience will not allow it.
Mr AH KIT (Community Development): Madam Speaker, obviously my comments will be in support. I want to make it quite clear to the Leader of the Opposition that this has nothing to do with members on this side of the House not being allowed a conscience vote. We are a team here, and that is what you have to understand - which is quite opposite to you lot on the other side. The reason why you are obviously pushing for a conscience vote is because you are divided, and that is understandable.
Before I start my contribution to the debate about issues that concern me, such as traditional marriages, other aspects of the bill I have no problems with. As I understand it, we are bringing ourselves into line with the other states and territories. However, I have had calls and some faxes to my office - as have some of the other indigenous members of government - to raise some of the issues of concern. It does worry us that there are people out their peddling an incorrect story, misconstruing totally and, very similar to the opposition, who have not sought any briefings or consultations to clarify properly what their concerns are. In fairness to the Attorney-General, this was introduced in June. For members opposite and the Leader of the Opposition to say there has not been enough time for consultation - or the member for Nelson - just shows that they have not been doing their homework.
Members interjecting.
Mr AH KIT: We do have a comment from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. His contribution since he has been the Deputy Leader is next to nothing.
Madam Speaker, I digress. Let me first quote some of the previous debates from the former Leaders of the Opposition and, in this case, the former Attorney-General. It was Shane Stone who said, on 19 August 1992 when he tabled the draft Anti-Discrimination Bill:
- We need to ensure … equality of opportunity and that the community comes to recognise the ways in which people discriminate against others, albeit often unintentionally.
He said in the second reading speech on the Anti-Discrimination Bill, 1 October 1992:
It has been said that, for equal opportunity to become a reality, an attitudinal change is required in the community. These advocates argue also that legislation will not alter community attitudes. I cannot agree with those arguments.
I have a couple of more quotes from the member for Port Darwin. I note that the Leader of the Opposition spoke highly about their position over there, and it is all over the shop, as I see it, because the member for Port Darwin said:
- Most of the people who have contacted me have been in support of the changes.
This is the member for Port Darwin on the 8DDD morning program, 24 November 2003. We also had, on 16 October, the shadow Attorney-General, Peter Maley say:
- … I can indeed indicate that equality before the law is a fundamental tenor of the CLP’s platform.
The last quote, from 8DDD morning program, is from gay Darwin playwright, Steven Carlton who said, referring to the member for Nelson:
He is deliberately misconstruing the legislation and fuelling some sectors of the community as homophobia. He is either deliberately misreading this and misrepresenting the legislation, or he does not understand it, in which case you have to ask what he is doing in parliament and, really, why we are paying his wage.
Members interjecting.
Mr AH KIT: Madam Speaker, I am not someone who is quick to get angry. Indeed, in political matters, I have been described elsewhere as the good cop playing to other people’s bad cop. However, there have been deliberate …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr AH KIT: Madam Speaker, they obviously do not take this seriously. We do. However, there have been deliberate and callous distortions of facts spread in recent days about the bill we are considering today that have made me very angry indeed. I am especially conscious of the need to remain calm in parliamentary debates, so I will hide my anger.
I refer to claims made by people, such as the member for Nelson, that this legislation seeks to equate Aboriginal customary marriages with same-sex relationships. The truth is this: there is no connection whatsoever, anywhere in the legislation, that equates same-sex relationships with customary marriage. To suggest otherwise is humbug. The spreading of this humbug through Aboriginal communities of the Northern Territory is disgraceful and, in my view, designed to deliberately distort the real advantages this legislation presents for indigenous Territorians. The spreading of this humbug has been deliberately formulated to foster ignorance. There can be no other conclusion but that the member for Nelson has been quite deliberate in the distortions he has peddled.
The specific, explicit reference to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander customary marriage in clause 28(g) proposed new paragraph (2) of the Law Reform bill, is completely separate from the current definitions at section 3 of the principal act, which makes no reference at all to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander customary law. In other words, there is no logical connection, as is so wrongly claimed by the member for Nelson, between customary marriage and the same-sex relationships. Even more explicit, clause 36 of this reform bill, which makes amendments to section 19 of the Interpretation Act, makes it absolutely clear that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander customary marriage will be viewed under law as identical in status to a valid marriage, under the 1961 Commonwealth Marriage Act. It does not equate same-sex relationships with customary marriage.
What this legislation does, plain and simple, is to recognise the equality under Northern Territory law of customary marriage. It means that there is now equal recognition under law of the sanctity, love, care and obligations to cherish that exist under customary law. It means that the people of the Northern Territory, through this parliament, are prepared to pursue this simple act of social justice to recognise people’s love for one another as expressed through customary marriage. This new recognition is profoundly important to the many thousands of Territorians who live under customary marriage arrangements. I sincerely hope that all members of the Assembly, notwithstanding your views on other matters, would applaud this move to strengthen and consolidate those families in this new recognition. It is a piece of law that shows respect for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
The reform bill recognises customary marriage as having a legal equivalent to a marriage, and this is reflected in changes to significant parts of the other Northern Territory acts of parliament - something that is callously ignored by the member for Nelson in his obsessive campaign of distortion. Is he really suggesting, for example, that one of the many fine young indigenous lawyers who are coming up through their chosen profession should not be able to have their family benefit under the Supreme Court (Judges Pensions) Act if they were to live under a customary marriage? Is he suggesting that an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander Supreme Court judge should enjoy lesser rights than his or her non-indigenous counterparts? The same applies under the Administrators Pensions Act. Is he suggesting that an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander Supreme Court judge should enjoy lesser rights than a non-indigenous Administrator? What sort of message is the member for Nelson sending to indigenous people? That they should not aspire to become Supreme Court judges or Administrators of the Territory and that, if they make it, the law should regard them as second-class judges or Administrators?
This reform bill is aimed at establishing equality before the law for indigenous peoples living in customary law marriages across a wide range of Northern Territory statute law. It applies, for example, in areas as diverse as stamp duty exemption in the conveyance of farming properties to family members, to compensation in the case of fatal injuries from the Motor Accident (Compensation) Act to the Crimes (Victims Assistance) Act.
This is what I found so gratifying this morning; to listen to the words of the member for Araluen on radio - and we do not always see eye-to-eye on a lot of matters. However, I agree wholeheartedly with her when she said, and I quote:
- I take equality before the law pretty seriously. It seems to me that all this legislation is trying to achieve is a measured equality before the law.
The member for Araluen is dead right. This legislation is about equality before the law. Her words ‘measured equality before the law’ should be emblazoned in the hearts of all legislators here today.
It contrasts with what she described as a lack of intellectual and moral integrity surrounding the way the member for Nelson has conducted the debate, and his apparent disregard for equality before the law. It is he who has been deeply offensive and insulting to Aboriginal people in his distortion of the way customary marriage is viewed under this reform bill. For me, his deliberate distortions surrounding this debate have tried to hide the benefits of the legislation for indigenous Territorians. One has to question why he is doing this, when he knows that there is nothing in the legislation that equates same-sex relationships with customary marriage. Is it grandstanding of the highest order, political humbug, or another opportunity to get up on the soapbox? I do not know. The member for Nelson has even ignored the advantages for indigenous people living under community government council schemes which protect the fairness of the community government council elections.
There are some of you here today who seek to claim some sort of high moral ground by saying you are taking a conscience vote. Fair enough. I have no argument with voting according to your conscience, but do not, for a single moment, suggest in arrogance that each and every one of us on this side are not voting according to our conscience. We are - we are.
Dr Lim: We do, and have a free conscience to vote. We have been told.
Mr AH KIT: We are, and you are not because you are divided on your side on this matter, and you know that, Deputy Leader of the Opposition.
Madam Speaker, my first ideas about social justice came from my father who worked, until he passed away in 1971, on the wharves here in Darwin. It was something he, as a wharfie, was passionate about, and he instilled those values of social justice in equality before the law in me. This a conscience vote and, for me, it is a vote that is all about social justice and equality before the law. There is much made in public debate about something called ‘Territory lifestyle’, but what about social justice and equality? Isn’t that something that is at the core of what it means to live and work here? This legislation is designed to strengthen that core element of Territory lifestyle – a deep concern and commitment to social justice based on a strong foundation of equity before the law.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, prior to addressing particular parts of this bill, I wish to make some observations about the way in which the bill has been presented. There are a range of reforms which should properly, in my view, have been the subject of separate bills. However, they have all been rolled into one. This places all members in the unfortunate position of having to either support or oppose the bill in its entirety. I am aware, for example, of several members who support parts of the bill whilst strongly opposing other parts and, as a result, have no alternative but to oppose the bill. The way the government has presented this bill is extremely disappointing.
Those parts of the bill which concern me greatly are the clauses dealing with increased penalties for child sex offenders and several things need to be said about this. First, it is unfortunate, to say the least, that the government has seen fit to link the topic of child abuse with lowering of the male age of consent to homosexual sex. This may well have been done in an attempt to placate those who would argue that lowering the age of consent means that young men will need extra protection from predatory older males. However, this is not an argument which should have been given currency, and the government does itself no credit by raising it. Indeed, it is to the government’s eternal shame. It is inappropriate to link equal rights for young gay people on the one hand with increased penalties for child abusers on the other, and in the same bill. No doubt, government has realised the error of its ways by now and regrets having caused some of the negative responses to the bill.
Second, I have some well-founded reservations about the proposed increase in sentences for child abusers. This, no doubt, sounds astonishing, as all good citizens believe that convicted child abusers should spend more time in gaol. The practical realities, however, mean that the proposal is not so simple, and I note with great interest that there has been little or no comment on this from anyone in this House or, indeed, in the public arena. Penalties have been increased to up to 25 years for some offences. This, no doubt, seems laudable to many but the result is likely to be that more child abusers will walk free. As most people who work in this area already know, it is very difficult to obtain convictions in child sexual assault matters, and there are a number of reasons for that which I will not go into here. I suspect, however, that a good many of the convictions obtained are because some offenders are prepared to plead guilty.
The reality of such significant increases in proposed sentences is that fewer pleas of guilty will be entered and more cases will, thereby, proceed to trial before a jury - juries which are notorious for not convicting in cases of sex crimes. Simply put, if an alleged child abuser is looking at serving 25 years for his crime, why on earth would he plead guilty? As a result of these higher sentences, called ‘tougher penalties’ for political purposes, child abusers are even more likely to take their chances before a jury. The logic is the same for mandatory life sentences for murder: each defendant charged with murder elects to be tried before a jury. There are no guilty pleas to a charge of murder. The only guilty pleas in cases of deaths are to the lesser charges of manslaughter or dangerous act. Rather than plead guilty, accused child sex offenders will proceed to trial. This means that more children will be required to give evidence, which, for many of them, is very traumatic. This will be occurring at a time when all jurisdictions are actively seeking to minimise these kinds of harms to children by enacting a variety of measures to avoid them having to give evidence or give it only once.
Furthermore, juries have real difficulty in accepting the evidence of children, particularly when it is against an adult. We all know that sexual assaults against children are almost never corroborated, and children’s evidence is almost always not regarded as sufficient to convict. The conviction rate in the Northern Territory is so appalling that the abusers can be almost guaranteed to go to trial because of this legislation. This is to say nothing of the additional burden on taxpayers who have to foot the bill for more trials and all of the expenses involved.
Finally on this aspect of the bill, I am compelled to ask whether any thought has been given by anybody to the potentially increased risk to children as a result of significantly increasing sentences for child abuse. It is possible that an offender may contemplate seriously injuring the child, or worse, if facing what amounts to a life sentence.
I raised my concerns in relation to these matters at a government briefing, as well as directly with the Attorney-General. I sought his assurance that he will consider changing these penalties if evidence shows, as I fear it will, that there are fewer pleas of guilty and an even lower conviction rate. To his great credit, the Attorney-General has given me that assurance, and I thank him for it.
As I am unable to prosecute my objections to these parts of the bill in any other constructive or meaningful way, I move on to other matters. However, having regard to the foregoing, I trust that all members well understand my reasons for my objections to that part of the bill. As to other major components of the bill and further amendments which were provided to me yesterday, I will not go through them clause by clause. However, I place on the record that I have studied each part of the bill very carefully.
In relation to the amendments outlined in the bill to the De Facto Relationships Act, I agree that, in the main, the biggest effect of the changes will be for the gay community. Existing laws, however, discriminate against all de facto relationships, be they heterosexual or homosexual, and this bill goes a long way towards removing those inequalities.
The amendments to the Anti-Discrimination Act are noticeable for the continued and sanctioned discrimination against teachers in religious schools. Clearly, some discrimination remains acceptable while other discrimination is not. Perhaps in time, fundamental human rights will be for all On the subject of human rights, I can say that I had initially determined not to comment on the ill-informed and inflammatory letter that the member for Nelson wrote, according to him, to 15 000 households in Darwin. I note, in passing, that the letter was not distributed to households in Alice Springs, so I assume that the member’s concern for the youth of the Northern Territory does not extend to those of the young who live much south of Darwin. Madam Speaker, I seek leave to table a copy of that letter.
Leave granted.
Ms CARNEY: After some consideration, however, I resolved that it would be remiss of me not to comment on the member’s letter, and I will do so now. I should point out that my intentions with respect to this bill will become clear in the process of so doing.
The member for Nelson said in his letter that there would be ‘major social and moral implications for our community as a result of this legislation’. Indeed, there are. The major social and moral implications of this legislation for our community are the extension of human rights so that people - all people over the age of 16 - will be treated equally before the law.
Among some of the other matters included in his letter are the member’s assertion that males between the age of 16 and 18 are, and I quote: ‘at their most vulnerable and easily influenced’. They are, however, allowed under certain conditions to drive cars and to have .22 calibre rifles with which they can do dreadful damage to themselves and others. They are also allowed to have sex with girls and, indeed, father a child. Yet, the only concern expressed by the member for Nelson is as to their ‘supposed vulnerability to exploitation and influence by other males’.
I would like to make some comments in relation to the member for Nelson’s concerns for young men, and his view that they are vulnerable and easily influenced. It is my view that, if their mothers cannot get them to clean up their bedrooms or have a shower, how can friends, acquaintances or strangers talk them into having unwanted homosexual sex? If young males are so vulnerable, one wonders whether the member for Nelson will stand in this House and say that he was so influenced as a young man of 16 that he consented to homosexual sex. If he was not so easily influenced when he was 16, what on earth makes him believe that 16-year-old young men in 2003 can be so easily influenced?
Perhaps it is a particular kind of sexual behaviour with which the member is concerned. Is it that the member is concerned about anal intercourse? Of course, this is a behaviour not unknown in heterosexual society, and it is a behaviour which the member has never apparently previously been moved to seek to make unlawful. I cannot help but conclude that there are elements of hypocrisy evident among those who are so stridently in opposition to this reform when it is male-to-male behaviour to which this part of the bill is oriented.
It almost, and it should, go without saying that 16-year-old young women have been able to consent to sex with anyone of any age over 16 for many years, something which has apparently escaped the member for Nelson’s attention. It is interesting to note that the member has never publicly expressed concern about the laws which have made young women vulnerable to sexual exploitation by older people. The member for Nelson, in his letter, informed thousands of Territorians that the government’s legislation could be read as support for ‘this type of sexual activity’, as he so delicately put it. It seems to me, however - and of course, I do not speak for the government - that this legislation does seek only to achieve a measured equality before the law.
I note that the member also said in his letter that homosexual sex between males was high risk for HIV. That statement is wrong, and it is mischievous to publicly make such an outrageous assertion. This is the kind of pseudo-science masquerading as concerned community education that causes so much prejudice and hatred in our society - prejudice and hatred which often results in violence. I cannot help but wonder whether the member for Nelson proudly attends significant national events such as Anzac Day and Remembrance Day ceremonies, and gives thanks to those generations of young men who lost their lives fighting against intolerance, bigotry and hatred founded on prejudice. The irony is not lost on me nor, I suggest, is it lost on others.
Other comments that the member saw fit to make about the changing definition of ‘parents’ were apparently an attempt at humour, but amounted only to a cheap shot and, like much else the member had to say, were beneath contempt. It is fair to say, however, that the member for Nelson’s statements about homosexuality were at least clear. In comparison, I found his comments about the proposed changes, insofar as they will affect de facto relationships, almost incomprehensible. I could say more - much more - about the member’s letter. However, it is fair to say that I have probably addressed the main aspects of it and, in the process, have made my intentions with respect to this bill abundantly clear.
It is important for me to say that, while I respect absolutely the right of people to hold differing views, I find it very difficult to respect the lack of intellectual and moral integrity surrounding the elements of this debate to which I have been subjected in recent weeks. What has been particularly clear is the profound sexism by many who oppose this bill, in that it is only now that they come to the defence of the vulnerable young when the issue is that of male homosexuality, while they have long remained silent about the sexual exploitation of young women of the same age. Such hypocrisy is remarkable and almost beggars belief.
Frankly, there is little more I can say. However, I would like to quote, in conclusion, from a speech made by His Honour Justice Michael Kirby AC CMG, Justice of the High Court of Australia, in July 1999. The speech was delivered at the University of London at a conference on legal recognition of same-sex partnerships. His Honour is well known and respected around the world, and is one of this country’s finest jurists:
- As a people committed to equal justice for all under the law, I have confidence that the Australian legal system and those who make the laws in Australia will, in due course, eradicate unfair discrimination on the basis of sexuality. The scales are dropping from our eyes. Injustice and irrational prejudice cannot survive the scrutiny of just men and women.
Madam Speaker, I support the bill.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order! Members of the gallery, I advise you that you must listen in silence. You must respect the members’ rights to have their speech listened to, also, and not interrupt the debate.
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, having heard the member for Araluen, my contribution perhaps pales a bit. I commend her for her frankness, forthrightness and her courage - most importantly - in standing here today and telling it as she sees it.
Homosexuality is legal in the Northern Territory. It has been legal for many years - no question about that. We are not here today legislating on whether homosexuality should be legalised or not. What we are legislating today is equality before the law.
On this side of the House, we all understand that people have a range of various views on homosexuality. I am not on my feet here today, nor am I in any forum, about to try to change people’s views on it. It is simply not the issue. The issue that faced government is this: can government condone and apply discrimination against its citizens, or does government have a larger role in protecting all of its citizens against discrimination? This government decided that the laws of the Territory built into our system discrimination against people who are gay and lesbian. This government decided this was not acceptable, and we have acted to make every Territorian equal before the law. If confronted with laws that showed legislative discrimination against other groups in our society, I am certain this government will always choose equality before the law over in-built discrimination.
Where has this inequality existed? It exists in the way the law views relationships between people of the same sex. Amendments today will recognise same-sex relationships in the same way as the law recognises de facto relationships between heterosexual couples. Interestingly, it will also recognise traditional Aboriginal marriages. This will allow the property rights that accrue under de facto relationships to be equally recognised amongst all the de facto relationships that exist in our community.
In 1991, the then government of the Northern Territory, the CLP, recognised that de facto relationships needed legal recognition to give a legal footing to property rights and entitlements to each person in that relationship. The then government recognised that, whether de facto relationships were supported by society or not, they were a fact of life in our community and they were legal. They acted to ensure that heterosexual couples in de facto relationships were given equality before the law.
The government today is extending those rights to same-sex relationships and to relationships within the definition of Aboriginal traditional marriages. We are passing no judgment on those relationships beyond recognition that they exist, they are legal, and they are a fact of life in our community. Given that, we say and believe that they deserve equality before the law.
Ironically, these changes will also apply to heterosexual couples, where the rights of the De Facto Relationships Act fell short. The minister has given an example of the pension arrangements of judges and the Administrator who currently cannot provide equal legal rights for their partners unless they are married.
Children of same-sex relationships are also now to be legally protected. Children do not make choices about their parents’ relationships. They, therefore, should not suffer before the law for what occurs at their birth. Children have the right to be equal in the eyes of the law. The changes this government proposes says to children that we will support their rights equally with other children. At this time, the children of same-sex parents are discriminated against under a whole host of acts: Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, the Motor Accidents (Compensation) Act, the Police Administration Act, the Family Provision Act, the Crimes (Victims Assistance) Act, and the Taxation (Administration) Act.
People in same-sex relationships are financially disadvantaged before the law and we take that to be discriminatory. Same-sex partners will be given access to the Compensation (Fatal Injuries) Act so they may apply as a dependent of an injured or deceased partner. The Stamp Duty Act will be reformed in relation to property settlement between separated same-sex de facto partners.
Much reform will be done in provisions of the law which determine inheritance rights. Currently, partners in same-sex relationships do not have the same right to receive the inherited property of a deceased partner, as do other Territorians, from their relationships. That is basic discrimination. If you live in a same-sex relationship and do so for many years, then it is wrong to prevent you from inheriting in that relationship in the same way as any other partner would inherit.
Even more basic is the right to make decisions for your partner when they are in a dire state of health. Every person in a stable de facto relationship would expect that they have the right to decide, on behalf of their partners, about the receipt of medical intervention, autopsies, organ donation and consent for emergency operation. Gays and lesbians cannot do this. A woman or a man in a close relationship with a same-sex partner cannot make this fundamental call; a right that has been recognised for all other partners for many years. Most couples eventually talk about issues such as these. Most couples have an understanding of their partner’s wishes in the event of a coma or car accident. If you are gay or lesbian, it does not matter; you are not allowed to make that decision.
How does it progress our society for a government to continue to allow laws to act in such a discriminatory fashion? Or perhaps even more fundamentally, what threat does society result from government equalising those rights before the law? We would argue no threat whatsoever. Equally, there are responsibilities that heterosexual couples have which do not apply to gay and lesbian couples. For example, an applicant to the Territory Insurance Office Board is required to disclose the financial position of their partner; they are not if they are gay. The law should be and will be equalised so complete accountability is known and shown.
On the issue of the age of consent, I do not intend to get into arguments about maturity, preparedness, or vulnerability, because each and every individual person is different. There is just too much science that proves that no one person proceeds through adolescence at the same rate as his or her colleagues. Generalisations are dangerous things to make. I am not intending to get into the argument about readiness for sex because I believe it is a matter most firmly the responsibility of parents and their children acting together. Politicians should not be lecturing parents about preparing their children for this aspect of their life. We should be relying on parents to have those discussions with their children, and the knowledge that they have of their children.
However, governments must make a call about the age of consent and we recognise it is a difficult thing to do. Historically, governments in the Northern Territory have decided that the age of consent is 16 years. However, government then made a decision that this did not apply to young gay men. It applies to young women, no matter who they choose as a partner; it applies to young men should they choose a woman as their partner. Young gay men, however, cannot make that same decision at aged 16. It is discriminatory and it is a sweeping generalisation. The age of consent should apply to young people making decisions about sex - full stop.
The government believes these decisions should be made equally by young men and young women. We hope that they are made in the context of parental influence and upbringing over the 16 years previously, but that is an issue for each individual and each family. It is a vexed issue for people, but we all know that this issue is vexed whether we are talking about young men or young women, particularly if they are our own children.
The government is also acting today to amend laws to protect children. These laws have been woefully inadequate and it is an indictment that they have been left that way for so long. Some of the laws are archaic. For example, the law as it stands today assumes a young woman under the age of 16 who has sexual intercourse is a victim. Quite right. However, the law does not assume that a young man who is the victim of a sexual assault by another man is a victim. In fact, that young man can be charged for gross indecency, and we have a view that that is just simply crazy.
I am not going to articulate each and every change being proposed by these laws today; the debate will be long enough. However, at whatever time these laws are finally passed today, the children of the Northern Territory will be receiving greater protection under the law. People who are predators on children will receive greater punishment than ever before. That is a good thing and deserves the plaudits of each and every member of this House.
Madam Speaker, my original statement was: homosexuality is not illegal. We are not debating homosexuality; we are debating, in principle, equality before the law. In this debate, I believe government should treat all of its citizens equally before the law. It is a fundamental rock on which our whole system is based and it should apply to all citizens regardless of creed, religion, race or sexuality. I support the bill before the House.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I have to say that much in the bill attracts me. I have no major problem with so much of what is in the bill. It is unfortunate that the way the bill has been nobbled together, if you have a problem with one aspect of it, you are stuck with having to vote against it.
I do not know if my relationship with my wife is more valuable than anybody else’s relationship with anybody else. Frankly, I do not much care. All I know is that my relationship with my wife is something that I value and cherish and, if other people have relationships that they value and cherish, good luck to them.
I grew up in the city of Darwin, which was a wonderful place. You could come here as anybody, be as eccentric as you liked, and you were accepted into Darwin - and that included homosexual people. It was not that long ago that we buried poor old Peter Morgan. I grew up knowing of Peter Morgan, the Queen Mother in this town, and the Queen Mother was well accepted. This was a tolerant society. This is the society that elected a Chinese Mayor when there was a White Australia policy. He went on to be Speaker, if memory serves me correctly …
Members: President.
Mr ELFERINK: President of the Legislative Council of the Northern Territory. I will wash my mouth out.
That is the sort of society in which I grew up. The only test was that you made your own way and that you did not stand on anybody else’s toes in the process. The nature of people’s relationships is their business and that is not an aspect that I am going to dwell on in my response to the bill at all.
I am also attracted to the concept of equality before the law. It is a little glib just to throw that term around, but I understand what is being sought. I have no major problem with that idea at all. I do not mind equality before the law. It is not a bad thing in terms of people of different sexualities being able to enjoy certain legal rights. That is not an area of great concern to me either.
Of course, this is all thrown into one and, because of the politics of the way that this bill has been presented, the government has said: ‘Look, we are going to hold this political gun to your head. We are going to suggest, because we are loading this bill up with tougher penalties on child sex offences that, if you do not vote for it, the suggestion is that you do not support child sex offences and then read into that what you like’. That may be so, but the effect of being the opposite is that, where I am actually quite attracted to ramping up the penalties on child sex offences – damn - it is all part of the same bill.
What is my issue? Where do I have a problem with this bill? Where do I struggle? I struggle with the age of consent issue. I would like to take a little time to discuss that, because the member for Araluen raised during debate that the age of consent for girls is 16. Okay, that is fine, 16. Let us have a look at how it has performed for girls. The member for Araluen asked us, as a parliament, and suggested, I presume, to individual members, that we should look at the hypocrisy - I think she termed it - of allowing that age of consent to continue and expect it to be 18 for the boys. Maybe there is a point that she has raised that is worth investigating, so let us investigate it.
The age of consent for girls is 16. Last year, 200 children turned up in the Northern Territory with sexually transmitted diseases. That is a concern to me. I believe most of them were girls. I have not confirmed that, but I believe most of them were girls. Of those, there were three prosecutions. Of 200 girls with sexually transmitted diseases, under-aged, with three prosecutions. how many of those girls are having sex? How many of them are rapes unreported? How many of them are pressure in power relationships which are so difficult to define that they would never be defined as a rape other than the fact that it was a rape by statute - a statutory rape, the old term - for having sex with under-aged girls? What happens on those rare occasions that these things end up in court?
I have taken the time to have a bit of a burrow through, and there are aspects of the way that the courts deal with sex with under-age girls which are of concern to me. One of them, in particular, was one earlier this year, where the case was R v Curyer. Precising the facts of the case, there was an 18-year-old male and a 14-year-old female, and they had consensual sex, in the layman’s use of the term; they had a sexual relationship. In the sentencing comments in relation to that matter - the matter was heard in the lower court and sent to the Supreme Court for sentencing - the justice acknowledged that the girl was so drunk she had trouble standing up, but then still continued to call her a willing partner. I understand that there are other complexities in relation to the sentencing comments, and there were other comments, and there were issues dealing in mitigation with the young gentleman concerned. However, at the end of the day, that fellow who did this was convicted and, because the Northern Territory law requires a custodial sentence to be imposed, he was sentenced to one minute in custody, effectively – ‘for the rising of the court’ was the actual sentence. The mother of that child had brought that child to the police when she found out about the sexual relationship. I wonder why she did that? I am sure she was expecting some sort of penalty to flow from her complaint.
During the sentencing remarks, it is also interesting that two other cases were cited, one being R v Peacock, in which a 20-year-old male had a sexual relationship with a 12-year-old girl, and received two years imprisonment, suspended after three months. The justice in that particular case also referred to another case of R v Calma, where a 14-year-old girl had a relationship with an 18-year-old male. She conceived when she was 14, and wound up having an abortion. The sentence was two years fully suspended on a good behaviour bond.
So I ask the question: if we lower the age of consent for homosexual sex, does that mean that the sentencing practices on these particular cases find their way into a similar standard? Bearing in mind that the offences already carried very heavy penalties in terms of the top end of the scale, what we are actually getting is a much lower end of the scale. There is a reason I am quite concerned about this, and I will get to that shortly.
There are no proposed mandatory minimums in relation to these offences, so we could say, as a parliament, ‘The maximum penalty for having sex with a child under the age of 16 years is a zillion years’, and it will not matter because there is no bottom end to it. That concerns me, because the courts like to find the shades of grey. In fact, it is their job to find the shades of grey between the black and white of legislation. At an emotional level, I suppose, but also what I would call a common sense level, I do not feel that they are going far enough in passing sentences, so that is an area of concern. I get this sense that the current legislation, as it works, has failed females. I now rise to the challenge that the member for Araluen has put out.
The Attorney-General identified that people between the ages of 16 and 17 are vulnerable. He has created a new class of predator in the sense that those predators, in particular, teachers - and there were a handful of other sorts of people in close proximity and with personal responsibility over a child - if they have a sexual relationship with that child below the age of 18, then they have committed an offence and horrible things will happen to them. Well, that is good, but I do not understand the logic of it, because the logic of it says that, if my music teacher interferes with me, as a girl or a boy between the ages or 16 or 17, then that person is committing an offence. However, if my drug supplier interferes with me and I have consensual sex between the age of 16 and 17, I commit no offence.
On the areas of protection that the Attorney-General has outlined - these people who are in close proximity - I understand where he is coming from. However, the areas that the Attorney-General has outlined tells me that those people who have positions of trust and responsibility are people that he is worried about. What about those people who have, potentially, an economic influence - an employer perhaps, a drug supplier, a creditor, a banker - any number of people who do not fall within the classifications of which the Attorney-General has outlined? If you look at the nature of those relationships between people - I have relationships with people every day, but they are not something that are absolute relationships; they have different levels of trust applying to them at every level. When I am driving down the road, people I do not know - never met them before - I have a relationship with trust that they are going to stay on the left-hand side of the road. I also, when I was a child, had a relationship of trust with my mother which was absolute. There is no cut-off point; it is a transitional process that we find ourselves in.
The member for Araluen said - and I am afraid it was a little glib - that you cannot get a 16-year-old boy to clean his room - that is true – and you cannot get a 13-year-old boy to clean his room. My mother, when I was 13, certainly could not get me to clean my room. However, there was a man who did have an influence over me in a most wicked way. He actually engaged in behaviour which was very offensive towards me. I will go so far as to say that he had full-on sex with me over an eight-month period. He ultimately went to jail for it. I had to give a statement to police a few years ago. I have asked for that statement to be forwarded to each member and it will be delivered shortly. That statement accounts, in the most graphic way, the things that were done. They hurt me, they upset me, and these things happen. However, nowhere in that statement, from re-reading it, do I discover that I said no. I was 13 at the time and this guy had, basically, sodomised me.
The relationship of trust that you have between older people and younger people is something that changes over time; the dynamics and those sorts of things between people change. There may be all sorts of different offenders, but there is only one sort of victim. The Attorney-General came in here and said: ‘We are going to identify the worst type of offenders, those people who breach trust’. Well, you are going to miss out a whole swag of other offenders. Frankly, the problem that I have here is that the offence, once it is perpetrated on the victim, is still perpetrated, whether is it legal because the victim is 16 and a consenting child under the Criminal Code. If a consenting child at 16 goes to a public house, slips in there illegally; he is not supposed to be there until he is 18. Along comes another fellow, they have a discussion and they agree to go off and have a sexual relationship. That 16-year-old is influenced because this other fellow has $2000 sitting in his pocket, Lamborghini out the front, and there is a power relationship there.
My problem is that I am unsure - as is the minister - whether or not a 16-year-old or a 17-year-old average, garden variety kid - boy or girl; do not know which – has the mental, emotional, or spiritual capacity to say yes or no to certain powerful influences. At the age of 18, you could pretty safely say that you are an adult, and we rely on you to make those decisions for yourself. Gee whiz, even the minister struggles with this concept which is why he has tried to weave these trust relationships into the legislation.
As far as I am concerned, whatever people do as adults is entirely their business. But what happens to kids is my business as a legislator. If it is a female or male, I do not care; whatever happens to kids is my business. We have failed our girls in the courts, in the legislation, in bringing these matters to courts. I am terrified we are also going to fail our boys. What is happening to the girls is wrong. What is going to happen to the boys in these circumstances, I am so afraid, is wrong. The effect of it is that two wrongs do not make a right.
I urge all members to read that statement. I am not going to table it. I do not really care if it finds its way in the public arena, but I am not going to table it. I want people to know that, when we talk about child sex offences, we are not talking about some clinical, abstract concept. When I discussed the matter with Madam Speaker yesterday - and I suggested that I might read a couple of parts out - the contents of that statement were so disturbing to her, she was unable to finish reading it. The offence described in that statement was such an affront to her sensibilities - and I know couple of other people have read it since - such an affront to their sensibilities that they were unable to find it in themselves to read it in one session.
What I am asking is that we turn our consciences through this particular sorts of offences. We turn our consciences to 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds and ask the question: if the acts perpetrated in that statement to a 16-year-old or 17-year-old are something that give you so much as a skerrick of doubt, then surely we must revisit the age of consent?
The standard in this bill which is being set in terms of penalties is being raised but, for political reasons, because the standard in another area is being lowered. For pity’s sake, if we have children’s welfare at our hearts and as a core of our concern, we raise the standard across the board, it would satisfy the argument of equality before the law. The amendment that I am going to propose, by raising the age of consent to 18 years - and I am not saying this to suggest that all sex will go away at 18 - but raising the standard, raising the bar will satisfy the equality argument and do more to protect our children.
Every vote that we take in this place is a conscience vote. It is a matter of conscience that we join a political party - or sit as an Independent - that we then agree by the rules of that political party or whatever to come into this place and vote in blocks. However, every vote is a conscience vote. I, at any time, at any vote, can cross the floor and take a vote with the opposition. I urge members, especially those people whom I know have reservations on the other side - this is not politics, this is a plea; it is a straight forward plea - read the statement. If you can get through it in one reading, you are doing better than a lot of people. When you read it, search your heart, your soul, and your mind, and ask yourself: is this the sort of thing that I would like happening to a 16-year-old or 17-year-old boy or girl? It just so happened that, in this instances, the perpetrator was a male and I was a male. It does not matter; it is the acts themselves and they are violent acts. The power relationships that I had with this particular fellow was, ultimately, very negative and the damage caused was profound. It took a few years to get over it, I can tell you.
I ask members to turn to their consciences, to their hearts. Read the statement in the light in which it is intended to be read, as to what happens when these things go wrong. If you have so much as a reservation or a doubt, support my amendment to raise the age to 18 across the board, and I will see the major obstacle to this legislation evaporate before me.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I really was hoping not to get to the stage where I had to talk about these things so frankly, but sometimes your obligations visit you rather than you visiting your obligations. It is necessary for me to be honest with all parliamentarians. Because of what happened to me as a kid, I have a valuable contribution to make in terms of protection, and I am proud to do so. I am not ashamed of what happened, but, gee whiz, I hope that we come out with a solution at the end of this that is good for the kids of the Northern Territory.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, it is good to see 12 independents in parliament today. It would be nice to see 25 but, as we know from the previous vote, that is not going to happen.
Today is one day I hoped would never happen; one that I knew would eventually come after the minister announced some changes without much real detail in June this year - not the bill as it has been put to this House today. It is one reason I took a little trip down the track at that time to gather my thoughts on this difficult and troublesome proposition that I knew I might have to debate.
Today is the day that had to come and, as much as I would prefer to be in a little boat somewhere quietly trying to catch a fish, this matter must be debated no matter what the consequences, the pain and what others may think. This bill must be debated to highlight what a dreadful piece of legislation it is - legislation that will have long-term social and moral effects on our society. For sure, the world will not implode, as the Chief Minister told me recently, but it will erode gradually over time if we do not try and stop it.
Today is a sad day for families, for young people and for those many people out there whose values do not come from Cleo, Cosmopolitan, Will and Grace, The Throb nightclub or the few government-funded bodies which have pushed this. Luckily, there are people who see further than the last page of this bill, and see what this bill is all about.
Today, this government is trying to push legislation that is shallow because it has pushed the issue of equality as if nothing else should be considered. This bill undermines families, parenting, marriage, de facto relationships, our youth - especially our young men - and many of the values many people - whether religious leanings or otherwise - try to uphold. This bill is devious, scheming, calculating, contemptuous, deceitful, complicated and, worst of all, political. It is the hamburger with the lot!
Just for starters, look at the process. The bill should have been split so that many of the changes could have been voted on individually. You have to lump it or like it. That is designed to make it more difficult for people to make a choice; a deliberate and calculated ploy.
This bill covers a huge range of issues: the age of consent; new penalties for sex offenders; protection of young people from predators; teaching of religion and employment; incest; changing the definition of de facto to be marriage-like; matters to be taken into account for a de facto relationship to occur; numbers of de facto partners; references to Aboriginal marriages; changes to pension rights; IVF for lesbians; and changes to the definition of parenting.
This bill is complex. It changes many acts of parliament. It is something that requires much more time - not five weeks - to grasp what is in this bill. If it is difficult for me, what is like for the average bloke in the street? It took the Attorney-General at least 45 minutes just to deliver the second reading speech. Putting everything in one bill reduces the members’ time to cover all these issues in 30 minutes. Of course, each section can be debated in committee, but surely these issues, because of their importance, need to dealt with in a way that shows that importance: by having the bill broken up into its components. This would have allowed members to vote on each change without being hampered by having to vote on an entire bill.
If the bill is changed for the better on some issues, but does not change on other issues to which I am opposed, I have little choice but not to support the entire bill. If the bill had been split, there may have been that opportunity.
In the Attorney-General’s media release of 24 June 2003, he said:
- The proposed reforms include:
providing access to de facto property settlements and ensuring quality in areas involving other general property rights, financial transactions and access to benefits and superannuation;
and ensuring that children raised by homosexual households have equal access to benefits, support and rights of those children in heterosexual households.
This bill lacks broad community consultation. The push for this bill came from a community legal group. The rumour is that the Aids Council and the Ruby Gaea Centre were also consulted. But this seems to have been a recent afterthought, as it certainly was not mentioned in the Attorney-General’s second reading speech. Even if they were consulted, it would be like consulting three sheep from the same flock with different coloured coats, but still sheep with the government - the other sheep just blindly following along. There was no consultation with families, youth, church groups, ethnic groups, police, Aboriginal groups, health groups, or the community in general. Just have a look at the comments from community groups like the Greek, Filipino, Catholic and Islamic communities. They highlight the fact that you have not consulted, and I quote from the Darwin Christian Ministers Association, who wrote:
- We met recently to discuss the bill ... By consensus we resolved to request the government to stay the bill or move it to committee, in order to allow for broad public consultation. Respectfully, we believe that there has been an inadequate time allowed for consultation, given this reform touches so many different statutes. Further, we see a significant number of legal ambiguities which, given time, would be eliminated, effecting good legislation. Finally, we are concerned with some sections of the bill, believing they do not afford good governance and require a more extensive consultation process.
These groups were not part of the process. They were deliberately avoided from what was a totally one-sided and biased approach to this whole debacle - an absolute disgrace. The process was contemptuous. The government gave five weeks for this bill to be debated, but did nothing to publicise it. It included it in a package of 12 bills to be debated in two days when, at the last sittings, we passed three bills in six days. This is part of the scheming. This is part of the contempt for the wider community. It did not publicise this bill, as it was hoping as few people as possible would hear about it. Also, the CLP was having a few problems of its own at the time and perhaps had its eye off the ball.
That is why a dedicated group of concerned members of our community put on their best runners and delivered those letters through the many suburbs of Darwin. I know now that Karama has more dogs than the entire rural area. Some people said: ‘You should not have been doing this as it was outside your electorate’. This is a Territory-wide issue and I am a Territory politician. As for the member for Araluen saying I did not deliver to Alice Springs, that is true. But we walked the streets of the northern suburbs and that is the only way we got them delivered. I am afraid I did not have the time to drive to Alice Springs.
This is the only way to let people know what the government was doing. After all, the government was not going to spend thousands of dollars on glossy brochures to tell the people about these new government proposals, as they did to tell the northern suburbs community about the millions they intend to spend on the police force. They were not going to tell families the good news. The government did nothing. That is right; that was part of the plan - keep it quite, do not say anything.
Compare the way the government has made a fuss about saving the Daly River: press releases, plenty of ads asking for people to be on the advisory board, and an advisory board which will have to look at all the implications of development in the Daly River catchment. They will be going around for months collecting data, talking to people, talking to experts, and writing up reports. What an effort to make sure we save the environment and have sustainable development. But what do we do when it comes to sustainable community, sustainable families, sustainable parenting, and sustainable youth? We put out no discussion paper; just one press release in June and another last month. And we have five weeks to look at the bill, all jammed in amongst the private members day, plus 12 bills in three days, with no attempt to publicise or do anything like that done for the Daly. It says a lot about this government’s view of its Territory constituents. It has treated them with distain and given this parliament legislation sanction and, promoted by federal Labor, we Territorians have to cop it.
Did any of the Aboriginal communities know what was going on? Did our politicians discuss or even publicise these proposals? Yes, I did send out letters to all chairs of local government councils. What did the government do? Did these laws make the front page of the indigenous newspaper, Common Ground? Not flaming likely! The government says they want to talk to Aboriginals when it comes to statehood but, when it comes to changing laws which are of concern to Aboriginal people, such as families, parenting, age of consent, and homosexuality, they do not want to talk any more. One group of Aboriginal people made a statement in September this year on a related subject. I would like to read from this statement of the Northern Regional Uniting Aboriginal and Islander and Christian Congress:
We read and understand from Genesis Chapter 1 verses 26 and 27 that man was made in the image of God, in the likeness of God, and that ‘male and female He created them’. He created them to be ‘fruitful and increase in number’. Also from Chapter 2 verses 21 to 24, we understand woman was formed from man with the intention that man and woman be united and ‘they will become one flesh’.
God has also revealed Himself to the indigenous peoples of this land through the creation beings. We understand from Djan’kawu, Barama and Wagilag and the stories of creation that God bought forth from the earth bone/bundurr which is sacred, and blood/wukundi which is life. Accompanying these was madayin/law. By God’s breath of spirit was life given to bundurr. This is the sacredness of life, and the law which accompanies it is to ensure peace, tranquillity - a harmony with all of God’s creation – magayamirr dhukarr.
We are to be djununymirr, to stop and think of the law and system, of life and its sacredness before acting. Leviticus 18 has much to say which mirrors our understanding of God’s life-giving way to live.
At this time, the ministers and leaders of the NRCC are boyu gora/ashamed - what is a possibility of the Uniting Church of Australia is against everything that we believe and are as people. This is such a threat to us; it’s like bringing something which will destroy us as a people. We are ashamed to be known as members and ministers of the Uniting Church.
Our resolution
- We the members of the NRCC cannot accept the recognition of persons in same-sex relationships within leadership of the Uniting Church.
We are not comfortable being in a church which accepts as a valid sexual ethic ‘right relationships’ of the same sex
If the Uniting Church continues to be open to persons who are in a same-sex relationship being accepted into leadership, then there is no place for the indigenous members of the Northern Synod in the Uniting Church. We see same-sex relationships as being against the very sacredness and holiness of the life and law God has given us as a people.
- Northern Regional Council UAICC
27 September 2003.
Although people might not accept the religious point of view of what I read, it is a viewpoint from Aboriginal people that I do not believe have had their views taken into account.
One could ask: are these Aboriginal views or could these Aboriginal people be accused of homophobia? I will read another letter that I received yesterday from the Beswick community:
- NT government, to whom it may concern
Regarding these two new laws the NT government has planned, we are sorry that we didn’t have time for a more professional letter to be drafted, but we only found out about this today …
That is on the 24 November:
- About your de facto relationship law change. It’s right that Aboriginal customary law marriages should be treated as the same as Australian law marriages - but to call a homosexual relationship a marriage is against Aboriginal law and insulting to many of our people.
About that change to law to lower the age of consent between males from 18 to 16. We have too much problem on communities with men humbugging boys for sex now and this will make it even harder to stop them.
Please think about what you are doing and talk to more grassroot Aboriginal people before you write laws like this. If you have to have a vote, please let parliament vote according to your conscience.
It was signed by the President; the Vice-President Joseph Brown; health worker; school teacher, Caroline Wurreen, shop manager; Anderson George, pastor; and the community manager at Beswick.
Perhaps I should say regarding comments where the member for Arnhem disputed what I had said about the connection between Aboriginal traditional marriage and de facto. I do not have a problem with what the minister is saying, when he explained the reasons for this being put in the act. However, the way it is put in the act - and I have consulted on it. I am referring to clause 28(g) where it says:
… In this Act –
(a) a reference to a de facto partner of an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander includes a reference to an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander to whom the person is married according to the customs and traditions of the particular community of Aboriginals or Torres Strait Islanders with which either person identifies; and
Joining it together:
(b) a reference to a de facto relationship includes a reference to the relationship between 2 persons who are de facto partners by virtue of paragraph (a).
You have linked the de facto relationship which is, under this new act, allowing same-sex marriages. You have equated it. You may not have deliberately done it, but you have equated it.
I suppose what highlights all this, again, is the lack of consultation with the Aboriginal people. The academic, anonymous white fellows from the south commonly known by the last independent for Nelson as the Balmain basket weavers, who are pushing this rubbish, are treating this matter as if it was a white’s only law, and care little about the effects it has on other cultures. Who are these faceless white fellows who are pushing this? It is federal Labor. I just cannot believe Territory Labor politicians could support this terrible bit of legislation. Maybe federal Labor bent their arms up their backs and they gave in. Maybe someone could tell me if it is true that the ALP has adopted this agenda under the banner of equity and discrimination as part of its platform, both federally and in each state and territory. Is it also true that this has removed the issue of a free vote for ALP members of parliament, who are then required to vote on party lines? This push for this legislation did not come from the community. Many people have asked me why we are changing this legislation in the first place. This has to come from federal Labor, followed by our local sheep. At the last election, the ALP made a big fuss about being the Territory Labor Party. It is obvious that this is not the case any more. That is the process, and that is how we got here today.
Let us look at the bill. This Attorney-General has made a big play about equality. It is a consistent theme throughout the bill. In his press release on 24 June, he says that equality before the law is a fundamental right, and that is why we are introducing these changes. However, in the same breath, on page 2 of his press release, he says that the current arrangements for IVF will stay and adoption will not be available for gay and lesbian couples. They are not allowed what others are allowed. So much for equality. Regardless, equality pops up in this bill continually and is used as a centrepiece to argue for change. This is a bill that mixes up equality with equity. It pretends that equality does not have to take into account other factors, even when dealing with human beings. As we know, not everyone is allowed in the pub. You might be too young, or wearing thongs and shorts: age discrimination and dress discrimination. Not everyone can play in the same rugby team. The girls cannot play in the same team as the boys as they get older: gender discrimination. The police have more powers than other citizens do: job discrimination. Governments have to balance equality with its obligation to protect our community. It is called positive discrimination.
The minister claims that the government must lower the age of consent for the sake of equality. He then, absolutely without any evidence, says that by lowering the age of consent, youth suicides or physical and mental health problems will be reduced. As the member for Blain said: no evidence. In fact, if he is relying on the Community Legal Service submission, they say they only think it might be the case: no evidence. The minister says this could be because they are reluctant to seek medical and counselling advice because they might be reported for being involved in a criminal act. Where does it say that doctors have to tell the authorities about consensual sex between two young people? The ministers says that ‘Young persons aged between 16 and 17 can be emotionally vulnerable and easily influenced’, and that is the quote. They are the words I used myself. When people go knocking me for saying that young boys will be vulnerable and easily influenced, the minister has said the same thing. I took it from the second reading speech. If people do not believe me, ask why it is in the second reading speech.
As I said, the minister said that young persons aged 16 and 17 can be emotionally vulnerable and easily influenced, and then removed section 128 of the Criminal Code, which at least sent out the message that law-makers had concerns about the vulnerable and easily influenced. The member for Goyder recently said to me that the difference in age of consent is derived from Common Law over many years, which recognised that boys were more vulnerable and easily influenced. I am not the only one saying that. The Filipino Society, for instance, says:
- 16-year-old children are very vulnerable and not mature enough to discern fully the difference between right and wrong, as we often witness with our youngsters in our Northern Territory community. Furthermore, 16-year-old youngsters are far too young to be given this huge responsibility, to make informed decisions in their lives.
16-year-old youngsters are at a greater risk of being exploited, manipulated and even fall victim to circumstances or being abused. If the bill becomes an act, the perpetrators would have the utmost protection from the law.
Due to peer pressure and/or questionable images brought about by sensationalising media, that often promotes questionable community values. 16-year-old youngsters often do things with no full understanding of the consequences of their action. Often the consequences are not only regrettable but damaging. Furthermore, damages are often irreparable and leave an indelible scar for the rest of the person’s life.
As members of the NT community, we advocate the principle that children need protection. We strongly feel that if this bill becomes an act of law, the law itself will not be able to guarantee protection of the children because we believe that the would-be law will create legal ground in removing the protection for this vulnerable group, which the current law provides.
I will quote from a letter from the Islamic Society:
- We, the members of the Muslim community in the Northern Territory, understand that the Northern Territory government intends to proceed and enact the above bill into an act of parliament before the end of this year. The act will have far-reaching ramifications for all residents of the NT, not least members of religious groups such as Muslims, who view the potential act with absolute dread. It will expose our children and teenagers to unnecessary risks, both physical and moral, for what gain?
- I appreciate the aim to introduce new measures to protect children and young people from predatory adults. But this aim is compromised by the proposal that it could become legal for 16-year-old boys to have sex with older men.
I think the plea that this would remove discrimination between boys and girls would mean that dealing with a minor matter would have a major negative moral effect. Are there 16-year-old boys who really feel hardly done by because they can’t have sex with their older buddy? Such a law will encourage curiosity and lead to experimenting for boys who would otherwise not go down a path that can result in some terrible consequences.
To have the area of opportunity enlarged in which older men can indulge in what is at least unnatural and, at worst, an activity that will spoil young lives - surely this will never improve the moral tone of Territory society?
If the government really wants to ‘Build the Future’, better rather for the Territory to send a more wholesome message and do a more honourable thing and raise the age for both boys and girls.
Robert Poulton, in a letter printed in the NT News on 20 October, wrote that the government is saying it is okay for ‘a 16-year-old boy who is too young too vote, too young to smoke, too young to drink, is mature enough to go to bed with a 60-year-old man if he so desires’. That would be really no sign of maturity and is a sad, sad scenario.
The minister says that this is simply a matter of equality, as if equality is a stand-alone principle. We are not all pieces of cardboard. We are humans and, just like the example of the rugby, where girls are not allowed to play against boys for health or possibly improper contact reasons, equality does not apply. Boys are not the same as girls. Many people - ordinary mums and dads I have spoken to - are totally opposed to lowering the age of consent, as well as the community groups I spoke to earlier.
I was going to quote from a letter that the Greek women gave to, I suppose, all parliamentarians yesterday, which highlights that exactly, if I can find it. It is a letter that pleads from the hearts of mothers not to allow this legislation to go through. This is from Mrs Nicolakis on behalf of all concerned mothers of the Northern Territory, and it says:
- Although the government of Australia do not regard 16-year-old boys to be mature enough to smoke, drink or vote, you now believe they are mature enough to decide whether or not they should engage in homosexual sex. The maturity of the average 16-year-old boy has not changed between 2002 and 2003, so why now must this protection for our boys be removed? Has there been a rush of 16-year-old boys knocking down your door demanding a change in these laws? Has there been an onslaught of 16-year-old boys challenging you that they be allowed to enter the homosexual life? If you could name five that had approached you to change these laws, we would be amazed.
I also do not support homosexuality, as I have said in my letter, as a healthy and natural lifestyle. It is funny that, in this entire debate, the government avoids the issue of homosexuality. I suppose that highlights that they are concerned about the ramifications of such a discussion. They might be called homophobic. Do we call all the Greek women homophobic? It is sad that, when one questions the morality or philosophy of homosexuality, one is immediately classed as homophobic. It is about as logical as saying that because I disapprove of gambling, I therefore hate gamblers. You should always love the person. That does not mean you have to love what they do.
Since I sent out my letter, I certainly received my fair share of hate mail and vitriolic phone calls, calling me homophobic and bigamist. One caller, when he knew I came from the rural area, claimed that my views could be explained because I came from the Bible belt. After seeing the latest statistics from the ABS on religious allegiance in my electorate, there must be an awful lot of people whose trousers keep falling down.
I talk from my own life experience. I was also a young bloke myself. Being 16 and 17 is a crazy, mixed-up time in one’s life. However, I received guidance from my parents and teachers, and I believe the values they instilled in me are just as applicable today. I believe lowering the age will only make our young men - our emotionally vulnerable and easily influenced young men, the young men I meet each week when I umpire football - more open to these influences. I, like many others, believe these changes are not for the better. There are 400 years of Common Law experience behind the existing laws - why change them? If the government really thinks that equality is the be-all and end-all, then support the member for Macdonnell’s amendment to raise the age of consent; it will give more protection to all. I certainly will be supporting it.
The next major issue is the change to the definition of de facto relationships. The minister makes a big play that the proposed reforms would ensure equality before the law for all Territorians, no matter what their sexuality. However, then by changing the definition of de facto relationships, he then goes on to discriminate against those couples who do not have sexual relationships, such as widows, widowers, brothers and sisters, uncles and aunties, who may also live together - another deception. This is not trying to deal with equality because, if it was, the government would have introduced something similar to my proposed amendment, the concept of domestic co-dependence. This concept allows equality without needing to raise the issue of sexuality. By not doing this, by trying to put this tiny minority of people into a classification that equates with a de facto husband and wife relationship and adding the words, ‘marriage-like’, the government showed that the words ‘equality’ and ‘discrimination’ are really the path to another goal. This is in the business of promoting this lifestyle by giving it a marriage-like status. This should be recognised for what it is: an underhanded attack on the family.
Marriage is the fundamental basis of our society in all cultures in our Territory. Some people live in a de facto relationship, but the basis is still a male and female living together as if they were married. ‘Marriage-like’ means like a marriage, and married means a male and female living together, loving together and having a complementary sexual relationship that has the potential to produce human life - children - and then we have family. Same-sex couples also may love one another and live together but, although they involve themselves in sexual acts as much as they might like, nature says two males and two females cannot make a child. Blind Freddie can see that and nature knows it too. It cannot be marriage or ‘marriage-like’ ever. I found a little saying in a book: ‘Nothing which is morally wrong can ever be politically right’.
However, that does not take away the fact that gay people should have rights, and that can be done by including them as domestic co-dependents. The phrase ‘domestic co-dependents’ is defined as two persons who have co-habited with each other continuously for the five-year period immediately proceeding the date - and that date is the date the local court declared the two persons were domestic co-dependents - or had, during the six-year period immediately proceeding that date, so co-habited with each other for periods aggregating not less than five years. A relationship of dependence is a relationship between two persons, where the person is cared for or contributes to the maintenance of each other, or one person cares for or contributes to the maintenance of the other. This is a good concept because it makes the following irrelevant: the persons are of different sexes or the same sex, the persons are related by blood or marriage, or are not so related, or either of the persons is in a relationship with another person.
This amendment does not bother about sexuality. It does not discriminate against those others who will be left out of the equation if the bill is passed in this present state, and it takes away the debate about marriage-like. It solves the problem. But will the government support this amendment? I do not know. Or is this debate not about equality but for an excuse for promoting another agenda? If the only reason the government is pushing this bill is to give property and other rights to homosexual couples, then it is all here. If they do not support this amendment, then the reasons given for this bill are one big cover-up.
Is this really the activist, militant gay lobby agenda being promoted, or is it a matter of human rights? Is this government really saying it is supporting the concept that same-sex relationships are real marriages, but are hiding behind the words ‘marriage-like’ simply because the Commonwealth will not agree with same-sex marriages? Why do they not come out in the open? If the government does not support my amendment, then I will know it is all a big smoke screen disguised as equality.
Of course, there are more issues. There are the issues of rights of religious schools to teach their beliefs and not to employ people who are not supportive of those beliefs. There are some questions here that really should have been given a lot more attention to. The Anti-Discrimination Commissioner reckons this could have been done by using contracts. I am not so sure. I would like to know whether the gardener at the religious school who is promoting stealing as a good and proper vocation in life becomes a candidate for the sack, or is his work, although outside the formal teaching part of the school, not regarded as in the area of work? Why did the government remove the section in the act which deals with the doctrine of the religion but has, thankfully, now restored it? This section, like the rest of the bill, should have more time for discussion. If the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner is querying this, what is going on? If the Filipino and Greek communities have great concerns about this section of the bill, what is going on?
Then we have the de facto relationship under clause 29, proposed new section 3A, which I hope will disappear with my amendments. This is a dreadful piece of legislation. It is so loose and ‘up with the fairies’ type stuff. There is a strange clause which seems to support legalised de facto polygamy. It is experimental social engineering designed to change the way society is, and all done by faceless people who have not asked anyone in the Northern Territory community whether they want it or not. I do not believe that any government that is genuinely concerned for Territorians and their families can support such dreadful stuff.
However, there is plenty more. The government intends to change the definition of incest to make it more equal so both sexes are covered. One could say that is fair, but was there a real need to change the definition? Isn’t this just another little jumbled piece of legal experimentation to show the public how it has now brought equality …
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member, your time has expired.
Mr DUNHAM: I move that the member for Nelson be granted leave to continue his remarks.
Leave denied.
Mr DUNHAM: Give it up; we did it for you. Do you want to gag debate? Keep going, Gerry.
Mr WOOD: A jumbled piece of legal experimentation to show the public how it has now brought equality to the area of sex …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! The member’s time has expired and leave is not granted to extend time.
Mr Baldwin: He never called it.
Dr Lim: You are not the Speaker - sit down.
Ms LAWRIE: That is what has just occurred. I am pointing it out. I called a point of order on it.
Mr Dunham: Are you warning us? That is a bit arrogant, isn’t it?
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: My understanding is that the motion was put and the motion was defeated.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, as law-makers, we are often challenged to address …
Mr Baldwin: Gag – absolutely gag! Every other debate, you have been allowed an extension of time.
Ms LAWRIE: I pick up on the interjection. We have hours ahead in committee stage where, I am sure, the member for Nelson will put his views.
As law-makers, we are often challenged to address inequity in society, and the gay and lesbian law reform legislative changes before the parliament here today are one such instance. Human sexuality is a highly emotive issue debated by people along religious, societal, medical and cultural grounds. There is no singular view. Government has had the task of weighing up the law reforms sought by the Territory’s gay and lesbian community, in which they have sought to be treated in a just, fair and reasonable manner in law. In my contribution in support of the government’s reform package, I will briefly touch on just what the legislative changes provide in rights and responsibilities to Territorians, as the Attorney-General and the Deputy Chief Minister have quite adequately detailed these specific changes.
On introduction of the bill before the Assembly last month, the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General, who has carriage of this raft of legislative reforms, spelled out the areas of law being changed to ensure equality of treatment for gay and lesbian Territorians. The reforms include: extending the domestic violence laws to gay couples to provide the same protection from abusive relationships as exists for heterosexual couples; amendments to the Anti-Discrimination Act that currently allow discrimination in employment on the basis of sexuality, and to limit the exemption for religious bodies to religious observance, while recognising the right of religious schools to employ teachers who adhere to the tenets of a particular religion; amendments to the Anti-Discrimination Act to allow employers to obtain a compulsory criminal check before employing a person in areas involving care of vulnerable people, including children; the reforms provide access to de facto property settlements and ensure equality in all areas involving other general property rights, financial transactions and access to benefits and superannuation; the reforms equalise the age of consent at 16 years for all Territorians, irrespective of gender or sexual preference, removing the discrimination against gay consenting partners; and ensuring the children raised by homosexual households have equal access to benefits, support and rights as those children in heterosexual households.
During debate on these reforms, people have raised their fear of predatory behaviour by adults. It is with acknowledgment of such societal concerns that the government included in its reforms before the House today significant new laws to protect children against sexual abuse because existing laws, governed by the hypocritical CLP, have failed to keep pace with the societal expectations. Advice provided by our Attorney-General details the sex offence reforms to include: an increase in the penalties for sexual intercourse or gross indecency of children from their previously inadequate and offensive maximum of seven years gaol where the child is aged 14 and over, and 14 years gaol when the child is aged 14, to a greater deterrence of the general offence being increased to 16 years jail for offences against children aged 10 or over; and 25 years for victims aged under 10. New aggravated sexual offences will attract a maximum 20 years imprisonment for predatory offenders. For children aged under 10, this offence will be 25 years. Penalties for indecent dealing with a child under 16 years are to be increased from five years for victims aged 12 or more, to 10 years where the victim is aged between 10 and 16 years. It will be increased to 14 years where the victim is aged under 10.
A new offence will also be introduced to protect 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds from predatory adults, addressing a gap in existing law. The offence will apply to people who have a special relationship with this age group; for example, guardians, step parents, carers, supervisors and the like. Penalties of up to eight years jail for sexual offences committed against 16-year-olds and four years for sexual offence committed against 17-year-olds will be enacted. Penalties for the offence of maintaining an unlawful sexual relationships with a child will be increased to maximum penalties of 20 years and life to reflect the seriousness of such hideous crimes. Amendments also provide for the general penalty of 14 years gaol for incest for both male and female perpetrators, with 16 years for victims aged between 10 and 16 years, and 25 years for victims aged under 10.
In toto, all of these reforms together send a message. It is not a crime for 16-year-olds and above, irrespective of gender or sexual preference, to undertake a consensual sexual relationship. It is, however, a very serious crime to abuse children and teenagers through predatory behaviour by an adult. It is with disappointment that I have heard speakers in this debate skew the bonds of love between consenting adults or teenagers with predatory behaviour, flying in the face of reality and research that shows such abhorrent behaviour is perpetrated in the majority by heterosexuals who are known to the victim. I refer members to the very informative, yet tragic and at times gut-wrenchingly sickening, discussions broadcast on ABC radio just yesterday when presenter Annie Gaston interviewed a sex offender researcher. I am sure members of this Assembly have access to that transcript.
I will quote from a report to the Council of the British Medical Association from the Board of Science and Education. It was produced in 1994 to inform the UK government on its then age of consent debate. Specifically, the report details the Sigma Project, a major longitudinal study of British homosexual and bisexual men. Of the 111 men aged under 21 studied, more than 50% had had their first homosexual experience by age 16, and more than 90% by age 18. It showed that the average age of first homosexual experience was just 15.7 years. The report explains, as the Sigma study revealed, that 60% of these first homosexual encounters were with a partner within two years of their own age, and most were hoped for and actively sought. Thus, the picture from the Sigma studies is not one of vulnerable boys needing protection from older men.
The report explains that a study of homosexual and bisexual male STD clinic patients in the US found that 37% said that they have been encouraged or forced to have sex with an older or more powerful partner. Importantly, however, the median age when this first occurred was 10 years. The report shows a comparative table of age of consent that lists heterosexual and homosexual age of consent throughout Europe. The comparative table reflects the comparative table that this government found throughout Australian jurisdictions; that most jurisdictions have the same age of consent irrespective of gender or sexual preference. Indeed, some nations such as Greece, Poland, Sweden and the Slovak Republic have chosen 15 as the age of consent. Some have the age of consent at 14, such as Bulgaria and Iceland. However, many nations in Europe have chosen the age of consent as 16.
The conclusions of this British Board of Science and Education Report show that the average age of the first homosexual encounter has been found to be 15.7 years of age, and the report says that it is vital that these young homosexual men receive effective health education and care. It states that most researchers believe that adult sexual orientation is usually established before the age of puberty in both girls and boys. It also states that age of consent legislation aims to protect vulnerable young people from sexual exploitation and abuse, but says there is no clear justification for a differential age of consent. It says:
- Unwelcome sexual attentions of a seriousness warranting criminal prosecution are equally offensive whether the victim is a man or a woman; the same law should apply to all.
I want to dwell on that last recommendation of the British report: the same law should apply to all. That is really what we are about here today in this House, that, indeed, the same law should apply to all, and this underpins the reforms brought before the House today.
It is time to end discrimination in the Territory. These reforms are fair, just and reasonable and have not torn apart the fabric of our Australian society, nor European society and, nor do I believe, will they tear apart our Territory society. It is intolerance that does far greater damage to the fabric of our society. These reforms reinforce tolerance and acceptance of diversity while enhancing the protection available to our most valuable asset, our children.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I apologise to those wonderful gay and lesbian people I know who, through comments from members of this House, have had to suffer homophobic views. I share their horror and disgust. I commend these reforms to the House. I commend the members in this House who will support this considered and reasonable move to equity before the law.
Ms CARTER (Port Darwin): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, at the outset, I must express my disappointment in the way the Martin Labor government has processed this legislation. I expect that all 12 non-Labor members of parliament feel the same way, and that many will say so tonight.
I must advise the Chief Minister and her colleagues to ponder the way they have presented this important legislation. They should take heed of the unrest in our community over it, and they should recall the way the previous government was dealt with by the voting public because they, the public, were not happy with the then government, and did not like the way they were being treated by it.
My concerns with the way this legislation has been put to Territorians focusses on two areas. First, the speed at which we, as members of parliament, must deal with it. Certainly, there are times when it is necessary to pass legislation quickly, and we do that, usually with the support of all members. However, in this case, there is no reason to rush this matter through.
Members will recall some years ago, the issue of voluntary euthanasia was presented to this House by a Private Member’s Bill. Many months expired before it was voted on. During that time, a great deal of community consultation was pursued by the MLAs and a great deal of debate was held. I am sure the MLAs at the time also availed themselves of detailed briefings. The matter was carefully considered and, if I may say so, in the end the right decision was made. What a pity it all came to nothing a short time later. But no one questioned the process.
Today, however, we have a different process, a fast-tracking. This bill was tabled in this House only two sitting days ago, on 15 October, five weeks ago. I do not understand the haste. Is the government frightened of something? Are they ashamed of something? I do not know, but such speed must make observers wonder what is going on. Why is this bill so urgent, when others can sit on our Notice Paper for months. For example, the Racing and Betting Amendment Bill 2002, which has been on the paper since March 2002 - 20 months it sat on the Notice Paper and it is still there now. The end result of this speed is fear and confusion in our community. You can see that by reading the Letters to the Editor in the NT News. There has been no community consultation facilitated by Clare Martin or her government. Some people are jumping to conclusions, with little informed debate.
There are questions which need answering, and which could be answered, if there was time for research. These questions include: do girls really mature before boys, in that they are more able to deal with their sexuality in a way which is less likely to cause them harm? Another question is: how has the lowering of age of consent for homosexual sex for males aged 16 to 17 years changed things interstate? It is only in recent years that many states have lowered their age of consent and made it the same for both genders. I am sure there could be research done - or it may have already been done - to see what effect these changes had. The Territory often learns from interstate how things have gone elsewhere before jumping in to make change. If there is information on how such legislative changes affect individuals and communities, then we should examine it. The people in our community should be made aware of it. Such information may allay fears.
Speaking of fears, there is a very real fear in our community that, by lowering the age of consent for young men to 16, we will be removing a level of protection offered to them by our current laws. For some older men, it is claimed, use the skills they have learnt over time to seduce the youth into what will ultimately be a harmful experience of homosexual sex. The question is: what evidence is there of older men preying on young men, and what is the outcome of their behaviour? If this concern is unfounded, then an adequate period of community consultation and education would go some considerable way to inform people. The Attorney-General, in his second-reading speech, said:
- Equalising the age of consent for both sexes will ensure equity between the sexes under the law for consensual sex, and toughening our sexual assault laws will protect all young people from predatory adults and close the loopholes that fail to adequately protect boys from unlawful sexual intercourse.
It sounds great but, minister, you have not had the time or made the effort to sell this to the community. People do not know how you have toughened the laws to prevent the activity of predatory adults. People do not know how your changes will protect 16-year-old boys from the activities of older men.
Many people are concerned that, by lowering the age of consent, it means that 14-year-olds will be at greater risk. Will men who have sex with boys under the age of 16 be prosecuted? These are genuine concerns the public has a right to put to the government and feel confident with the response, but they do not feel confident at the moment. The Martin Labor government should put the brakes on this legislation and sell it to the public if it is so good. Many in our community are now left confused and frightened of the effects this legislation may cause. As a result, they are now saying, or writing, things which are very hurtful to many in our gay community.
I urge the Martin Labor government to rethink their strategy of pushing this legislation through today. Instead, like a number of my colleagues, I call on this government to refer this bill to a select committee of this House. There the questions I have raised can be researched carefully, and the answers put to the general public who may then develop a confidence that this bill will make changes of benefit, and not harm, to our community.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, to conclude on this matter, we all receive in the mail countless pamphlets printed by this Labor government promoting their actions, whether it is pool fencing, parks, or spending on tourism. I seek leave to table this pamphlet which came out last week on tourism spending.
Leave granted.
Ms CARTER: The Martin marketing machine is working hard spending taxpayers’ dollars to get Labor re-elected. So, why is it that they cannot spend a dime marketing this bill? There is no answer.
The second serious problem that I have with this bill is the scope of what it proposes to do; it covers too many issues. I will not have time to list all the things it will do, but they include: equalising the age of consent for both males and females; changing the definition of de facto relationships; changing the Anti-Discrimination Act with regards to religious organisations; increasing the scope and penalties for sexual crimes committed against children aged 16 and under; increasing the rights of children from same-sex relationships; changing the Interpretation Act with regards to Aboriginal traditional marriages; changing the Administrators Pension Act and the Judges Act with regards to the payment of pensions to partners in same-sex de facto relationships; and changing the Adult Guardianship Act so that same-sex de facto partners are recognised as a relative who can apply for a protection order.
That was just a brief overview of some of the items being covered by this piece of legislation. As you can see, the scope of its coverage is wide-ranging. Many of the changes being proposed are good changes which I know the Northern Territory community as a whole would support. However, instead of putting these changes up in a number of separate bills over a longer period of time, the Martin Labor government has lumped them all together, so that if you have a problem with one part - for example, the age of consent for male homosexual sex being lowered - then you are torn. Do you vote for the bill because you support the rest of it such as the increased penalties for child sex crimes, or do you vote against it?
I am sure the government has done this deliberately in order to put pressure on the community and its elected representatives in the hope that, on the balance of things, the bill will be passed. This behaviour is very arrogant. It is a shame that the media will probably not pick up on this trick. When you consider the minute changes we often cover when a bill is put up, it is an insult to Territorians and to parliamentary process for the government to have cobbled this all together.
What can be done to improve the situation? As a member of parliament, it is my duty to listen to the community. On many matters contained in this bill, it has been silent. Generally speaking, it has concerned itself with one issue only: the equalising of the age of consent to 16 years for both males and females. In the course of the consultations I have had on the matter, I have talked to people who are gay and people who are not. I have received written submissions from people who are gay and from people who are not. I have also considered the submissions conveyed by the media. What I have learnt is that our community is divided on this matter. The people who have made the effort to voice an opinion hold their views strongly. Those who are gay want to see the age of consent equalised. The vast majority of those I consulted are not overly concerned about what the exact age will be; they just want it to be equal for both males and females - 16, 17 or 18 years. The exact age is not the issue; the issue is equality. They believe that, when the age of consent for gay males is higher than it is for gay females and heterosexual young people, it sends a message to young gay men that their sexuality is wrong.
It is not just the gay community which is concerned about this. I have spoken to the parents and friends of young gay men. They told me of the stress and anguish their boys went through not knowing who to turn to, not feeling safe. It creates a very real stress, a stress which some believe can contribute to suicides.
I received an e-mail from the Very Reverend Dr Michael Nixon, Dean of Christchurch Anglican Cathedral, here in Darwin who wrote, and I quote in part:
- There is no doubt that young people are better off if they await marriage before entering into a sexual relationship. We are living in times never before considered by previous generations and have to adapt our legislation, lifestyle and ethics to keep in line with modern sociological and demographic realities. It seems to me that to have laws that make sex illegal at 16 and 17 are going to drive a lot of young males underground in their need for someone to talk to and produce guilt feelings about sex. Maybe there should be some form of age difference that foils the intent of adult predators for both male and female young people, eg, age difference no greater than four years, until they all reach the age of 18 years.
I believe that the Martin Labor government is going to push this legislation through in total. If they are going to push it through in total, we can insert a safety net amendment which will protect young people from the sexual action of people much older than them. By inserting this amendment we, as legislators, can go some way to overcome the concern present in our community about how lowering the age of consent for all young people to 16 removes what was a barrier - a legal protection if you will - providing some measure of protection for boys aged 16 to 18.
Therefore, during the committee stage of this bill, I will be moving an amendment which will make it illegal for people who are aged more than four years older than a boy or girl aged 16 or 17 to have sex with them. For example, a 16-year-old girl or boy can have sex with another person who is 17, 18, 19 or 20. Or a 17-year-old boy or girl can have sex with someone who is 18, 19, 20 or 21, but that is it. Until they turn 18 when they become an adult, it is illegal for anyone more than four years older than them to have sex with them. My aim with this amendment is to put a legal barrier up between older people who generally have more experience and who may use their skills of persuasion to gain the consent of a much younger person who is still discovering their sexuality, into having sex with them. I hope honourable members will be able to give this amendment real consideration and not just vote it down in haste.
I am delighted to report that another amendment that I proposed, and was considered over the last 24 hours by the government, has now been accepted by the government and incorporated in one of the amendments that the minister is going to move later. That amendment concerned adding ‘employers’ into the list of people who have what are known as ‘special relationships with young people’. Currently, the proposed bill has in it a list of people who are going to be banned from having sex with 16-year-old and 17-year-old males and females. That list includes teachers, health professionals, people in correctional services if the young person is in incarcerated or involved with them in that way, instructors of sport, religion and music, and step-parents and foster parents - those roles where the young person is deeply involved with that person for one reason or another, and where that person can then use that position that they are in to influence and encourage that person to have sex with them.
In my life I have experienced through my friends when I was a young girl, the problems created for them. Many of us were unemployed at the time and had trouble keeping jobs because it was a period of high unemployment – this is before I went nursing, obviously. Quite a lot of us were on unemployment benefits. A number of my friends had problems with the predatory nature of the bosses. The Social Security would send us to jobs. We were desperate to keep jobs. They were an eclectic kind of jobs that we were sent to and it was not uncommon for bosses to put the hard word on these young girls to have sex with them. I am not aware that it actually occurred, but it put such pressure on people that they had to quit the job and then go back to Social Security and explain why they no longer worked for that boss, why they were so hopeless. Then, of course, they had to explain to their parents why they no longer had a job.
I worked recently in the Work Health Authority, and it is a well-known fact that people who are new to a job are desperately trying to please the boss. They want to keep their job; they want to get a good reference. They will often, in the case of work health and safety issues, take risks and are quite well known and statistically represented as being people who are frequently injured at work because of this desire to please the boss. I would say – I am not aware of any research being done – that you will find that, for young people, it leaves them open to being exploited by employers and supervisors in their desire to please the boss, to keep out of trouble and secure a good reference. It creates some problems for them. I am delighted that the minister has taken on this recommendation to include the position of supervisor/employer in the list of special relationships in the legislation that we will deal with in Committee tonight. I thank the government for including that.
I apologise in advance to members for the short warning they have had in respect to my proposed amendments. As you know, we had little time to consider a very complex bill, so failing the government sending it to a parliamentary committee for detailed consideration and public comment, which is what should happen, I hope members will support my amendments in the committee stage.
To close on a bright note, Madam Speaker, I am proud to stand here as a member of the CLP and have the opportunity to express a conscience vote, rather than a party vote, on this complex and difficult matter. The CLP acknowledges, by allowing its members a conscience vote, the wide-ranging views in the community on this matter and, consequently, the range of views within the Country Liberal Party on this matter. I look forward to listening to the views of my parliamentary colleagues during the remainder of the debate. I hope that all amendments proposed today are considered with care, and not disregarded out of hand so that, in the end, we can make good laws for all Territorians.
Mr HENDERSON (Business, Industry and Resource Development): Madam Speaker, I support the law reform bill. It is a comprehensive package of reforms and I know there is a lot of community interest and, in some sectors, concerns about this legislation.
There is one belief that does bind the community on this issue: that we do our utmost to protect our young and vulnerable. I support this legislation because I believe it does exactly that; it toughens the laws that protect our children. This legislation contains what I believe are two fundamentally important things: equality before the law for all Territorians and protecting our children.
We know that the previous government made homosexuality legal 19 years ago. In researching for this speech, I found the then Attorney-General, Mr Robertson, in a ministerial statement on 24 August 1983, stated:
- To me, the provision is clear. Homosexual acts between adult males in private, as defined, will not offend the law.
In 1992, some laws were changed to give gay and lesbian Territorians legal equality when the previous government introduced anti-discrimination legislation. I quote two extracts from debate of the bill by Mr Shane Stone, Attorney-General, on 19 August 1992:
We need to ensure … equality of opportunity, and that the community comes to recognise the ways in which people discriminate against others, albeit often unintentionally.
- It has been said that, for equal opportunity to become a reality, an attitudinal change is required in the community. These advocates argue also that legislation will not alter community attitudes. I cannot agree with those arguments.
The proposals in this legislation continue the process to cover new things, such as superannuation, wills and other areas of life. The principle behind this change is to provide and impose on gay and lesbian people the same rights and responsibilities as others in our community have.
This issue of a fair go is important. A fair go should go to all members of our community. Giving a fair go cannot just extend to the majority, it has to apply across the board. This government is proud to support all law-abiding minority groups, religious organisations, and ethnic groups as we celebrate our diversity as a community. This has been a tenet of the Territory community.
This legislation sees the evolution of laws which started some 20 years ago continue, and that the principle of a fair go is guiding this exercise. There has been debate about how this legislation has been developed. As Leader of Government Business, I would like to comment on this matter as it is important. As members opposite are aware, many of the issues addressed in this legislation have been under discussion for over 18 months, when the Darwin Community Legal Service released a discussion paper to Territorians, and specifically to both the new government and the current opposition. Debate on this issue has been ongoing since the former member for Katherine raised it in his infamous adjournment debate on 3 December 1997. The legislation reflects the report the Attorney-General made to the parliament in October 2002, and the announcement made in June of this year.
The process has been long, and one which has given members of this Chamber every opportunity to become informed and to involve their constituents. Earlier, in Question Time today, my colleague, the Chief Minister tabled in the House, that the opposition is running the line that ‘we have not had time to consult the community’. Well, we had tabled in the House today, a letter dated 29 July 2003, from the then shadow Attorney-General and member for Goyder, in regard to the proposals put forward by the Darwin Community Legal Service, and I will read part of that letter into the Hansard. The letter is entitled ‘Re: Equality before the Law for all Territorians’. The member for Goyder said:
- As you are aware, I attended the launch of the submissions, which were prepared by the Darwin Community Legal Service Incorporated in May 2003, and I maintain by support for the general principle that all people should enjoy equality before the law.
He went on to say:
- On a personal level, I am strongly of the view that all persons are not only created equally, but should be treated equally before the law.
I do have some reservations about amending the Northern Territory Criminal Code to expressly exclude the defence of provocation being available as a result of a non-violent homosexual advance. The current provocation and self-defence provisions which exist in the Criminal Code are, in my view, satisfactory. Further, I have some reservations about the right of individuals to have access to taxpayer funded reproductive services when there is nothing physically wrong with their bodies from an anatomical point of view.
He further said:
- In general terms, most of the submissions contained in the submission prepared by the Darwin Community Legal Services Incorporated in May 2003, seem progressive and reasonable.
I look forward to doing all that I can to ensure that the gay and lesbian community in the Northern Territory are treated equally before the law.
So, for the opposition to say that we have not had enough time to get out and canvass our constituents and talk to the community in regard to this legislation, certainly was not shared certainly by the shadow Attorney-General at that particular point in time. I would also like to point out, on that particular position, the two issues that the member for Goyder had reservations on - being the defence of provocation and access to taxpayer funded reproductive services, those two proposals that were put forward by Darwin Community Legal Service - we also rejected. Fundamentally, with regard to the bill we are debating here this evening certainly the then shadow Attorney-General at the time and this government, are at one regarding the position put by the Darwin Community Legal Service in their submission.
The passage of this legislation has been in line with normal procedures. The bills were introduced in the October sittings and they are being debated today. This procedure was followed as a matter of course in the conduct of the business of this Assembly. It is in line with the standing orders, and in line with how government does business, and how the previous government addressed legislative procedures over 26 years. This is the normal course of events. It is what was being pursued in relation to other important bills being debated during these sittings, such as the parks legislation and the bills relating to imprisonment of murderers. It is the normal process for a bill to be introduced and then debated.
Some members have also argued that the bill should be split to allow them to agree with one issue and disagree with another. Such an approach to law reform is irresponsible. That approach is the very reason for the anomalous and inconsistent state of current law. At present, we have gaps in our law that fail to adequately protect boys from unlawful sexual intercourse. This is the result of a piecemeal approach to legislation. Currently, for some offences, there are different penalties under the code, depending on the gender of the victim and the offender. To use one example, under section 128 of the code, there is an assumption that a male child who has homosexual sex will do so consensually and is not a victim. Potentially, young boys who are the victims of sexual assault by another male may be criminally liable; a ridiculous anomaly and one that is corrected in this package of reforms.
As well as correcting these anomalies under the code, the government is toughening up carnal knowledge offences by increasing penalties, creating new offences, and tightening up inappropriate defences. We have delivered tougher new laws to protect Territory children against child abuse which, in some cases, doubles the current penalties. A package of laws will reform current child sex offences and introduce new measures to protect children and young people from predatory adults. For the first time, our code will have protection - as the member for Port Darwin said - for 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds, whether they be male or female, from predatory advances from adults who have some sway over those children and access to those young people. It is the first time such legislation has been brought before the House to give all 16-year-old and 17-year-old young people in the Northern Territory protection from predatory adults. That is a significant reform, and one I wholeheartedly support. If an adult is convicted under this particular application and if the victim is at 16 years of age, the maximum prison sentence is eight years, and at 17 years of age, four years. Currently, there are no penalties that apply in regard to girls, in particular, within that age range.
The current child sexual abuse laws have been in place for 20 years, and a review undertaken earlier this year by government found the need for comprehensive reform. We have been alarmed at the inadequacy of the current laws. They are seriously out of date and the penalties are out of step with the seriousness of these types of offences. Penalties will be increased and doubled, in some instances, to reflect the seriousness of sexual assault against children. Our current child sex offence laws fail to protect children in a number of areas, particularly from predatory adults. I must admit I do not share the concerns of the member for Araluen in regards to toughening up these penalties. I believe that currently, they are absolutely, totally inadequate and they are out of line in the expectations of this community in regard to penalties that should be applied to people who are convicted of sexual offences against children in our community. Certainly, in tightening these offences and significantly increasing the penalties, it sends a very strong and clear message to people who are interfering with young children, or potentially interfering with young children, that we, as a society, will not tolerate that and, if you are convicted of such offences you will go to gaol for many years, and so you should.
There will be new offences to close the loopholes which currently fail to adequately protect boys from unlawful sexual intercourse. The reforms will also ensure consistency in punishment for both male and female perpetrators of sexual offences against children, including incest. Our children are our greatest asset and deserve the highest level of protection under the law. It is a disgrace that the current legislation is so inadequate and out of date.
Also of great concern to government is the suicide rate amongst young men in our community. Suicide is a tragedy, and I doubt that there is any member in this House who has not been personally affected by family or friends who have committed suicide. I can speak in regards to my colleagues on this side of the House, particularly those who represent bush communities, that the tragedy of youth and young male suicide in bush communities is a blight on the Northern Territory. It has an overwhelming impact on our community and the lives of those left behind. The reasons for suicide are often complicated. Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is a report of the same-sex attracted youth suicide data collection project and that project quotes:
- Research in Australia has identified that same-sex attracted young people may be up to six times more likely to attempt suicide than the population in general, with those in rural areas particularly at risk.
1. predominantly homosexual males are 16 times more likely to have attempted suicide at 17 years of age;
from 20% to 50%; and
Therefore, if members opposite doubt that research has been done into this area, that research has been conducted and outlined very graphically and quite alarmingly in these reports.
In 2003, the Territory government released a framework for the prevention of suicide and self-harm, Northern Territory Strategic Framework for Suicide Prevention. In the Northern Territory, the suicide rate has been higher than the national average for the past 10 years. While the national rate has remained constant, in the Northern Territory suicide rates have increased. Indigenous suicide rates have increased significantly. The suicide rate for NT indigenous males has significantly increased in the 15 to 24 year age group since 1995. The high and increasing national suicide rate for men aged 25 to 44 years is consistent with the NT trends. Amongst the risk factors identified in the framework is sexual orientation, with studies showing that gay, lesbian and bisexual people - particularly adolescents and young adults - are at an increased risk of suicidal behaviours and thinking. This suicide risk amongst our youth is a good reason to support this legislation. To quote our Attorney-General in the second reading speech: ‘It is a step towards reducing the stigmatism felt by young gay people, which research shows can lead to mental illness and suicide’.
As a husband and a father, my primary responsibility is to my family which includes three small children with two young boys. As an elected member, my first and only responsibility is to represent my electorate and, as a minister in government, to make decisions and to develop legislation to advance the Northern Territory. With the passage of this bill, our children will be afforded a greater level of protection than before and all Territorians will be equal before the law.
Madam Speaker, I support the legislation.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I have joined in this debate tonight because I am angry. I am angry that this debate I believe is one that we do not need to have. Not at this time. It angers me to listen to this debate taking place here in the Territory where we face great unemployment, no business confidence to speak of, the lowest small and medium business confidence in this country, 8300 jobs lost in the last two years of the Martin Labor government, a shrinking population, so much so that we risk losing a House of Representative seat - and the litany of economic decline just grows. These are the economic indicators that a Martin Labor government has brought upon us at this time when the nation and the economy is going well past many OECD countries.
Introducing this bill to this House and limiting public debate to a scant five weeks is nothing but window dressing for the government to disguise the abysmal economic performance it has had for the last two years. However hard it will, Territorians hurt by the economic mismanagement of this government, will remember the hardships we have encountered of these last two years. They will remember their thriving business under the CLP government now shrunk to a holding pattern, if they could, with only mum and dad in the business and no more than four or five or 20 employees still attached to the business. They will remember. Today’s ABS figures are an indictment on a government that has lost the plot.
This is the action of a government that is bereft of ideas, policies, and visions for the Northern Territory. I lament for the Northern Territory, the place I have called home. I lament for the opportunities that this Labor Party has lost since coming to government, and I lament for the children, the school leavers, who have nothing to look forward to but a shrinking work force and population …
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! This is legislation on law reform, gender, sexuality and de facto relationships. The state of the economy of the Northern Territory has absolutely nothing to do with this bill, and I would urge the honourable member to address his comments to the contents of the bill.
Dr LIM: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker, if the Leader of Government Business were to sit and listen, he might learn a few things and might start to understand how all this comes into the big picture.
Madam SPEAKER: We shall give you …
Dr LIM: I lament for my Northern Territory …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, we will continue to listen to you …
Dr LIM: Why on earth are we debating this bill?
Madam SPEAKER: That is fine. We are waiting to see how you are going to wrap up your argument.
Dr LIM: Thank you. Why on earth are we debating this bill when there are so many other important issues for the Martin Labor government to deal with? Today’s Sensis report is enough to send you packing. This government is blind to it.
For a party to come into government promising that it will be open and transparent, and will do the honourable thing for Territorians, it has all but done the right thing. Now this government proposes to ram this bill through, irrespective of the flaws it contains. Many communities have sought delay of the passage of the bill. Other communities have expressed the absolute objection to the way this bill denies what are important family values for them.
There are many fine points in this bill, which I will support: equality before the law in terms of property rights, for instance, should never be questioned; entitlement to one’s life partner’s medical details, as I would share my spouse’s medical information, should, again, be without question. But what I object to is the lumping of everything, good and bad, into one omnibus bill. I have grave concerns when I am expected to pass good ones and ignore the bad ones, when I find the bad ones are too much to accept.
Why has the community reacted? First, the government wants to lower the age of consent for boys to 16 in the name of equity, it says - fairness for all, that consent for sexual intercourse should be the same for young men and women. That boys of 16 years, in general, are not as mature as their female counterparts, physically and psychologically, is a fact. Nobody can deny it.
Mr Henderson: Says who?
Dr LIM: It is a fact. Ask any parent. Ask any parent and they will agree that their sons were never as mature as their daughters at the age of 16 years. I am a parent, just like the thousands of parents who have asked that we do not pass this legislation. If we want to make it equitable, then consider lifting the age of consensual sex to 18 years of age.
We discriminate every day as legislators. We discriminate that people cannot vote until they are 18 years of age. We discriminate that people under 18 years of age cannot legally go into pubs and access alcohol. We discriminate that people under 18 years of age are not allowed to purchase tobacco. We discriminate that people under 18 years cannot enter into a contract, except for the necessities of life. Yet, we are prepared to allow consensual sex for 16-year-old boys and girls.
What sort of stance do we have in this society? What happens when the age of consensual sex comes down to 16 years of age for everyone? You have heard of cases in which consensual sex by men with girls under 16 years of age have not incurred any meaningful sanction from the judiciary. Surely, with the reduction of the age of consent, we will continue to signal to our judiciary that our standards are being lowered.
As part of the legislation dealing with discrimination at school, I spoke to an Executive Officer of a private school system and posed this question: assuming that all non-teaching staff are not discriminated against in this school but are prepared to exhibit their belief system in front of the students at that school, what did he think would be the response from his school community? His answer was that the parents of the students attending the school would vote with their feet and he would be left with a private school with no or few students.
Before members opposite say: ‘That does not happen’, of course it will happen! Assuming the school were an Islamic school, and Jewish personnel who, under this legislation, can work in non-student contact areas. What do you think will happen? This is really a poorly drafted piece of legislation, strongly opposed by the community.
The member for Nelson quoted from several letters that he received, which I also received. Let me read this one from the Greek Orthodox Community of North Australia Incorporated. It was written on 10 November 2003, to the Chief Minister. I quote a couple of lines from this:
- Although there are some aspects to this bill which are helpful in regard to law and order, and include stronger penalties for certain crimes, on the whole, this bill is very destructive in many aspects. Therefore, we have resolved as a community to completely oppose the introduction of this bill.
It goes on further:
And if you continue to propose laws which are against the sanctity of the family, and expose our children to further sexual pressure, we will oppose your government as a whole, both now and at the next Territory election.
I just wonder how the member for Casuarina responds to that. He would be one of the members of that Greek community, and he would be very well aware of their sentiment. I would dearly love to hear how the member for Casuarina would deal with this letter, and I look forward to hearing his contribution to the debate.
The Catholic Church also made quite strong comment in their circular, which was sent around the whole of the Territory. Bishop Ted Collins was concerned, and in his two page circular, said:
So far, the public debate has been minimal, but I am convinced that these changes are not unimportant because they concern us deeply.
Then he went on to break down his concerns into four separate sections. One on schools, the other on the de facto act, and I will quote from paragraph 2(a):
- The changes mean that a marriage contract is no longer a contract. If a husband or wife enters into a relationship with another person of whichever sex while still legally married, the NT courts determine who gets what assets and the new law says it is ‘irrelevant that a person is married to someone else’.
That is a concern for the church. In paragraph 4, on legal age of consent issues, he wrote:
- 4(b) No evidence has been placed on the public record to prove that legalising will stop the discrimination, alienation and suicide.
4(c) Section 128 seeks to protect 16 to 18-year-olds from sexual activity from those in power positions in a young person’s life. This is to be commended.
4(d) But section 131 makes procuring of 16 to 18-year-olds legal. In fact, why in this section is there the new defence that the child ‘was or above’ the age of 14? The current law allows no such defence. It was at 16 years in the present law.
4(e) Section 131A and 132 both introduce a defence that a child was between 14 - 16 years. Previously it was set at 16 years.
The Islamic community wrote to the Chief Minister, a copy of which was sent to me. I quote from the letter from the Islamic Society of the Northern Territory, written on 6 November:
The act will have far-reaching ramifications for all residents of the NT, not least members of religious groups such as Muslims, who view the potential act with absolute dread. It will expose our children and teenagers to unnecessary risks, both physical and moral, for what gain.
In the second paragraph, he wrote:
- … we write to you …
… to express our strong opposition on this issue and to urge great caution. This act will fly in the face of all that is held sacred, preached and practised by Muslims …. In our view, this act will erode that foundation.
This last paragraph’s couple of lines is quite important:
Effective political leadership should establish high moral and ethical standards for the community. It should protect the young and vulnerable.
In this regard, I am certain that this legislation, with so many downsides to it, does not provide the protection for our young that we hope or that we wish to have.
The Filipino and Australian Association of Northern Territory also wrote to the then Leader of the Opposition, Mr Denis Burke. In the opening paragraph, they wrote:
I would strongly air the voice of the Filipino community that is totally against the intention of the Northern Territory government to make a bill entitled ‘Law Reform (Gender, Sexuality and De Facto Relationships) Act 2003’, an act of law for the Northern Territory on the following grounds …
They went on to speak about reducing the age of homosexual consent for males from 18 to 16 years of age, and also about the legal definitions of a de facto relationship.
All these communities have continued to argue loudly that this legislation is bad. Aboriginal organisations have come out and told me themselves that they are against this and would like to see everybody in this Chamber vote against it. I was speaking only last week during the visit of the Governor General, with Norman Fry and Galarrwuy Yunupingu, and they were, in no uncertain terms, saying: ‘Do not vote for this; this is wrong’. I trust the members for Arafura, Arnhem, Millner and Barkly all take note that Aboriginal people are also against this bill. There has been no consultation, no time for Territorians to consider this in full. Surveys have been done by this side of the Chamber, and I know that between 75% to 85% of people who have been surveys – in the order of over 1000 people who have responded – have all said: ‘No, we do not want this’. Here is a government that is not taking any notice of that whatsoever.
It is my belief that, for societal changes to occur, it is society which will ask legislators to bring about change. In this instance, it is legislators who are bringing about a law to produce changes in society. This is just back-to-front. We know that 85% of Territorians do not support this, so why is this government bringing it in?
The members opposite who spoke were not convincing that they were speaking and intended to vote with their own conscience. If they were, indeed, speaking from their own conscience, and will vote as they believe, then I would say to the Chief Minister: give them a conscience vote; be confident that all your members will support the bill with their conscience. It makes no difference, you still have 13 over there. So, if the Chief Minister were really confident about the conviction of her members, then she should release all members from the party vote and allow each one of them to have a conscience vote. I would like to seen then, how the members for Casuarina, Nightcliff, Arafura, Arnhem, Millner and Barkly, and also, particularly, the member for Johnston would vote.
Mr BURKE (Brennan): Madam Speaker, I contribute briefly to this debate. I have been listening carefully throughout the afternoon. Certainly, a number of technical issues with regard to the legislation being proposed and the difficulty with some of those issues, have been amplified adequately without me going over them again. However, I believe it highlights the fact that there are difficulties still in the construction of this legislation.
One only has to look at the numbers of amendments that have come through - not only from individual members, but also from the Attorney-General himself - with regard to this legislation, to see that, in its construction, the Attorney-General himself is recognising that there are still difficulties with it. Looking at the amendment that the Attorney-General himself has proposed with regard to protection of children in care, it seems to me that one can go to any number of clauses. For example, clause 128(3) says:
- … a person (‘the victim’) is under the special care of another person (‘the offender’) –
- (b) is a school teacher and the victim is the pupil of the offender;
I ask the Attorney-General: does that mean in the same class? Is it a teacher in the same school? What would be the defence of that particular person in a court: ‘He was not in my class, so he was not under my special care, he just happened to be in the same school’? It highlights the fact that the construction of the legislation is too rushed. That is the threshold problem that I have with the legislation and is evidenced by the debate that has come forward here tonight. The community itself is not engaged on this issue, and has just begun to be engaged on the issue. A responsible government would be recognising the fact that the community is only now becoming aware of the nature of this legislation and, if the government itself was confident - as it has said through the speakers who have contributed to this debate tonight - that it can carry the community fully along with it, it should not have any problem in staying this legislation to make sure that the community was well and truly supportive and the legislation was fully explained.
From a political perspective, I say to you that I am not all that disappointed we are going to rush it through tonight, because I believe that the Labor Party and Labor government have established a clear point of difference between themselves and the CLP. My only disappointment, frankly, is that the CLP has not entered this debate with a party position, because I can tell you that the CLP, as a party, opposes this legislation. That the CLP parliamentary wing has decided to address this legislation with a conscience vote is another matter. However, be under no misunderstanding: the Country Liberal Party opposes this legislation for a whole range of reasons. Whilst we are free to contribute to this legislation in our own particular way, I have no doubt that, when I stand up to make my contribution, I can speak from my own conscience - if you want to call it conscience - on behalf of my party, and on behalf of my electorate. I have heard members speak about correspondence and consultation with their electorates, and some do it in various forms. Of my effort of 5000 letters across the Northern Territory, 500 letters and 120 phone calls into my own electorate; 86% of my electorate opposes lowering the age of consent. So as far as I am concerned, you can call me homophobic but call my electorate homophobic as well, because I stand here for my electorate. It is on legislation such as this that we really define the difference between who is representing the people of the Northern Territory, or who is pulling the strings, because it is certainly not, in this case, the people of the Northern Territory.
The people of the Northern Territory do not understand the legislation; they have not been consulted on the legislation. What they do know about, they do not understand fully, and what they do understand, they do not agree with. I am one of the few members of this House - there are a few of us here - who have gone through a conscience vote on a moral issue before. One of the things I learnt is: do not try to tell your electorate that they do not understand because, whether you think they do or not, in their own minds they do. They are telling the government that very clearly. They are saying that through the letters from the Greek community, the Filipino community, and the various church groups. They expect their leadership to speak for them; those who remain silent expect their leaders to speak up for them. Certainly, I can stand here proudly and say, on this issue, I am speaking on behalf of my electorate. I can go back to my electorate and say that my stance is absolutely clear and it also accords with what I absolutely believe is the majority view of my electorate.
Let us get some terminology clear. Under the Community Welfare Act in the Northern Territory that this Labor government administers, ‘a child is a person under the age of 18 years of age’. It might be of interest for members to know also that the Community Welfare Act is undergoing a review by this Labor government. I will bet you my bottom dollar that, out of that review, comes a new age definition for a child in the Northern Territory. I will bet you it is 16 years of age, because you need to do that to get this legislation in line with the provisions of the Community Welfare Act, which lays some heavy responsibilities on government. It starts with a threshold position, which is: ‘We continue to recognise the family as the basic unit for the nurture, protection and socialisation of our children’. That is what your own Community Welfare Act tells you.
Let us get some other terminology straight, also. You say that we are homophobic when we talk about paedophiles. I just looked up the Collins dictionary. A paedophile is someone who is sexually attracted to children. So it is not 10-year-olds, eight-year-olds, or 14-year-olds; it is children. Under your own Community Welfare Act they are children if they are less than 18 years of age.
As one person said to me the other day: ‘When is your child not your child?’ I could not answer the question, but he gave me the answer. He said: ‘Not at 16’. That was his answer: not at 16, because at 16 they are very much your children. At 16 they are very much under your care and control and, at 16, parents have enormous responsibilities to their children. They are not that stupid that they do not think that their children will have sexual relations amongst peers on an equal basis; they know that happens. However, they want the protection of the law to help them carry their children through very difficult stages of their own maturity and puberty. That is what they want.
When there is a 17-year-old who believes he is gay and wants to go off and live his own life as a gay person, my electorate tells me that they want the protection of the law to give them some power - including the police, if necessary - to grab that kid and bring him home and tell him that he is not old enough. But you are bringing through legislation that now says if you are under 18, you cannot go to a R-rated movie and watch it, but you can do it. That is why your electorate is saying: ‘We do not agree; we think it is stupid’. That is what my electorate is telling me, and that is what other people have said in other venues.
I tell you, of all of the experts that I have heard quoted tonight, one of the most expert witnesses to deal with the age of consent was to the Canadian House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs when they were looking to raise the age of consent from 14 to 16 for females. Appearing before them was the Canadian Association of the Chiefs of Police. This is the association that represents all of the police in Canada. They introduced themselves by saying: ‘Through our members, we represent approximately 90% of the police officers in the country’. So the people who represented 90% of the police officers in the country made this recommendation:
We would urge the federal government to define 18 years and over as the age of consent for sexual encounters with adults. There should be no excuse for sexual contact by adults with anyone less than this age.
Out of step? Reckon those old coppers are out of step, old fashioned? These are the people who deal in the frontline every day. What they are dealing with is not equity or freedom of expression; they are dealing with child prostitution - with children who are being lured away from their homes for various reasons and being enticed into situations that they cannot get themselves out of - and, in doing it, those children are being protected by the law. That is what these police are complaining about.
That, I believe, is the concern that is being reflected in the community. It is not a concern that says ‘We are homophobic’. It is not a concern that says ‘We hate homosexuals’ or ‘We abhor homosexual relationships per se’. The average Territorians is a very accommodating person and, I believe, considerate. The only proviso they say is: adults, in the privacy of their own home, can do what they damn well like. But, when you start playing around with children, then we start getting upset. Their definition of children is different to the definition that you are now providing of a child. Any parent knows that a 16-year-old or a 17-year-old is your child well and truly, and no one can tell any parent that that is a freely mature adult that should be able to consent to sexual activity in whatever way they want.
The other laughable notion about this debate is, somehow, males are being discriminated against. Now, who in the Territory could honestly stand here and suggest that somehow, females are better off than males - on any notion or situation. Females are gradually establishing a position in law which is getting them to a point of equity with males. If you look at the history of age of consent, have a look at the way that females have not been protected. It was only in the 1880s that they actually brought in a law that protected 12-year-olds, and made it unlawful to have sexual intercourse under the age of 12. You know why? Because females were seen as chattels you could abuse. It is only through human rights groups dealing with child prostitution that they have raised the age of consent for females, in some countries as high as 16 or 18 - mainly 16. They have come from a low base.
This opposition of mine to this age of consent is that it is just illogical to suggest that, somehow, because males are not allowed to have sexual intercourse with other males at 16, they are somehow being discriminated against. In my electorate, and the wider electorate, the average punter out there, the average family, have figured that out without looking up any book. They are saying: ‘Bring the females up to 18’. You got them as far as 16, move them up a bit higher’. We know, as legislators, that may not be practical, because there are all sorts of reasons. However, you could put in safeguards. You could put in a safeguard that made the age of consent 18 for males and females - there is your equity argument fixed - and you could ensure that sexual activities amongst peers on an equal basis was decriminalised. That has been suggested also in some representations in some countries. You could also add, as one of the members in this parliament proposed, a proviso that made a limit of so many years before an older person could have sex with a younger person - some might say 10 years. There are lots of options. However, the community is saying: ‘If you want to pick the option we want, you have got two options: status quo, or bring the females up’. That is coming through loud and clear from my electorate.
I must admit that I admire the courage of the Labor Party in the Northern Territory now, on this issue because, when you pull out your banner that says, ‘The Territory is Different’, do not lose sight of that: the Territory is different. It is not New South Wales, it is not Victoria; it is the Northern Territory - it is small and different, and people talk. If there is a last stand to be put and had in this jurisdiction against the continuing eroding of family values under this so-called notion of equity, it should start here in the Northern Territory. Territory families are saying to you: ‘Do not cave in, you provide the leadership’. It is extremely disappointing that, if you are so confident in this legislation, you would not have the gumption to go out there and stay it until you explain it, because that is all Territorian families want.
The police made this other observation when they gave their evidence:
Paedophiles are often well liked by their colleagues and most cultivate friendships with the parents of their victims. They do not attack them, they romance them, using attention, affection and gifts.
Another quote from the World Congress against the commercial sexual exploitation of children:
- Paedophiles, sex exploiters, externalise, rationalise and justify their behaviour. Monsters don’t get close to children, nice men do.
When you legislators stand up and help in that bent, that is when they get upset. That is what you have given to Territorians. Do not try and sell this thing out of a notion of equity or somehow righting some discrimination against males, because it simply does not wash. Territorians do not like the legislation, they do not want the legislation and, if you are confident in bringing forward this legislation, you would certainly stay it until they could have a good look at it.
There are other aspects of the legislation, I might add – and I find this also incongruous of the Labor government. In the survey that I have done – and I reckon and it will hold right across the board – there was about 80% who were against lowering the age of consent, but there was only about 56% who were in favour of continual discrimination against homosexuals in schools. I find it interesting that a government that would come forward in saying: ‘We are all for equity’, have caved in on that one, because that is the one that actually has opposition; the community do not want it. However, it has less opposition than lowering the age of consent. You just ignored that on a notion of equity - you have caved in on that argument - yet you have rectified the other one. Your equity argument is absolutely shot, because what you are doing is playing cheap political games.
I do not think you are even smart enough to play them, because this legislation that you have introduced has been bouncing all around Australia - bouncing from Labor state to Labor state. It was introduced by the Blair Labour government pretty well and then bounced over to Australia - boom, boom, boom – and now it is up in the Northern Territory. We are supposed to have a government that stands up and sticks up for Territorians. Well, I do not believe we have; Territorians do not believe we have, and I certainly and adamantly oppose the legislation.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I have the great privilege of exercising a conscience vote tonight, and I have also had the great privilege of listening to some very good contributions. I applaud the variety of contribution and the bravery in a couple of the contributions. With my applause goes an abhorrence for the gagging of the member for Nelson because it goes to the very basis of our debate: you might not agree with people, but at least listen to them. At least ask and listen. Some of the name calling, rhetoric, gagging of debate and blocking of ears is a feature of this debate, and it is not right.
We have to ask the first question: why are we here? Why are we sitting here, as a committee of people, making a decision about intruding on the lives of people, which is what we are doing? Why are we making these decisions? We have to ask ourselves: what is our task? What job do we have here? The ALP’s contribution has been to say: ‘Well, we want to get rid of discrimination. We want to create equity. There are a few clean-ups and, in any event, we are as one’.
The first thing we have to establish here is: our job in this House is to discriminate. That is out job; that is what we do. This bill discriminates as you go through it. It says, variously, that people who have sexual intercourse with children under the age of 12, we are going to bring the full force of the law on them, so we discriminate. In this House we say all the time, that these are offensive behaviours. These are behaviours that society does not like, and they do not like them to the extent that we are going to send you to gaol, and or have a fine or whatever.
One of the problems we have as a politician is to draw an arbitrary line. We say you can be this old to have a driver’s licence or go into a casino or buy an X-rated video. When we draw that line, we draw it on the basis that we know it is not a catch-all. For instance, in this debate, we know that there will be certain 16-year-olds who probably have the mental, physical and other maturity to be able to cope with a relationship of that type. There are others who are not. Our job is to say somewhere between 12, which it used to be, and 18, there has to be a line. Our job is to draw that line to the best benefit of the community. That is why we discriminate. We discriminate - make no bone about it, we do it all the time. Our laws in here tell people how they will live their lives. What we have to do is settle in our own mind the fact that these laws are to the benefit of the community. That is our job. All the rest of it is all rhetoric.
You have to remember also that nature discriminates. This came up before. As much as I might want to bear children, nature has prohibited me from doing it. As much as I might want to engage in certain things, nature has prohibited certain events because of my size, my gender, my age, whatever. So, do not run this case that it is a flat earth society, all discrimination is bad, and we have to get to a case where there is no discrimination. That is called anarchy, indiscriminate, and having no rules. In establishing the very first rule we ever make, we discriminate.
It is also important to recognise our job in here in terms of primacy, of who we represent, what we reflect, what we have to do. It is not our job to say to the community, ‘You are wrong, we have made a law here and this law says this, 90% of you out there think otherwise, therefore, we are reflecting community opinion and you are wrong’. Our job is to represent those views. This law is upside down. This law is not reflecting views. This law is trying to say society is so wrong that we have decided to enshrine pieces of legislation to tell you how wrong you are. Not right. Maybe there is a strong belief that community opinions are wrong. In that case, we have to consult and educate.
This action which is before us now neither consults nor educates. It is a divisive piece of legislation. Surely the Attorney-General knows that. This has been a divisive issue around the world, in various jurisdictions and churches and other places, and he intentionally ran it as a divisive campaign. There are people who say: ‘Gee, people are out there peddling untruths and there are things that have been put in the media that are wrong, and it is all done to do terrible things’, and ‘Gerry Wood is a very nasty man for even talking to the people. How dare he? In any event, his view is wrong’.
You do not have to go back too far reading the last couple of papers to realise that there is a problem. ‘Crackdown on teen sex’ was in the Saturday paper. What the NT News just realised was that this bill was before the House. The NT News breathlessly reported, on the front page: ‘ NT government briefing notes obtained by the Northern Territory News say the law is aimed at carers, eg, teacher, coach, priest, minister, guardian’. This bill dropped five weeks ago. The Chief Minister thinks it was July or June. This bill has only just dropped and, only days ago, the Northern Territory News was reporting to its circulation of whatever it is, features of the bill. Then, to make matters worse, on the Sunday, the next day, Dr Toyne is pictured and quoted: ‘Sex case trauma move: plan to ease stress on child witnesses’. I quote from the NT News, I think it is page 2 - although I may well be wrong - where it quotes the minister:
- The proposed changes to court processes for child witnesses in sex offence cases follows reform to the penalties for child sex assault offences, that in some cases doubles the gaol sentences for paedophiles. These are expected to be passed in parliament this week.
No, they are not. A portion of them are. The offences are, but not the issue relating to children in the court. So, is the community confused? Yep, you betcha! Is the community confused intentionally? I believe that is the case. I believe that this blurry issue, bringing a number of issues in and layering them on top of each other, is a deliberate attempt at obfuscation. It is an immensely difficult thing for any practitioner, including members of this House, to obtain these bills. There are two bills. Nobody spoke on the second, but I intend to do that shortly. The two bills are quite complex. This one changes 35 acts of parliament, and has a schedule to change to a further 47 and 45 items of subordinate legislation.
If we were really doing our jobs well, you would call all those up, so you would have the 137 items of legislation that this changes, plus one Commonwealth item of legislation - or that is its intent. For a practitioner here, you would do that, you would call that up. If you look at the original basis for it, it was done out of a submission that provided to the Attorney-General from the Darwin Community Legal Service, and it is silent on half the matters that are in this bill.
In fact, the Attorney-General goes to great lengths to talk about how only a fool would think that issues relating to homosexuality, paedophilia and child abuse would be linked. I quote from Hansard of 15 October this year, where he talks about:
- This type of provision supports the erroneous myth that homosexual people have a predatory attitude to young people and are more likely to commit paedophilia. In addition, it fails to address the possibility…
…nobody can suggest that all paedophiles are homosexual. That is not only a discriminatory assumption but a dangerous one.
You drew the link. You have introduced a bill saying that we want to not discriminate against homosexual people – oh, and by the way, we had better look after the kids. If these two issues are not linked, why link them in this bill? Because you are the one that has reinforced in the minds of people you are very dismissive of for having these attitudes, the nexus between child abuse and gay law reform. If you want to run the two issues as one, you do it at your peril. I am surprised you have the support you are getting, including from the Community Legal Aid people, because I would have thought that they would have been a bit disgusted that you had chosen to link it in such a way.
They are issues of why we are here. We could probably talk about the act - not the content of the act, but what it is we are trying to do here. I will put a little time into the content. However, I can say at the outset that the bill is so flawed that it should be entirely and totally negated. I do not believe it is in the best interests of this House to attempt to tweak little bits, to make minor amendments. We know that the bill is flawed. The Attorney-General has virtually admitted that by producing an amendment schedule, by virtue of the fact that he ran arguments in the press prior to producing this bill and then changed the intent when he produced it. It has been a moving argument, and I would say that it is and indication that the legislation is flawed.
I have talked about the size, the speed and the style of the act. I have indicated an amendment to the second act, which is an act that calls on the Commonwealth government to amend one of its acts. I have never seen such a thing. I have seen in this House a Remonstrance, letters, petitions; and committees of ministers where they pass resolutions to the contrary of the Commonwealth’s point of view.
However, you know that this is a political act if you read the second reading speech. The second reading speech relation to the De Facto Relationships (Northern Territory Request) Bill 2003 (Serial 182) says that the Commonwealth has indicated it is not prepared to accept referrals from the states. It then goes on to say the requests will remain there until a Commonwealth government that is willing to take the stand against discrimination agrees to legislate for same-sex persons.
What we have here is a political stunt - it is a political stunt. You have a bill that I argue is ultra vires. I do not believe it is in the capacity of this parliament to pass bills calling on the Commonwealth to do something it does not want to do.
If we go down this line, we could say: ‘Okay, we think the Commonwealth should bring the troops back from Iraq; we think the Commonwealth should do one thing or another’. I have talked in this House about a particularly discriminatory piece of legislation called the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act and I have also tacked that in, because it could well be I am so foolish in matters relating to the law that I am wrong. The Commonwealth, when they see a Northern Territory act, says: ‘Shucks! All those dudes up in the Northern Territory who do not like our act, notwithstanding that they are in existence by virtue of a mere statute from the Commonwealth in any event’.
Dr TOYNE: A point of order, Madam Speaker!! We are not debating this bill at the moment. This is the referral bill to the Commonwealth. It is not before the House.
Madam SPEAKER: No, it is not cognate.
Mr DUNHAM: Okay, I will indicate that, having been given the opportunity to speak for another half hour on this bill, I will do so, because it is pretty foolhardy. I will leave that, apart from indicating that I will be seeking to amend that bill in the interests of getting rid of some poor discrimination. It is a poor style of debate where you run a bill of this size, this complexity, at this speed; you vilify various people with diverse views; you gag debate; you do not consult; and where your media lines are not reflective of the debate. That is a pretty foolish package of things to do.
The twinning issue I have talked about is a matter for the minister. If he saw fit to create a nexus between paedophilia, child abuse and homosexual law reform, that is his problem. I can assure you that, if people have that notion in their head, he has merely reinforced it. The minister has to tell us about how community participation was achieved, and he has to tell us about the committee’s view and how it was ascertained. I would have no problem with taking this bill to the community because, as a parliament, we are not very interactive. There are people here sitting in galleries who are warned by yourself, Madam Speaker, not to interject or make noises and to sit in total silence. That is really not a good way of passing laws. I believe we have to leave this building. We have to go out to remote communities and other communities and talk to them. We have to ascertain their view, and find out whether we are really, truly, reflecting their view in this place. It is my understanding and my belief that we are not.
It is also necessary to talk about some definitions, and I am glad that my colleague, the member for Brennan, has defined what a child is. There are some other definitions might be interesting. If you are going to debate something, you should first define what it is you are talking about. For instance, if you look at the intent of the Darwin Community Legal Service, it is quite simple put: ‘Our aim is to ensure that all people are equal before the law regardless of your sexuality’. It then goes through the main portion and, instead of using the word ‘sexuality’, it uses ‘gay, lesbian and bisexual’. I would caution members not to use those words interchangeably, because sexuality has a totally different meaning to gay, lesbian and bisexual.
If you really want to be specific, minister, you will desist from using the word ‘sexuality’, which I will now define for you. ‘Sexual’ means ‘of or characterised by sex, characterised by the union of male and female gametes’. I guess that is not the one you meant, hey? It is characterised by sex. Sex is quite a wide-ranging thing, as we both know, and you will that that is ‘the sum of characteristics to distinguish organisms on the base of their reproductive functions’ - not that one again. ‘Either of the two categories, male or female, into which organisms …’ - not that one again. ‘Short for sexual intercourse’ – not that one probably. ‘Feelings or behaviour resulting from the urge to gratify sexual instinct’ - that is the one! So what we are talking about here is: sexuality is the feeling or urge to gratify sexual instinct.
It is interesting to go to a medical dictionary about this, because they also define sexuality. If you talk to a doctor who consulted a book such as this, they would say: ‘the sum of a person’s sexual attributes, behaviour and tendencies. Two, the quality of being sexual or the degree of a person’s sexual attributes, attractiveness or drives. Excessive preoccupation with sex and sexual functions behaviour’. This is the interesting one: ‘In psychoanalysis, the physiological or psychological impulses whose satisfaction affords pleasure, experienced consciously or unconsciously, even by the infant or young child’. I would caution against moving towards having people who express their own sexuality in a variety of ways not discriminated against. Some of them should be in gaol and, in fact, the Attorney-General’s bill would say that, for people whose sexuality is such that they are inclined to be attracted to young children, he thinks they should be in gaol! Therefore, we both agree that, if we use that definition, we have to be a bit careful about saying: ‘Well, your sexuality is irrelevant because it is discrimination’.
Discrimination is an interesting word too that probably needs some definition. Discrimination is usually followed by ‘in favour’ or ‘against’: ‘to single out a particular person, group, etcetera, for special favour or disfavour’. Now, that could well apply here. However, it can also be a good thing. It is ‘to recognise and understand the difference between and to distinguish, to constitute or market difference, to be discerning in matters of taste’. I believe, not only are we discriminating in this parliament, we are obliged to discriminate and we should not be shy about saying we discriminate. It is what we do; it is our job. Our job is to discriminate for the best interest of the community.
There are some issues that we could talk about in terms of it being a stunt, of the definitions being flawed, and of its process. However, I will go quickly to detail. I shall not spend too much time here because I made the mistake of going through the bill and looking at how you could amend it. I quickly realised that is not only a gigantean task, it would fall on deaf ears because it would appear that, however persuasive our oratory might be in this place, the government is not inclined to change its mind. Therefore, it is a wasted exercise for me to go through, clause by clause, and tell you why I am against it.
I will point out for people who are interested, that this bill makes the law of domestic violence worse, not better. The test of discriminating for people and saying that we should do that so that things get better - and I take people to schedule 2 at page 46, where it talks about the domestic violence regulations. We are going to get rid of the definition that says:
- … a person of the opposite sex who has lived or is living with the person as if he or she were the spouse of the person although not married to the person.
That is offence because it has ‘opposite sex’ and that is being changed to:
- … a de facto partner of the person and a former de facto partner of the person.
I would suggest to you that the definition we are omitting is wider in its application than the new one, because de facto is a very tight definition, whereas the earlier one just talked about living with someone - even if it had been the Friday before and the domestic violence incident had occurred on the Monday. Therefore, before you go and say we are getting tougher on domestic violence, please have another look at that.
I believe the age barrier is a big issue. As a former Health minister, I can tell you that one of the most vulnerable mammals on the face of the globe is an adolescent male. There will be people saying boys and girls are no different. Well, they are and, if you really want to look at how different they are, look at the suicide, self-harm and self-abuse statistics. Young males believe that they are invincible, but they are a highly fragile species. If we rush to this thing - and the minister has included it in his second reading speech, where he says that he is changing this because believes that it could be a contributor to suicide and, therefore, he is making it better. Well, that is a pretty strong thing to say, that he is changing this act. I will give it to you here:
The government is also persuaded …
Sorry, this is Wednesday, 15 August, 2003 debate:
- The government is also persuaded that a higher age of consent for young men in fact led to higher health and suicide risks, with young men reluctant to seek help for fear of being reported for breach of the law.
If you believe that, minister, please demonstrate it to this parliament. If you are saying this law is a matter of life and death, it is incumbent on you to tell us how young men’s lives are put at risk by the current law. I would argue with you that there is a strong body of evidence on the corollary that many young men who are sexually abused, also have that as a precursor to suicide. Therefore, be very careful about making an assumption that this will make it better.
I thought the contribution from my colleague for Port Darwin was very good: if we are so blindly following every other jurisdiction, wait a year and see if theirs got better. If NSW have this by the throat, and are going to let 16-year-old males engage in homosexual intercourse, it will have an impact on the suicide rate, and that should be evident. I can tell you it is going up. I am not going to table research or anything like that, but I will say to you that the onus is not on me, it is on the minister. The minister has claimed that this piece of legislation will improve suicide rates. Demonstrate it to us. If not, hold it over until you can look at one of the jurisdictions that you are hell-bent on copying and see if it worked for them.
If we look at the gender differential between boys and girls, there is an argument to say that it could be the same. I would argue that it is probably more significant than others would think. Both of them achieve sexual maturity, possibly, at different times. The issue for us, as legislators, is to draw the safest line. As I said, we know we have to draw it somewhere. We know it is not 12, and there are some would argue that after 18 it is - so we know it is between 12 and 18. The six years is where we have to draw a line. We have to draw that line to the best possible health, safety and good governance of this community …
Mr Baldwin: And err on the side of caution.
Mr DUNHAM: And we err on the side of safety. So, that is where we have to err.
The schools and churches debate has been put. I am surprised to find that the Catholic schools have asked me to endorse an amendment that has been circulated in the minister’s name. I will not do that. The Catholic schools are misguided in that view. If you believe that you can tinker with this legislation, you are inevitably going down the wrong road. I can understand their concerns. The minister’s amendment, which has been endorsed by school committees, still does not understand the hierarchy of at least the Catholic Church, which is a provider of education for some 6000 kids in the Territory. That is a hierarchical institution and it is not, as the minister assumes, a matter of ascertaining the view of the local community, because that is not how they work. If the Catholic Church is prepared to sign over on that, I am not because I have no problems with people knowing what my religion is. I am a Catholic and I believe that is a foolhardy and foolish move by the Catholic education people to endorse it.
I talked about the style of debate. I was very interested to receive this document from the gay law reform people which is the genesis – sorry, the genesis is probably not this. It has happened around Australia, as we know, and the member for Brennan talked about it. This was seemingly sitting in the wings waiting to bounce into this parliament with the election of a Labor government. It says it right at page 3 of 25: ‘… developing a submission to the newly elected Labor government in the Northern Territory’. So we know it is timing.
I was interested to see among the people who endorsed it, in a schedule here called ‘Endorsements, following organisations, local individuals have endorsed this submission’. They are not, I would think, representative of the wider community in the first place. In the second place, I was surprised to see the name of my deceased brother on that list. I do not know if it is done for some way of affecting me, but it did – it did. If that is there for some innocent reason, I would like to hear why it is there, but if it is not, it is not only dirty pool, but it goes to the entire thing we are talking about here. This is a debate where there is finger pointing: if you do not agree, you are a homophobe; if you do not agree with the bill, you endorse predatory behaviour on small children; if we do not like what you are saying, we are going to gag you. This is not a democracy. This is crazy stuff.
We have to listen to the people. We have to listen to what they are saying. If you are not going to take this out as a road show - okay, so it might take up to March next year. I would be very surprised if you do not hear loud and clear what people think. You may well, as a legislator, believe they are wrong. However, we should not be intruding on people’s lives with our own ethics and behaviour, totally out of step with the people who elected us here. To do that, there is only one remedy in democracy and that remedy is to punish you at the polling booth. So, if the Labor government thinks that they can rush this thing through: ‘Phew that is all behind us. That was a neat debate and it is gone’, I am telling you that it is not. I am telling you that I believe this assault on the very structure of our society - the way you have done it, your methodology - is very inglorious.
For you to pursue this matter tonight and have it completed in some sort of a foolish belief that it puts it to bed, it will not. It will not. There are many of us in this House who have connections and relationships with many homosexual people, but there are also many in this House who are the parents of adolescent boys. I would suggest that they are contributors to this debate. We must hear from them. It is no good going out there and saying: ‘We have heard from Reclaim the Night, the gay pride group and all the rest of them’ because this is not just a debate about that group.
In his second reading speech, the minister has virtually said that. He said that this is an issue for the whole community. I quote from the debate of Wednesday 15 August at page 9:
- By giving gay and lesbian relationships recognition under Territory law, it is not just people in same-sex relationships who will benefit from these reforms; it is society as a whole.
In the same way the minister has to demonstrate to this parliament that he believes that young adolescent males are at risk of suicide if this law does not pass, he also has to demonstrate to us how society as a whole is better as a result of this legislation.
I am disappointed by the lack of contribution from some of those opposite. I can understand their problem and dilemma, in that it has now been said by no less than the Chief Minister and Leader of Government Business that there is total unanimity of view over there. That flies in the face of virtually the first words uttered by the member for Karama, who said there is great diversity of opinion on this issue. She is correct; there is great diversity of opinion. For you to come in here and say: ‘Look, we have 13 people in a room and do you know what? We all agree!’. I do not think you can do that. That is so facile and stupid that no one out there is going to believe it. They will not believe that the four Aboriginal members did not have a different point of view. They will not believe that those who still practice Christian faith have not heard some of the messages coming through from their churches. They will not believe that there are people who have some fundamental problems with this. They will not believe that everyone has read it to the same extent and pulled all those hundreds of acts out and gone through and checked them.
This is apparently a clean sweep on matters relating to sexuality. I am not convinced it is a clean sweep of matters relating to age. It looks like, in cobbling the two together, we have a comprehensive bill relating to sexuality, but one that is missing in relation to some of the matters relating to age. Others have contributed to the debate about access to driver’s licences and premises where alcohol is served and all the rest of it, but I would ask the minister to think about a bill that he will present later in these sittings in which he will talk about Labor’s new tough on murderers policy being a problem if the person is over 18. I wonder why that would be so.
I also wonder why he would include in this Reports on the Views of Victims or Next of Kin where he says:
- If the accused person or supervised person is the member of an Aboriginal community, a report setting out the views of the members of the Aboriginal community ...
Why are you discriminating in such a way? Many communities have views about murder and how it affects them. Many communities have issues about marriage. Many communities do not have a problem with polygamy, which is currently allowed under this act. I would think that, sometime in the many hours in the future, the minister has an opportunity to answer all those questions.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Madam Speaker, the package of law reform relating to gender, sexuality and de facto relationships before this parliament is of great importance right across the Northern Territory and, therefore, puts heavy responsibility on all elected members of parliament to ensure we are upholding the highest standards for our community while, at the same time, ensuring equality of treatment under the law.
The way these reforms have been packaged and presented to this parliament is totally unacceptable. This government has shown utter contempt towards the people of the Northern Territory by failing to adequately consult with the wider community, and by pushing this complex reform legislation through parliament at this sitting when it would be much wiser to listen to what the majority of Territorians really want.
The Martin Labor government knows that it is highly likely that this bill would be defeated if Labor Party members were allowed a conscience vote, which poses the question of members of this parliament having to live with the outcome of this legislation reform without being able to express a moral conscience vote.
I do not support the view that we are strengthening laws protecting children from sexual abuse by lowering the age of consent for males from 18 to 16 years of age. The argument that the higher age of consent for young men led to higher health and suicide risks reinforces the view that I have held for some time; that is, there needs to be skilled and trained counsellors for young people who are questioning their sexuality. These skilled and specially trained people should be positioned in secondary schools as student counsellors, available for young people to discuss issues of concern about their sexuality. In discussions I have had with members of the gay and lesbian community in my electorate, they have repeatedly stated the importance of specialised counselling through secondary school years, and claim it would alleviate a majority of the health and suicide risks we are talking about. Their experience has been with young people who, in the majority, are not wishing to be sexually active but are confused about their sexuality, and are not able to discuss it with experienced and qualified counsellors. Lowering the age of consent for males from 18 to 16 is not going to address the issue when the question is really about gender uncertainty. I cannot stress enough the importance of that counselling.
I do not support the lowering of the age for males from 18 to 16 years of age. I support the age for both male and female to be equal at 18 years of age. In relation to the amendments to the de facto relationships bill, these reforms recognise some present inconsistencies that exist, especially in the gay and lesbian community, and I support the reforms that are proposed. However, because of my concerns in relation to the reform relating to the lowering of the age of male homosexuals, I do not support this bill.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I place on the record some of my observations in relation to the legislation currently before the parliament. There were two bills which, in the second reading speech, were addressed cognate. They are being dealt with separately now.
In relation to the substantive bill, that is, Law Reform (Gender, Sexuality and De Facto Relationships) Bill 2003, I am not going to repeat many of the things which my colleagues have stated. However, there is little doubt that the Martin Labor government has handled the issue very badly. The member for Drysdale made the point which is a very good point: in the same breath as this Labor government announced stricter penalties and increasing the potential penalty which an alleged offender might face for, in some cases, interfering with children in the amendments to the Criminal Code, there is going to be a complete review of gender, sexuality and the law relating to it, and that becomes the form of the bill (Serial 186).
In the minds of fair-minded Territorians, you would think, if you were making this announcement under the Criminal Code, we are going to get tougher on certain types of sexual conduct and, at the same time, we are going to legislate and make a number of changes on the basis that we need some more equality before the law, there was this link. That link was perpetuated by the Northern Territory News and the journalist who received those press releases from the Labor government.
It culminated in a public debate, which certainly has been raging in some sectors of the community. The very fact that, for the first time in my short period in parliament, there are people in the gallery beyond 4.30 pm or 5 pm, is testament to the fact that there is a degree of public interest in this debate and the outcome of the debate. My electorate is, I say, the best electorate in the Northern Territory; it is in God’s country out in the rural area. There are very few issues which stir the passions of people to such extremes.
I have had people visit me saying it is completely outrageous what this government proposes to do. I have also had people visit me saying it is about time, it is great, and expressing their undying support for what is occurring. On top of all that, it seems, for the very first time, I have received letters from the Islamic Society of the Northern Territory on behalf of the people who come under the umbrella of that particular incorporated body, stating that they oppose the law. I have received a whole heap of material from the Australian Federation for the Family. They sent me a video - these are lobby groups from interstate that are fairly organised - and also booklets crafting bisexual and homosexual youth. There is lots of material. In fact, someone sent me the Queer Territory Volume 1, Issue 3. In this particular journal, there is some reference - or a fairly significant reference - to the gay and lesbian law reform.
There is absolutely no doubt that the views of the community are split. It really comes down to the process - and this is my fundamental problem with what is occurring: the way that is has been handled. The processes of parliament have been mangled by the Labor government. They have been mangled in the sense that many important provisions have been rolled into one piece of legislation. In fairness, there would be very few people who are genuinely across all of the issues which are contained in the legislation. There would be very few people who genuinely understand the import of each and every amendment. In trying to remain objective about it, I do not think there are many people in the Northern Territory who would seriously oppose most of the reforms which appear in this particular piece of legislation. Most of them are common sense and there is an element of fairmindedness to them.
The problem is, of course, that they are all rolled into one. To have a difficulty with one particular reform means that, of course, you cannot support the legislation. Coupled with all of that, really rolling it on top of the whole process, is that I do not think there has been an informed debate in the Territory community. I do not believe that Territory people have been given an opportunity to really look at the merits of this legislation. Even for the four, five or 10 important changes, if we put aside the less critical changes to a separate category, there has not been the Labor Party brochures rolled out to the northern suburbs, or that consultation. That really explains, to a fairly significant degree, the level of resentment in the community at both extremes.
I have made no secret of my views on this material. I have made some observations, issued press releases, made media statements and, indeed, written a letter to the Darwin Community Legal Service saying that I strongly support most of their reforms. However, the nature of the way that it has been handled, the very fact that this Labor government has chosen to really rush this important piece of legislation through - they do nothing for six months, absolutely nothing and then, on the very last sitting of parliament with three days to go, we have this piece of legislation, with each issue not dealt with separately but rolled into one. We have them giving away our parks; that debate is going to occur after this. That will be in the early hours of the morning. It is really a situation that they are just going to jam it through. The Labor government is saying: ‘We do not care what people think, we do not want an informed debate about this, we are just going to use the very fact we have 13 people who are going to vote as a block to push this through and, no matter what occurs, it will be law when we wake up tomorrow morning’.
I am not going to let them get away with that. I am not going to support the abuse of the process which is occurring. I can say this in fairness to the Labor Party: if they presented this bill and the reforms in this bill in separate distinct proportions …
Mr Elferink: In bits and then suggest by implication that gays were child molesters.
Mr MALEY: I pick up on the interjection. If they had not made that link in implying that people who are homosexual are all child molesters and had not created the division in the community, then I suspect that there would not be the level of passion in this particular debate.
Madam Speaker, I have some other observations to make about the second bill, but I will not be supporting the bill in its current form.
Mr BALDWIN (Daly): Madam Speaker, I follow the comments of the member for Goyder and I will not be supporting this bill either for many of the same reasons that have been articulated in this House tonight.
First and foremost though, the very fact that it has not had wide community consultation, is something that has been a mistake by the government with this issue. The other issue, of course, is the packaging; it has been talked about a lot in this debate today. The packaging of these reforms was a genuine mistake by the Labor Party. It now seems like it was a trick, and a very purposeful one, to confuse the issue. We have heard lots about the different press releases that have gone out. I am sure that everybody involved - whether you are intimately involved in this debate in the community or just a bystander - would understand these issues if all of the packages that are presented were unravelled and taken separately.
So, naivety - I do not think so. A trick - I certainly do think. It was a strategy. It has worked. It has worked right up until the last moment when community perceptions about this whole package have been raised. They have not been raised by the Labor government; they have been raised predominantly by the CLP. Of the 5000 surveys the CLP sent out, 1000 came back, which is not a bad effort or bad return rate on a survey that goes out. Of course, there were the letters. Regardless of the content of the letter of the member for Nelson and what you think about them, he actually got out there and wrote to people – 15 000 I understand. That is where the community perception has come from, not from the Labor government – because they wanted to trick people. They did not want them to know what was going on in this House, and it was very successful up until just recently.
I heard the member for Arnhem bag the member for Nelson about his letter. But what did the member for Arnhem say as the Minister for Local Government? Did he write to all the local government councils in the Northern Territory? He bagged the member for Nelson …
Mr Ah Kit: Did you seek a briefing? What have you done since June from the introduction. Nothing – you are lazy. You are lazy. You are divided.
Mr BALDWIN: … to write to local government councils in the Northern Territory. Now whose responsibility Madam Speaker, whose responsibility – and I can yell louder than the minister over there - should it be to make local government councils in the Northern Territory aware of Northern Territory issues? One would think it is the Minister for Local Government, but he has been sitting on his bum with this issue because they have a strategy …
Mr KIELY: A point of order, Madam Speaker. We do not need that sort of language dragged into this debate.
Madam SPEAKER: It is unparliamentary. Yes, it might be a little unparliamentary but, because of the heat of this debate, I think …
Mr BALDWIN: Madam Speaker, I will withdraw it and I will say ‘sitting on his bottom’. Sitting on his bottom in this debate. I would like to hear the member for Sanderson get up and give his view - and I will get on to the other members who have not spoken in this debate fairly shortly.
The job of a minister, surely, is to raise issues that are of major concern to Territorians …
Mr Ah Kit interjecting.
Mr BALDWIN: … and specifically, Madam Speaker …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Arnhem!
Mr BALDWIN: … to local government councils and community government councils which have administrative responsibilities in Aboriginal communities. But no, not a mention …
Mr Wood: Keeping quiet.
Mr BALDWIN: Very quiet, as has been this whole issue from the other side, from the government.
We have heard a lot about the child sex crime provisions in these bills. We have heard a fair bit about the property rights and access to property in these bills from the other side, but very little on the age of consent and the effect, and the understanding that those issues, with regard to Aboriginal people - and certainly the job that the minister should have done himself.
The other issue is that not only did they want to package these together, then they thought: ‘We can go one step further. We can debate these bills, this bill in particular, this package of bills, on a day when we have already done two, three pieces of legislation’. As the member for Goyder has pointed out, we also have the parks bill before us and it was to come before this bill. The Leader of Government Business then stood up and said: ‘Hang on, we will rearrange that’. That was just a few hours ago, before this debate started: ‘We will put it behind it now’. It is a very significant bill in its own right about assets that belong to Territorians and where they might end up. Then we still have another piece of legislation that has been placed on the agenda for tonight - the AustralAsia Railway Bill. All of that legislation in the last sittings in the year, on the first day. One or two of the significant ones, one would have thought, could have perhaps gone on Thursday. But no, they had one more little trick up their sleeve and we had to bundle it all in so that people would not know what is going on and it would not get its fair and just exposure.
A lot has been said about equity tonight. My personal position on the age of consent – and this is where the debate has gravitated to: I do not think many people, as you would expect, have a real problem with the sex crime provisions and other things in the bill. Regarding the de facto issue, there are some issues to be debated and dealt with in another bill, so we are going to have this discussion all over again, which is good. I have a personal feeling on the age of consent, and it comes from canvassing a lot of people. I have not done it formally; I have done it as you would as a local member from time to time. I have actually targeted the people I wanted to ask. I have not gone seeking gay or lesbian members of the community because I have a submission from an organisation representing their views, and that is really where this bill has stemmed from in that submission. I have actually targeted families, particularly younger families with children. In my view, there a majority of families who, when you ask them about age of consent, quickly arrive at the decision that the age of consent should be raised.
It is not a question of equity. We are talking age of consent between genders. Families quickly get to a position, for all of the arguments that the member for Brennan has outlined tonight, that they do want some powers retained within their family. This is a perception; it is not based on any science. It is the perception that they do not want to see an erosion of family values. They quickly arrive at the position that they would like to see an increase across the board to the age of consent. It is a simple argument. I am not about to get into all of the nitty-gritty of the legislation in terms of the clauses. That is the fundamental thing here. That is the issue on which this government should have gone to the community.
We have select and standing committee in this parliament for all sorts of things. We have just spent most of the year looking at the issue of cane toads in the Northern Territory, so we have an environment committee. There is a committee looking specifically at drug and alcohol abuse. Wasn’t this subject good enough to go out and do even a six-week or a three-month report? The Chief Minister said during Question Time that this bill has been out there since July. Okay. Between July and now, couldn’t we have had a committee that goes out there and brings back, as they did in the euthanasia debate, a report that then becomes a debate? Then you will base your argument …
Mr Ah Kit: Did you ask for one?
Mr Elferink: Yes, but you gagged me! We asked you and you said: ‘Shut up, sit down’, and you voted to shut me up and sit me down.
Mr BALDWIN: Picking up on the interjection, Madam Speaker, did we ask them? Okay. I am standing here tonight. We are legislators, we can do anything within reason, on this floor. I am asking you, minister, and I am asking you, minister, as minister responsible, let us take it to the community. Let us go tonight. Let us defer this. What is the rush? Tell me what the rush is. In 10 years that I have been in this job, I have not had one person come through my door - I have not had people knocking down the door - on this issue. I have had it quite often on other issues, from time to time over that 10 years but, on this issue - nothing. If you really want to go and gauge whether you are doing the right thing here, then go to the community, and we can do it here tonight. If you have the guts on that side as a government, take it to the community. However, I know you will not.
That then goes to the position of government. Is there a split on that side? Is it the ‘dictator’ - as she has been called by a prominent leader of the Greek community, a dictator - that is keeping all of you from speaking? I am assuming I am the last speaker on this before the minister responsible gets up and wraps up this debate. If that is the case, how many of you have spoken on that side? Why haven’t you, member for Nightcliff, spoken? Is it because your Uniting Church has a lot to say on this issue, and you do not want to stand up here and put on the public record why you support this bill tonight? Because I know that the Nightcliff Uniting Church has had a lot to say on this issue. I would like to hear from the member; there is plenty of time. We are not rushing things. We have been told all night this is not being rushed. Well, come on, get on your feet. Where is the ‘dictator’? She has not spoken. What about the others? Where is the member for Casuarina? We know the position of the Greek Orthodox Church, because the letter has been talked about many times in here. If they are so confident that they have a strong position, why hasn’t he stood in this House tonight and said why he supports it? Why have the government members been so gutless?
What about the member for Johnston? He goes to the Catholic Church; he is a member of the Catholic Church, I understand. I have paperwork here from the Catholic Church. I know they are not happy with what has been proposed. Why hasn’t he stood up and put his government’s position, and his personal position? One member across there - it might have been the member for Arnhem – said: ‘We are so strong in our position that every time we stand up we have a conscience vote’. Well, okay! Get up. Come on. There is all night. Get up and let us hear what you have to say. The member for Sanderson never holds back in a debate, speaks in every adjournment every night, tries to tail in every debate that is going on in this House. I have not seen him today in this debate. What about the de facto bill when it comes up next? Who is going to speak on that, on that side? Anybody, apart from the minister?
Dr Toyne: I will have a go.
Mr BALDWIN: Yes, well I am glad you are going to have a go. Good on you for your courage. That is the problem here. There has been a lot of talk about equity, and the member for Nhulunbuy spoke all the platitudes about equity. I agree with him, I do not have a problem. There should be equity before the law, but the point has been made that we do discriminate as legislators. You cannot get away from it, and there have been plenty of examples. The member for Nhulunbuy said: ‘If there are any other cases of discrimination, well, we will fix it’. Okay, I thought about that, and I thought, well, what else do we know about, off the top of our heads?
Let us have a look at the pensioner concession card. You are the Treasurer, member for Nhulunbuy. Why do you not fix that? At the moment, a woman gets a pensioner concession card from the Northern Territory government at the age of 60. A man gets it at 65. Is that equality before the law in your eyes, and do you think you should fix it? I hope to see a bill in here looking after our senior citizens in the February …
Mr Ah Kit: So you want to put the women up to 65, do you?
Mr BALDWIN: Do what you like; bring him down to 60. But fix it, because that is what you have just said. They have made much tonight about equality before the law, and good on them. I agree with the principle. However, do not stand up in this House and say: ‘This is the only thing that needs fixing and I will fix anything else that needs fixing’. I have just given you one example - fix that.
The real issue here is that this has not gone to the community. I have had a good friend raise a point with me about the distribution of glossy brochures, from time to time. This government is very good at doing it; we see it all the time. We see it on all sorts of issues. The point that he raised was that we have not seen a glossy brochure on this one - have not seen a glossy brochure that says: ‘Do you know we, the Labor government, are going to affect your family values, what you believe in as a family, or what might be right or wrong’. Put your own words in it. Why wasn’t there a glossy brochure? What have you to hide on this one? Where is it? Not worth marketing, not worth telling Territorians about? Well, you cannot have your cake and eat it too.
The other issue in this bill that strikes me is the equality argument. On one hand, we have to have equality in the age and, on the other hand, government is saying: ‘But whilst we are going to fix equality to do with age for males to have sex with each other, we are now going to discriminate against the category of people who cannot have sex’. I am not saying whether it is right or wrong but, for those carer-type categories that has been talked about in this debate, you are now saying that they, because of their occupation, cannot have sex. Sounds like discrimination to me. Keep your arguments straight, that is what I am saying. It is a pretty simple argument in my view. I am sure if you took it to the community, you would hear it loud and clear that people do not want their values tampered with. If they do, what have we got to hide from going out and asking them? What have we got to hide? Nothing. Why is there such a rush to get this through? There is no rush.
The ethnic groups, as we have heard from quite a number of them, have made their opinion quite clear. If they do not reflect the community views, then nobody does, because we are so culturally diverse in the Territory that, surely, those ethnic groups that have taken the trouble to make their views known to government and to members of parliament, must reflect community views. They are opposing what you are presenting to them - opposing on the basis, most of them, that you have not consulted. You are suppose to be the consulting, open government, but the ‘dictator’ as she has been called in this issue - what? - is not letting you consult. That must worry you, Attorney-General, because I know how you like to consult. It must really bug you that you cannot take this out on a committee and ask people - and ask the Aboriginal people as well. That is an issue. The member for Arnhem stood here and said: ‘You do not know what you are talking about; it is not an issue’.
Well, I can tell you the people that I have talked to in my electorate - Aboriginal Territorians of which I have many - that I have taken the time to explain this to - because it takes some explaining, me doing the government’s job - they were aghast! (1) they had never heard of it and, (2) they had some views on it.
However, the government would not know that because they have not been out to those communities. They have not been to Territorians at all, and that is the shame of it. Like many members on this side, I believe they are trying to ram this through when there is no need to rush it - there is no need to rush it. The really core issues here that people do not have a problem with, and that the Darwin Community Legal Service, I am sure, are hoping to get through as quickly as possible, are those four issues of property rights and so forth.
If those bills had been unravelled in all of this, they would have passed no problem. I am sure this package of bills is going to pass because of the stand that the Labor government is going to take on it. However, there is really no rush on the age of consent and, if there was, this would have been in a committee between this bill being flagged in July, it coming down in sittings last - which is the first time anyone has seen any detail of it. Look how rushed it is …
Mrs Miller: Fourteen pages today.
Mr BALDWIN: Fourteen pages of amendments. That is just not 14 clauses of amendments - 14 pages of amendments have been distributed today that people are supposed to get their heads around and agree on. What sort of circus is this? It is just outrageous. I am sure that, had you organised yourself, and not tried to trick the Territory community by bundling these together, you could have had some partisan support on the packages - had they been unravelled, had they gone to the community and had we had decent debate on, particularly, the age of consent. Members who have spoken about increasing the age of consent on this side are right, and are reflecting the community’s view. That is what I found. You are obviously going to disagree with that. That is fine. It would be equitable to raise, for all genders, the age of consent and, certainly, acceptable in the community.
It seems I am the last speaker. Nobody else seems to be about to jump to their feet. That is a shame because there are a few members on the other side who really should put their position on the record, including the member for Johnston. I am sure he would love to jump up. I am sure the member for Nightcliff would love to jump up, and the member for Casuarina also. However, the ‘dictator’ has told them: ‘Nope, do not ruin the strategy; we have it all under control’. So, go forth and conquer, Attorney-General, and good luck.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I thank all honourable members for their contribution to the debate on this important bill. The contributions we have had tonight make a point in themselves. We have had - I have lost count of the number of speakers - but certainly it would be something of the order of 14 or 15 members. In those contributions, you can actually see the diversity of opinion that exists around some of the issues that we are handling in this legislation.
It is quite clear from the propositions we have had. We have had support for the age of consent being 16 and equalised. We have had a proposition for the age of consent being 18 and equalised. We have had the member for Brennan saying that you could make it 18 but that is probably going to be too difficult, and proposing some other alternative to that. We have seen quite an exploration of the personal experiences of people, and I certainly appreciate the honesty that has been shown by some members in bringing their experiences into the debate. I very much respect them for that. We have seen both personal belief and the belief of often the churches that members may be associated with, come into the debate.
There has been much said on the need for a vote on conscience here by all members. I can assure you that the government position is based on conscience and it is based on a very extended examination of these issues by government members, by Caucus. I can say that the position that we have come to has not been taken up lightly, and it has not been taken up by reference to any other part of the Labor Party or part of Australia or anything else. It has come straight from the hearts and consciences of our Caucus members, and we sincerely hold the view that this package is good for the Northern Territory.
The diversity of opinion we have heard tonight makes the whole issue of going to the community pretty problematic. We have 200 000 people, roughly, in the Northern Territory. There is a huge diversity of opinions, religious background and experience, and the kind of diversity of position that we have had from 14 people here tonight – indeed, from the whole 25 of us in our personal world views, religious beliefs and life experiences – will be reflected on a larger scale in consultation. It is intrinsically an issue that is very difficult to put to an opinion poll.
What other basis is there for making a decision open to a government? The other basis, of course, is what is known about the issues that we are dealing with. There is extensive research that we have looked on the sexual habits and activities in our modern communities. There is extensive research on the effect of homophobic views on young gay and lesbian people growing up in our community. There is extensive evidence of the effect of the laws as they stand on that part of the community. There is extensive research on the type of relationships in which people live in modern communities. We can no longer go out and honestly say that there is only one form of relationship that can sustain our community. The reality is out there and is that there is a range of relationships in which people live. Some of us prefer traditional marriages. I have been in a marriage for 32 years. It does not mean that that suits everyone. It suits me, and it will suit me, hopefully, for the rest of my life. However, this is not about projecting my personal world view or preferences on the rest of the community.
Where do we go? If we cannot rely on some consistency of view of the individual adults who make up our community, and cannot have a consistent view irrespective of how many people we go out and see, where do we go from there? Do we then go to the churches? The churches themselves have been wrestling with this very issue in their own affairs. In 1998, for example, Bishop Patrick Power of Canberra stated that there is a very real difficulty for the church in terms of its credibility in the wider community. Some members of the church community and hierarchy appear to act cruelly towards people such as single parents, homosexuals, divorced and re-married couples, and former priests. More recently, the head of the Anglican Church in Western Australia, Archbishop Carnley, suggested that the church should consider sanctioning long-term gay relationships, saying that:
- The church might do better to concentrate on what may be positively said about the spiritual quality of such friendships as the vehicles for expression of love, joy, peace, forgiveness … and leave other matters to personal choice. … our first task … is to pause to reflect and to reframe the understanding of homosexual relationships within parameters set by the category of friendship.
Just this week, the Dean of Anglican Christchurch Cathedral, Rev Mike Dixon, expressed his view that discriminatory laws should be repealed. Dean Dixon said:
- I feel gay people are discriminated against by society and the church to a point of leading quite a few young people to a high rate of suicide.
Proved very strongly by the large body of research on the relationship of suicide rates, which are extremely high among young gay men, particularly. Going on with this quote from the Rev Dixon:
- The opposition appears largely to be homophobic and driven by people who I think do not understand modern sexuality very well. We need to take on board and accept these homosexual people as just as much loved by God as everybody else.
I am not projecting these views as the views of government or my own personal views. What I am saying is that, just as it is very difficult to go out and consult with every single adult in our community and then, somehow, use that as a basis of forming a position on age of consent, the churches themselves are wrestling with the same issues of sexuality and how they and their belief system respond to modern patterns of sexuality. So we have quite considerable difficulty with the idea that instituting a consultation process will somehow resolve this issue. It could well be very divisive in the community, as groups that have very strong views about this polarise and create division amongst our community.
We have taken the view, therefore, that the best way to tackle this reform package is by logic and on the facts, and on the consultations that we have been doing with groups regarding particular aspects of the bills. In the logic underlying this, there has been a lot made of splitting the bills up and why we brought this in as one package. There is a logic to this package, and that is why it is one package. In looking at the issues regarding the gay and lesbian interests within the community, at the key point of concern to the gay and lesbian community, which was the inequality of the age of consent, it required us to visit the issue of age of consent. If you set up whatever decision to take on it, whether it is 18, 16 or 17 for everyone, that immediately begs another question. The age of consent itself is no protection to anyone. It is simply a symbolic or a conceptual view about where a person passes from a state in which they require some protection from sexual predation and some prescription, I guess, of taking up sexual relationships of any type. In other words, they are seen to be immature in taking up a sexual relationship.
The age of consent, in itself, provides absolutely no protection to children in our society. Therefore, the next logical step in developing this type of legislation is to say right, if we make the age of consent at 16, what protections can we then build around that to take care of the interests of children, whether they are boys or girls. That has led to a raft of new offences and penalties that are embodied in this bill, and they are very much integral to the decision about the age of consent. It has also led to the issues of the relationships, and applying that same age of consent level through to cases where marriage is claimed as being a defence in sexual abuse of a girl under 16. To be logical and consistent, we have extended the decision of age of consent into those situations, and we have removed defences based on a claimed marriage in any situation, for any culture, or any person within the Northern Territory.
That has now given us a consistent package that deals with the whole range of issues regarding the protection of the young and the threshold for sexual relations, and the laws that will be in place to enforce those protections. It is those laws that are the protection. It is not the decision about the age of consent. Those laws are the things that will regulate behaviour in our community. The age of consent simply is the framework around which all the laws are now aligned.
I would like to deal with a strongly implied theme that has been in the debate from many of the members. I want to deal with this. The whole implication that, somehow, there is a particular link between paedophilia and homosexuality has to be challenged. There is no evidence for it, and this debate should not be based on the mistaken belief that paedophilia is an offence committed by, particularly, gay men. Some members have very much implied that the predatory behaviour of adults is based on homosexuality. We simply have to rebut that on the evidence. The vast majority of victims of paedophilic offences in the Northern Territory are girls, and they are preyed upon by heterosexual men, not by homosexual men. While there are cases of bisexual and homosexual offenders, they are certainly not making up the majority of the offenders, just as boys are not making up the majority of the victims. Therefore, let us keep this debate separated between the issue of what homosexual activities do as regards our kids and the safety of our kids. There is no particular threat from homosexuals of the same scale as the threat posed by heterosexual men on our young girls.
Looking at the sanctity of marriage and at our sections of the bill that deal with de facto and same-sex de facto relationships, the first thing I want to say about this is that, by extending the operation of our law to same-sex de facto relationships, we are extending the same rights that already apply to heterosexual de facto and married couples to same-sex de facto couples. There is no more rights than anyone else; simply the same rights. Those rights are also being extended to the children of those partnerships. We really do not understand why anyone would want to hold back the extension of the protection of those kids and the same rights. I would hate to see in the Northern Territory a continuation of the situation where, if there was a fatal road accident, the kids who were being cared for by that couple do not have access to the same sort of victims compensation or MACA coverage that applies to other child-rearing situations in the Northern Territory. Why should those kids be singled out on the basis of the sexuality of their parents?
By recognising de facto relationships for the purpose of Territory law, the intention is not to detract from the sanctity of marriage but to offer protections to people who make their own personal decisions to enter other types of relationships. Our community is a vibrant and diverse one which is part of what makes the Northern Territory such a good place to live. These reforms are about recognising this diversity and ensuring that everyone has the same rights. The reforms recognise that times have changed and people choose to live in a range of different types of relationships.
As regards the particular situation of customary law, the member for Arnhem has dealt with part of that issue. In the interpretations amendments, it is very clearly stated that there are separate categories for customary law marriages, the normally church-based marriages that have been recognised for a considerable amount of time in the Territory, and de facto relationships as a separate category again.
The member for Nelson made the point that there is a section in the reforms to the De Facto Relations Act where traditional Aboriginal marriages are grouped with de facto relationships. In all other Territory laws, such marriages come within the definition of marriage - speaking of the customary marriages - as a result of the new section 19A of the Interpretation Act. In other words, we are introducing customary law marriages as a legitimate form of marriage in any part of our law that mentions marriage, spouses, husbands, or wives. So customary law is just simply another species of marriage, if you like.
The application of the De Facto Relationships Act to Aboriginal traditional marriages, as in the section that you drew attention to, was necessary in order to address a loophole. Previously, a couple in a traditional marriage that had not lived under the same roof did not have access to any form of property dispute resolution. The amendments to the De Facto Relationships Act will overcome that anomaly and allow Aboriginal people in that situation to properly distribute their possessions in the case of a dispute.
The member for Blain also questioned what sort of coverage the entry into a de facto relationship had. The suggestion that brother and sister or housekeeper could satisfy a number of the criteria proposed in new section 3A(2) ignores section 3A(1) which is the governing provision for determining whether a de facto relationship exists. That subsection provides that two persons are in a de facto relationship if they are not married but have a marriage-like relationship. Brothers and sisters, siblings, generally do not have a marriage-like relationship. Housekeepers do not have a marriage-like relationship with their employers. There is no doubt that there has to be a distinct difference in the relationship to qualify as a de facto relationship.
There was some point made about the assertions we have made about the relationship of the current social situation and things like suicide rates and the behaviour of young gay men, particularly, towards health services that they may want to take advantage of. The member for Katherine also confirmed the very strong need for counselling and health advice - certainly counselling for young gays. Expert opinion and research in the Northern Territory and, generally in Australia, supports that boys will not seek health advice or other help because of the current criminalising of homosexual sex under the age of 18.
The public health issues arising from unequal age of consent include the increased difficulty of combating HIV AIDS, rates of violence towards gay men, and rates of male youth suicide. Most gay men grow up in a decidedly homophobic environment facing threats to their psychological and physical wellbeing. Research has found that young gay men are up to 300% more likely to commit suicide than their heterosexual peers, making suicide the leading cause of death amongst young gay men. This is a shocking statistic. Research in the United States of America and in Australia leaves little doubt that stigmatising sexuality and criminalising consensual sexual conduct contributes to a high rate of violence against young men seen as gay. It also contributes to the male youth suicide rates which are very high in the Northern Territory.
Findings on this issue have been published on many occasions by numerous bodies, including the House of Representatives Standing Committee of Family and Community Affairs in its 1997 report. Research in New South Wales has also found that the unequal age of consent has impeded the fight against HIV AIDS in that state, as the criminalisation of consensual sex makes it harder to change risky behaviour. It also makes it harder to diagnose early infection as young men do not seek health advice and assistance, given that they have to admit an illegal activity.
The number of Australian Royal Commissions, committees and reports have been supportive of a reduction of the age of consent for homosexual intercourse to 16 years of age. These include the 1997 Wood Royal Commission into NSW Police Service and the Model Criminal Code Officers’ Committee of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General. Justice James Wood, in his 1997 Royal Commission, found that the current legislation contributes to a climate conducive to corrupt law enforcement practices and possible extortion of young gay men. It is of particular significance that a body of such high standing supports the introduction of a uniform age of consent.
There was a point made by the Leader of the Opposition that our new offences may not cover the situation where two children under 16 years of age have had sexual relations. Proposed new section 127 deals only with a person who commits the offence. ‘A person’ includes both adult and children. Therefore, with the exception of the proposed new section 128, which is sexual intercourse or gross indecency involving a child over the age of 16 years under special care, all the offences in this bill could potentially apply to offenders who are under the age of 16. Clearly, it would be up to the police, prosecutors and the courts to work out the circumstances of the incident and whether it was appropriate, given any sort of predatory behaviour by those young people.
I confirm again to the member for Araluen that yes, we will certainly review the impact of these offences and their carriage through our justice system. We want to see effective enforcement against the perpetrators of these types of offences. We want to see successful prosecutions through our courts. We want to see appropriate charges being laid that match the culpability and seriousness of the offence and, particularly, the effect on victims of these very traumatic crimes. If we are seeing anything but the desired result from these reforms, I certainly give the undertaking that I will be monitoring these outcomes and I am prepared to step in and make changes if that is warranted by the outcomes we see through our justice system. That is nothing unusual. As Attorney-General, it is a core function of my job to continually monitor the effectiveness and appropriateness by which our laws are being applied through the justice system. If there is a dysfunctional outcome, we will step in. I make that undertaking again to the member for Araluen.
I want to speak very quickly about the member for Macdonnell’s very courageous contribution to the debate. I read the transcript that he provided. I want to make it clear that what we are dealing with tonight is not sexual attacks like rape. This is consensual sexual intercourse and whether that should be allowable and legal or whether it should be illegal. It would not, I suggest, have made a lot of difference to the perpetrator of that offence as to what age the member was.
We want to establish a series of offences which curtail any claims of consensual nature of sexual contact with children, and we leave the sexual assaults, the rapes, to the offences that deal with rape. Those are very serious penalties, indeed, in the Northern Territory.
I would like to point out to the member for Nelson that it is all very well to get up here tonight and say: ‘This is a very complex bill’ and ‘How dare you put all this detail into a piece of legislation’. He knows full well that he has not had a briefing from us on this …
Members interjecting.
Dr TOYNE: He has not come to seek accurate information on the provisions of this bill prior to going out to 5000 people in the Northern Territory and providing them with what he thinks is accurate information about the intent and content of this legislation.
I find that irresponsible in that this is an important piece of legislation. Territorians, if they are going to be consulted about this, deserve to be consulted with accurate information. I would like to point out that the type of responses you get from people often depends on the sort of information and attitudes they have been handed. If that information is inaccurate then the response will be, potentially, inaccurate as well. If you want to go on a crusade, get your facts straight before you head off.
Looking at the idea that we are justifying polygamy and polygamous relationships, the current De Facto Relationships Act does not exclude the possibility of a person being both married and in a de facto relationship, or in more than one de facto relationship. It is just not expressly stated in the legislation. The recognition of this possibility as a specific provision within the legislation does not significantly change the law. It has been possible before now to actually examine an individual that may be in several relationships at once. This recognition is not intended to condone or encourage this type of activity in any way. It is simply intended to protect the unwitting person who is unaware that their partner or ex-partner is also in another relationship or more than one relationship. Of course, this state of affairs you would hope would be rare in our communities, for the sake of the interests of the people involved. The only effect this expressed recognition is expected to have, in addition to the current situation, is to make it easier for the unwitting partner to argue and establish his or her legal rights.
We have also heard assertions through the debate that boys are not as mature as girls. It has been suggested that boys develop sexually later than girls and this is the reason we should keep the age of consent different for each gender. This argument is inconsistent because the age of consent for heterosexual males is also 16 years. Masses of medical research shows that children today are maturing physically at a younger age, possibly due to better nutrition. This means that children are becoming sexually active at a younger age. In regard to the general age that serves as a threshold, it is quite well known that there are many activities that have had different age thresholds. Therefore, there is no one threshold that makes any more sense than other.
Madam Speaker, I will close there as my time has run out and we will move to committee.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Madam SPEAKER: The member for Nelson has jumped, but we were in the middle of a motion. You may jump now the motion is over, but I was of the opinion there was a division going to be called anyway.
Mr Wood: Not so.
Madam SPEAKER: Not so? All right, the member for Nelson has a call.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I move pursuant to Standing Order 183 that the Law Reform (Gender, Sexuality and De Facto Relationship) Bill 2003 (Serial 186) be referred to a select committee with terms of reference to be authorised by the Assembly by subsequent motion.
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, we have made it very clear in the passage of the second reading of the legislation that the government does not intend to send this bill to a committee. I move the motion be put.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 14 Noes 10
Mrs Aagaard Mr Baldwin
Mr Ah Kit Mr Burke
Mr Bonson Ms Carter
Dr Burns Mr Dunham
Ms Carney Mr Elferink
Mr Henderson Dr Lim
Mr Kiely Mr Maley
Ms Lawrie Mrs Miller
Mr McAdam Mr Mills
Ms Martin Mr Wood
Ms Scrymgour
Mr Stirling
Dr Toyne
Mr Vatskalis
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: The question now is that the motion be agreed to that the bill be referred to a select committee.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 10 Noes 14
Mr Baldwin Mrs Aagaard
Mr Burke Mr Ah Kit
Ms Carter Mr Bonson
Mr Dunham Dr Burns
Mr Elferink Ms Carney
Dr Lim Mr Henderson
Mr Maley Mr Kiely
Mrs Miller Ms Lawrie
Mr Mills Mr McAdam
Mr Wood Ms Martin
Ms Scrymgour
Mr Stirling
Dr Toyne
Mr Vatskalis
Motion negatived.
In committee:
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: The committee has before it the Law Reform (Gender, Sexuality and De Facto Relationships) Bill 2003 (Serial 186) together with schedules of amendment Nos 59 and 69 circulated by the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General; schedule of amendments No 63 circulated by the member for Port Darwin; schedule of amendments No 66, circulated by the member for Macdonnell; and schedule of amendments No 61, circulated by the member for Nelson.
Honourable members, subject to your concurrence, I propose that the committee first consider Part 4 of the bill, Divisions 1 and 2, containing clauses 27 to 37 inclusive, which contains the proposed amendments to the De Facto Relationships Act and the Interpretation Act. This order of consideration should facilitate a more effective method of dealing with proposed amendments relating to sexuality and gender, and will enable an orderly consideration of the bill as it relates to gender and sexuality in Parts 2 and 3 of the bill. I propose that the committee, following consideration of clauses 27 to 37, would then proceed to consider the remaining clauses and schedules of the bill in the normal routine. There being no objection, it is so ordered.
Part 4, amendments relating to the De Facto Relationships Act:
Clause 27 agreed to.
Clauses 28 and 29, by leave, taken together:
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: I propose leave of the committee be granted to the member for Nelson to move his amendments 61.3, 61.4 and 61.5 together. There being no objection, it is so ordered.
Mr WOOD: Madam Deputy Chair, I move these amendment tonight because I also believe that gay and lesbian people should have rights. However, I feel that the proposed changes to the De Facto Relationships Act discriminates against other people who also should have those rights. I also believe that the definition of de facto as defined in the new act as a ‘marriage-like relationship’ is not acceptable, because I do not believe a same-sex relationship can be marriage-like.
I would like to discuss those two sections. As I said in my slightly shortened opening speech on this bill, marriage-like means like marriage; it is as simple as that. Marriage means between a male and female living together, loving together and having a complementary sexual relationship that has potential to produce human life – children - and we have a family. I am not denying the fact that same-sex couples can also love one another and live together, but that is not the same as a marriage; that is a relationship. That relationship, although there are some sexual acts involved, is similar also to a relationship between two people who also might love one another, such as widows or widowers, brothers, uncles, cousins who may live under the one roof to care for on another.
By proposing this amendment, I am trying to say yes, gay people should have property and superannuation rights, as is intended by the government with its changes but, at the same time, that your new definition cannot be ‘marriage-like’ because the two are not the same. I have a fundamental difference of opinion with the government when de facto is defined as a marriage-like relationship between two people.
Attorney-General, you might say it does not make any difference, but it does. Marriage is a fundamental cornerstone of our society. Yes, we do have de facto marriage as well, but it is still the fundamental cornerstone of our society in which we try to raise children under the protection of a mother and a father as defined in the United Nations declarations. It is something that, throughout the centuries, we have regarded as the centrepiece of our society. For many Aboriginal families, it is also the centrepiece, especially the extended family – aunts and uncles, grandmothers and grandfathers. We call it family and it is based on a relationship between a male and female.
The existing definition of de facto should stay; we should not change it to the proposed definition. However, we should replace or add to that definition, the definition of ‘domestic co-dependents’. When I was thinking about this bill, I wondered why we could not use a phrase like ‘shared relations’ or ‘domestic relationships’, but the domestic relationship sounded more like someone was doing the dusting, so I thought that was not a very good idea. I was given some information that a member of parliament in South Australia had introduced this clause. I read the debate and thought: ‘This makes a lot of sense’. This is not making a judgment about gay or lesbian people or about widows or widowers. This is saying that there is a group of people out there who are not married, not in de facto relationships, but who care for one another and live under the one roof and are entitled to some benefits. I support those people being entitled to benefits.
All I am doing is replacing what you have listed as de facto under your proposed amendments. I have changed that to ‘domestic co-dependents’. As you can see from clause 36, de facto partner now means a person who is basically a de facto as we recognise it in existing law, and you will add a new clause, which is a person who is declared under the proposed new section 11A we are now debating, to be the person’s domestic co-dependent. By that means, we do not have to change the whole act because de facto remains there; we have added an extra meaning to it. The more clinical way to have done it, had there been enough time, would have been to add a third definition. Be that as it may, this would still do the job.
The definition as it is in proposed new section 11A about two persons who would like to be domestic co-dependents makes lots of sense. First you are saying that they need to cohabit for at least five years to make sure that it is a long-term relationship. There is a variation that says if people have cohabited for six years, at least five years of that has been aggregated. There is also the requirement - this is voluntary, of course - that if people want to become domestic co-dependent and take advantage of all these benefits, they will go to the local court, which would make a declaration that it is satisfied regarding these particular things - that is, the time people were living together - did actually happen. The magistrate would have to take into account what is in proposed new section 11A(3):
- A relationship of dependence is a relationship between 2 persons where:
The following matters are irrelevant: the persons are of different sexes or the same sex; the persons are related by blood or marriage or are not so related; and either of the persons is in a relationship of dependence with another person. It does not make any of those judgments. To me, that is much better. I can live with that. Maybe people will say: ‘That is your fault’. However, I feel that is a much more acceptable definition that does not discriminate. After all, we have been talking about discrimination in this House today. It does not discriminate against the widows, widowers and those people who do live under one roof and care for one another. They are entitled, if you say these people are entitled, to the benefits we are trying to put through in this bill tonight.
I cannot say a lot more than that, except that this is a lot better than the section we have in the act at present. The existing De Facto Relationship Act, whilst I am no expert on de facto relationship legalities, is much better than what we have to face with this proposed new section 3A, which I believe has handles on it.
Be that as it may, I am proposing it to the government and the parliament, that they would at least give this due consideration. It is not a silly option. It is fair, and I would hope that members of parliament will support it.
Dr TOYNE: Madam Deputy Chair, I have prepared a response to all three of these proposed amendments dealing with not only your proposed definition of ‘domestic co-dependents’, but also the actual process by which such relationships would be recognised in the community. I am wondering whether are you intending to talk about that second proposal; that is, that these relationships have to be established before a court?
Mr WOOD: Sorry, Attorney-General, as I have a choice of numbers there, I thought there is no point in debating the other points until we resolve whether the House agrees that this clause is suitable and would satisfy members of parliament. So I am proposing amendment 61.5 should be looked at first and, depending on which way the House wishes to vote on that, will depend on whether I want to debate amendments 61.4 and 61.3. I am just trying to say that this is the core of the proposition; vote on that first and then we will know which way to go after that.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: For purposes of clarification, we have before us your amendments 61.3, 61.4 and 61.5, even though we have discussed 61.5.
Mr WOOD: I am discussing amendment 61.5 because it makes sense.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: But we have the three before us.
Dr TOYNE: We will take it that we are talking about the whole effect of the amendment. Your proposal is that you are intending to allow people who live together to have the same rights, and I assume that also means it includes the same obligations and liabilities as a married couple or as a de facto couple as others, regardless of sexuality. I can say at the outset the government does not support these amendments, and I will give my reasons.
The amendments continue to send a message to the community that people of same-sex families and children in same-sex families should be treated differently to the rest of relationships in our community. While heterosexual de facto relationships are recognised under Territory law, without the need to obtain a court order, same-sex couples will, under the amendments that you are proposing, be forced to go to a court to have their relationship declared or approved. This is offensive to people in such relationships as, with heterosexual couples, it is the circumstances of their relationship and the decisions that the partners make which determines whether they are in a de facto relationship, not a court declaration. Why does a same-sex de facto relationship need a court order to justify its existence? Surely, adults are able to make their own decisions about the types of relationships they enter into? It is patronising and discriminating to require court approval for same-sex relationships.
The proposed amendments also provide a five-year qualifying period before a court can declare a same-sex relationship to be one between domestic co-dependents. On the other hand, there are no qualifying periods for determining whether a heterosexual de facto relationship exists. Duration of the relationship is a factor, but is not specified and must be taken into account along with all the other circumstances of the relationship. A time requirement is arbitrary and is likely to be applied unfairly in many cases. A five-year requirement is much too long. It would incongruous to give access to court resolution of property disputes to people who have been in same-sex relationship for five years one month, but not to those who have been in one for four years and 11 months. The effect of the proposed amendments would not simply act unfairly in relation to property settlements, but also in relation to access to other rights and benefits. It is unfair to deny a person access to the estate of their deceased same-sex partner of four years, particularly in cases where the person has been contributing to their partner’s mortgage. It would also be unfair to deny a child from a four-year stable, loving same-sex family access to support from their deceased step-parents estate under the Family Provision Act. It is also not clear how the five-year requirement is to be applied.
Although I recognise that there is also a provision for the five years to be counted over a six-year period, I would still be concerned for some couples who may never be able to fulfil the requirement. For example, in a situation where one partner is a truck driver or sales consultant, who can be away from home for a combined period of six months over a year, the partners could still have a co-dependent, monogamous, intimate and trusting relationship, but never ever satisfy the criteria that the member is proposing.
The same problem may exist for other types of co-dependent relationships that the member is attempting to cover. Moreover, the five-year requirement will enable people who escape liabilities and obligations that are imposed on people in heterosexual relationships at a much earlier age. For example, currently under the First Home Owner Grant Act, a person is not eligible for the grant if their spouse or de facto partner has had a relevant interest in the property. A person who has been in a stable four-year same-sex relationship should not be able to dodge this requirement when a person in a six-month heterosexual de facto relationship would not.
Another major aspect of the member for Nelson’s proposed amendments is the inclusion of other types of co-dependent relationships. For example, this could be applied to people in carer arrangements: a widowed brother or sister, or twins who have always lived together. This is a different idea and reflects what has been included in some other jurisdictions. The rationale for including these types of relationships is that many people are in co-dependent non-sexual relationships where they essentially operate as a couple or one unit. However, no other jurisdiction that has recognised these types of relationships has treated them differently to general de facto relationships by requiring court orders or lengthy arbitrary time requirements.
Madam Deputy Chair, the government does not support these recommendations.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Deputy Chair, I am listening to this with some fascination. If I get the picture right, this is the deal. I am a little old widow and my husband died, say, a few years ago, and I moved in with another little old widow whose husband died a few years ago. We get around on our zimmer frames and whip around the house and have a wonderful time, and have a relationship which is entirely like a marriage. We live together, we cook together, we share the same bank account, we have a full domestic relationship. As defined by the criteria of what makes a domestic relationship in the bill the minister has before the House, it would easily qualify as a domestic relationship.
What is different between these two little old widows and the same-sex couple, sharing the same bank account, and all those sorts of things? The equity argument, so far, has been that we have to be able to allow for people to live together and have relationships, and recognise same-sex relationships and de factos so it can attract all of these important things like property rights upon death, the rights that you have under the Domestic Violence Act. So what is the difference between these two little old widows who actually have two single beds in the same room together? The Attorney-General was telling us: ‘No, no, no, we will not treat them as a de facto. If they sleep together in the same bed and have a sexual relationship, we will treat them as a de facto’.
This is part of the problem when you start to drill into these acts at this level: if we are going to talk about equitable relationships, all the member is proposing is that there is some sort of legal recognition, a rubber stamp from a court, saying that these two individuals have come together and that they enjoy certain property rights and those sorts of things in the sake of equality before the law. However, according to the minister, the only differentiation that really exists is they are not doing rude things to each other. That is really the test, and that is the problem when you start drilling into these acts. The minister is saying, ‘Oh no, that is not a marriage’. Well, what makes a marriage, minister? Since when did you become the judge as to what a marriage is?
I have seen two old people living together, happily - two old men or two old women - in numerous places for years and they have great relationships. They play golf and do all sorts of things together and they share money and absolutely every aspect of their life. Yet, you are going to deny them any sort of legal status when it comes to sharing finances when one dies. They could be together for 20 years, and you are going to deny them the legal status that you have so passionately been asking for, for other particular people in the community. What you have said is: ‘We do not accept the fact that they have to go to a court. We do not accept the fact that they have to go to a time limit’. Okay, amend those two out and accept it. Get rid of the time limit, get rid of the court requirement, and just accept it. If you cannot do that, then everything that you have said - every word that has been uttered in defence of this bill - stands condemned by your own hypocrisy.
Dr TOYNE: Madam Deputy Chair, the member asked me: ‘Minister, what makes a marriage?’ Well, let us broaden it out, let us say what makes a de facto relationship, because that is what we are talking about right here. What we propose under new section 3A, De Facto relationships, is the following indicators of a ‘marriage-like’ relationship between de facto partners: the duration of the relationship; the nature and extent of the common residence; whether or not a sexual relationship exists; the degree of financial dependence or interdependence and any arrangement of financial support between them; the ownership use and acquisition of property; the degree of mutual commitment to a shared life; the care and support of children; the performance of household duties; the reputation and public aspects of their relationship. For subsection (2), the criteria included in the legislation state the following matters are not relevant: the persons are of different sexes or same sex; either of the persons is married to another person; either of the persons is in another de facto relationship.
We are pretty clear on the criteria that we are applying to de facto relationships. It is pretty clear, also, that we are extending the concept and category of de facto relationships to same-sex as well as to mixed-sex de facto relationships. End of story.
Mr ELFERINK: I just listened to the criteria - tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick. My little two hypothetical widows are de factos and you are not going to give them that arrangement. What is the difference? You have not answered that question, and the question still stands: is it necessarily the sexual component of that relationship which defines marriage?
Dr TOYNE: I have answered your question. I have given you …
Mr Elferink: No you have not. You have not, you have described my hypothetical widows.
Dr TOYNE: … the whole spread of the criteria that we believe defines that de facto relationship. We certainly had no intention in this legislation to be widening the whole legislative reform into things like sisters living together, and your old widows. In fact, I am looking at that type of reform. It requires a huge amount of additional work if we are going to take that width into this reform.
Mr ELFERINK: Hallelujah, Madam Deputy Chair, hallelujah! We have reached a point where this government is prepared to discriminate. That is my problem, and that is the problem that I believe the member for Nelson has. He has suggested something that removes the barrier of discrimination. I have heard nothing - but nothing - than the arguments against discrimination to justify this whole legislative reform package. If somebody else wants to deal with discrimination, it is jam it up your nose.
Mr WOOD: Minister, you are saying now that you are giving a definition of de facto, using the very word ‘marriage’. Could you give me …
Dr Toyne: No, no.
Mr WOOD: You are saying ‘marriage-like’.
Dr Toyne: Yes.
Mr WOOD: ‘Like a marriage’ is the same thing.
Dr Toyne: No, it is not the same thing.
Mr WOOD: What is a marriage, please, Attorney-General? What is the difference between a marriage and something else? What is a marriage, what do you define it as?
Dr TOYNE: Madam Deputy Chair, a marriage under this legislation is either defined as a marriage as we all understand it, of a pledge between two people within a religious institution, or it can be a customary law marriage within some other culture other than the Christian setting. That is what a marriage is.
The term ‘marriage-like’ is simply describing the type of interactions that go into that relationship. In other words, it can take on a lot of the functions that we normally associate with a marriage under a church or a customary marriage under a culture.
Mr WOOD: Attorney-General, surely a marriage is a relationship, first of all, between a male and female? The dictionary will tell you that. That is a marriage which deals with complementary sexual relationships that are designed, if possible, to have children. That is why people get married and then produce a family. Family: mother and father, surely, are what we call the basis of marriage, or marriage is the basis of that, either way. Surely that is what marriage is. It has the potential to have children.
Dr TOYNE: Madam Deputy Chair, if that is all that marriage is, I wonder what my last 32 years have meant. Marriage is just a very wide relationship between two people. You are sharing your lives together, and having children is a lovely aspect of that, but it is not the whole relationship. To be centering on the procreation part of a traditional marriage between a man and a woman is dishonouring, in my view, what the relationship can mean. It is about love, support, and going through life together, with shared activities, sharing your backgrounds and your families. It is a very wide relationship, but it is not the only way in which those functions can occur between two human beings.
Mr WOOD: I perfectly agree. I said potential to have children. I did not say one concentrates on it, Attorney-General. Then, how is it defined under the Commonwealth Marriage Act? What is the definition of marriage there? I am sure if you say ‘marriage-like’, we must keep it in context with the Commonwealth Marriage Act. It has a definition.
Dr TOYNE: Madam Deputy Chair, there is probably not a lot of value in applying - we have definitions of the relationships to which this legislation is going to apply: marriage, customary law marriages, de facto relationships, same-sex or mixed-sex. The legislation we have proposed is very clear in defining the broad relationship between two people that could be embodied, both in a marriage, a de facto relationship, and a customary law marriage. I believe the member for Arnhem made the point during his contribution in the second reading debate that a customary law marriage has absolutely all the scope for a loving and productive relationship between a man and a woman as a marriage within any other cultural context.
If your point is that we are not allowed to use the word ‘marriage’ or even ‘marriage-like’ in the legislation to indicate the relationship that we are trying to deal with regarding the rights, liabilities, and responsibilities of the people who would be subject to this legislation outside formal marriages and in de facto relationships, I can only say that I do not have the difficulties you seem to be having with it. I have as much claim to be strongly attached to the institute of marriage as you have. I do not feel any slight or value judgment made by the use of that term in this legislation to define the type of activities that we would expect to find in a de facto relationship.
Mr WOOD: Madam Deputy Chair, the minister has made a value judgment. You have decided now to call a same-sex relationship ‘marriage-like’. That is a value judgment that you are putting on this relationship. I believe a lot of people would not accept that, and see this as the closest you can get to having same-sex marriages because the Commonwealth will not allow it. This debate will come up in another bill later on. So, to give it that, I suppose, legality, you are putting it in a bracket that I do not believe it should be in. It is not a matter of sensitivities.
Governments have a role to support marriage and family and you are, all of a sudden now, deciding that this will be another group of people - for sure, they are loving and live together. You have put them in this bracket which we have always regarded as the cornerstone of our society. Government’s good public policy is always to protect the family. Yet, I have given you a definition which will not only allow families to be protected, but allow gay people to have the property rights that is their due - at the same time, not to discriminate against widows and widowers. To me, there is a package here. The member for Macdonnell said: ‘Well, let us throw out the local court. Let us cut it down to six months or whatever’.
The principle here is that, by introducing ‘domestic co-dependents’, we are covering all those people. Now, all of a sudden, you say to me: ‘Well, we are thinking about that’. That is a pretty good reason why this bloomin’ bill should have gone to a committee. We would have found this out and we could have, perhaps, come back to the government with some very good ideas on how this could have been done. Maybe in my poor knowledge of these things, you have certainly had time to get the legal eagles to look at what I have put forward and, obviously, they have had time to go through the 34 acts - which I must admit I simply have not had the time to go through. You have given us a ball-by-ball reasons why some of them have some difficulties. All that does to me is now highlight, really, why this should have gone for a lot more discussion out in the community.
I do not believe people in the community accept same-sex relationships or couples as ‘marriage’ or ‘marriage-like’. I just do not get that from people in the community. They are not saying people should not live together. When I have put this option to them, and mentioned the widows and all those sorts of people - brother and sister or just two strangers or two mates who just want to live together - they thought it was a great idea. To come here now and just say: ‘Oh well, it is too hard, it has too many things in the road’ - could I ask the minister: does he think ‘domestic co-dependents’ as an option is a reasonable option? Could he suggest ways in which this could work for both the widows and same-sex relationships? Or doesn’t he want to put same-sex relationships in such a category?
Dr TOYNE: Madam Deputy Chair, I have very little to add. You have expressed your opinion about the sanctity of marriage and the issues that you have based your amendments on. We have made the position of the government very clear on this and we should move on.
Mr BURKE: Can you tell me, Attorney-General, where the definition of a co-dependent relationship in your present bill is excluded regarding the definition of a person who could be considered to be a de facto? It says in your bill that the relationship must take into account the following matters as are relevant. That reads to me that some may not be relevant, therefore those matters that are sexual may not be relevant. I would just be interested in knowing that, if you look at a domestic co-dependent relationship as described by the member for Nelson, and in the context of your issues that are taken into account, it seems to me only some are relevant not necessarily all. Where does his definition fall short of meeting the parameters of being a de facto?
Dr TOYNE: Madam Deputy Chair, generally, a marriage involves a sexual relationship, but not always. However, it is invariably a relationship of intimacy between partners. In trying to capture the essence, I guess, of what these relationships are, we have to address the reality in our community now where you might have said that marriage is still a cornerstone - and it still is the relationship that the majority of people in our community work through in their personal needs for a partner and bringing up a family and the many things that a relationship does. However, what this bill is addressing is that our community now contains - whether we like it or not or whether it is our personal view or not or anything else - a range of relationships that are attempting, in the form that they are taking, the same functions that occur in a marriage. Hence the use of the terms ‘marriage-like’ relationship, because it is saying that it is not referring to yes, this has been sanctified by a church the same as a formal marriage, it is referring to the functions that are carried out by that relationship.
What we are saying here is that, in the community we live in right now in the Northern Territory, there are many people who are working through relationships other than a formal marriage, and those relationships are carrying out the same range of functions as would occur in a marriage. The purpose of the depth of the criteria that have been placed into our legislation is to give a broad description of the range of those activities that would be occurring in a ‘marriage’ or in a ‘marriage-like’ relationship, whether that be de facto same-sex or de facto mixed-sex. I do not think that I can take it any further with any value to this debate. It is very clear what we have set out in here and what we are trying to address.
Mr BURKE: I am not trying to argue morality or anything, I am just look at what is written in your legislation. We have now established that, to tick the box on this new issue of de facto relationship, it has to be sexual and intimate. As we already have a definition in Commonwealth law of de facto relationships that are heterosexual, this is clearly for a homosexual relationship. We are now establishing a de facto relationship that is not only homosexual but has no regard to whether or not the person is previously married or currently married, or whether or not that person is already involved in other de facto relationships.
I just want to be clear that that is what you want to prescribe in legislation as a recognition of a new type of de facto relationship - with someone who is homosexual in a relationship, notwithstanding the fact that they may be married and also in another de facto relationship. Can you also tell me how this new de facto relationship interpretation will affect Commonwealth law and the property rights of these individuals?
While you are looking, I will give you an example. I will go from my own experience. There is recognition of de facto relationships in the Australian Defence Force and that recognition is heterosexuals; that entitles you to certain benefits in the Australian Defence Force. If you do not meet those parameters no de facto recognition is given therefore no benefits are given. For example, a recognise de facto relationship in the military entitles you to a married quarter, etcetera. You are now introducing legislation in the Northern Territory which describes a new de facto condition. How, for example, would that translate to a benefit for a person who is a resident in the Northern Territory - Territorian after three months; a member of the Defence Force, for example?
Dr TOYNE: Well, let us clarify this as you requested. Under the constitution in the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act, the Northern Territory has no power to legislate in relation to matters dealing with marriage or divorce per se. We cannot, within our jurisdiction, define the actual basis of a marriage - like a formal basis of it - or of a divorce.
The divorce of married couples and issues involving children in any type of relationship are also dealt with solely by the Commonwealth Family Law Act. Therefore, the De Facto Relationships Act, of which we have the amendments before us, does not, and cannot, impact on the operation with Commonwealth Family Law Act which, amongst other things, deals with the distribution of assets and properties as a result of the breakdown of a marriage. The De Facto Relationships Act only covers property issues involving de facto relationships. However, the principles on which the courts base their assessments of contributions are similar. Claims under both systems will always be confined to the actual contributions of the parties. So, we are dealing here with the distributions of assets within a relationship, not with the institution of marriage.
Mr BURKE: Just to be clear, under your new definition, the courts in the Northern Territory can deal freely on property rights for this new definition of de facto relationships?
Dr Toyne: Could you just restate it?
Mr BURKE: I am not trying to be cheeky or anything. I believe it is very important because, otherwise, it seems to me that this is just trickery; that you are running an argument to describe a new definition of de facto relationship that has no basis in law - certainly no basis in Commonwealth law. Also, you are describing a new basis and definition of de facto relationship which the Northern Territory has no jurisdiction to describe.
Dr TOYNE: My advice on this is that the purpose of the relationship that has been defined in this legislation is to define rights and responsibilities and liabilities under Territory law; so it affects our own acts and people’s access to acts. I would imagine it would be like MACA and crime victims compensations, the state or territory level superannuation distribution, and those sort of things. We are not, in any way, impacting on rights and responsibilities through defined relationships that exists within the Commonwealth law.
Mr DUNHAM: Attorney-General, could you tell me if a consenting adult relationship of an incestuous nature could be declared a de facto relationship under your act?
Dr TOYNE: I am in …
Mr DUNHAM: I find it distasteful, too. I am just asking if they can be declared de facto.
Dr TOYNE: Under the bill, there are very strong penalties for incest applied to not only male offenders of incest, but to female offenders. It is pretty clear that we are putting some very strong proscriptions in place against incest in whatever form it takes.
Mr DUNHAM: Are they Commonwealth regulations or statutes, or are they Northern Territory, regarding incest?
Dr TOYNE: It is an amendment to our Criminal Code. It is a Northern Territory offence defined in our Criminal Code under the proposed new offences within this bill.
Mr DUNHAM: Can I get it straight, then that, if they tick each one of these boxes - one of the prerequisites was a sexual relationship, as I understand it - and if two consenting adults chose to live in a sexual relationship and by virtue of the fact they were related, they would offend some other discriminatory statute. Is that what you are telling me?
Dr TOYNE: I just do not get the - we will put them in gaol. If they are in an incestuous relationship, they will go to gaol.
Mr ELFERINK: I have heard the issue of marriage raised several times and, during my second reading speech, I said, and still uphold the principle, that I do not know about other people’s relationships and how they choose to have them. It is not really of great concern to me how people choose to live their lives, and I am not really concerned if they choose to do so in, say, same-sex relationships. That is their business once they are adults.
What concerns me is that, by having this ethereal way of having a series of tests to decide whether or not we are in a de facto relationship, what we are actually doing is contrasting it to marriage, and I think it is worth doing. A marriage is a ceremony, it is a contract in many respects. In fact, in contract law there are several cases where a broken engagement was successfully sued as a breach of contract.
The reason that they have this little circus, the religious ceremony or the trip down to the registry office, is that at that point there is a public recognition of a stamp on a bit of paper or something. There is a recognition of some legal status in the relationship between people. I know that many gay and lesbian couples desire to go through these ceremonies. I have a couple of mates who have invited me to their ceremony in the near future, and they have been very kind to invite me. There is this desire to have this official stamp of approval.
The minister is introducing legislation with a series of tests, which now has to have a whole body of common law built up around it so we can decide at what point a relationship between two people who live together actually becomes a relationship of a de facto nature under this series of tests. What the member for Nelson is proposing here is quite straight forward. He is saying: ‘Go down to the court house’ - this is starting to sound familiar - ‘Go down to the court house, go and see somebody official with a rubber stamp, go and get a certificate and stamp it’. You decide what the quality in the standard of your relationship is. You decide how you live your relationship for the rest of your life with that person. If it is my two little old widows who are getting around on their zimmer frames and: ‘Do you love each other?’ ‘Oh, we love each other very much, dear’. ‘Are you living together?’ ‘Oh, for 20 years dear’. ‘Are you sleeping in the same room?’ ‘Oh, yes, dear’. ‘Are you sleeping in the same bed?’ ‘Oh no. We would not do that?’. Why can’t they have a legal relationship?
Mr Kiely: You are trivialising the whole debate.
Mr ELFERINK: No, this is not trivialising. I object to this because what is being proposed here is a concept that I actually do not believe - I would have to ask - it is inherently offensive to gay and lesbian couples, that there might be a ceremony.
Dr Toyne: I am glad you are so sure of it.
Mr ELFERINK: As I said, I would have to ask. But the point is that you have not. Why don’t we go and ask? Why don’t we have a select committee on this issue? You might be surprised at some of the answers, because I know at least one couple who want to go through a ceremony and have their legal rights sorted out. Who cares whether they are having sex, quite frankly, minister?
Dr TOYNE: I do not think they are talking about the same process as this.
Mr WOOD: The member for Macdonnell raised a perfectly good issue. It would satisfy both: the gay people can go to the local court and get their union stamped and made legal and, at the same time, you do not offend those people who believe that this is encroaching on marriage. A lot of people do think they are encroaching on marriage.
I just need to at least put it into Hansard. The Italian Club wrote to the Chief Minister on the 23rd, from Fred Marrone. It say, straight out:
- We are opposed to the concept of a homosexual couple living together be given the same legal status as a man and woman.
That is the Italians. The Catholic Archdiocese says the same thing. The Filipinos said:
- Changing ‘an agreement between a man and a woman’ and substituting ‘an agreement (wherever entered into) between adults’. Changing ‘de facto partner’ to ‘de facto relationship’. Also changing legal definitions in the validity of agreements substituting ‘a man and a woman’ for ‘two adults’.
These are the phrases they are referring to when they say:
- The Filipino community believes and professes the traditional value of a family and advocates the composition of the family being made up of a man (as the father) and a woman (as the mother), and children. This community also fosters the idea and belief that a family is the bedrock foundation of our society.
Our community questions the changing of the words, ie ‘de facto partner’ to ‘de facto relationship’, and also substituting ‘a man and a woman’ with ‘two adults’. We feel that this is a blatant attempt to place between two people of homosexual practice on par with a heterosexual couple (couple made up of a man and a woman) who are contributing to the future building of our society by producing and raising children as the next generation.
The Greek Orthodox community:
- We are totally opposed to the concept that a homosexual couple living together be given the same legal status as a man and a woman living together. This is completely against everything the family stands for and is a terrible mistake.
Attorney-General, here are some people in our community who are saying they do not agree. I am getting up and supporting them. Why are you not listening to these people? The Greek Orthodox are not people who came down in the last shower. The Filipinos have been around here since the time Darwin was started and, certainly, also the Italians. Aren’t these people worthy of being at least listened to? I get up here and I get the feeling that, ‘That is just Gerry Wood moralising about the sanctity of marriage’. Well, it may be, but it is also the views of quite a lot of people in our community who believe our values are slipping, and believe that marriage is continually under the hammer from the media, from the soapies that you see on TV, that basically say marriage is a thing of the past.
Yet, here we have some fine people in our community who at least have the guts to get up and say that they believe marriage is an institution and this law is not the right way to go; it is undermining marriage. Surely those people deserve some hearing in this parliament? I am afraid it just highlights more and more, the lack of publicity you have put about this particular act, and the lack of effort you made in going out to talk to church groups and other groups - because these people did not know anything about most of this law until last week, or until my letter went out. I just think it is a crying shame what is happening in this parliament today. We should have done a lot better. We should have at least listened to these people. To me, you seem to be giving a particular small group of people - who I am supporting should have some rights, but not these rights, the ones you are putting forward today. You have not taken any notice of the Greek Orthodox community. You have not taken any notice of the Italian community. You have taken no notice of the Filipino community, and you have not taken any notice of about 90% of the Northern Territory’s families.
Mr DUNHAM: I refer to your second reading speech, Attorney-General, where you say, and I refer to the debates of Wednesday, 15 August:
- The same financial obligations and liabilities of married people will be imposed on people in de facto relationships in the same way as married people, and society will benefit from greater participation and greater tolerance.
A married person cannot get married again under the Marriage Act but this set of criteria you have read out would seem to allow for polygamy, at least on the basis that the following matters are irrelevant under your proposed new section 3A, De facto relationships:
- (3)(b) either of the persons is married to another person
So it is possible for somebody under your definitional terms for a de facto to have three relationships that are recognised and yet, you have told us in your debate that you want the same financial obligations and liabilities of married people on de facto people. I would suggest to you that that is a much lessening of the obligations that married people face.
Dr TOYNE: I believe I have made it pretty clear in my second reading response as to what these changes mean. They just simply continue the practice of people being in, on occasion, more than one relationship concurrently. This is simply about giving an equitable distribution of the assets attached to a relationship, particularly trying to protect a partner who is unwittingly a partner to a person who is in one or more other relationships that they are unaware of. This is not new. In the halcyon days when everyone was married, it was not unknown for people to have another relationship outside their marriage. This is not new in the history of human relationships, and in terms of the law.
Mr DUNHAM: On behalf of the letter that I received from the Catholic Church, Attorney-General, it would appear that some of the rights and responsibilities of the originally married person could well be diminished by this. What I am saying here is that there could be a person in a married relationship for some time who bears children and has a series of obligations and, within a very short period of time, the new partner - and this has nothing to do with homosexuality - may well have a bid on the assets or estate of that person to the detriment of somebody who has has sustained a marriage for, perhaps, decades. It is the church’s point of view - and I am inclined to agree with them - that that has a gross element of unfairness, particularly for the person who has been married for the longer period, borne the children and sustained their part of the bargain which was supposed to be a bargain for life.
Dr TOYNE: The whole basis of the distribution is to assess the contribution each partner or each individual has made to the assets that are being distributed. If a person has been in long-standing relationship, marriage or de facto, the contribution they have made to the overall assets of that partnership will be assessed. If they have contributed over a long period of time, they would have a high entitlement. Therefore, I do not think the situation you are describing would be problematic.
Mr DUNHAM: Given that the Family Law Court is in a federal jurisdiction, how are you going to make that apportionment on that fair basis that you have just described to us?
Dr TOYNE: This is going around in circles. I have made it pretty clear that these provisions and this category of relationship is relating to the operation of Territory laws and the distribution of both government support and the types of things that Territory laws deal with, not the Commonwealth laws. If we could stick to not repeating the same areas, it would get us through this debate a bit quicker.
Mr ELFERINK: I just want to be on the record, Madam Deputy Chair. I am attracted to this for one reason: with a clear point of union and, if you did some tinkering with this, it would be a clear point of separation. It would save a lot of mess down the track. I am a little surprised at the member for Nelson’s comments about marriage because, from a legal point of view, that is really what he is proposing at a Territory level. It is a fair system of marriage. There is a clear rubber stamp, there is a clear point where you tear up the contract.
I do not want to test people’s relationships. I do not want to know if they are having sex or not; I do not care. If they want to have a union and it is legally bound, let them. If they want to separate that union, tear up the contract, make it a clear point. That will save a lot of mess if that is what you are interested in, in property rights.
Amendment negatived.
Mr WOOD: Madam Deputy Chair, this point enables us to debate the bill as is. I believe some of the bill does need debating. I make reference - once again because it was certainly mentioned by the member for Arnhem - about my scurrilous letter that I sent out to all the Aboriginal chairmen of councils, because no one else did. I bet you the member for Arnhem did not send out anything to anybody until he found out that I had sent a letter out, and then he said that was terribly scurrilous.
Dr Toyne: What did you tell them? That’s what I would like to know.
Mr WOOD: Well, I am referring to clause 28(g), proposed new section 3(2). I need, once again, to say that I believe - and I have had legal advice, and I did look at this act before I made my statement - that by new section 3(2)(a) and (b) being joined together and by the new definition of de facto, which is same-sex relationship, you equate Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander marriages with de facto relationships.
What annoys me is: who is asked Aboriginal people about this law? Who spoke to them? My wife is Aboriginal. Her family, of course, are Aboriginal. They knew nothing about this. All the Aboriginal people I have spoken to knew nothing. Surely, it would have been at least decent - even if I am wrong - to go out and ask people. If I am wrong, fair enough. But these are important things, not just this section of the act, but the sections of the act that deal with lowering the age.
You saw the letter I had from Beswick saying: ‘Don’t do this. We get enough trouble with older men humbugging our kids. Don’t lower the age’. There is a group of Aboriginal people. Who went out and spoke to Beswick people and said: ‘We are changing laws’? These laws are not just for white people; these laws cover a lot of people. I wonder how many Aboriginal communities had a chance to debate this issue, to debate whether they believe same-sex relationships should be ‘marriage-like’.
As far as I know, people I have spoken to about so called same-sex relationships being ‘marriage-like’ do not agree. I cannot test every Aboriginal community. I ask the government: was there any campaign similar to the campaign that told people in Karama – because I saw the pamphlets on the ground - that the government was going to spend millions of dollars on bumping up the police force? Great, but here is a matter which surely is of great social, cultural and moral concern to many people in the Territory. Filipinos are a culture. Italians are a culture. Greeks are a culture. How did they know? Because someone sent a letter out because there are a few people around here who are making an effort to tell them?
What about the vast numbers of Aboriginal people living out in the communities? Did Yuendumu know about this? Oh, no. No one told them about this. Maybe they think it is good - all right. However, no one told them; no one consulted. Surely, that is the reason why this bill should not go through at this stage. Surely, that on its own is the reason why this bill should go to a select committee.
Isn’t it amazing that we worry about the Daly River and the environment and we are going to have a great advisory committee. We worry about alcohol, petrol and marijuana and, especially their effects on Aboriginal people - the health effects. Here we have a law that could affect culture, morals, and the social fabric of some of these communities, and we could not be bothered putting it out to those people for six months.
Will everybody drop dead if we hold on to this a bit longer? I have put some things tonight about domestic co-dependents. I put that as a positive approach to this bill to give gay people some rights at the same time as protecting marriage. Surely that was something worth debating in society? I have been told tonight: ‘Rubbish, not worth it. Well, we will think of something else later’. It is a disgrace that Aboriginal people make up 30% of the population and they have not been contacted about this bill.
Statehood! ‘Oh, we are going to have statehood and written into statehood is: of course, the Aboriginal people will be consulted. We can’t have statehood without consultation’.
A member interjecting.
Mr WOOD: You might whistle! I hope whistling is put on the Hansard because you are a disgrace to your own people. You did not say what was in the bill. I do not know who was whistling, but …
Mr Bonson: You, Gerry, are a disgrace.
Mr WOOD: No, I am not.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Order!
Mr Bonson: You use it for issues when you want to use it, and you don’t want to know about it when you don’t want to know about it.
Mr WOOD: I am saying that people in this House …
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Order, order!
Mr Dunham: You can speak in the debate, mate.
Dr Burns: He can speak in here if he likes.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Order!
Mr Bonson: You are a big hypocrite, Gerry, an absolute hypocrite. Don’t tell me I am a disgrace to my race!
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: I will start to warn members if you do not respond to the Chair. I called order on several occasions.
Mr WOOD: I take the point of order of the member for Millner. I did not say …
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: I know it is late, and I know it is provocative debate, but you will respect the Chair.
Mr Bonson: Well, I am sorry, you did say it was a disgrace to my race.
Mr WOOD: No, I did not say a disgrace to his race.
Mr Bonson: Yes, it is on Hansard.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Member for Millner, you are warned.
Mr WOOD: I was referring to the member for Arnhem.
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Order
Mr AH KIT: A point of order, Madam Deputy Chair! If the member for Nelson has put on Hansard that I am a disgrace to my race, then I would ask him to substantiate that.
Mr WOOD: Madam Deputy Chair …
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Members! Member for Nelson, if you did make a reference, I ask you to withdraw.
Mr WOOD: Madam Deputy Chair, let me try to say something.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: We have standing orders.
Mr WOOD: Madam Deputy Chair, I am grown up. Member for Arnhem, I apologise if I said it. It was accidental.
Mr Ah Kit: No, it was not, but I will accept your apology.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Member for Nelson, I take it you will withdraw the comment?
Members interjecting.
Dr Lim: What a churlish man.
Mr Ah Kit: I am still a better Chinaman than you.
Dr Lim: There you go! See! He is reflecting on my race now, Madam Deputy Chair.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Order!
Dr Lim: Don’t reflect on my race. That really is uncalled for.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: I did not hear a comment, I am sorry. I was too busy …
Dr Lim: I am happy for him to repeat himself and then have him withdraw.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Are you referring to the member for Arnhem?
Dr LIM: He was referring to me as a Chinaman.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR Member for Arnhem, did you make that reference?
Dr Lim: Withdraw that!
Mr AH KIT: Madam Deputy Chair, it was a statement of fact that I said that I am still a better Chinaman than him, and I am.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Member for Arnhem, I will ask you to withdraw that.
Mr AH KIT: I withdraw, Madam Deputy Chair.
Mr Baldwin: Gerry, tell us about the petition from Bagot.
Mr WOOD: Yes! The petition from Bagot that was not to be heard. There was a petition from Bagot. The member for Millner said: ‘Not to be read’.
Mr Bonson: What?
Mr WOOD: You did not move that it be read. There was also a petition from Lake Evella. There was a petition from Elcho Island. It was only by some hard-working people who knew about this issue. What I am saying is that Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory were not informed.
Ms Scrymgour: Why didn’t anyone go to the Tiwi Islands?
Mr WOOD: I sent a letter …
A member: That’s your job.
Mr WOOD: Yes.
Ms Scrymgour: Well, you checked everything else. That is right! I can tell you what the Tiwis say.
Mr WOOD: Ask Sister Anne Gardiner.
Ms Scrymgour: It is completely different from what you are running here.
Mr WOOD: What I am running here is basically saying that I do not believe Aboriginal people were informed. I do not believe the general community was informed but, even worse, the Aboriginal communities, because they are isolated, was less informed. The government had a duty – it did not sell this bill. As I said, where were the glossy brochures, like the ones saying $70m for the police? There was nothing saying: ‘We are dropping the age of consent to 16’. That was not a headline. ‘De facto marriages of same-sex couples’, the big headline? We did not see that. That is the problem here. That is why I am so cranky that this government cannot be bothered putting this to a select committee. We are passing laws that have not had enough time for the community.
Here is the petition from Bagot, and the piece left off is that the petition be read. So, please!
In respect of clause 28(g) proposed new section (2), Aboriginal people should have been informed that that is what you were going to put in here. They should have been informed as much as the wider community should have been informed that the government was going to give a new definition to de facto that related same-sex relationships to marriage – ‘marriage-like’. That is what this is doing, and my complaint is both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people were not informed. It is very sad that we have inserted that without adequate consultation.
On another section of clause 29, proposed new section 3A(3) says the following matters are irrelevant regarding a de facto relationship: either of the persons is married to another person; either of the persons is in another de facto relationship. I wonder where it is all heading. We are going to have these official de facto relationships 1, 2 and 3. If you fulfil those requirements – well, you do not even have to fulfil those requirements - they can be taken into account. Where does it all end in property rights? Who owns this and who owns that? We have basically said that these relationships will now be legal; we have put them in the bill.
I do not know whether the Attorney-General can say if this is approval of de facto polygamy and what affect it will have if you have a whole heap of these acting at the one time.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Deputy Chair, I heard the member for Millner drop the petition on the Table this morning. I have never ever heard a petition ever hit the Table here without finishing with, ‘I now move that it be read’.
Now it twigged and passed me by and I let it go to the keeper. I am going to read it:
- To the Speaker and the members of the Legislative Assembly, we the undersigned citizens do respectfully request that the government does not lower the age of consent …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Deputy Chair! Under Standing Order 67, this is just a complete digression from the subject that has been under discussed here for some time which is the clause …
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: There is no point of order. In terms of the relevance, it goes to the question before us.
Mr ELFERINK: I cannot believe that the Labor Party of the Northern Territory is trying to silence the voice of Aboriginal people in this Chamber! I cannot believe it - for political purposes. What a disgrace!
- … we the undersigned citizens do respectfully request that the government does not lower the age of consent to 16 years of age for boys to consent to homosexual activity …
Hear, hear to that; that is my amendment coming up:
- … and that the government does not change the anti-discrimination laws so that church schools can no longer refuse to employ homosexual teachers in the schools they run.
Mr Baldwin: Signed by how many people?
Mr ELFERINK: Signed by 66 petitioners from the Bagot community.
Mr Baldwin: From Bagot community, in his own electorate.
Dr Burns: Come back to the clause.
Mr ELFERINK: This is typical of this government. This is astonishing, isn’t it? Nothing in that petition says ‘we do not like homosexual people’, they are just worried about the age of consent and schools. That is their only two issues. So sensitive are these members about what they are doing, and the furtive way that they are not sending stuff off to select committees - they are muffling and gagging - not only us in here, but the people out there.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: The question is now that the clauses 28 and 29 stand as printed.
The committee divided:
Ayes 15 Noes 9
Mrs Aagaard Mr Baldwin
Mr Ah Kit Mr Burke
Mr Bonson Mr Dunham
Dr Burns Mr Elferink
Ms Carney Dr Lim
Ms Carter Mr Maley
Mr Henderson Mrs Miller
Mr Kiely Mr Mills
Ms Lawrie Mr Wood
Mr McAdam
Ms Martin
Ms Scrymgour
Mr Stirling
Dr Toyne
Mr Vatskalis
Clauses 28 and 29 agreed to.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Member for Nelson, it is probably opportune for you to formally withdraw the amendments remaining in your schedule of amendments Nos 61.1 and 61.2. Would you now like to do so? It is still available to you to discuss the content of your withdrawn amendments later when consideration of the relevant clauses to which these amendments applied are being considered.
Mr WOOD: Yes, Madam Deputy Chair, I am happy to withdraw it and that is all I need to say.
Clauses 30 to 33, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Division 2, Amendments of Interpretation Act:
Clauses 34 and 35, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 36:
Mr WOOD: Can I seek clarification here? Is that withdrawn?
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: No, we dealt with amendments 61.3, 61.4 and 61.5 conjoined previously.
Mr WOOD: Madam Deputy Chair, I presume - and I need to take some advice - because amendment 61.5 was defeated, amendment 61.6 cannot exist on its own?
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: That is right. Are you happy to …
Mr WOOD: I just withdraw that one, correct.
Clause 36 agreed to.
Clause 37 agreed to.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Honourable members, we will now consider the bill in seriatim commencing with clause 1.
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Part 2, amendments relating to gender:
Clauses 3 and 4, by leave taken together:
Mr DUNHAM: I wonder if the Attorney-General could put in definitions, the word ‘sexuality’. In my contribution to this debate I said that it had a variety of meanings. It is very important, given the act is entitled the Law Reform (Gender, Sexuality and De Facto Relationships) Act, that this be adequately described in the definitions.
Dr TOYNE: There is no point. The word or the principle of sexuality simply does not exist in the act so there is no point having it in the definitions.
Mr DUNHAM: Would the Attorney-General be surprised at the definitions I have that include illicit acts as part of sexuality? You would not be surprised or you would be surprised?
Dr TOYNE: Madam Deputy Chair, it simply will not apply to anything. There will be no provision in the act that that definition would be helpful towards defining, so there is absolutely no point in your suggestion.
Mr DUNHAM: I thought we were attempting to eradicate discrimination on the basis of sexuality and, if so, I believe it should be defined.
Dr TOYNE: I have answered you.
Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.
Clauses 5 to 10, by leave, taken together:
Mr ELFERINK: For the sake of getting through this as painlessly as possible, I seek leave to move a very quick motion which would allow me to deal with amendments 66.1 through 66.17 inclusive, so that we can have this discussion because all of these points turn on the single issue of the age of consent.
Amendments 66.1 to 66.17, by leave, taken together.
Mr ELFERINK: It has probably stuffed up your running schedule a bit, Madam Deputy Chairman.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: We can cope.
Mr ELFERINK: I am sure you can. I move amendments 66.1 to 66.17.
As members are fully aware, I stood up and bared my heart a little in the early part of the day. I handed out a statement which I hope that all members have read. I do not particularly want to dwell so much on the offences that happened. I do not particularly want to dwell on the fact that, in terms of the legislation that the Attorney-General has brought before us here today, that 16-year-olds and 17-years-olds have probably been covered by the fact that he was a teacher for the judo club, but he was also an employer. I believe - in fact, I know - that the member for Port Darwin is bringing an amendment which the government may accept in relation to employers?
A member: Yes.
Mr ELFERINK: The thing is, the issue that I had with that whole principle, when we get to it, is that you are talking to people in positions of trust - lawyers, teachers, doctors etcetera. The point is, what you are actually saying is, if a person in a position of trust offends that trust by having a sexual relationship with a charge under their care of the age of 16 or 17 and, therefore, that trust is so offended, and if they have that sexual relationship, they commit an offence. Okay, I accept that.
The problem is that you can make this list go on ad infinitum, and the fact is that those relationships, as I said during the second reading of the debate, vary in levels of trust. In law, there is a thing called fiduciary relationship between client and their lawyer, and there are those sorts of relationships that exist between trustees and beneficiaries, all those sorts of things.
But what about those relationships which do not rely on trust: drug pusher to the client, the purchaser? The way that this new legislation works, is that a stranger can walk up to a person in a park, male or female, at the age of 16 or 17, and engage in a sexual activity, and that is okay; but they cannot have a sexual relationship with their music teacher. I will come back to this in greater detail when the member for Port Darwin raises it. What this issue surrounds is the influence that people have over other people, and that influence varies from time to time. The question that we really have here today is: does your garden variety 16-year-old male or female have the emotional, spiritual, physical even, capacity to deal with a sexual relationship? I do not know the answer to that exactly. In fact, I would suggest that in my experience, a lot of 16-year-old men and girls are not really settled in many aspects of their lives.
The reason that we see the legislation attempting to raise the penalties that surround the nasty crime of child sexual abuse is to say that we are going to raise the bar on child protection. All I am asking the parliament to do today is to say that we accept that philosophy. We accept the philosophy that we raise the bar on child protection. Not being certain, and I do not think that anybody could be certain, that your garden variety 16-year-old or 17-year-old is entirely capable of making up their mind at that stage, we should raise the level of protection for those kids.
We do not let those kids buy cigarettes because it might damage them. We may not let them drink because it might damage them. We will not let them go and see an R-rated film because it might damage them. We will not let them vote because they do not know enough of what is going on around them. But here is a packet of condoms; and go and have sexual relationship for two years to amuse yourselves. I am a little concerned that that is just a little skew-whiff - just a little concerned.
I am arguing for the sake of protection. The reason that I circulated my statement to police and all those ghastly things that were in it, is because I am asking members - pleading with members, frankly - to consider this: would you accept that sort of behaviour as proper, normal behaviour for a 16-year-old or 17-year-old person? If they consent to those acts in that statement, would you believe that they are capable of dealing with those issues? Otherwise, it would be lawful under what is proposed.
If you can put your hand on your heart and stand up and say: ‘Yes, I have read that statement. I know that there was sex in public toilets between several people and that there were other fairly disgusting acts perpetrated by my standards’ – it may not be by other standards. ‘My hand is on my heart. I believe that a 16-year-old is emotionally ready to be able to deal with those sorts of issues’. It is all going to be legal and these 16-year-olds require no protection and will get none.
So, there might be a 35-year-old or 36-year-old man who goes to a 16-year-old in the park and says: ‘Let us go into the local public toilet’. It has been my experience that families and parents want us to protect their kids from that sort of thing. That is not homophobic. That is not a matter of talking about homosexuals like that; they just want to make sure that their kids are not harmed. I cannot say I blame them.
I have this urge to protect kids in that situation, probably because the experience that I have been through has left me - I will not say scarred - conscious of these sorts of things. All I want to hear members say - and I need to hear it from the members for Nightcliff and Johnston and other members who have stayed silent - that they are happy with this. Their issue is simply this: they have to worry about their job, their party affiliation. If they have a doubt in their heart that the acts described in that statement – and I am only just talking about the acts themselves, and not the issues surrounding them - will not have a negative effect on 16-year-old and 17-year-old girls and boys, not a problem - vote for this legislation.
However, if there is a doubt - and it does not have to be a big one because, in child protection it is important to err on the side of caution - what is more important to you: protecting those kids or your jobs? That really is the question. It is a moral question. It is a moral quandary. If you have a doubt, how morally strong are you?
Madam Deputy Chair, I move that the motion be put.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion that the amendment be now put.
Motion negatived.
Dr TOYNE: We want to discuss it.
Mr ELFERINK: Oh, you want to discuss it now? Okay, discuss it. You want to build a wall around your people, do you?
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Attorney-General, do you have a response?
Dr TOYNE: Yes, Madam Deputy Chair, sorry I lost the plot there. I was in the middle of looking at some stuff here. With regard to the member’s amendments - have we put that?
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: He wanted to put it but it has not been put. It has been discussed. Currently, the question before the Chair is the amendments 66.1 to 66.17.
Dr TOYNE: So, we are still on discussion. Essentially, the government does not support the proposition that we go to 18 years, and you would probably guess that we would take that attitude. We are not persuaded that there is a need to increase the age of consent for girls to 18 years, and we are certainly not persuaded that there is any need to do it under the circumstances that you put forward today. The effect of the amendment put forward is that a person having sex with a 17-year-old under his or her special care is liable for four years imprisonment.
However, in changes proposed under section 127, a person who has sex with a 17-year-old not under special care, is liable to 16 years imprisonment for that carnal knowledge offence. It is the exact reverse of what we are attempting to achieve through the special provisions for 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds that we built into this bill that takes account of this particular vulnerability of young people of those ages; that is, people under special care arrangements and, therefore, particularly vulnerable to the actions of their carers. We have taken the most vulnerable group of 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds and provided that additional protection under the offences that we have put forward.
I reiterate the principles on which we have made the decisions, particularly of the age of consent being at 16, and the associated offences, are based on the fact that we have assessed what is going on in reality in the community. One of the big problems I have with an age of consent at 18 is that I cannot imagine a parent anywhere in the Northern Territory who would be confident that they could take the type of responsibility for the kids up to the age of 18 that you are suggesting under the law. In effect, they are considered to continue to be incapable of having a sexual relationship where the reality out there - and if you go down Mitchell Street and look in all the nightclubs and so on - is that young people are becoming sexually active earlier rather than later. Research is suggesting a number of reasons for that but that is what is out there in the community. That is what the law has to deal with and there is no point in making laws that are completely out of kilter with the actual reality of sexual relations in our community.
Mr MILLS: Madam Deputy Chair, I feel this is an opportunity for this government to repair their position. The prevailing argument is equality. You say you base your thinking on a principle of what most folks are doing. I would suggest, based on that principle, that you would be changing the dynamic of our community and the expectations and principles parents depend upon. The principles they depend upon in raising their own children will be altered and you will be placing additional pressures upon families as they endeavour to raise their children. I believe that, in the fact that you have not consulted the families of the Northern Territory you, therefore, have no actual mandate to interfere with good families in our community.
You have the opportunity to deal with this issue of equality; it is a compromised position that would save your position. You would be able to satisfy the question of equality and, at the same time, preserve and support families in our community who are endeavouring to raise their children according to an accepted standard. You are altering that standard and that places immense pressure upon families.
I can tell you from the experience of 17 years working with young people - and prior to that working in youth outreach - we are talking about the actual vulnerable ones who are lost between the gaps; those who are unsure about what the rules of our society are. You are going to make the rules so different now that you are going to expose greater levels of vulnerability to a whole section of our community. You have an opportunity to satisfy your argument of equality and equity and, at the same time, preserve the basic fabric and principles of our community. Here is an opportunity for you. Do not say it is too difficult, because there are ways. If you put your mind to it, you could do this; you could find a position that will save you. A conscience vote with five people speaking and eight remaining mute speaks for itself.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Deputy Chair, I tried to move that a motion be put - effectively gag my own debate - and he wants to bring it on; he wants to keep going. I have been gagged three times tonight, so I think: ‘Oh well, we will just get through this business a bit quicker’. He says: ‘No, no I have to have my say’. So what does he say? He says: ‘Oh look, you cannot raise the age for consensual sex of girls to 18; they are having sex anyway’.
Well, let us say that the marketplace dictates the age of consumption of liquor, because the argument that you put is, because they are doing it anyhow, we should lower the age. However, the fact is the kids are going to the pubs and, if that is the case, they are drinking. Well, sugar, we should lower the age. When do they start drinking nowadays: 13, 14? And what about smoking? Let us see, it is 18 now before you can buy a packet of cigarettes. Let the marketplace dictate it, because the last numbers I saw was kids are starting to smoke at - what? – 14. Yes, I believe the marketplace should dictate the standards that we apply to ourselves in this House and as a community.
I know that I snuck into my first R-rated film when I was about 14. ‘I believe we should lower the age there too’. X-rated films you can pop them off the video shop shelf at – what? – 12. The fact is that they do not set our standards, this Chamber reflects community standards. Community standards are that we have to protect children. The definition of a child under the Criminal Code is a person who has not attained the age of 18 years, which means that what we are actually arguing about is that children should not have sex. That is the thrust of my amendment, and you are telling me children should – 16-year-old and 17-year-old children, by definition in the act itself, should have sex.
Well, it is not a standard which is acceptable to me, or acceptable to so many Territorians. It is on this one single point that I now have to find myself voting against a whole raft of legislation because, at the end of the day, at the third reading stage of this piece of legislation, I am going to have to vote against a whole bill. I either accept it in its entirety or, for that one cancer cell, you have to cut out the liver. The fact is that we an option, an opportunity, here. Honourable members, every vote in this House is a conscience vote. If your conscience is plaguing you about what is happening here, about what happens to 16-year-old and 17-year-old girls and boys, now is the time to be counted. If your conscience is not plaguing you, then stand up and have the courage to tell Territorians.
Dr LIM: Madam Deputy Chair, I want to comment on what the Attorney-General said earlier also, like my colleagues on this side of the House. He said: ‘Those people out there, the 16-year-olds, they are doing it now. So, if they are able to do it, they obviously will be able to deal with it’. Yes, physically they are able to deal with it. But we talk about the maturity and the way they can deal with it, that is the difference. Many of you in this room are parents with children coming around to that age. Fortunately, mine are now 23, 27 and 32, but I have gone through those times which were difficult. Your children will be going through the hormonal urges, physically capable of sexual behaviour, but are they mature enough to deal with it?
I see a frown start on the member for Casuarina’s face …
Mr Ah Kit: No, you are telling lies; nobody is frowning over here. Stop telling porkies!
Dr LIM: Get up and speak your mind, member for Casuarina. You have just sat there right through the whole evening not prepared to say a word, hand over your mouth. Well, people in your community are waiting for you to say what you believe in. The member for Nightcliff is exactly the same. Where to you stand on this? You are a mother. You have children who are going to be teenagers soon. Do you think they can go and be sexually active irrespective of anything - as long as they are 16, it is fine? I am sure you, like me, would feel no, they are not mature enough to deal with it. Physically, yes they can. But can you …
Mr Henderson: Why did you have 16 for girls?
Dr LIM: I have a question from the member for Wanguri. What about 16 year old girls? The women in this room, when you were 16 - can you remember back to when you were 16? - would you ever date a 16-year-old boy? Never. Why? Because you did not think they were mature enough; that is why. The men in this room, when you were 16-year-old boys, could you get a date with a girl of 16 or 17? Never, never! You could get one at 15 or 14 because they did not think that you were mature enough, and that is your problem.
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Order, order!
Dr LIM: Let me say this to you guys: think it through a little more as parents of children growing up, becoming teenagers soon. Where are you going to be? Where are they going to be? I suggest to you that maybe an 18-year-old might be the right age.
The committee divided:
Ayes 10 Noes 14
Mr Baldwin Mrs Aagaard
Mr Burke Mr Ah Kit
Ms Carter Mr Bonson
Mr Dunham Dr Burns
Mr Elferink Ms Carney
Dr Lim Mr Henderson
Mr Maley Mr Kiely
Mrs Miller Ms Lawrie
Mr Mills Mr McAdam
Mr Wood Ms Martin
Ms Scrymgour
Mr Stirling
Dr Toyne
Mr Vatskalis
Amendments negatived.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Members, for clarification, because we joined amendments 66.1 to 66.17, we are dealing with clauses 5 to 10 conjoined. The member for Port Darwin has an amendment.
Dr TOYNE: A point of clarification, Madam Chair. Where are we?
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: We are dealing with clauses 5 to 10 together because that was the previous decision. I have invited the member for Port Darwin to put her amendment, which is in that section. Then we will deal with the Attorney-General’s amendments.
Ms CARTER: Madam Deputy Chair, with regards to amendment 63.1, I withdraw it as the minister has incorporated the sentiment of my original motion with one of his that is coming up shortly.
Dr TOYNE: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 59.1, which involves substituting ‘any adult’ for ‘any person’ in proposed section 128(1). To explain to members, this amendment relates to the proposed new offence in section 128 of the Criminal Code, which creates an offence of having sexual intercourse with, or committing gross indecency upon, a child who is of the age of consent; that is, a child who is 16 or 17 years of age, where the child is under the special care of the offender. A child is under the care of another person, if the other person is in a relationship of trust with the child, such as where the offender is a step-parent or guardian, sports coach, doctor, or teacher to the child. A Correctional Services officer at an institution or where the victim is detained is also covered by section 128. As has already been stated, we have accepted the member for Port Darwin’s additional amendment, which now makes the entire amendment read:
… has established a personal relationship with the victim in connection with the care, instruction (for example, religious, sporting or musical instruction) or supervision (for example, supervision in the course of employment or training) of the victim.
We are taking up the issue of people who are employers of young people and using that position of influence.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Deputy Chair! I am sorry, I did not mean to interrupt you. I am having a bit of trouble hearing the minister; he is a bit on the soft side.
Dr TOYNE: Sorry. My voice is going, but I will do the best I can. That explains the amendment.
Ms CARTER: Madam Deputy Chair, I would like to express my thanks to the minister for incorporating into this clause the sentiment of my original motion. As I said in my speech earlier tonight, it was a concern to me that, in this particular clause, the list of people or positions that were classified as under special care for children over the age of 16, was missing the person who is an employer or supervisor, which is something that we needed to include in there because of, arguably, the power that an employer or supervisor has over a young worker as they strive to be accepted and be popular in the workplace and to get a good reference for future employment. It is very important to have this issue of employment in there, in an effort to protect these very young people as much as possible.
Dr TOYNE: Madam Deputy Chair, I just clarify that, in clause 5 we are actually amending twice the amendment 59.1, which is a minor amendment to section 128(1). It changes ‘any person’ to ‘any adult’. By explanation for members, ‘any person’ includes children as well as adults. We did not intend to have a child offender there; it simply applies to adults. That is amendment 59.1 at the start of section 128(1). The second …
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Attorney-General, for clarification sake, we are just dealing with amendment 69 at the moment. We will then go back to 59.1 and then on to 59.3.
Dr TOYNE: All right. Let us finish 69 then.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: We are dealing with amendment 69 which incorporates the provision for supervisor, for purpose of clarification.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Deputy Chair, I am just going to place on record that I do not believe there is any point in having an argument over it, because I know the government is totally unshiftable on this stuff. I congratulate the member for Port Darwin for wedging at least the word ‘employer’ in there.
The long and short of it is that, where a relationship is established between the person who has a potential role of power over another person - teacher, an employer, a supervisor, those sort of things - then it is a breach of that trust. That is the trust of this, I presume, for the person in that authoritative position to be able to engage in a sexual relationship with a 16-year-old or 17-year-old. However, the problem I have is that the more remote this person is from the child in question, then the less responsible they are. If that person is more remote in terms of the law and that they are drug supplier, although they may not actually say to that child: ‘We are going to have sex, and if you do not I will not give you or sell you the drugs’, it may well be implied. That is a power relationship, and that is not recognised by this.
Therefore, if that arrangements occurs where the music teacher is liable for a penalty under this process, if a person is described as having established a personal relationship, the drug pusher is not. Surely we would want to actually make those sorts of criminal relationships the subject of this legislation - this sort of limitations. But that is not the case. Therefore, the section in its intent is understandable, but in its interpretation and application will be unworkable. Unless you are actually a teacher or something else like that you are exposed. However, there are all sorts of power relationships in the community.
Mr Henderson: Isn’t it illegal to sell drugs?
Mr ELFERINK: God, you’re a dick! It is just incredible. Let us take a creditor and a debtor, for argument sake. A 16-year-old goes in to get a car loan. The creditor and the debtor have a relationship – not a personal relationship – and the person lending the money leans across the desk and says: ‘How about it, honey? You are a nice little 16-year-old’. The girl behind on the other side of the desk who needs a car loan because she has to get to work – she has left school early – goes: ‘Oh, right, I will have to do that’. So she acquiesces. He does not say at any stage: ‘I will not give you your car loan unless you have sex with me’. He just says: ‘How about it, honey?’ What is in her mind? It is a relationship between people. That is the problem I have with this particular piece of legislation.
We separate this relationship and that relationship, and this relationship and that relationship. Well, those relationships might change. Let us look at some of the grey areas that are involved. Let us say the girl is not getting a car loan, let us say she is buying a handbag. The woman on the other side of the counter says: ‘I will sell you the handbag. I will give you 50% off. Oh, by the way, how about it, honey?’ Is there a relationship there? Let us go even a little further down the grey scale. She is buying groceries for her family or whatever and there is an economic relationship between her and the girl behind the counter. Is that a relationship?
That is the problem. You are just classifying a handful of relationships and trying to demonstrate that people in positions of power can abuse that trust and ‘We are going to nail those people’. Well, the fact is that what you are trying to achieve is an absurdity. It really is, because what you are going to do is catch a couple of people out in a particular corner. The anonymous person who walks up to a boy in a park and says: ‘Let us go into the lavatory together and get it on right now;. If the boy goes: ‘Oh oh, okay I will do that’, for whatever reason, and it is a 16-year-old boy - guess what? - if they lock themselves in a cubicle they have committed no offence. That relationship is less healthy – no, that is not correct. I withdraw that. That relationship is …
Mr Dunham: Problematic.
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you. … problematic in the same way that the relationship between teacher and pupil is because, as I said in the second reading debate, there are all sorts of relationships between people. There is only one type of victim - only the one type - and that is the person who has been victimised. That is the problem I have with this section. I just lay that on the Table for members to consider.
Amendment agreed to.
Dr TOYNE: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 59.1. As I have already explained, this has the effect of, in section 128(1), changing the earlier reference in the draft of ‘any person’ which would cover children and adults, to narrowing it to just ‘any adults’.
Amendment agreed to.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Member for Nelson, at this stage I indicate to you that you have withdrawn amendments 61.1 and 61.2. At the stage that you withdrew it, I indicated there would be an opportunity for you to speak to it if you wished to, and that is the stage now. Do you wish to speak to those proposed amendments that you have withdrawn?
Mr WOOD: No, I withdraw those amendments, Madam Deputy Chair.
Mr DUNHAM: Are we still on clause 5?
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Yes, we are, we are dealing with clauses 5 to 10.
Dr TOYNE: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 59.3.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Which is clause 8. Attorney-General, there is still a question on clause 5 from the member for Drysdale, so we will deal with that first.
Mr DUNHAM: In Sunday’s paper, Attorney-General, you talked about this clause and a plan to ease stress on child witnesses. Can you tell this parliament when that will be coming forward to this House?
Dr TOYNE: Madam Deputy Chair, I am not sure what relevance it has, but it may not come to the House. It depends on what requirements are needed to change the court procedure. It may not need legislative change. However, I will undertake that, when we have assessed what actions we might take, I will certainly bring it into the House here and report to members.
Mr DUNHAM: So, to be clear then, there is no need to change any statute to achieve your sex case trauma move plan to ease stress on child witnesses - it is merely administrative?
Dr TOYNE: No, I did not say that. I said that it may or may not need legislative changes, and that I undertake to indicate what action we will be taking in this House.
Mr WOOD: Just a clarification, we can deal with clause 5 dealing with proposed section 128? Is that all right?
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Yes.
Mr WOOD: Attorney-General, I am just looking at - I hope I get this right – clause 5, proposed new section 128(4). It is written here:
It is a defence to a charge of a crime defined by this section to prove that the accused person was, at the time of the alleged offence, the husband, wife or de facto partner of the child.
The bill has an additional defence to section 128 of the Criminal Code being the defence of being in a de facto relationship to the child. This makes a nonsense of the offence because the new definition of de facto relationship is so broad. Effectively, this would allow a person in authority who persuaded a child in their care to have an ongoing sexual relationship with them, and perhaps gave the child some financial support, or perhaps made the child pregnant, to claim to be in a de facto relationship with the child to avoid a criminal charge.
- It is not parallel to the marriage defence because the permission of a magistrate is now required for a marriage to a child aged 16 or 17. Presumably, the magistrate would be alert to any exploitative relationship and decline permission to marry in those circumstances.
As I said before, marriage has a defence because only the magistrate can prove that you were married to that person aged 16 or 17. That is a pretty strict test, because magistrates do not give permission quickly. By moving it to de facto, you have really opened up a can of worms for defence. That is very loose. Talk about equality! A de facto certainly has a better chance of defence than proving you were – I do not know. A husband and wife certainly have to prove that they have a certificate, but a de facto does not. It is an area that should be looked at, Attorney-General, to see if it is too loose.
Dr TOYNE: Madam Deputy Chair, what we are exploring here is the boundary in a relationship between a victim and an offender where this offence is trying to catch up that offender and their actions, where it is purely of the types that are being defined in proposed new section 128(3)(a) through to (e) in the different provisions. You are looking at specific areas where the offender has a particular relationship to the victim.
However, there are occasions where there can be a dual relationship. That can be a relationship, say, of a young person coaching another young person, but they also have a valid relationship additional to the relationship between the coach and the person being coached. In other words, there is an overlay of a valid relationship, whether it is de facto or marriage, which makes it different to someone exploiting a position of influence purely because of the professional activity directed at the victim.
We are trying to provide a defence there where there might be other circumstances about the relationship between the potential offender and victim, which is a valid relationship in terms of sexual relations.
Mr WOOD: I can understand that. In the case of husband and wife, I would presume the husband could be the school teacher who has special permission to marry one of the pupils, in this case, who is 16 or 17. Obviously, his marriage certificate is proof that he has not done anything wrong. But when you get to a de facto and the school teacher says: ‘That is my de facto’ - no time limit. At least with my domestic co-dependent, I would have given them five years and they would be out of that area anyway.
However, here the duration of the relationship is - well, it does not say. I could have said: ‘We have known one another for a couple of months. She stays with me after school. Whether or not sexual relationships exist is none of your business. Degree of financial dependence? I keep her and pay for her school fees. Ownership? We share the property. We are not worried about kids at the moment. She does the dishes, I mow the lawn’.
It is pretty broad. Surely, if a person had some control over that person, they could nearly bribe the person to say: ‘Yes, we are in a de facto relationship’, because one of the areas we are concerned about here is that someone has power over that person. In the case of the married couple, a magistrate has said: ‘Yes, I agree’. In the case of de facto, who is going to challenge it? There is no paper there to prove it; there is no time limit. There is nothing. There is a very broad set of conditions to define that de facto relationship. That is a loophole in the defence, Attorney-General.
Dr TOYNE: Madam Deputy Chair, we have to establish what would have to be proved, if the existence of a de facto relationship was going to be used as a defence against this particular offence. You have to prove that a de facto relationship exists and that it is a solid, consensual relationship. You will recall earlier in this debate that we went through the criteria that had been applied under the amendments to the De facto Relationships Act, that would allow a court to assess whether one or more of those factors indicated the presence of a de facto relationship. For example, if a 17-year-old and 18-year-old were in a de facto relationship and they had a child, the child is a pretty good start to say that that is a relationship beyond the normal professional relationship between someone and a carer or a position of supervision and the alleged victim. We would expect that such situations would be very rare.
However, it is important to include them as, otherwise, people would be banned from entering into de facto relationships under 18, whereas they could get married at the age of 16. Having said that, de facto relationships take time to establish the criteria by which you would prove to the court that you are in one. In practice, it would be extremely unwise for anyone in a relationship of special care with a young person aged 16 or 17, to enter into a de facto relationship with them. You would probably find great difficulty in satisfying the criteria that you have seen earlier in this bill.
Ms CARTER: Madam Deputy Chair, my question is to the member for Nelson who has put forward this amendment. In your amendment, you say:
- child’s husband, wife, or de facto partner within the meaning of section 3(1) of the De Facto Relationships Act.
Why have you added in that piece with regards to the de facto relationships?
Madam Deputy CHAIR: That has been withdrawn.
Mr WOOD: No, member for Port Darwin, we are debating at the moment, proposed new section 128(4). Under that there is ‘de facto partner’ as a defence. What I am arguing is that it is okay for a husband and wife to claim defence there, because you have to have a magistrate’s order to marry someone who is 16 and 17. Someone can easily prove that as a defence, because the magistrate is the only one who will allow you to marry someone of that age. However, when it comes to a de facto partner, if you use the existing definitions of de facto which has now been passed - which is in clause 29, proposed new section 3A under the definitions - it is very loose - you can fit into this and you can fit into that.
The argument I have is that a person with some authority could use that defence by bribing the child or saying: ‘I will give you a couple of hundred bucks a week; do not tell anyone’. There is nowhere the rigidity you get if you are a husband and wife defence, because the magistrate has given you a certificate that says: ‘Yes, I am allowed to have that sexual contact with that person’. The de facto is far too loose and it could be used as an excuse by someone who had authority over that person.
Mr DUNHAM: Attorney-General, I refer you to a clip from the Saturday paper last week, which talks about this portion of the act, ‘New laws to deal with teen abuse’, and I quote:
A source said ‘The aim of the new law is to protect young people from being preyed upon by people in whom they have put their trust’.
- to reform the law of the Northern Territory by amending certain acts and subordinate legislation to remove or modify legal distinctions based on a person’s gender, sexuality, or de facto relationship with another person, and for related purposes.
I ask the Attorney-General whether you believe that this preying upon people in whom they have put their trust is a ‘related purpose’, or whether you should be more definite in the description of this bill to make it very clear you are talking about two totally different things here.
Dr TOYNE: We are perfectly happy with the way we have framed this bill. I would not be bringing it in here now if I was not happy with the way it has been framed.
Mr DUNHAM: Just to be clear, you believe that the aim of protecting young people from being preyed upon by people in whom they have put their trust is related to reform relating to legal distinctions based on a person’s gender, sexuality, de facto relationship? Is that clear?
Dr TOYNE: I have explained the structure of the bill in the second reading response. I really do not have much more to add to it. There is a connection between those two domains through the age of consent. I have made that very clear; I have nothing more to add.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Attorney-General, I invite you to move amendment 59.3. That is where we are up to.
Dr TOYNE: I have introduced it already, I believe.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Just move the amendment.
Dr TOYNE: I thought I already had. Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 59.3. This amendment corrects a typographical error contained in the original bill which would have resulted in a reference to ‘an unlawful relationship’ in section 131A of the Criminal Code that proposes to amend the section 131A(2) so it correctly refers to ‘a relationship’.
Amendment agreed to.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Are there any other queries dealing with clauses 5 to 10? If not, the question is that clauses 5 to 10 with amendments …
Mr WOOD: Sorry, is that clause 5 to 10?
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Yes, I have stated it on several occasions.
Ms CARTER: Does that include with regards to clause 5, amendment 63.2?
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: I thought you had withdrawn it, sorry.
Ms CARTER: No, that was amendment 63.1.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Okay. You are moving amendment 63.2?
Ms CARTER: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 63.2. It is a proposed new section 129 for the act and I have distributed it to honourable members. Section 129 is to do with the concerns a lot of people in our community have that, by lowering the age of consent for consensual sex for males and females to 16, it removes some level of protection that arguably was there for young people - particularly young men - up until tonight, I guess. It removes a level of protection through the law with regards to sex for young men between the ages of 16 to 18. The amendment I am proposing to provides a level of protection for young people, male and female, who are aged 16 and 17; that is, they are still children, technically speaking.
In this amendment, I am saying that for young people aged 16 and 17, people who have sex with them cannot be more than four years older than them. I differ from the member for Greatorex in his view that young woman, in particular, choose partners who are much older than them. Certainly, from my experience as a young girl and from my peers at that age, even though we may not have been sexually active per se, our boyfriends were the same age as us. They were within our peer group. I suspect that research would show that, generally speaking across the board, young people are having relationships with other young people, not people who are a lot older than them.
Therefore, my amendment says that young 16-year-old and 17-year-old people can have sex with people who are within four years of their age. So, 16-year-olds can have sex with people aged 17, 18, 19 and 20, and 17-year-olds who can have sex with people who are 18, 19, 20 and 21. That offers them a level of so-called protection from the concern in the community - which is a very real concern – that, by lowering the age of consent for both males and females to 16, it opens the way for much older people to exploit their youth and to coerce them, and to have sex with young people.
This is a good amendment. We have already raised a concern that young girls, for many years now, have arguably been exploited to the same extent, that 16-year-old and 17-year-old girls have been legally allowed to be sexually active with people of any age for many years. That has been raised tonight as a concern: what are we doing to protect those young people? My amendment is for both males and females, and it is looking to provide a level of protection to them from the community’s concern that, by lowering the age of consent to 16 years, we will be providing an opportunity for much older adults to have sexual intercourse with young people. I believe that many in the community see that as something that is undesirable.
Dr TOYNE: I can assure the member for Port Darwin that we looked closely at this option. Essentially, if you are looking at how best to prevent an older person using a position of undue influence - whether that is a position of care, supervision or responsibility over that younger person’s life or part of it - or simply because they are older, more experienced and more mature than the younger person and able to influence them.
Essentially, the two broad options that we had were to look at an age differential, as you are suggesting. Yours was not the only proposal of this sort. There was a similar proposal suggesting a 10-year differential. The other approach would be to look at adults who were likely to have a particular ability to influence young people owing to their vocation or the situation of influence that they might have. We have already dealt with that amendment.
The reason that we are not supporting that approach of going to a differential is that it is arbitrary. You will, inevitably, end up with situations where an adult is three years and 11 months or four years and one month older than the victim, and they will be treated in totally different ways, even though they may be very similar in age. It would also be capable of sweeping up two young people who are in a genuine relationship of equal and loving care. That is the reason we were not attracted to that idea. It is a credible option, but we felt that, of the two options, it was better to look at defining situations, as you did, where the particular activity that relates the victim to the offender might have led to undue influence.
Mr WOOD: That is interesting, because much of our bill is based on the Western Australian bill, and it is that bill that put nearly exactly the same amendment into theirs. I quote from a paper I have, the Criminal Code (Western Australia), section 321, which is slightly different, but has the same intent - Child of or over 13 and under 16: sexual offences against:
… it is a defence to a charge under this section to prove the accused person –
That was the three-year rule inserted in 2002 by the Acts Amendment (Gay and Lesbian Law Reform) Act 2002. The speech by the Attorney-General, Jim McGinty, ALP, follows:
This amendment relates to the defence that is currently available to a person who sexually penetrates a child whose age is between 13 and 16 years. Currently, a person charged with that offence can, as a defence, plead that he believed, on reasonable grounds, the child was of or over the age of 16 years. We propose to qualify the availability of that defence. This has nothing to do with equality between gay and lesbian people and heterosexual people. It is simply a matter of ensuring that the defences under the Criminal Code are consistent. We are proposing to make the defence of an honest and reasonable belief available to only people of approximately the same age as the victim; that is, someone who is no more than three years older than the child.
Whilst I agree it is of a lower age, the intent is the same. I will quote a little further:
- What we are doing consistently throughout the act is tightening that defence to make it not as available as has been the case in the past. It tightens this defence and makes it available only to people of the same age as the victim - if I can use that broad description. It is a tightening-up clause. I know concern has been expressed by a number of members of the community that older, particularly predatory males, might seek to expose young people under the age of 16 to unsavoury behaviour. That is a defence that will be available only to someone who is roughly the same age as the victim; in other words, someone who is within three years of the age of the victim. I hope the amendment will enjoy the support of members opposite.
Attorney-General, whilst I agree it is dealing between 13 and 16, and not as this act says, over 16, I am concerned - and the member for Macdonnell was hinting at it – that, although we have introduced this section 128, ‘Sexual intercourse or gross indecency involving child over 16 years under special care’, the big gap in all this is that those children who are not under special care - the ones that we have now lowered the age for - I do not believe have much protection. The amendment of the member for Port Darwin has at least given some form of protection. I know there was an amendment that was being looked at that was having a 10-year differential. I would have supported that.
What concerns me is that we have made all these so-called increased penalties in the bill and we have done all this sort of stuff, and have lowered the age, but right in the middle is a gap. There is a gap for those children who cannot come under this. What about sexual intercourse or gross indecency involving a child over 16, full stop? Why isn’t that looked at? Why couldn’t a person who preys outside a school and just gets friendly with someone come under this? Wouldn’t they be excluded in this act? I just see it as a loophole that allows a particular offender to not be charged, because this act specifies who the persons would be who are charged.
The member for Port Darwin has introduced a sensible amendment which would at least try to limit people who could prey on young children. This is a really good and important amendment. If the Attorney-General does not believe this amendment is worth supporting, could you just tell me where a 40-year-old person who was not a person in authority would fit into a category there that they could be charged with? We are dealing with people in special care here. Can they basically have a relationship with a person over 16 now? Is there anything to protect someone preying upon a child aged between 16 and 18?
Dr TOYNE: Madam Deputy Chair, I do not know that I can say much more than we have said on these issues earlier in the debate. However, let us be clear. We have a whole raft of new, enhanced laws right across the board, up to 16 and, with this special category of kids who are in a vulnerable situation, because of having adults who can influence them through a relationship such as a supervisory or an instructional relationship – and include kids who have some disability and are in a care arrangement. We have taken the most vulnerable of that age group, or where that age group is in the more vulnerable situations, and provided further protection above the age of 16. However, the age of 16 is the age of consent, so the other major protection, of course, is if there is no consent, in which all of the sex offences such as rape and sexual assault offences come in. That is what the age of consent means: that you frame the laws around that age level. However, in our case, we felt that there is the need for protection above 16 in those situations that we have identified in the legislation.
Mr WOOD: Haven’t we now just lowered the age for males to 16? The ones who used to have that protection were those between 18 and 16 – those the law said it was an offence to have a homosexual relationship? We have taken that out now and I believe we have left the door open, you might say. There is nothing in here to stop predating of a young person of 16.
I would have thought that the member for Port Darwin’s amendment at least allowed a chance for a person not to be preyed upon. That is why this is an important amendment. I just think we have left this big gap there now. I would be really concerned about what these changes have done. They might have some increased penalties and all this, but I believe we have left an almighty big hole here for people to manipulate some of our children. That is the way I feel at the moment: you said we had lowered it however, I believe we have left those people now exposed to being preyed upon.
Dr TOYNE: I have very little more to add, Madam Deputy Chair. Yes, we may have lowered the age of consent for males for homosexual sex but we have raised it, potentially, for heterosexual sex because there was no age of consent for boys for heterosexual sex. It meant that 10-year-olds, 12-year-olds could potentially accede to that and it was not against any laws in our codes. I do not think there is much more we can progress on this because we have made our position pretty clear on this. We probably need to move on.
Ms CARTER: Minister, thank you for your comments earlier on, and I thank the member for Nelson for his words of support as well. With regards to this amendment, as you know, what is about to occur tonight is there will be a lowering of the age of consent for males to 16 years, which equalizes with females at 16 years. Many of us have acknowledged the concern in the community with regards to quite young people - 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds - and the positions they might find themselves in because of being exploited by people who have special relationships. This has been picked up in the legislation and I am glad that it has been and that you have taken on, for example, the issue of employers.
However, my concern is that other people could slip through the net because, with regard to special relationships, it has been defined quite clearly and quite succinctly and, arguably, fairly narrowly. There are people who could slip through the net with regards to exploiting their relationship - even though it might not be defined in the legislation as a special relationship - with young people. I am arguing these are people who are significantly older than the young person. It is my view that this amendment allows us to err on the side of caution, and I would encourage members to support it.
The minister very kindly wrote to me today with regard to this amendment, to outline some of the reasons why the government will not be supporting it. One of the reasons given was that there would be a need for the older person to satisfy, for him or herself, the age of the young person. To quote the letter: ‘This was considered to be an onerous step to have to take’. With regards to the issue - and it has already been mentioned tonight - of, for example, tobacco and alcohol use, we are all well aware of the fact that people who sell tobacco and alcohol must ask the young person their age and seek proof of identity. I would argue that, in regards to sex with a young person, it would not be an overly onerous task for an older person to establish the age of that young person. I would encourage people to support this amendment.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: The question is that the amendment be agreed to.
The committee divided:
Ayes 9 Noes 14
Mr Baldwin Mrs Aagaard
Ms Carter Mr Ah Kit
Mr Dunham Mr Bonson
Mr Elferink Dr Burns
Dr Lim Ms Carney
Mr Maley Mr Henderson
Mrs Miller Mr Kiely
Mr Mills Ms Lawrie
Mr Wood Mr McAdam
Ms Martin
Ms Scrymgour
Mr Stirling
Dr Toyne
Mr Vatskalis
Amendment negatived.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: The question now is that clauses 5 to 10 with amendments 59.1, 69 and 59.3 be agreed to.
Clauses 5 to 10, as amended, agreed to.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Members, with your concurrence, I propose that we suspend for a five minute comfort break. We will resume on the ringing of the bells.
The committee suspended.
The committee resumed.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: The committee has before it the Law Reform (Gender, Sexuality and De Facto Relationships) Bill 2003 (Serial 186), clauses 11 to 18.
Mr WOOD: May I speak on clause 10? I thought we adjourned.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: It was passed.
Mr Dunham: When?
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: I repeated several times.
Mr WOOD: I think it was adjourned. No, because that was part of that clause.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: No. Member for Nelson, for clarification’s sake, I repeated several times that we were dealing with clauses 5 to 10 together, conjoined as a result of the amendments. Before we suspended, I repeated the question of clauses 5 to 10 with amendments.
Mr WOOD: I am just asking because I was waiting for clause 10 and I presumed that, after that clause, we had time to pause.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: The question was put and voted on.
Mr DUNHAM: Madam Deputy Chair, there seems to be a degree of levity in the House that is inappropriate for this debate.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Member for Nelson …
Mr WOOD: Can I just ask for clarification then. Clause 8, amendment 59.3 was passed, was it?
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Yes.
Mr WOOD: No, I thought we finished the …
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: No, I stated on several occasions that, because we had conjoined amendments 66.1 to 66.17, we were dealing with clauses 5 to 10 together and all amendments therein. We dealt through the amendments before the Chamber, including the amendments from the member for Port Darwin and the Attorney-General that were contained within clauses 5 to 10. I also invited you to raise your withdrawn amendments, and stated on a couple of occasions that we were dealing with clauses 5 to 10.
Mr WOOD: Yes, and that is when I stood up and asked …
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Yes, and before we went to suspension I said the words: ‘The question is that clauses 5 to 10, with amendments 59.1, 69 and 59.3, be agreed to’ and that was voted on. So, we have actually passed clause 10. We are up to clauses 11 to 18.
Mr WOOD: Yes, Madam Deputy Chair, it is late at night, and I have these coming out my ears. It is fairly hard to follow some of this. I am not saying it is impossible, but it was clause 10 I would have been interested in discussing the ramifications of. I am just asking whether we could discuss clause 10.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Well, we have passed clause 10.
Mr WOOD: This is the section on incest, a fairly important area.
Mr Dunham: This has not been discussed.
Mr WOOD: I do not think it has been discussed.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: It has been passed.
Mr Dunham: We went to clause 8.
Mr WOOD: If I had known we were going past clause 10, I certainly …
Mr Dunham: We went to clause 8. We took 5 to 8 together.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: No, we took clauses 5 to 10 together. I repeated that on several occasions for clarification for members. That will be shown in the Hansard. It is by lead of the Attorney-General now as to whether or not he wishes to take …
Mr DUNHAM: Madam Deputy Chair, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would allow us to revisit clause 10 - which is a very important portion of the bill – and allow my colleague, the member for Nelson, to make some comments.
Mr HENDERSON: Can I just have two seconds to talk to the Attorney-General before we respond?
Mr WOOD: It will only take me one explanation, that is all. It is not an amendment.
Mr Dunham: He only needs a couple of minutes.
Ms Martin: You can do that in the third reading if you want to.
Dr TOYNE: Can the member just state his issue and we will just see what …
Mr WOOD (by leave): Thank you, Attorney-General. My worry about the incest section is that you have now changed it so it is equal. I presume that male and female are not separated in here. What was concerning me was that if, under proposed new section 134(1):
any person who has sexual intercourse with another person who is a close family member is guilty of a crime and liable for imprisonment for 14 years.
Incest - and please tell me if I am wrong - really is to prevent inbreeding - if I can call it that - by having a sexual relationship with someone in a lineal descent. If you had two male homosexuals who were brothers over the age of 18, does it become incest or is it a homosexual activity?
You have changed the act from what it was, to now, basically, not making any separation between who the person is, because you just say ‘with another person’.
Dr TOYNE: I am advised, to perhaps clear this up, that incest is intercourse with a close family member, male on male, female on female, or female on male. Therefore, it encompasses all sexual activity between close family members.
Mr WOOD: I suppose I was trying to get to the heart of why incest is a crime. I thought incest is a crime because you had a close relationship that could create a child ...
Mr Henderson: Are you suggesting it should not be?
Mr WOOD: No, no, I am just asking …
Mr Henderson: Well, let us get on with it!
Mr WOOD: … if male and male can have contact …
Mr Henderson: It is incest!
Ms Martin: You think it should be, Gerry?
Mr WOOD: No, no. I am saying if two people have a homosexual relationship outside of incest, that is okay. Two males now who have homosexual contact who are closely related but cannot, of course, create a child - because that is what I thought incest was to prevent - would get 14 years gaol.
Mr Henderson: It is still incest!
Mr WOOD: Yes. All right, I will leave it at that.
Clauses 11 to 18, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Part 3, amendments relating to Sexuality:
Clauses 19 and 20, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
New clause 20A:
Dr TOYNE: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 59.4. This amendment omits section 30 of the Anti-Discrimination Act and replaces it with a new section 30. The proposed new section does not substantially change the effect of the provision which is to provide exemptions to certain educational institutions to allow them to discriminate when enrolling students. The exemption applies to same-sex schools, religious schools, and schools for people with specific impairment. The proposed new section 30 has simply been redrafted to make it consistent with the proposed amendment to new section 37A of the act.
Amendment agreed to.
New clause 20A agreed to.
Clause 21:
Mr WOOD: Are we dealing with clause 21 inserting a new section 37, ‘Exemption – irrelevant criminal record’?
Dr TOYNE: I am moving amendment 59.5.
Mr WOOD: I was going to ask the Attorney-General why is it a ‘may discriminate’? Why shouldn’t it be a ‘must discriminate’ in this section. Wouldn’t it be better for the government to tell a person they ‘must discriminate’ against another person on the grounds of an irrelevant criminal record instead of ‘may’? So that they do check it?
Dr TOYNE: We are not making these provisions compulsory for particular church organisations. It is, essentially, up to them as to who they ultimately take into their employ and put into their organisation. Just as the entire exemption could be rejected by a particular church because they do not believe in the types of criteria that are available to them; for example, some churches I am aware of actually invite the participation of homosexual people in their organisation and are quite open and relaxed about that. Having those provisions there is just simply to say: ‘You may consider these various things in terms of satisfying yourself that the person is acceptable to the organisation and is safe to be caring for children’.
Mr DUNHAM: I refer to your second reading speech, Attorney-General, where you said:
- A potential employer cannot access those records without the consent of the potential employee.
I have two questions. First is: does that mean you can access the records of existing employees? Second: is it discrimination if the potential employee chooses not to give consent and you choose not to employ them?
Dr TOYNE: If you are employing someone or thinking of employing someone, the provision there is for the applicant to refuse to have that released to the …
Mr Dunham: Yes.
Dr TOYNE: That would be a factor that, I would imagine, the organisation would take into account if they are going to make a decision on that applicant.
To be clear on this, it is the irrelevant criminal record, which is things like spent convictions or charges that were not proceeded with - those areas rather than the actual criminal record of the person. In other words, convictions that continue or are currently on the person’s record.
Mr DUNHAM: Yes. I just want to be clear. If a potential employee asks for that consent, and consent it refused, that is an act of discrimination - or the employer can choose not to employ on the basis of non-consent?
Dr TOYNE: They can refuse to, yes.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Attorney-General, you have an amendment.
Dr TOYNE: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 59.5. This amends proposed new section 37A of the Anti-Discrimination Act, which provides an exemption for religious schools to enable them to discriminate in employment on the grounds of sexuality or religious belief or activity, providing this discrimination is in good faith to avoid offending the religious sensitivities of the people of a particular religion.
As originally drafted, proposed new section 37A applied to an educational institution wholly or mainly for students of a particular religion. During consultation with religious groups, some groups raised concerns about the application of this definition. They felt that it was a cumbersome definition that may prove difficult for some religious schools to establish.
There are some religious schools in the Northern Territory that are founded on a specific religion, although they accept students from other religions. It was not intended that such schools fall outside the application of section 37A.
To address these concerns, it is proposed to amend new section 37A so that it applies to educational institutions established or operating in accordance with the doctrine of a particular religion. Under this change, there will be no need for a school to count the numbers of students with a particular religion, or have a quota of students with that religion.
The proposed new section 37A is more flexible in that it can be applied according to the context. If the school is based on a general religious doctrine - for example, a general Christian doctrine - the question of whether discrimination will avoid offending the religious sensitivities of people of the particular religion will be determined by reference to the general religious principles of Christianity. If a school is based on a specific denomination of a wider religion - whether it be Catholic, Orthodox, Jewish, Pentecostal and so on - the question will be determined according to the doctrine of the specific religious denomination.
Mr WOOD: Attorney-General, what does ‘in the area of work in the institution’ mean? I am referring to what I said in my opening speech; for instance, could the gardener be included in that? Say the gardener was out there telling the kids that knocking off cars was a good idea, a great life, and that went against the school’s teaching. Would that be regarded as a person ‘in the area of work in the institution’?
Dr TOYNE: Yes. It is a broad definition of which areas of work, yes.
Mr WOOD: I support the amendment. I just need to make sure that, even though you have put that amendment in, if you read the whole thing:
- An educational authority that operates or proposes to operate an educational institution wholly or mainly for students of a particular religion may discriminate against a person in the area of work in the institution if the discrimination –
(a) is on the grounds of –
(ii) sexuality; and
(b) is in good faith to avoid offending the religious sensitivities of people of the particular religion.
Mr Stirling: They would not have got a job there in the first place.
Mr Elferink: It would be interesting if it makes theology testable in a court.
Mr WOOD: I just see that the doctrine of a particular religion may not be enough to avoid defending the religious sensitivities of people of a particular religion. Maybe I can quote from some of the statements that have been made by religious leaders lately on this bill. However, I just did not know whether the two matched up. If you think there is no problem, I will leave it as it is.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
New clause 21A:
Dr TOYNE: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 59.6. This amendment omits section 40(2) of the Anti-Discrimination Act and replaces it with a new section 40(2), (2A) and (2B). As with proposed new section 30 of the Anti-Discrimination Act, the proposed amendments do not substantially change the effect of section 40. This section provides for exemptions to certain educational institutions to allow them to discriminate when providing accommodation to students. The exemption applies to same-sex accommodation, accommodation for students of a particular religion, and accommodation for students with a specific impairment. The proposed new sections have simply replaced section 40(2) so that the section, as a whole, is consistent with the proposed amendment to new section 37A of the act.
Mr ELFERINK: The principal act of - I am just a little lost. I do not know if I have an accurate copy. Is that section 40 of the bill what we are talking about? Because I do not have a section (2) on my section 40. Is that on page 19 of this document?
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: What page are you referring to?
Mr ELFERINK: We were working off the document there, a list of amendments …
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Okay. It is on page 11 of that document.
Mr ELFERINK: Page 11.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: You will find it there in red.
Mr ELFERINK: Oh, yes, thank you. Sorry about that.
Clause 21A agreed to.
Mr WOOD: On that section, Attorney-General, can a nursing home …
Mr Stirling: It is gone!
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Member for Nelson …
Mr WOOD: No, I am still in that clause. I am not speaking to that amendment. We are still in clause 21?
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: We have actually replaced it. It has been dealt with. I know it is difficult and it is early in the morning now, but …
Mr WOOD: Madam Deputy Chair, we were dealing with clause 21A, is that correct?
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: We have dealt with it; it was passed. Which means we are now up to clause …
Mr WOOD: All right, I will speak on clause 22.
Clauses 22 to 26, by leave, taken together:
Mr WOOD: I will ask a question with regard to religious bodies that operate, say, nursing homes. Are they covered under any parts of these acts, Attorney-General, if they wish to discriminate?
Dr TOYNE: In the bill, clause 22, Religious bodies, amends section 51 of the principal act, the Anti-Discrimination Act – that is, exemptions can apply from the action of the Anti-Discrimination Act - by omitting paragraph (d) and substituting the following:
- (d) an act by a body established for religious purposes if the act is done as part of any religious
observance or practice.
That is fairly broad, and it would require an assessment if it became an anti-discrimination issue, as to what degree a nursing home was carrying out religious activities and, therefore, could attract that exemption. In other words, there would have to be a strong element of religious intent in the operation of that institution, and that would be the basis of any exemption allowing the religious organisation to refuse the homosexual person from working there.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, Attorney-General. The reason I was concerned is that I am not sure how much that would fit what you said in your second reading speech. Basically, the reason you were amending it was to say that equivalent matters that could have been provided by the government, for instance - and nursing homes would be one of those things - could not discriminate on the grounds for discriminating on here. You emphasised that the part we were tightening up on was, if the equivalent was done by a government body, you could not claim that. But then I would see some difficulty …
Dr TOYNE: That is consistent with what I have just said, which is that, if there was no overlay or strong element of religious observance or the belief system of that religion, inherent in the operation of the nursing home, then it is just a nursing home, and it comes under the same provisions as nursing home that would be run by the government. The organisation would have to argue that there is a strong element in the reason for that institution to exist - the nursing home - connected with the observance or the beliefs of that religion.
Mr DUNHAM: I confess that your same words caused me some concern as well. I was not thinking so much of nursing homes, but crisis accommodation, which is the example you have given in your second reading speech. I know plenty of crisis accommodation that discriminate on the basis of gender, that it is not merely for people escaping domestic violence, but specifically for women and children. I can understand that, but it would seem to fly in the face of your argument that all things are equal regarding gender, and that both men and women are subject to domestic violence and assault.
One would have thought that, if your crisis accommodation example that you used in your second reading speech was to hold valid in the intent of your bill - and that is to remove any legal distinction regarding a person’s gender - groups like Ruby Gaea and others would have to take anybody escaping domestic violence, not just women and children. You do not agree?
Dr TOYNE: I do not get your point; you are even more obtuse after 12 o’clock than you are before.
Mr DUNHAM: My point is that we have a bill before us that seeks to remove gender and says that anybody can be in a relationship, anybody can be violated, and there can be domestic violence for anybody. We have not said our shelters, for instance – and you have used crisis accommodation as one of your examples - and some of those are very discriminatory on the basis of gender. I can understand it; I do not have a problem with it. All I am saying is it would seem to be that your example flies in the face of the intent of your bill, and I would ask for your comment on that.
Dr TOYNE: I am advised that under the existing provisions of the Anti-Discrimination Act, section 58, Accommodating special needs unreasonable:
- (1) A person may discriminate against another person who has a special need with respect to a matter that is otherwise prohibited under this act if –
(b) it is unreasonable to require the person to supply the special services or facilities.
In effect, what it is saying is that it is recognised under the Anti-Discrimination Act that there are certain services that would need to be targeted to a specific needs base. That could be gender based, or that you are actually providing crisis accommodation for women and kids, as the example is in the main act. That is no way inconsistent with the issues of equity that we have introduced in the bill; it simply says that, across the range of services that are applied to a community, there is a case allowed under the Anti-Discrimination Act to have particular organisations specialise in the different areas of need, some of which might involve targeting a particular gender or age group or any different area. I do not think they are inconsistent at all.
Mr DUNHAM: I do not have any problem with their basis to discriminate. In fact, that is how I started my debate. All I am saying is that if you are choosing to have such a lofty ideal as to eradicate all discrimination on the basis of gender, you have to introduce those issues in the debate.
In introducing crisis accommodation, I know, for instance, the men’s shelter run by St Vincent de Paul in Stuart Park is exactly that: a men’s shelter. I can understand why you have segregation of gender, but it is incumbent on you, if you are going to produce a bill like this to say that those matters pale into insignificance given our quest for anti-discrimination, to explain why that might be so.
It is not good enough just to say: ‘Well, the Anti-Discrimination Act has it’. The Anti-Discrimination Act also has the fact that same-sex couples and singles cannot avail themselves of reproductive technology. It is not good just to say: ‘The Anti-Discrimination Act is wrong in this area, but it is sitting in there and it is okay with me on this’. If you are going to present this debate as a comprehensive run through 150 pieces of legislation, and eradicate any mention of discrimination on the basis of gender, you have to bring that to this debate and tell us why discrimination is acceptable in some circumstances.
I am easily convinced because I believe, as I said at the outset, there is a need for discrimination, particularly on the base of gender. In fact, nature even does that. However, it is up to you to tell us, having does this extensive trawl through all the Northern Territory government legislation, which bits you have left out.
Dr TOYNE: Madam Deputy Chair, I am certainly not going to launch into a far-reaching debate on this issue. What we are talking about in this legislation is the principle of equity, and it is very strongly represented through the bill. However, like all principles, it has to be balanced against each context in which it is going to operate.
The very clause that we are discussing at the moment is one area where we feel that there is a case for a reduced form of discrimination to continue to operate; that is, in religious institutions. There is a very good reason; freedom of religion is guaranteed under our Constitution in Australia. You have to be very careful that the issues aimed at equity within the community are not impacting on an equally important principle; that is, the freedom of religion.
Therefore, this is very clear case where we are striking a balance between not allowing discrimination for its own sake but not, on the other hand, applying a common principle of equity to the point where it does intrude on the belief system of religion. We do not want to do that, and these clauses are dealing with that boundary and that balance point that we are trying to find.
Mr WOOD: I would like to go back to that proposed new section 51(d) under clause 22. The member for Drysdale took a different tack, but I am still concerned when I read (d). It relates more or less to, as you say, appointment, training, or ordination of persons to perform religious functions. It only modifies exemptions slightly, to restrict it to other acts by religious bodies and matters of religious observance. That surely would not cover the Methodist nursing home, the St Vincent de Paul Society or one of their operations. Are you saying that a religious nursing home would not be able to discriminate on who it could employ?
Dr TOYNE: I have answered this one. I have nothing more to say.
Clauses 22 to 26 agreed to.
Part 4, amendments relating to De Facto Relationships:
Clauses 38 to 87, by leave, taken together:
Mr WOOD: Madam Deputy Chair, I would just like to talk about clause 39, proposed new section 5DA, Rule relating to parentage – female de facto partners. Attorney-General, could you give me the status of IVF in the Northern Territory at the present time. Are people able to access that particular treatment?
Dr TOYNE: Yes, my understanding is yes. I am sure the Health minister would give us a lot better idea on it.
Mr WOOD: In relation to this section of the act, female de facto - between two lesbians?
Members interjecting.
Mr WOOD: I am talking about this section. That is all I want to know.
Ms Martin: I thought you said ‘people’.
Mr WOOD: My apologies. Minister, I suppose I have difficulty with the parents - I call this the mum-and-mum act. You are now allowing a person who is partner to become a non-biological parent. Why could not that person have been a carer or a guardian and allowed the child to basically have a mum and dad, even though they did not know the dad - and that is one of the problems of IVF, you have anonymous donors. Why did you have to recognise that person as a parent, not a carer or a guardian? For instance, say this was a person who had a fertilisation procedure and went and lived with grandma who looked after her. Would grandma then become a parent if they wanted to or does it have it …
A member: She is a grandma.
Mr WOOD: Does she become a parent? Because that is what we are saying. We are changing the definition of parent. Basically, why couldn’t the non-biological partner be called something else and still allow that child to have some of the benefits that you are bringing to account when changing the definition.
Dr TOYNE: I guess, all through this debate, I do not feel as preoccupied with who is a proper parent, who is not a proper parent, and what name you call people. What this is about is to make sure that kids - any kid in the Northern Territory - has the maximum amount of formally recognised care and carers, regardless of what the origins of that arrangement is - whether it is a de facto arrangement, same sex, other sex, or a marriage. We have to look after these kids and provide the same legal rights and entitlements of both that child and the people in that carers or parenting role - the adults who have legal responsibilities for their upbringing - in the bringing up of those kids. That is what we care about.
The idea that there are going to be kids around in the Northern Territory who have something less than that sort of security for their upbringing and for their adult care - whatever you want to call it, I do not care. Pick anything out of the dictionary, I do not care, as long as these kids are given the maximum possible, legal binding, adult responsibility for their upbringing. That is what we are wanting to achieve.
We do not have IVF for same-sex couples in the Northern Territory, but many other states do. There is occasionally, probably very rare - I cannot give you the numbers of kids who will be being brought up in this sort of situation in the Northern Territory. It is important that they are covered; that they have the same, as I have said, guaranteed arrangements for upbringing as any other kid.
Mr WOOD: Madam Deputy Chair, I just want to make the comment that if we had covered it with ‘domestic co-dependents’, we would have covered that.
Clauses 38 to 87 agreed to.
Schedule 1:
Dr TOYNE: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 59.7. This amendment inserts a new Part 6A into Schedule 1 of the bill so as to amend section 19(1)(a) of the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act. This is the reference in this section to ‘father and mother’ and replaces it with a reference to ‘parents’. This amendment, along with the amendments to the Births, Deaths, Marriages Registration Regulations in Schedule 2, will address the practicalities of implementing the proposed amendments to the Status of Childrens Act which will create an assumption of parentage in the consenting same-sex de facto partner of a woman who has had a child by fertilisation procedure. The amendment was identified as necessary by the Registrar-General during the consultation process so that the same-sex partner, a woman, can appear on the birth certificate as a parent, rather than as a father. The act is not amended to change the reference to mother where it relates to the birth mother.
This amendment will not affect the rights of heterosexual parents to appear on their child’s birth certificate as mother and father. It is acknowledged that it would be inappropriate and offensive not to recognise the parental roles of heterosexual parents. The intention is to have a completely separate type of birth certificate for children of same-sex parents under the Status of Children Act. It will not change the current birth certificates at all with regards to heterosexual parents.
Mr MILLS: Does this mean that a child could have two birth certificates?
Dr TOYNE: No, that is not correct. It is one or the other. They will either be registered on the normal birth certificate, mother and father, or there will be parents listed on this very rare occasion.
Mr MILLS: So the situation where the father would not appear is where that child is born via IVF? That is the only case?
Dr TOYNE: Yes, that is right.
Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 2:
Mr DUNHAM: I did pose a question to the minister during my contribution to the debate. It was about the domestic violence regulations. It is my reading that the change actually provides less security to people in the domestic violence situations, other than those in a homosexual situation, than was the case hitherto.
I would like the minister to comment on that because it would seem that there is a very broad and generic definition that is being deleted, and the definition that is being inserted in its stead is ‘de facto’ which has a definitional aspect that we have gone through. I would have thought that it provides less security, particularly to women, in a domestic violence situation.
Dr TOYNE: Madam Deputy Chair, the suggestion that the old definition of ‘de facto’ in the legislation includes the domestic violence regulations is incorrect. The definition previously was quite narrow. It only applied to people living in heterosexual relationships as though they were married. This is because, generally, they required persons living with a person of the opposite sex, as if he or she were their spouse. The definition did not extend to people just living together as housemates and so on.
Mr ELFERINK: I am going to take a little liberty here, with your indulgence, Madam Deputy Chair. I am going to make some comments on the next few things that the Attorney-General is going to pass.
Very quickly, I was always concerned that this was being rushed through, and it has been, which is evidenced by the large numbers of amendments to the original bill that the Attorney-General brought into this House. The amendments, for argument’s sake in Schedule 2, are the bits marked in red.
It is just a nuisance that we have to go through this process. One of the reasons why I wanted this to go to a select committee was so that we would not have rafts of last-minute amendments. The way this works is that the Attorney-General comes in with his amendment, drops it on the Table, gives a quick spiel, and we are supposed to know exactly what the contents and the effects of these amendments are almost instantly. It is not a good way to go through the legislative process.
When you hurry legislation of this nature and do not consult properly, you end up with this problem of bringing in these last-minute amendments. I know the government has its agenda but, if you are not going to allow a select committee process, you are not going to allow a process of proper research and examination. We have to do this now at 1.30 am and we are still going, and we have to still concentrate on pages and pages of amendments. It is just bloody poor form, quite frankly.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Be careful with unparliamentary language, member for Macdonnell.
Mr DUNHAM: Madam Deputy Chair, I am still not satisfied with the minister’s answer because he said it did not apply to people like housemates. Well, the clause that is replacing the deleted one does not apply to housemates either; it applies to de facto partners. I can understand that there is an argument about homosexual people not being covered under the current legislation. Putting that aside, I would have thought that a heterosexual relationship has less security under the arrangement than is the case hitherto. The case I am putting to the minister is: I can well understand that he wants to amend it to give homosexual relationships some security about matters relating to domestic violence, but my argument is that heterosexual relationships have less security under his arrangement as is proposed, than they did previously.
Dr TOYNE: I have been given some other information about this. The effect of the reforms to the Domestic Violence Act before us will give homosexual people equal access to restraining orders and the same protections under the law. Currently, a restraining order can be taken out by a homosexual person against another person they have had a de facto relationship with. However, heterosexual people can take out restraining orders against a boyfriend or girlfriend they have had a relationship with, even if they have not lived with them. This additional protection will be extended to same-sex relationships.
Mr DUNHAM: So that is not in this act, that is in a different act? Right.
Dr TOYNE: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 59.8. This amendment omits and replaces Part 9 of Schedule 2 of the bill, which amends the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Regulations similar to the amendment effected in Schedule 1.
Amendment agreed to.
Dr TOYNE: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 59.9. This amends Part 21 of Schedule 2 of the bill which amends the Housing Assistance Schemes Regulations. This corrects a typographical error that should have omitted and replaced a reference to ‘the spouse’, that mistakenly referred to ‘a spouse’.
Amendment agreed to.
Dr TOYNE: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 59.10. This inserts new Part 47 into Schedule 2 to include an amendment to the Yugul Mangi Community Government Scheme - it is very early in the morning for these sort of words – that was overlooked during the development of the bill. This scheme has been recently replaced, and clause 52(2) provides that a spouse of a candidate cannot be appointed as a polling official. The proposed amendment will extend the application to section 52(2) to de facto partners of candidates as well.
Mr ELFERINK: This illustrates my point, Madam Deputy Chair. The problem we have here is that, as the shadow for Local Government as well as Aboriginal Affairs, I have written to all of the local government community councils which have had their regulations changed as a result of this act - some 47 of them from the top of my head. The problem is that this bill was dropped five weeks ago. You do your homework, your research in the first couple of weeks and get a letter out. That letter then goes to the Post Office and sits in the mail bag for a week before it reaches the community. Then the community has to wait for the next community council meeting. They can then discuss the effects of these changes on their community government council regulations. It then sits in a mail bag for a few days, finds its way back to the Post Office back to me. Naturally, I do not have a response back yet, not a written response. I have a verbal response. This is part of the consultation issue here. Could the minister advise whether or not the Yugul Mangi Community Government Council has been advised as to these changes in their legislation and how they operate?
Apparently not. I would like to know if somebody changed the acts that govern the Northern Territory?
Dr TOYNE: The Local Government department was informed to take that through to the councils.
Mr ELFERINK: I will ask the question again. Can you advise me whether or not they have actually been advised? I can tell you, the one response I got was that they were supposed to have been advised. They clearly indicated to me that the only advice that they received was the member for Nelson’s letter, and my own letter, which was quite benign next to the member for Nelson’s. I did my letter and stapled your second reading speech to it. They had no other idea that this stuff was happening. I am curious as to whether you can stand up in this parliament and tell me that 47-odd local government community schemes, which have been changed by this action here - have those local government councils, in the last five weeks, been told that the changes occurred and the substance of those changes?
Dr TOYNE: I cannot advise you one way or the other right here and now. I can get back to you and let you know.
Mr ELFERINK: Why not? This is concerning. You are asking me to vote and pass this piece of legislation, which will change a community government council scheme, and then you will let me know whether you will let them know.
That is the problem with rushing this sort of legislation. For God’s sake, there is still time, let us hand it to a select committee, because what you are doing is not reflective of the concepts and ideas discussed in the community government council meeting that was held at Jabiru. Their recommendations are quite different to what is going on here. This is the equivalent of the Commonwealth government changing the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act, and then saying: ‘Oh, by the way, we will let you know at some time. We are not entirely sure, but we have let them know in the first place’.
Dr TOYNE: It has been pointed out to me that these changes within the schedules applying to the community government councils is dealing with an issue of conflict of interest. It is, essentially, saying that we have to identify and prevent any partner of a candidate for the council serving on the council. It is a conflict of interest issue, which applies equally across all the councils.
We do a lot of legislation in this House that will impact on particular individuals or organisations throughout the Territory. We do not go out every time there is a legislative change put through this Chamber, and tell every single one of them that there is going to be this impact. We would get two of these done a year if we did that, you know that. We will make sure that the Department of Local Government and the councils are aware of the change. It is change that is dealing with a conflict of interest situation.
Mr ELFERINK: Hallelujah! We have changed the law and we are not going to let anybody know. This is our new consultative government. Hand this to a select committee. It is not too late. Send it to a select committee. Let us go out there and talk to these communities government councils. Let us go and consult with the community properly and let us at least get some straight answers from the minister, so he can tell us in this House that he has actually told people what he is doing.
Mr DUNHAM: There is an irony here, and that is that, while we go to great lengths to say that Aboriginal people are a bit different, and we will have a look at different issues that relate to them, when it comes to their community government schemes - and these are sometimes negotiated over a matter of some years - you are making the assumption that they do not know what these words mean.
You are intervening and saying: ‘Even though at Daly River they think they meant the spouse, they really meant the spouse of the de facto’. I can tell you that is the most patronising thing I have heard in my life. They might know full well what ‘the spouse’ means. They might have exactly chosen that expression because it is well known to the community. For you to say that this is a generic thing and applies across to all of them - each community government scheme is different. Each community government scheme is discussed at some length. Each community government scheme has some definitional issues in there that are well known to the people and it relates to boundaries, voting and everything else.
For you to say in a pompous way in this House: ‘Those people out there at Daly River really do not know what they meant by “the spouse” so I am going to tell them’, is the closest thing to paternalism that I have ever seen. It is all very well for you to say: ‘That was for local government to send that letter out’, but Housing Commission has to send out housing letters. We have changed the Traffic Act. We have changed the Work Health Act. We have changed acts relating to mining.
What you are saying is that you have given this a shot and all those acts – the 35 major acts, the 47 schedule 1 acts, and the 45 items of subordinate legislation – all of those people will find out by some percolation process through the relevant departments. I do not think it is good enough, minister. If you are going to change community government schemes, if you are going to serious about Aboriginal self-management and self-determination, if that is not rhetoric - and if you are going to be genuine about these being the basis on which these communities run, akin to our Self-Government Act, I would have expected that you at least talk to them and you do not make some white fellow paternalistic decision about whether they understand what a spouse means or not.
Amendment agreed to.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, we have just been torturing ourselves and the government for several hours about a bill that has been extremely controversial in the public arena. I am still concerned that this bill is inaccurate and incomplete, not because I know it, but I have known that, in the space of five weeks, the minister himself has had to come in here with numerous amendments to the bill.
This bill has been hurried. This bill has been pushed through. As a consequence of the way that this government has drawn together issues such as offences surrounding child sex offences, the age of consent and the recognition of homosexual or same-sex de facto relationships and further relationships, they have drawn these three things together to mush it up into a bill.
As I have said, and as I have heard many people say tonight, I do not have a major problem with large slices of what is trying to be done here. However, this government has insulted the community of the Northern Territory by the way that they wrapped this up together and intermingled it in such a way as to tie, for some reason, same-sex relationships in with child sex offences. Why would that appear in the same bill? What on earth was the government thinking when they wrapped those two things up? Surely, the gay and lesbian community are asking that question: ‘Why are you tying those two issues up?’ It is something that is already in the mind of the government, so there is a presumption.
However, there are other issues in this bill that I could easily support, but I cannot. Because of one cancerous cell in the liver, we now have to cut the whole liver out, and that is an awful shame. But that is politics, and that is the way that this government has chosen to approach the people of the Northern Territory on this deeply divisive moral issue.
Then, to walk in here and say: ‘Oh no, we are all of one mind; we are all one big bunch of happy campers. There is no doubt about that fact that we really support this bill; without any fear or favour. We are happy, happy, happy, that we are of one mind on this issue’. Rubbish! Absolute rubbish! You are not of one mind. I would love to hear - and I remind the members for Casuarina, Nightcliff, Johnston, Barkly, Arafura, Millner, and Sanderson - each and every one of you still have a chance at this point - at this late stage - to defeat this bill. The next vote we take is the vote which pushes this bill into law. We still have a chance to send it to a select committee. We still have a chance to create a process which is acceptable to all Territorians.
Therefore, I urge and plead again one last time: where is your conscience, for those of you who have sat silent? If you are comfortable with this, then at least stand up in parliament, take your two seconds and say, hand on your heart: ‘I, the member for Nightcliff, am comfortable with this particular bill,’ or, ‘I, the member for Johnston, am comfortable with this particular bill’. At least put it on the record. But to sit there and remain utterly dumb is an insult to Territorians and to your electorates.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I would just like to sum up as well. I suppose there are times when you can argue with as much logic as you like, and I have tried to do that tonight. There are times when one gets a gut feeling - some people might call it intuition - that there is something wrong. It is the sort of thing that has been keeping me up probably, for the last three weeks until 2 am - this bill.
Mr Elferink: You have done it again today!
Mr WOOD: Yes, I should be just about waking up by now.
I believe it is bad legislation. I cannot argue with it. I can give all the logic I like, and I have heard all the people say I am wrong, wrong, wrong. However, there are times when you know things are wrong, and this is bad legislation.
That is not to say gay people should not have rights. I put forward a proposal that I believe was a good proposal, to give them those rights and to make sure other people were not discriminated as well.
However, we also have to look after our young kids. I see those kids playing football and I look at them now, and say: ‘What sort of law have we left them?’ They are 14 or 15 now. What sort of law have we left them? We are a parliament that has a duty of care. I believe we have failed with that duty of care today. The member for Port Darwin gave us the one last hope with that amendment, to at least have some safety net for those kids, and it was rejected. The member for Macdonnell brought in the idea of equality which we were arguing about, which was to raise the limited of age of consent to 18. For sure, kids would have sexual relationships underneath that age, but it started to at least raise the defence that you could not have sex with somebody of 14. There were good points there that I thought people who were concerned about young people would support.
I am concerned that Aboriginal people were not fully involved in this, because many Aboriginal people - the people I know - are about family, and kids growing up. These matters we discussed today are serious matters, and we have not given them the light of day except for my letter …
Ms Scrymgour: There are a lot of gay and lesbian black people out there, too.
Mr WOOD: Thank you. I am not saying anything against what you said, but there are an awful lot of families, and families I know.
Madam Speaker, I just think that this is a bad bill. I have given my reasons why during the debate. There is an argument that governments reflect society and I say that is not the role always. Government has a role to lead, that is why we are here. People look up to us to us to see whether we uphold values we believe in, and I do not think we have done that today. I do not think we have supported our mums and dads and families as the cornerstone of our society. We forgot to tell our kids that sex is not a toy to be fooled around with and our laws will protect them whilst, at the same time, saying that certain sexual activity is not okay. We should be showing leadership, not based on fashion but on value that protected our society over many years.
Sadly, I believe our government has not shown leadership. It has shown followship. It is the sheep, not the shepherd. I just hope one day - and I will do my best as long as I am in parliament - to reverse these laws to put in place a domestic co-dependence bill which will give rights to gay people and other people and, at the same time, protect families and children and marriage and de facto relationships as we know them today. We owe that to people in the Territory. It is time we tried to lift our values, not lower them.
Mr AH KIT (Arnhem): Madam Speaker, I will not be too long. I said today in earlier debates, where I took issue with the member for Nelson and also members opposite who criticised the government for getting this bill or what is about to be legislation, wrong. I made it very clear that the position that was being put by the member for Nelson and the opposition was that this legislation seeks to equate Aboriginal customary marriages with same-sex relationships. I claimed that it was wrong, wrong, wrong. I said that the truth is this: there is no connection whatsoever, anywhere in this legislation, that equates same-sex relationships with customary marriage and to suggest otherwise is humbug. The spreading of this humbug through Aboriginal communities of the Northern Territory is disgraceful and, in my view, designed to deliberately distort the real advantages this legislation presents to indigenous Territorians. The spreading of this humbug has been deliberately formulated to foster ignorance.
I went on and said there could be no other conclusion but that the member for Nelson has been quite deliberate in the distortions he has peddled. He said in the debate that he might be wrong, and I will come to the consultation stage shortly. I went on and explained the specific explicit reference to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander customary marriage to sex in clause 28 of the Law Reform Bill at new section 3(2), completely separate from the subsection 1, which makes no reference at all to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander customary law.
In other words, I stressed there is no logical connection, as is so wrongly claimed by the member for Nelson, between customary marriage and same-sex relationships. Even more explicit, clause 36 of this reform bill which makes amendments to section 19 of the Interpretation Act makes it absolutely clear an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander customary marriage will be viewed under law as identical in status to a valid marriage under the 1961 Commonwealth Marriage Act.
Madam Speaker, I finished by saying it does not equate same-sex relationships with customary marriage. What this legislation does, plain and simple, is to recognise the equality under the Northern Territory law of customary marriage. Some members opposite, and the member for Nelson, have a different point of view, and we will see who is right and who is wrong at the end of the day. However, I was somewhat disappointed by the comments made by the member for Nelson when he stated here quite clearly that I was a disgrace to my race …
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I do not believe I did say that and I did apologise if I did say it. That is what I believe. If the member for Arnhem will not accept that apology, then I cannot help it.
Mr AH KIT: Madam Speaker, he did acknowledge he said it and I accepted his apology. However, that hurt is still with me. I felt that after 30-odd years …
Mr Dunham: Then stop bashing up Richard about being Chinese.
Mr AH KIT: … that I have busted my guts for Aboriginal people and Territorians, that I get insulted in the way that has happened in this Chamber as being a disgrace to my race.
The member for Drysdale should just sit down and listen for a minute because what they have is double standards. They are very selective - and this includes the member for Nelson - on what did you do in government and where was his position when we had the discussion and the debate on mandatory sentencing? Did you go out and consult?
Members interjecting
Mr AH KIT: Hang on! Listen up! Did you go out and consult? Did you consult on the native title proposed act that you were bringing in? Did you consult on that? No. Did you consult about the constitutional convention that was held in this very Chamber? No! You went out, you stacked it, and you got done. So, do not come in here with double standards …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker. The third reading speech is very succinct in how it may be pursued and the conversation must relate to the bill before the House.
Madam SPEAKER: You are quite right. Keep your remarks to the bill. You only have a short time left.
Mr AH KIT: Madam Speaker, my claim is that there are double standards and selective processes in place by these gatekeepers across the road here on how they supposedly have this newfound love for Aboriginal affairs, where they are very worried about the consultation processes.
Listen up, fellas, you have a bit to learn. We will consult, and we will do it properly. We will continue to consult because your record of wanting to take away all those hard-fought rights over the years has failed. That is why you are sitting on that side and we are sitting on this side.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, it is an indicator in this debate when the member for Arnhem stands up and says we will see who is right and who is wrong. This is not a debate about rightness and wrongness. This is a debate about humans. Humans will insist on being people and you will find a great plurality of views.
I do not think we have to come to an accommodation in this room where everybody signs off exactly the same. In fact, it is bizarre that the members opposite would portray the 13 of them as having exactly the same point of view on something that is topical and different right across society.
This is not an argument about rightness and wrongness. It is an argument about tolerance. It is an argument about being tolerant in our society to accept people who have different values and ethics, and people who want recognition for their status. That was an argument put to us by the gay reform lobby, but it is also an argument that can apply to my colleague from Nelson.
All his saying is that he has a point of view and maybe you should hear it. If you want to run this debate and say its right or its wrong, see no evil, hear no evil, to gag him, to belittle him and whenever anybody has an alternative point of view, to use the word ‘homophobe’ in a very dismissive way, is not good for debate.
You would probably find that there is great scope for accommodation of a lot of the things we are talking about here. However, if you come up with such a complex piece of legislation and you sit any group of 14, 15 or 100 people in a room, you are never going to get total support for it. Therefore, the position that the Labor Party has put of all of them - surprisingly and coincidentally - coming to the same point of view on legislation - the Attorney-General changed and they have exactly the same point of view on the new legislation - is just a bit too cute. That just cannot happen.
What we are saying is that we have a role in this place. I may not agree with some of the things that were said here, but we do have a right to hear them. We also have a right to hear the people who put us here. To make assumptions about rightness and wrongness, and that we discriminate in this area but not in that area, is a bit trite. The minister has been too devious by half. What he has attempted to do is appease a small group - that is politics, I do not have a problem with that. In doing so, what he is trying to do is cobble in issues relating to child sex abuse and deviates. In doing so, he is now trying to say there is a massive cleavage in there and woebetide anybody who believes there is a nexus between gay law reform and devious sexual behaviour.
This is not about the young and the restless. This is about the devious and the deviant; and he is the devious. The Attorney-General’s position on this has been all over the place. His description of illicit sexual behaviour, and to run that cheek-by-jowl with homosexual law reform, has put him in the position of creating a very divisive and, potentially, volatile environment. He knows that this is a divisive issue and, instead of looking for a way of talking to and hearing the community, he is going to run this through. He is going to stampede this debate through. I just think it is a shame that this practice should happen in this House. It is a shame for how we go back and talk to our electorates.
We had our little diatribe from the member for Arnhem who has tried to run some other little aside, and we have had total, stony silence from a number of members who should speak on this. They should speak because the bill calls up statutes that they are responsible for - the bill calls up responsibility areas. I would have hoped that the Chief Minister would have made a contribution to this debate, and her silence is absolutely deafening. I would have thought that, if this was of the standard of priority that has been parlayed to us, that it would be an issue that a lot of people would have no worries about contributing to. I am immensely proud of some of the contributions that have been made, and I am immensely disappointed that some of the contributions that should have been made, have not been.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, today we have achieved a significant breakthrough in the equity offered to our gay and lesbian community here in the Northern Territory, under the law of the Northern Territory. I am very proud of that, and of being the Attorney-General who had the honour of bringing these reforms in. Equally importantly, we now have a comprehensive and complete set of protection for our children from child sex offences. I believe that, from inheriting a very incomplete and inconsistent set of laws, we now have a set of laws that we can rely on to protect our children from these terrible offences that have occurred in the Territory all too often in the past.
I am very proud of my colleagues and that we have tackled some very difficult issues in this legislation. We have shown true leadership in tackling issues that many governments would not have been game to have a go at. These are issues that needed sorting. They are not the only issues, as we are well aware, that face the Territory. We are working just as hard on many other issues of both social and economic significance. However, it does not detract from the significance of the reforms we have brought through tonight.
I would also like to give our thanks to the support that was shown by other members of the House and to the general integrity of their contributions to this very long debate. This is a defining moment in the issues that we have been dealing with today. I have no concerns about the integrity of the package or its benefit to the Northern Territory. I am proud to be standing here closing this debate, and I am very pleased to see this legislation in place in the Northern Territory.
Madam SPEAKER: The question is that the bill be now read a third time.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 15 Noes 9
- Mrs Aagaard Mr Baldwin
Mr Ah Kit Mr Burke
Mr Bonson Mr Dunham
Dr Burns Mr Elferink
Ms Carney Dr Lim
Ms Carter Mr Maley
Mr Henderson Mrs Miller
Mr Kiely Mr Mills
Ms Lawrie Mr Wood
Mr McAdam
Ms Martin
Ms Scrymgour
Mr Stirling
Dr Toyne
Mr Vatskalis
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
DE FACTO RELATIONSHIPS (NORTHERN TERRITORY REQUEST) BILL
(Serial 182)
(Serial 182)
Continued from 15 October 2003.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, a bizarre cognate bill, I have to tell you, calling it on like this. Anyway, I tried to give notice that I had an amendment to this bill and the amendment is in the spirit of eradicating matters of discrimination. However, I have to say first I have never seen a bill of this type in the entire time I have had anything to do with parliaments.
Essentially, what this bill is asking the Commonwealth to do is amend an act that it does not want to amend. Therefore, it is a hostile referral from a Territory parliament to a Commonwealth parliament. I have never seen something like that. I have seen a remonstrance, petitions, letters, ministerial delegations and lobbying. I have even seen ministerial councils where the vote has gone entirely against the Commonwealth. There are a variety of mechanisms for states and territories to express dissatisfaction with the current state of Commonwealth laws. However, I have never seen a situation where a Northern Territory parliament passes an act which, essentially, is expressing displeasure in a Commonwealth act and requesting the Commonwealth to change it because we do not like it.
When I sought legal advice on this, I was told that it was a referral of powers act, probably akin to the corporations statutes that went through some years ago, in which there was an elaborate dance where the Commonwealth took on powers and the states, at the same time, referred powers. At the end of the day, everybody was happy.
This is not an act of that type. The minister says so, virtually, in describing it, and I quote from Hansard debates of 15 October:
- Unfortunately, at this stage the Commonwealth has indicated that it is not prepared to accept referrals from the states and requests from the territories in relation to same-sex de facto relationships. The Commonwealth holds the view that same-sex relationships do not deserve the same level of recognition as heterosexual relationships and that it is acceptable to discriminate on the basis of sexuality in this case.
It further goes on to let the cat out of the bag in that this is definitely a political stunt, because he also said:
… the requests will remain until there until a Commonwealth government that is willing to take the stand against discrimination agrees to legislate for same-sex persons.
On that basis, there are other more pressing Commonwealth statutes that we should be seeking to amend, if it turns out that this is a good route to take. For instance, we know that we would prefer to have more Commonwealth representation including, two House of Representative members. Perhaps that is one of the things that the Attorney-General could be looking at. He could be looking at other bills where the Territory is discriminated against regarding our potency in the political arena. However, the one I have chosen in the event that this is a successful strategy is the Aboriginal Land (Northern Territory) Rights Act.
That is particularly discriminating legislation on about five counts. First, it is a Commonwealth statute that only applies to one jurisdiction. It is only us that has it. It discriminates against the Northern Territory in economic and other ways. Second, it discriminates against Aboriginal people because, if there are people of Aboriginal descent and they live in the Pit Lands and can traverse across three states, they have certain rights in the Territory that they do not have in Western Australia and South Australia; so it discriminates geographically. Third, it discriminates on the basis of tenure. It provides the basis of tenure for land that is not available in any other state or jurisdictions; and that is Aboriginal freehold in perpetuity.
There are a number of factors of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act that maybe, if it is so good, for the benefit of Aboriginal people, it could be provided in other states. Maybe, given the notions of pan-Aboriginality that seem to be in flavour with the Commonwealth government at the time, Aboriginal people in the Territory should enjoy the same rights in other states, and vice versa.
In the interests of testing whether this is a good idea, and not wanting to miss the boat, I thought that what we should do is seek to alleviate discrimination also in this very important area that is probably a higher priority status than the de facto relationships issue that the Attorney-General sees as important. Therefore, I signal that I have several amendments that I believe are in the spirit of what the Attorney-General is trying to do; that is, to eradicate discrimination where it is unfair.
If you look at the bill, it is pretty simple, really. There is not much to it. It is fairly easy reading compared to the one we have just waded through. Basically, it has a simple request and, as I said, this could have been done by way of remonstrance, petition, letter, or delegation. Essentially, it says this Assembly is requesting:
… the parliament of the Commonwealth to enact legislation in respect of –
reason of death) of de facto relationships between persons of different sexes; and
- (b) financial matters relating to de facto partners arising out of the breakdown (other than by
reason of death) of de facto relationships between persons of the same sex.
It is a pretty simple bill.
There are several other remedies available for the Attorney-General also. In Western Australia, for instance, matters relating to the Family Court are state matters, so he could actually seek to have this matter devolved to the Territory. I would like to see his rationale for using such a devise. I know, from the second reading speech, that it was a rush of blood at SCAG, which for the uninitiated, is the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General. At that particular August meeting, all the Labor Attorneys-General got together and ran this heavy duty line about how discriminatory the conservative federal government was, and decided they would do something about it by way of statute.
I do not know how the other states work. It could well be that this is a legitimate and well-travelled path in other areas. Here in the Territory, I would say it is bizarre. I have never seen anything like this. I would suggest, if the Attorney-General is really honest about the capacity for this to have any success, he will be drafting legislation to see us maintaining our federal representation at the levels that it should be. Letting the cat out of the bag by saying: ‘We will wait until Simon Crean is elected because, don’t you worry, he will pass this’, also renders it redundant because, if Labor is that keen to change these federal statutes, this law is not required in this parliament in any event. If they are disposed to take that great and valiant stand against discrimination when they ascend to government at such time in the future, this act need not sit on the shelf, because it will not be needed when they get there anyway.
The fact that it is cognate and then un-cognate, that it does something that I do not believe it is capable of doing - as I said, I would like to see the settled instrument, because there is potential for this to be described as ultra vires. It is certainly cheeky, in terms of a jurisdiction that is subsidiary to the Commonwealth, and it is possibly unconstitutional. A great little theatrical trick, but I would like to see the minister explain the bona fides of this, because it is incumbent on him to demonstrate that he is not using this parliament as some plaything to send arrows off to lance the Commonwealth government’s hide. He has to demonstrate to us that this has a reasonable prognosis of success.
I suspect that he cannot do any of that, and I am quite happy to describe the amendments when we move into committee. However, I can say at the outset, essentially, all I am asking for is that the Commonwealth also look to remove the discriminatory aspects of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act so that it is more applicable to Aboriginal people across Australia.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, this has to be the most ridiculous piece of legislation ever brought before this House. This is the stuff of remonstrances and motions, not pieces of legislation. We are barely a constitutional environment, in the sense that we do not have a constitution. We have a piece of legislation that supports us, which was given to us as a gift by Canberra. We are an administrative area; we are not a free-standing state. I do not know how this works under the constitutional arrangements of other states, but the thrust of this, is we might as well pass bits of legislation that say: ‘Hamas should not bomb Israeli targets on the West Bank’, for all this is worth. This is pure symbolism and is being done in the dumbest way. Bring on a remonstrance, bring on a motion, but do not do this. This is just jerking people around.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, when I see this bill, it is the sort of bill that made me realise what the government was trying to do, when I read the other bill that we have just debated. It was not until you read this bill that you realised the intent of the government with same-sex relationships was basically to have same-sex marriages, and they simply could not do it. That is all this letter was about. I would love the government, when it is writing to the Commonwealth after it has passed this act, to mention that the member for Nelson actually supports what the Commonwealth government has done. Maybe he could put in a little clause there that he thinks that this could be fixed up with a little ‘domestic co-dependent’ clause, because that is something that could be looked at Australia-wide. This seems to be a pretty silly idea to pass a whole bill just to go and write a letter to the Prime Minister, when you might as well write and put in some other viewpoints as well. Those viewpoints could be worth considering by the Prime Minister.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, when the members talked about political stunts in this House and misusing the parliament, it immediately made me think of that ridiculous remonstrance that Shane Stone brought in here. That was a sort of medieval parchment about this long that …
Mr Dunham: Didn’t you sign it, you goose?
Dr TOYNE: We all dutifully signed ...
Mr Dunham: How ridiculous was that.
Dr TOYNE: … in the spirit of ‘let us tell the Commonwealth government something’. Off they went, in full uniform, and appeared at Parliament House in Canberra. Well, I can assure you that this particular bill is nothing of the sort. It is part of a legitimate and well thought-out strategy from the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General. We have a very serious issue with the Commonwealth government. That serious issue is that the Commonwealth, while it is prepared to apply the Commonwealth law to heterosexual de facto relationships in the settlement and distribution of property through the federal system, they have shown a reluctance to extend that to same-sex de facto relationships.
We believe that, if you are going to put equity in the Northern Territory body of law, it is not consistent if you, at the same time, do nothing about the Commonwealth government’s stance on this particular issue. It is just as much an issue of equity. As we saw earlier in the debate on the previous bill, the reforms that we have brought in in the Northern Territory go to the handling of processes under the Northern Territory law, yet they do not bind the Commonwealth government in any way to bring in equitable arrangements within the Commonwealth acts. We believe that, by taking a concerted effort by all the states and territories putting in referral bills to hand to the Commonwealth, the ability to take these reforms - we have already handed them a referral that will allow them to proceed on the de facto distribution of properties or assets within the heterosexual de facto relationships.
The referral bills have to be responded to by the Commonwealth. They are not ultra vires. They will require the Commonwealth to respond. If these bills are coming from every state and territory, we not only have a statutory process that the Commonwealth has to respond to, we have a political position which will allow us to argue very strongly as to why the Commonwealth is not taking the action that is being requested by all the state and territories. This is simply a process to achieve the same equity at the Commonwealth level as we introduced today regarding handling assets and property at the Northern Territory level.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Clause 1:
Mr DUNHAM: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 68.1. Clause 1 is fairly simple. It is, essentially, to change the front of the act so that it is clear that it is doing two things: it is a request for the Commonwealth to enact the legislation in respect of certain financial matters relating to the breakdown of marriages, and also matters related to Aboriginal land.
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, it is a stunt and we do not support it.
Mr ELFERINK: On the subject of stunts, we have an Attorney-General who says he signs up to them. This is what you do. You just walked in here and said: ‘I signed a remonstrance which was a stunt’. So if that is what you do, why are you not signing up to this one? It is just what you do, and this is the cute little way of approaching this thing; this is a stunt.
You are right, the Commonwealth may well respond to this. They do not have to; there is nothing in the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act that says that the Commonwealth has to respond to this. However, there are two ways that I can immediately think of that they may choose to respond to this- well, three. (1) they will ignore it, that is what will happen; (2) they could pass an act in the parliament in Canberra and override this one; they have 28 days; and (3) they could repeal another act, called the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act. Wouldn’t that be funny?
Amendment negatived.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:
Mr DUNHAM: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 68.2. I have sought to amend this by including a definition of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. The Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act is fully described there. Members will note that the bracketed (Northern Territory) go to the very heart of the discrimination I was talking about, in that it only applies in one jurisdiction, albeit a Commonwealth act, and that matters relating to race, specificity of tenure and geography are discriminatory against Aboriginal people.
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, this is an ugly stunt and we do not support it.
Amendment negatived.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4:
Mr DUNHAM: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 68.3. If it is the intention to disallow an amendment that seeks to remove discrimination, it is on their head. If the intention is to say that the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act is a lesser priority than the De Facto Relationship Act, that is also on their head. If they say this is the best piece of legislation they have ever come across, they would support this, because it merely seeks to give this wondrous gift to the other Labor states so the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act can be enjoyed by people in other areas, particularly Aboriginal people.
They either have to knock this back on the basis that they support discrimination, that it is not a priority area - which I would suggest it is - or that there is no way they will be saying to their neighbours that they should be saddled with this thing, because it is a difficult enough piece for us. This will show the bone fides - for the Attorney-General to stand up and give a short little speech and say: ‘We do not like it, no’. He has actually got a …
Ms Martin: It is a stunt, and it is stupid!
Mr DUNHAM: ‘A stunt, and it is stupid’. The stunt we know to exist is by virtue of the fact of your second reading speech. We know this is a political stunt in the first place. We also know that the Attorney-General has yet to inform us about the mandated response from the Commonwealth, because I suspect that that is not, in fact, true. I suspect, in having a bill of this type, the Commonwealth is not obliged to answer. In any event, it is not according to this act, and I would like him to divulge how the Commonwealth has mandated to respond, under which act, when he responds to this.
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, the member for Nhulunbuy has it in one that this is a bitter man who is still living in the past days where the CLP were in government. This is the sort of stuff we have had through this House for the last 25 years. You have never come to terms with indigenous people and the issues of land and custodianship of land. This is just a sad, pathetic little attack that has come right out of the past. It is about time you moved on, mate.
Mr STIRLING: It is a slimy underhanded attack on the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, Mr Chairman, and it deserves to be brought to the attention of the media and, certainly, the constituents of Macdonnell and Daly River …
Mr Elferink: Yes, you said that.
Mr STIRLING: They will be very interested to know that the Country Liberal Party has changed its tune in its attitude to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, because they are on the record here. I will find in Hansard over the next day or so, where they voted and went along and said: ‘Yes, we support the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act as it applies in the Territory’. Well, something has happened. That has been your position for about six years. In the last - well, I do not know. Did they have a meeting today? Did they decide they no longer respect and value the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, because that is what we are seeing here tonight - a walking away by the CLP in relation to the rights that have bestowed to traditional owners across the Northern Territory under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. We have the CLP walking from the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act …
Mr Elferink: Oh, rubbish.
Mr STIRLING: This is a bit thing, because he has just tipped the bucket over current CLP policy. The new leader needs to know what they are up to here because, if he has not endorsed this change of policy, they have a big problem. We will certainly be letting the constituents of Macdonnell and Daly know that the CLP are out in the open. They want to disown the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act and they have just poured buckets all over it.
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you …
Mr Stirling: Don’t try to weasel your way out of it, you are on the record …
Mr ELFERINK: I am not trying to weasel out of it.
Mr Stirling: They saw you coming. They have seen you get what you need to weasel your way out of it, you gutless little worm!
Mr Baldwin: You are the one who would put that spin on it! Go and take your ugly pill! Off you go! I will put my own words on it.
Mr Stirling: You stood up and voted for it five years ago …
Mr CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
Mr Stirling: You are a gutless worm, Timmie, and we will let them know about it too, don’t you worry about that!
Mr CHAIRMAN: Order, order! Member for Nhulunbuy, member for Daly. Sit down, please, member for Macdonnell.
Mr Ah Kit: Sit down, you mug!
Mr BALDWIN: A point of order, Mr Chairman! The word ‘mongrel’ should not be …
Mr Ah Kit: Mug!
Mr Kiely: Stop trying to verbal everyone.
Mr BALDWIN: He is trying to verbal us.
Mr CHAIRMAN: All right, I am standing. It is 2.40 am. Let us just keep the debate reasonable.
Mr ELFERINK: This is wonderful, Mr Chairman. Today I saw this man conspire with that man to silence Aboriginal people; to not give them their voice in this Chamber. To walk in here and be so damned precious about how wonderful their representation of Aboriginal people is, when they were silenced by this Labor Party, is just too cute by far. Believe me, the people of Bagot will also be discovering about your conspiracy to silence their voices.
Mr Stirling: You are not going to get chocolate, mate.
Mr ELFERINK: I do not care.
Members interjecting.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Order! Member for Macdonnell, order!
Mr BALDWIN: Mr Chairman, I invite the member for Nhulunbuy to use his ugly and grubby tactics on the people of Daly River. I invite him to send out the Hansard, as is on the record by my colleague, and what he has attempted to do.
Mr Ah Kit: Yes.
Mr BALDWIN: And I invite you to finally write to one of the councils that you are responsible for …
Mr Stirling: Got you back in here, didn’t it? Got you back in here quick smart.
Mr BALDWIN: Absolutely! Absolutely, because this is the grubby tactics that they have used all through their parliamentary careers. I am happy. Please write to them. Write to Wadeye, Nganmarriyanga - write to them all because they do not believe you any more. On this issue, particularly, they do not believe you. At the same time, members for Arnhem and Nhulunbuy …
Mr Stirling: They respect the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Order!
Mr BALDWIN: Why don’t you write to them about the bill you passed tonight and tell them what you have done on that? Why don’t you write to them on that because I will be, so you better put your spin on it, the same way as the member for Nhulunbuy is about to put his spin on that. I invite him to do it because, every time you do it, my vote goes up. Have a look at the last three terms. I ask and plead with you to do it.
That is the grubby tactics that you have always used. You particularly, member for Arnhem - you particularly. For the member for Nhulunbuy to come in here and try to make an issue of this is absolutely ludicrous. I hope he does go to the media, because it will backfire big time on him and, certainly, on your constituents out there in Nhulunbuy that you do not visit anymore.
Mr DUNHAM: The government have misunderstood, Mr Chairman. I am merely seeking to remove the discrimination arising from the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act.
There are a couple of ways they can rebut this argument. First is that there is no discrimination; it applies across Australia - which we know to be false. The second thing they could say is it is so good it will be in other places. They could support that. They could say: ‘Yes, you are correct, member for Drysdale. This act is so good that it should be in South Australia, Queensland and West Australia. It is so good that it should be in those other states’. We can all engage in correspondence. We can all write to those other states and say: ‘Notwithstanding what you various Premiers have said about the Territory model and how it is divisive and counter to development, we think it is a good model and should be adopted by you’. Then we could leave the debate for those other states.
I am merely saying that it is pretty silly to have a federal statute that only applies here. Why should the poor people who are Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Ngaanyatjarra people have a fake white man’s line down a piece of paper that says: ‘You have different laws here to there relating to your land’? Why should we make an assumption that Aboriginal people in some areas should have more or less than Aboriginal people in other areas?
The Aboriginal Lands Rights News is ‘one mob, one voice, one land’. That is obviously not true, if you do not agree with this amendment because, if it is one mob, it applies across Australia. If it is one voice, this voice can be heard in other places other than here. If the land is to be distributed on an equitable basis, I would think that people in other places should have the advantage of this wonderful piece of legislation. Therefore, I am not arguing, necessarily, that discrimination is something that disadvantages Aboriginal people. I am saying that, if their bona fides is such that they believe that this is a wonderful piece of legislation, they have the opportunity to write to the Commonwealth government and say: ‘Can you please, please, take “Northern Territory” out of the brackets and put “Australia”’. Australia should have the great benefit of this act that applies right across the whole nation.
Dr TOYNE: We do not support that amendment for the same reasons we have already given.
Mr Dunham: You support discrimination, that is why!
Amendment negatived.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Long Title:
Mr DUNHAM: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 68.4. Obviously, this does not stand much chance of success. I am enlightened enough to realise that. However, I would suggest that they take a long, hard look at this very discriminatory attitude to what is discrimination. Start to get your definitions; go to a dictionary, work out what definitions mean. Work out what ‘discrimination’ means. Work out your priorities. Is it really important for the benefit of the Northern Territory to have de facto relationships recognised in the letter of the Commonwealth, or is this something that we should put to the Commonwealth?
The second part is self-evident, because we have had the minister for Resources come in here and loudly pat himself on the back, and proudly say how he has gone off to seek amendments to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. It is this very thing, I would assume, that this government would be looking for. They would be looking for some support from this parliament for the stance taken by the Resources minister, where he can say: ‘Not only am I down here seeking these changes for the betterment of people in the Northern Territory, but the parliament has endorsed it and we also believe that certain of them are discriminatory’.
Therefore, they have a much more powerful argument that he can take. He is seeking amendments, I know that. He has come in here and said that he has gone off with the land councils to do it. We are really trying to provide some support and succour for him, Mr Chairman. I am surprised that he is so offended that anyone would even mention the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, but I guess that is the cultural and racist cloud that they live under.
We have been to elections and seen this stuff touted around before. My end game position is that it is patently obvious to everyone that this is discriminatory legislation. It does not need to be pulled apart to do that. If you want to argue that it is discriminatory in favour of Aboriginal people, give them all a shot.
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, for years, the brakes were on Territory development because of the attitude of this mob. Here we have an absolute museum piece on what we heard year after year in the Chamber, despite the fact that, in the last two years, you have seen what can be done when some genuine negotiations, based on goodwill, are carried out under the very act that you are calling discriminatory.
We are moving the Territory forward because of our attitude. We see Aboriginal people and Aboriginal custodians of the land as a positive thing in the Northern Territory. They are positively discriminated against here, and we are doing very well, thank you very much. You stay in the past; we will move to the future.
Amendment negatived.
Long Title agreed to.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I did ask the Attorney-General as to give us advice as to the statute that applied to the obligation on the Commonwealth to answer to this referral. He did not do that, and I wonder if he is able to do it in the third reading to tell us the legislation that obliges the Commonwealth to do this.
Madam SPEAKER: I am sorry, member for Drysdale. The bill has already been moved a third time. Perhaps the Attorney-General can give you a briefing about that later.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016