2002-10-10
Madam Speaker Braham took the Chair at 10 am.
The CLERK: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 100A, I inform honourable members that a response to petition No 15 has been received and circulated to honourable members. The text of the response will be included in the Parliamentary Record.
testing and approval of fireworks products;
limitations upon sale and use of fireworks;
the costs of the Territory Day fireworks project to government and the
community; and
recommendations relating to the future conduct of the Territory Day fireworks
celebrations throughout the Northern Territory.
fireworks project; and
Dr TOYNE (Central Australia): Madam Speaker, it is timely that I again update the House on the alcohol trials and complementary measures in Alice Springs.
As part of the 12-month trial of alcohol restrictions in Alice Springs starting 1 April 2001, a rigorous evaluation of the restrictions and measures is being undertaken. An experienced research officer has been seconded from government and a community-based evaluation reference group (ERG) is overseeing the process. The ERG is being chaired by Dr Ian Crundall, a Department of Health and Community Services’ employee who has over 18 years of experience working in the alcohol field, and is the former Director of the NT’s Living With Alcohol program. The study is monitoring the effectiveness of licensing restrictions and other initiatives and will make recommendations about future actions while maintaining its momentum and focus.
The ERG met on 25 June and again on 26 September for its first and second quarterly meetings. On 26 September, the ERG viewed the first wholesale sales figures for alcohol since the liquor trial began in April. Those figures relate to the months of April, May and June. Compared to the same period in the previous two years, the amount of pure alcohol sold was 4.6% lower for that time period, the first quarter of the trials.
This shift is made up of some very marked changes across different beverages as a result of the restrictions the commissioner introduced. There was an 81% reduction in cask wine sales, as it went from around a third of the market to about one-twentieth of the market. Fortified wines increased by more than 700%, increasing the market share from 2% to 19%. Mixed spirits more than doubled and heavy and mid-strength beers rose by nearly 12%. These findings confirm the anecdotal reports that have been received by the ERG over the early months of the trials. Dr Crundall commented that the restrictions targetted larger containers such as casks, and these figures clearly demonstrate an impact. While some of that reduction has been transferred to the increase in other beverages, indications are that early problems associated with the change are now settling down.
Compared to the same period in 2001, other data found that, over the five months since the start of the trial, police report an 11% reduction of alcohol-related incidents. There had been an overall increase of 4% in alcohol-related assaults in the very early part of the trial, but this has mainly now decreased. The number of protective custodies has dropped by 15%; ambulance call-outs related to alcohol dropped by 5%; selected presentations at the Accident and Emergency Department are 16% lower; and fewer people have been placed in the sobering-up shelter.
Feedback from the community indicates that many problems that occurred early in the trial are now returning to pre-trial levels. The early reports of increased aggressive behaviour have receded. The trial has now been operating for nearly six months, and it seems that some of the initial teething problems are starting to be rectified. There has clearly been a shift to beverages of higher alcohol content, but there is increasing evidence that, particularly the drinkers of port or monkey blood as it is called down there, are now starting to mix the port with water. In fact, the sobering-up shelter is now taking that message out, particularly to the drinkers who have come from remote communities. The town families have generally shifted to that tactic a lot earlier. There has clearly been a shift to those beverages.
There are ongoing matters such as litter. Some significant gains are being reported in terms of health and amenity. The overall level of violence has levelled off. However, there will be a watching brief by the ERG, and the data collected by the Day and Night Patrols will ascertain what is happening now in the town camps because of the displacement of many of the drinkers away from the central business district.
It is encouraging that the overall quantum of violence is still below what was happening previously - and very significantly below. Despite reports of more people hanging around town, it has also been observed that the CBD is quieter during business hours in terms of disruptive and drunken behaviour.
I remind honourable members that this is a one-year trial and there are three-year funding arrangements in place. This is a long haul. Some of these early results are encouraging, and some are cause for concern, but we are on the track.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I was also very interested in the results in this quarterly survey by the alcohol reference group in Alice Springs. The 4.6% reduction in pure alcohol consumed, as the minister mentioned, is really statistically still not significant from the pure research point of view. However, there is definitely a decrease of social disruption through the town during business hours. But when you talk to people walking through the mall, even the police, the social disruption has shifted to the later parts of the day.
I do not believe that there has been much reduction in the Emergency Department attendances in the evening, and that is something that we have to wait to see what will happen in the longer term. Product substitution was something that we all expected to see happen, and it has come to pass. It is up to us now to educate people not to concentrate on the fortified wines. I hear they are mixing it with other products, and that is going to be of concern.
There still is a section of the community in Alice Springs which is very keen to bring in just about total prohibition. That, I believe, is too extreme and I would recommend to those people: make sure that you bring the community with you in this trial and if that happens, then maybe we might see some success in reducing the total amount of alcohol consumed in Alice Springs. In the meantime, we will watch cautiously to see how the things pan out over the next six months.
Dr TOYNE (Central Australia): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Greatorex for his measured response to this and that is exactly the spirit that I hope we all take to these trials and the measures.
We have a long way to go yet and some of those early changes have been encouraging. We have work to do to continue to focus on. One point I will make additional to what was said earlier is that the police are reporting, because of that delay in the beginning of drinking each day, that they have been able to redeploy police patrols on to other areas of crime prevention, particularly property crime and drugs. It basically means that there are three additional hours in each day where the police are not going around picking up drunk and disorderly people off the street; they can start to concentrate on other areas. That is a very good bonus to what has happened to date.
Mr HENDERSON (AustralAsia Railway): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House of progress on the Alice Springs to Darwin railway. Since track laying began in April this year, over 477 km of track is now completed. Two crews have been laying track at an average of 1.8 km per day and the tracks north of Tennant Creek and south of Katherine are scheduled to meet on or about 9 December this year. Some track work has been completed both south of Tennant Creek and north of Katherine.
To date, 1159 km of the total of 1420 km of clearing is now complete; 815 000 sleepers have been manufactured; 1 456 000 tonnes of ballast produced; and 73 000 tonnes of rail delivered to Roe Creek near Alice Springs from Whyalla in South Australia.
I also draw to members’ attention the activity that is occurring at our back door. At the Elizabeth River bridge site, the first of 17 massive 30 m 60 tonne concrete spans was put in place last week. Spans will continue to be placed by a gantry system on a weekly basis. The Elizabeth River bridge, at 510 m, is the longest bridge on the project and is due for completion in February/March 2003. The railway embankment construction work at the East Arm wharf is well advanced with the bulk earthworks now complete. Over 2500 people attended the East Arm wharf inspection day and were able to view the construction progress first hand.
Employment has reached a peak of 1359 direct employees. Of those, 860 are from the Northern Territory. Training, in particular Aboriginal participation, is an important aspect of the work being carried out by ADrail, the Territory Construction Agency and the Northern and Central Land Councils. Of the 660 nationally accredited training courses run since the railway project began, over 100 Aboriginal participants have completed the courses and now have skills that are transferable to other fields such as mining and construction.
The total value of direct contracts awarded to date is $791m and, of that amount, $450m has been awarded to Northern Territory-based business and industry.
The issue of passenger terminal locations is currently under consideration by government. A great deal of detail has been gathered and presented about the options available and, although the issue must be resolved sooner rather than later, it is one that does deserve a considered and reasoned approach rather than a knee-jerk reaction to subjective pressure.
An ADrail open day in Katherine was held on 11 September 2002. It was an excellent opportunity for the people of Katherine to view track laying and chat with ADrail employees over a cup of coffee. On the day prior to the open day, two significant ceremonies were held in Katherine by ADrail. The first of these was to mark the start of track laying across the Katherine River bridge. The Chief Minister, the Katherine Mayor and others were fortunate to witness the track layer begin track laying on this bridge and it was a pity that the Leader of the Opposition’s plane had a problem and he could not get there.
As mentioned earlier, some track has been laid north of Katherine and, in fact, extends for 16 km reaching the ballast quarry. This has now enabled all the ballast to be transported by locomotive instead of truck, alleviating the need for large ballast laden trucks to travel through Katherine all hours of the day and night.
Later on the same day, a ceremony took place at the sleeper factory to mark the naming two locomotives: Kurra Kurraka and Wagiman, named for two local traditional owner families from north and south of Katherine. A similar ceremony took place in Tennant Creek a week later with two locomotives named Aboriginal Stockman and Purnu.
Prior to concluding, I wish to point out once again that although construction is going ahead at a rapid rate, it is prudent to remember that there are two Wet seasons from now until the official completion date of 2004, therefore it would be unwise to predict an earlier completion date just yet. Again, I am sure all honourable members of this House would applaud ADrail in terms of the magnificent work that they are doing.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his continuing updates with regard to construction of the railway. He made the point - and I have raised it before - in terms of the location of the passenger terminals for both Katherine and Darwin. It seems to me that it is incredible that at this late stage the government has not made a decision on where those passenger terminals will be located. There is clearly a lot of confusion being caused in the community - unnecessary animosity in some respects - as to the proper location for the railway station in Darwin, and it seems to me that the government should come forward fairly quickly and make a decision on this issue, particularly when I know of at least one public forum where your roving ambassador for the Office of Territory Development has been definitive as to where that passenger terminal will be located, yet what we see from the government is various ministers coming out with various ideas as to what could happen, what consultations are taking place.
I understand that one group has expensive feasibility studies going on at the moment for a proposal to be put to government, so at the very least it seems to me that the government needs to be on the front foot and get a decision out to the community as soon as possible so that everyone knows where they stand.
Mr HENDERSON (AustralAsia Railway): I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his comments. Obviously, there is bipartisan support. On the issue of the passenger terminals, we are doing a lot of considered and detailed work in terms of the various options and there should be a decision on this by the end of this year. However, the money will be available in future budgets. Wherever we decide to construct the stations, we will certainly meet the targets.
Certainly, when we inherited this project coming to government, there had been no work done within the public sector. There was nothing in the budget for passenger railway facilities so it is something that we have had to pick up from scratch. So it is a little cute for the Leader of the Opposition to state that we are being a bit tardy on it. Expectations were raised, there was nothing in the budget from the previous government, no work done, and a lot of pork barrelling hype in Palmerston in the run-up to the election.
Madam Speaker, we are doing the work. We are undertaking considered and detailed studies and we will make an announcement by the end of the year.
Mrs AAGAARD (Health and Community Services): Madam Speaker, I would like to give an update on the review of my department. When announcing the review of the activities of the department, I stated that the aim was to ensure that the department was well placed to implement the government’s health and community services reform. The focus of the review was to consider and recommend a future strategy of funding and service focus that would allow the department to deliver essential services efficiently and effectively within its budget allocation.
In the first year of government, I made a number of significant announcements in the area of the government’s reform agenda such as the indigenous health statement, hospital improvement project, tobacco reform, the findings of the Illicit Drug Task Force and work force recruitment and retention strategies. It is critical the department is able to deliver on these reforms. To this end, I encouraged all key stakeholders to have input into the review process. The review of the Department of Health and Community Services is now in its 17th week. During this time, the review team has travelled to Katherine, Gove, Tennant Creek, Alice Springs, Kintore and the Tiwi Islands, consulting with Department of Health and Community Services staff and peak organisations, unions, NGOs, service providers and health professionals.
As the review progressed, some issues emerged which the review saw as being of very real importance to the health of Territorians but which were outside the original terms of reference of the review. I accepted the review team’s advice and approved work separate from the review to redress these important issues. I referred a number of additional important issues to the review team and asked the team to report to me on those issues.
The review recently conducted a renal clinical consultation; bringing together a top Australian renal clinician with over 30 people with a key involvement in current and future renal service delivery in the Northern Territory. Renal disease is a major contributor to ill health and death in the Territory. People from within the department, from other primary health care providers and relevant organisations attended. The participants provided comment on the current renal service, and suggested ways to ensure a viable and effective service for the future. The outcomes of this consultation will be included in the review report.
The review team also conducted a hospital clinical governance workshop earlier this month, that involved clinicians from across the Territory. There is increasing interest, nationally and internationally, in using clinical governance as a tool to assist hospitals and, in particular, clinicians to operate successfully in pursuing their purpose and aims within a highly complex and demanding environment. This concept was explored by the participants, including the practical on-the-ground issues of working in the Northern Territory. The workshop’s discussions will also inform the review report.
To date, the review has been consulting with key stakeholders and ascertaining common views and issues. Submissions have been received through the review team Intranet and Internet web sites, by e-mail and as hard copy. I have extended the review by six weeks because of the overwhelming response by stakeholders, and to ensure that the people who want to be involved have the opportunity to do so. To date, over 400 internal and external stakeholders from all parts of the Northern Territory have expressed a desire to present oral submissions to the review, or to make written submissions. These have provided invaluable insights into the issues and challenges that the health and community services sector are facing. I am confident, from the briefings I have received, that the direction the review team is taking will ensure that the department is in the best possible position to deliver improved health and community service outcomes for Territorians.
The team is considering, in the next phase, the most effective way in which it can test ideas and propositions, with both internal and external stakeholders, prior to finalising the report. A departmental communications strategy in the form of a fortnightly update has been implemented to keep staff informed as to the review’s progress.
The review has provided evidence, once again, of the enthusiasm and dedication of the staff of Health and Community Services, and their willingness to have input into the future health and community service outcomes in the Northern Territory. Madam Speaker, I look forward to informing the House of the outcome of the review later in the year.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): We have yet another review, Madam Speaker, and this review is a hidey-hole for the minister. We have a minister who has been on deck for a year. This pretence at a review, which is looking at the core business of what public servants do - what do public servants do? They look at what they have to deliver and the best way of delivering it, they work out how much money they need. They do it every year through estimates, they do it every year through budgets.
There has been this gammon review sooled on to do exactly what the department has the capability of doing. The minister pointed out at the end of her statement when she said ‘the staff are enthusiastic and are dedicated and can do this’. Of course, they can! It is what they do, and it is what they do well. The problem is they do not have a CEO. The problem is this is a department that has spiralling problems with over-spending that is out of control in areas. It is a problem with some significant indicators that show a lack of ministerial capability for intervention, and it is a problem where you just cannot fob it off and say: ‘Oh, we will fix it up, because there is a review looking at it’. It is our core job. It has to be done every day. You cannot just do this thing where you wheel in a review team, use it as a convenient excuse, wind ‘em off for 17 weeks, give ‘em an extra six weeks to look at it. That is half a year!
Mr Ah Kit: What did you do? You left a mess!
Mr DUNHAM: I did it every day, that is what I did. Every day I did this review - every day! There are people within the department who are capable of doing this, who can advise the minister. There is $7m sitting there in case the review comes up and says: ‘We need some cash’. I have never seen the like of it before. There is $7m that is a gammon Treasurer’s Advance sitting within the department in case they need an extra lump of cash. That is an unders and overs tin. This minister has said she will pick up every recommendation of this review without looking at it. That is a department on auto-pilot. Unless you get recommendations you choose to take or not, you may as well hand the whole lot over to them, which is essentially what has happened. I commend the fact that she is looking at renal and hospitals - but that is her job, Madam Speaker.
Mrs AAGAARD (Health and Community Services): Madam Speaker, it never ceases to amaze me how negative the member for Drysdale is. This review has been extraordinarily well accepted from staff, the non-government sector, unions, from extraordinary people throughout the community.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, members! The minister has not had a chance to respond at all because of the interjections.
Mrs AAGAARD: Since we announced the extension of this review, in fact, more people from the department have asked to make more submissions. This has been a fantastic response. Unlike reviews in the past where the previous government just ignored the recommendations, we are taking this seriously. We have, for the first time, involved staff in this review. Staff are actually allowed to have input and that is what we are doing. It is very successful, will be a very good review of the department. I am very confident of the outcomes.
Mr VATSKALIS (Transport and Infrastructure): Madam Speaker, special meetings of the Australian Transport Council were held in Auckland, New Zealand on 8 August 2002, and in Canberra on 18 September 2002. The council, which comprises Commonwealth, state and territory ministers responsible for transport and roads, aims to meet twice a year, and provides a forum for government consultation and advice on transport and road policy issues at the national level.
The Auckland special meeting was originally organised to deal specifically with the review of the National Road Transport Commission Act. However, following cancellation of the May 2002 Australian Transport Council meeting, a number of additional items were discussed to ensure progress of important issues.
The Canberra special meeting was held to specifically discuss progress of the Commonwealth government’s proposal for a new inter-government agreement on funding of land transport infrastructure. The Commonwealth proposal would provide a new, long-term inter-governmental framework for planning, funding and development of an integrated national land transport infrastructure network. The Commonwealth minister refers this proposal as Auslink. The Commonwealth is due to release a green paper of this proposal in the near future.
Ministers agreed to the establishment of a National Transport Commission to cover road, rail and inter-modal regulation, and a National Transport Advisory Council to provide ministers with strategic analysis and advice on priorities for national infrastructure investment and reforms to support inter-modal integration. Inter-governmental agreements are being developed to establish both the National Transport Council and the National Transport Advisory Council. These will address such issues as processes, funding and the role of jurisdictions. An inter-governmental agreement will also need to be prepared to cover the implementation of the federal government’s proposal for new funding arrangements for land transport infrastructure.
I have serious reservations about the very scant details that the Commonwealth has released in regard to the Auslink proposal. Under the proposal, the federal minister has stated that the Commonwealth plans to step away from its current commitment to 100% funding of the national highway. This commitment is confirmed in the current inter-governmental agreement. The national highway network in the Northern Territory is not yet fully developed. Of special concern is that fact that the Victoria Highway is not developed to a reasonable level of flood immunity. This vital link was closed or had severe weight restrictions applied to it for a total of several months during the Wet season. This adds many thousands of dollars to interstate freight movements that have to divert to the central corridor to access Western Australia.
It is not only the Victoria Highway that presents problems for the Northern Territory. Last Wet season, the national highway was once again cut between Darwin and Katherine on several occasions. Across the border going to Queensland, it is ludicrous to consider the Commonwealth should walk away from its commitment to upgrade the goat-track standard of the Barkly Highway between Camooweal and Mt Isa.
The outline of the Commonwealth proposal states it would be based on an assessment of bids for funding on an economic rationalist basis. This includes bids for private sector projects such as toll roads. It is obvious that the Northern Territory, and remote Australia in general, will be disadvantaged in competing with projects assessed on a purely economic rationalist approach in the congested corridors of Sydney and Melbourne. The Northern Territory will continue to push the case for special consideration of remote communities and potential for economic and social development, to ensure that the Territory’s unique circumstances are taken into account in the Commonwealth’s proposal.
Road safety concerns in relation to four-wheel drives were raised by the Victorian and New South Wales ministers. The meeting agreed in principle to the introduction of reversing alarms and improved mirrors for four-wheel drive vehicles, and requested that a national standard for bull bars be developed. I stressed to the meeting that a national standard must also consider the safety of vehicle drivers and passengers in the event of hitting an animal. Officials will prepare a report for the November council meeting on measures to improve safety for vehicle occupants and pedestrians.
Tariff arrangements applying to four-wheel drives are currently under review as part of the Productivity Commission’s review of assistance arrangements for the automotive industry. I advised the council that I did consider four-wheel drives to be a necessity for many Territorians and did not support any increase in the import tariffs on four-wheel drives. I am pleased to report that the Commonwealth minister also supported me on this issue.
I expressed my concern about the possible impact of these measures on regional and remote area motorists and the council acknowledged this by including a provision that the needs of remote areas be addressed. I stressed to the meeting that the national standard must also consider the safety of vehicle drivers and pedestrians. Once again, I was assured that the national council will consider these issues.
Mr REED (Katherine): Madam Speaker, before the minister criticises the federal government too much at the forthcoming meeting, he should be aware, in relation to his remarks about the upgrade of the Barkly Highway in Queensland, that $33m in fact, is being spent on the highway in that area, including a new bridge at Camooweal. He should get his facts right before he says that nothing is being done to upgrade it.
I was pleased to hear the minister make remarks in relation to four-wheel drives and particularly bull bars. This is going to be a critical issue for the Territory, with a high ownership of four-wheel drives. There is nonsense now being talked about in New South Wales that bull bars are going to have to follow the profile of the body, the front of the vehicle. If we are landed with some ridiculous notion like that, dreamt up by someone who does not know what a bull bar does, then many Territorians and other people in outback Australia are going to be disadvantaged. That is a very important issue and one that the minister quite rightly should pursue very vehemently.
Another matter is speed limits on our open roads. It is important that the minister continues to reinforce the fact that they are to remain, and I hope that that is the government’s interest in that regard. Also, the fact that we do not have demerit points. These meetings often come up with pressure on the Northern Territory in relation to demerit points and speed limits on our open roads. That is something that he should also pursue, I believe, and so should the government on behalf of Territorians.
The other thing I would ask the minister to do when he is speaking to the federal minister is explain why this government did not slash road verges. In fact, some parts of the Barkly Highway have still not been slashed and that is creating a dangerous situation for Territorians, bearing in mind that the government receives Commonwealth funding to maintain the national highways. Some slashing was not undertaken until only a month or so ago, putting Territorians and visitors to the Territory using our roads at risk. He might explain to the federal minister what happened to that money.
Mr VATSKALIS (Transport and Infrastructure): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his comments. Certainly, I support his comments about the bull bars and the design of bull bars with respect to four-wheel drives. Regarding the speed limits on our highways; there is not going to be a speed limit on the Stuart Highway, I assure you of that. However, we have to take into consideration special circumstances such as highways are used a lot by tourists and overseas tourists. We have recently seen many deaths on some of our highways and we have to consider these issues. As for the Queensland/Northern Territory highway, there are problems. They might have spent $33m, but the highway is not up to the national standards. At the same time, the Victoria Highway goes under water for a number of months every year. I also pointed out to the federal minister that they spent a lot of money for the Defence Force facility that they will not be able to access when the Victoria Highway goes under water.
As for the slashing of the highways, that is a period contract and all of these verges are slashes periodically. I make sure of that because I tend to drive around and I will continue to drive around because I enjoy driving my four-wheel drive.
Reports noted pursuant to Sessional Order.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to repeal sections 13(1), 13(2), 13(3) and section 21 of the act. Section 13 of the act currently provides that a statement is to be endorsed on, or annexed to, the process by which proceedings against the Territory Crown are commenced containing information prescribed by the Supreme Court Rules. Section 21 currently provides that the judges of the Supreme Court may make rules subject to the Supreme Court Act prescribing the particulars to be endorsed on, or annexed to, process to be served on the Territory Crown.
There is no information currently prescribed by the Supreme Court Rules to be endorsed on process against the Territory Crown. There would not appear to be any necessity for the current provisions in sections 13 and 21 of the act as they serve no useful purpose and may potentially lead to confusion. Sections 13(1), (2) and (3) and section 21 are repealed by this bill.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
Continued from 22 August 2002.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I rise to place on the record the opposition’s observations and some concerns about the proposed amendment to the Crimes (Victims Assistance) Act in the form of Crimes (Victims Assistance) Amendment Bill 2002 (Serial 95), and the further amendment which we understand will be introduced during the course of the committee stage affecting the costs aspect to the amending legislation.
I can say generally from the outset that the aims of the legislation, the Crimes (Victims Assistance) Act, is of course to assist victims of crime. It is beneficial legislation and the courts traditionally interpret any ambiguities, generally, in favour of the victim of crime. The amendments should be drafted generously to assist people who are in the category of victims of crime, a very vulnerable group who do need our collective support and, through government, it is in the form of this beneficial legislation.
Of course, whilst the amount of compensation and costs of enforcing the scheme are certainly a consideration, they are not the only considerations. When we hear the Labor government whingeing and whining about the cost of helping victims, there really needs to be a fairly compelling argument before there is a substantial review of the scheme. One of the arguments which has been put forward is that a disproportionate amount of money is consumed in costs as opposed to disbursements and paying money to the victims to assist them to get on with their lives. Accordingly, a review of the legislation, certainly from the procedural aspect, is welcome. Certain parts of the review will be supported by the opposition.
There have been some concerns raised by solicitors both in Alice Springs and Darwin, and particularly in Alice Springs, who say they were not asked to contribute to the review and they have taken the time to reduce their concerns to writing. They forwarded a letter to the Attorney-General with a copy to me, some other members of parliament, and to the Northern Territory Law Society.
One of the concerns which the law firms have touched upon is broadly under the category of the mutuality of litigants; that is, it seems the amendments are drafted in such a way that the Northern Territory government is in a better position than plaintiff lawyers or lawyers acting for the applicants. An example of that is in section 5(3) of the proposed amendment to section 10(a) of the principal act - that is section 5(3) of the amending legislation - which provides that the applicant is not entitled to costs from a time that the government offers a settlement and it turns out that, when the assistance certificate is issued, that the award to the applicant is equal to or less than the offer that was made by the government. From that moment on, there is the ability for the government to refuse to pay for the applicant’s costs.
It seems the same does not apply to the Northern Territory government, and to suggest that the offers made are always in accordance with the assistance certificates issued by the court is simply not true. I am told, quite reliably, that a review of offers that have been made and the eventual awards given by the court will confirm that salient fact. We have the situation where the government has put itself in a better position than the litigant. The government has decided that all people are not equal before the law, and this system of offers of compromise will only apply to the poor victim, the applicant.
In the second-reading speech, there is a reference to the maximum statutory limit. The maximum award is $25 000. In other jurisdictions, that has been increased. In some jurisdictions it is as much as $50 000. The $25 000 maximum statutory limit has not been increased for 13 years in the Northern Territory. Indeed, whilst a review is under way, and we are talking about insuring that more money gets to these people and that victims are properly compensated for what has occurred to them, then this, I would have thought, would be an ideal opportunity to increase that statutory maximum from $25 000 to something a little more reasonable in terms of giving the courts the flexibility to award larger sums of money to people who have been the subject of some of the more serious type of offences which occur in the Northern Territory.
Understandably, from an industry perspective, some of the solicitors who provided input to the proposed amendments in the second-reading speech were very critical of the reduction in fees. I do note, and the Attorney-General should be given some credit for responding to concerns which he was also made aware of, there will be an amendment at the committee stage which will address, very specifically, the costs aspect. It seems now there is an introduction of a composite scale or there is an alternative to use a composite scale. It is an 11th hour amendment, but an amendment which is at least a step in the right direction.
A composite scale means that, irrespective of the amount of work done in a particular matter, an applicant is entitled to recover costs for that matter being taken up to the hearing, then the hearing, and then for each and every day that the hearing continues, there is a set fee which is payable. That is, irrespective of whether the matter is a complicated or a straightforward matter, it is a set fee.
The other alternative, which was originally flagged without any consultation, it seems, was the reduction of fees payable to the applicant to 40% of the Supreme Court scale of costs. By way of background, given that the Supreme Court Rules provide for costs formulated on the basis that a legal practice operates on a 70% overheads and 30% profit margin, and the proposed percentage of 40% reduces further what the applicant can recover from running the application, it really leaves a number of law firms in a position where they will be running at a loss, and it simply will not be economical for them, at the 40% scale, to act for applicants. The plaintiff lawyers and, I suspect, members of the Northern Territory branch of the Australian Plaintiff Lawyers Association, will have a real difficulty acting for these people. I heard a portion of an interview - I think it was Michael Grove from Ward Keller who made some comments on radio confirming that it simply puts the courts in the unenviable position that many applicants who will appear before judicial registrars and, potentially magistrates, will not be represented.
The type of people who are most likely to be affected by not having the resources to engage a lawyer will be the type of people you would have thought the Labor Party would be trying to stand beside and assist: people who perhaps come from a different cultural background - by way of an example, a traditional Aboriginal woman who is the victim of a serious assault and perhaps English is a second, third or even fourth language. The effect of the review and the re-jigging of the costs aspect of the legislation means that person will have difficulty finding a private lawyer to represent them in court and take them through the …
Dr Burns: They would without an interpreter service!
Mr Elferink: That is why the CLP created one.
Members interjecting.
Mr MALEY: Madam Speaker, I am not going to labour the point, but the legislation is beneficial legislation. It should be setting in place structures to ensure that applicants, the victims, are in a position where they can run the gauntlet of this system with the least amount of trauma possible. Not having the resources to have a lawyer because of the financial constraints imposed by the act will put them at a significant disadvantage.
One of the complaints - and a fairly significant complaint - from one of the prominent Alice Springs firms regularly involved on a day-to-day basis of crimes compensation matters, was the complete lack of consultation. In the letter I received - and the Attorney-General has a copy of it - the managing partner of that firm said:
And Alice Springs would have been left out on a limb. That is certainly the impression they have, which you as a government have created. He goes on to say that the government clearly does not have a handle on the amendment because some of the proposals - this is relating to the original costs proposal of only 40% of Supreme Court scale - leaves people out on a limb.
The review seems to have continued and, perhaps in light of the letter that the Attorney-General received, and the representations from the Law Society which also said it was concerned about some of the costs aspect of things, have led to the 11th hour amendment which will have the effect of setting up a composite scale. It divides lump sum fees allowable if assistance is not over $5000, and another category for those awards which are in excess of $5000.
There is a criticism I have of the amended bill, albeit I have not had a chance to trawl through it in an enormous amount of detail. Whilst reasonable disbursements are recoverable, it seems that counsel’s fees are not recoverable. So there may be a complicated matter, there may be a need to engage a specialist counsel who may have a particular rapport with a client or may be able to assist this person who may have a particular cultural sensitivity. That will not be occurring. That counsel has effectively been excluded from this process and the baton will fall to be carried by, in reality, junior legal practitioners and paralegals - no disrespect to them, they certainly do a good job. There is no flexibility to engage counsel.
Before we go to the committee stage - and it is a point of clarification. Whilst your advisors and the drafter of the legislation are infinitely more familiar with the act than me, they might be able to assist you, Attorney-General. I just ask this question: the act deals with coming into force on 1 November and there is a quite appropriately drafted transitional provision contained in clause 16 of the principal amending bill. Section 24(4) of the principal act is amended by this act and regulation 5 of the Crimes (Victims Assistance) Regulations apply only in relation to costs for work done on or after 1 November 2002. Whilst the substantive provisions of the amendment apply to applications made, whether before, on, or after 1 November, it is clear that from a costs perspective, it only applies to work done from 1 November.
My concern is this: if you have an amendment taking away an existing right - and I am not sure whether it is an existing right, and this is the point of clarification - you have an applicant who has engaged a solicitor who has counsel, they are prepared to go, they are all ready to undertake a hearing, the hearing is any date after 1 November. This amendment takes away the right that person would have had to recoup those costs from the government because it is a statutory right here: an applicant cannot pay the lawyer personally. The issue of costs is addressed once the certificate has been issued by the Northern Territory government.
Is it an acquisition on just terms? If so, there is a recent case in the ACT Supreme Court in Frank v ACT, 146 ACTR 15. It only came down on 16 September - albeit I have not gone in detail through that case – but it deals with whether provisions similar to this could amount to an acquisition under the equivalent provisions of our Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act. Perhaps I could just seek some clarification on that and perhaps there is absolutely nothing in the point, but I think it is something which should be discussed and should be aired in parliament.
In my view, certainly from an administrative perspective, what should occur is that an application that was made before 1 November continues under the old rules and new applications are subject to the new rules as opposed to, from my reading of section 5, if an application is on foot as of 1 November, whilst it still continues the costs provisions are reviewed and the new cost scale applies from 1 November. I seek clarification on that.
The other point is just a drafting observation. It seems that more and more the term ‘victim’ - it is in the title of the legislation of course - is creeping into the legislation. For the sake of objectivity, it really should be that this person is the applicant, and the applicant may not be a victim in some situations. Indeed, that is often why matters go to hearing. You have applicants and that is the end of it. It is not really the place to put in emotional type of feel-good things like …
Mr Kiely: Too much Chardonnay.
Mr MALEY: Too much Chardonnay perhaps is what you guys are doing, I do not know. But it is just a criticism of one of the amending comments in the schedule.
The opposition certainly supports the procedural aspects of the review. We do have some reservations about the lack of consultation, and that is said in the feedback that we have from the community. We do have some reservations about the significant reduction on costs recoverable from the applicant and what effect that will have on their capacity to engage a solicitor of their choice. We do have some concerns about the transitional provisions.
I have already asked for specific clarification on clause 16. The response of the Attorney-General will determine whether or not we can, with clear conscience, support the legislation in its totality. I can say that from procedural perspective, most of the procedural changes are common sense and they are welcomed.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I have a couple of points to raise in relation to this legislation. I notice that the amendments which have just turned up on my desk - and I have only had a chance to flick through quickly - actually address one of the major concerns that I had about this legislation in its original form.
It is worth reiterating for members, that this sort of legislation was designed by governments around the world to assist people who become the victims of crime. The traditional form assistance has been a monetary payment, and monetary payment has or has not been effective as a way to assist victims. I remember coming into the former Legislative Assembly as a then Legislative Assembly guard. As part of my duties as a police officer, I had to look after the Legislative Assembly, and it was a very informative debate. I remember it was Steve Hatton, the former member for Nightcliff, who was being challenged quite vigorously by the then Labor opposition in relation to a specific payment. The debate was in about 1985 or 1986 if memory serves me correctly, and it was a rather ghastly set of circumstances. It went to the issue of who was deserving of a full payment under the legislation. The top end of the scale, which I think at that time was set at $25 000, was reserved for the very worst crime, of course, and that was the crime of murder. There was a lady in Tennant Creek who had, without going into any graphic details of the offence that was committed upon her person, had been seriously damaged as a result of a gross sexual assault, and her payment was substantially less than the $25 000 amount. It was an issue that had caused great fire and anger on both sides of the House.
I remember it struck me at the time that the government felt quite offended by the fact that it was being challenged on the scale of payments being made, and the opposition at the time said that she was thoroughly deserving of the full amount. Frankly, I remember thinking to myself at the time: ‘I can well understand why the opposition thought she was deserving of the full amount’. However, I am often struck that cash payments may not be the only way to go, and there may be other types of assistance that would be more appropriate than a simple cash payment.
I will return to the issue that has been concerning me, and that is the issue of fees paid to representing lawyers and solicitors. I had somebody work it out for me, and they calculated that, on the original scale that was brought before this Chamber, it was somewhere in the order of $65 an hour for the lawyer to appear. I cannot get a mechanic for that sort of money to work on my Harley Davidson motorcycle. In fact, it costs me about $80 an hour for a mechanic. So I think it is a bit of a tall ask, and I think that the government, in bringing these amendments forward, have acknowledged that $65 an hour is a little on the shy side to try and get representation for these people.
As the shadow Attorney-General so effectively pointed out, the issue of payment is something that has a direct effect on the issues that this legislation is trying to address. Indeed, I have something to say on it myself: if the payments were not sufficient for those classes of people who are victims of crime but least able to employ their own solicitors to pursue this matter, they would be severely disadvantaged. The disadvantage, of course, that I am referring to is Aboriginal people. As the shadow minister for Aboriginal Affairs, as well as a person who has a majority of traditional folk in my own electorate, I am very concerned that they are equally represented in relation to these sorts of payments. If the scale dropped too low, the scale would have had the effect of taking away the representation of these people in terms of getting this sort of assistance.
Normally, a person would receive legal aid if they are not particularly wealthy. Aboriginal Legal Aid services, as well as general legal aid services, do this work but, as I understand the mechanics of the system, that work is then farmed out by these legal aid services to private lawyers. The effect of reducing the payments too much is that the legal aid services will not, in every likelihood, be able to get lawyers to represent their clients which will have one of two effects: either the legal aid service will become even more stretched in the services it is trying to provide because it now has to cover this other body of work, or people simply are not represented.
I notice that the amendments are before the House. What I seek from the minister is simply a reassurance that the new scales that he is introducing today are going to be sufficient to attract private firms and firms that pick up contracting work to come and do this work, so that people on the lower end of the economic scale, and Aboriginal people included in many instances, are represented in court in these sorts of applications.
I do also want to pick up on an interjection that occurred before in relation to the interpreter service. The interpreter service is particularly dear to my heart. As members will be aware, in the former parliament I had quite a bit to say about it, and the CLP government saw the wisdom of having an Aboriginal Interpreter Service and funded it accordingly. Before members opposite become too cute about Aboriginal Interpreter Services, I do recall in the mini-budget that they cut funding to the Aboriginal Interpreter Service, and it was not until I got back onto my old hobby horse about the Aboriginal Interpreter Service that they saw the error of their ways and corrected the funding amounts accordingly.
So, if they want to be a little cute about these sorts of things, then they had better check their own back yard. If they look at their mini-budget figures, when they originally published them, they will be reminded that the members opposite were actually involved in cutting funding to the Aboriginal Interpreter Service. However, once I took up the cudgels on behalf of the service and Aboriginal Territorians, they did see the error of their ways and were kind enough to fund the service properly.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I am very happy to contribute to this debate. It is an area I practiced in and an area I know well. Indeed, I even brought along my very own well-thumbed copy of the Crimes (Victims Assistance) Act that was once owned by Carney’s Barristers and Solicitors. Having said that, I think I can constructively contribute to this debate.
Initially I was very troubled by the proposal about legal costs. Quite frankly, I am not really concerned about how much money lawyers make. For me, the issue was the possibility that it would preclude victims of crime from being represented. So I am very happy that the Attorney-General has seen fit to amend those parts. I should say, however, noting his second-reading speech, there was no indication in that speech that the bill, at that time, was provided on a draft basis. There is a comment later on that eventually the act will be reviewed and a discussion paper and draft bill will be circulated. That was not the case with this. The Attorney-General received letters from law firms, representations from his shadow and, only at that point said: ‘Okay, we will change the costs’. I congratulate him and thank him for that.
However, can I say with respect that, if the Attorney-General is going to bring bills into this House, then he should at least do his homework beforehand. This is a government that says it is going to consult, consult, consult, and it did not. I will now table, with leave, a copy of a letter from the law firm in Alice Springs, Povey Stirk.
Leave granted.
Ms CARNEY: I did not hear all of what the member for Goyder had to contribute in this debate, so I apologise if there is any repetition. This letter dated 19 September was sent to the Attorney-General and, indeed, I think yourself, Madam Speaker, and the member for Nelson. The author of that letter says that the lack of consultation for this amendment bill is truly appalling. He suggested that the bill be adjourned:
So government has been caught out on that front. Nevertheless, I welcome the amendments in relation to costs. I should also say that I received several letters from law firms when I went back to Alice Springs after the last sittings. I wrote to those law firms and ask for their comment. With the exception of one, however, they did not want me to publish or table their letters. There was a concern that, if they spoke out against this government, they might be at risk in terms of losing future contracts and tenders with this government. I say that because the government might be interested in addressing what seems to be a perception of the vindictiveness of this government if people speak out.
I have some problems with other sections which I can say, very seriously, I am hoping to resolve in the course of the committee stages. It may well be that by explanation of a couple of points the Attorney-General can placate me. I do not think they are all that significant. I should pause, though, to go back briefly to what the Attorney-General said in his second-reading speech. He referred to the Crimes (Victims Assistance) Committee Report in 1997. I know that report well. I made a submission to the panel and, from memory. made a submission to the former Attorney-General, Shane Stone, because when that draft report came out there were great chunks of it that were unsatisfactory. The Attorney-General indicated in his second-reading speech that there was some criticism against the former government for not implementing part of that report.
Well it was not implemented, I can tell the Attorney-General, because the legal profession on balance was not happy with the outcome of that report. The CLP has been accused of many things but, unlike this new government, the CLP did not commission reports just for the sake of it. It went through them and did consult …
Mr Stirling: Rubbish! Keep it honest, please.
Ms CARNEY: It consulted and any suggestion that it did not is an untruth. I, and indeed many other lawyers, contributed to that report and the Attorney-General at the time did not implement any of the recommendations because they were bagged. So I say to the Attorney-General: just because you get a report, it does not mean that the contents of it are always needed to be implemented.
As I said, I do have a couple of issues with a couple of clauses of the act which I am hopeful can be resolved in the committee. I am slightly troubled, but I am hoping that we can work them out.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Madam Speaker, I rise to support amendments to the Crimes (Victims Assistance) Act. Unfortunately, the Northern Territory can be quite a violent place, and I believe much of the problem is alcohol –related. According to the NT Police Fire and Emergency Services 2000-01 Annual Report, there were 2533 offences related to assault in 1999-2000, compared with 3124 in 2000-01. Similarly, there were 187 sexual assault offences in 1999-2000 compared with 284 in 2000-01. According to the Victims of Crime Assistance League (VOCAL) annual report - I think it is about two years old; I have not been able to get hold of a more contemporary one, but I doubt whether the situation has changed - by far and away the largest category of people whom they support are those who experienced assault, domestic violence and sexual assault.
Each one of these offences has a victim who must cope, not only with the physical trauma, but also with the emotional and mental trauma of their attack. We are very fortunate to have an organisation like VOCAL working so hard in our community to alleviate the distress and trauma experienced by victims of crime. A number of victims of crime have told me just how supportive VOCAL have been and how much help that they have had from VOCAL. I know amongst the victims of crime, VOCAL gets a big ‘thumbs up’; they are very well thought of and people really appreciate the work that they do.
Nevertheless, as a community and a government, we must ensure that judicial systems which are responsible for compensating such victims are working efficiently and providing the maximum possible benefit to the victims of crime. It was refreshing to hear the member for Araluen put on the record her commitment as an advocate for those victims of crime. However, what was a little disappointing was that the member for Goyder seemed as though he was really representing, in many ways in what he had to say, the interest of lawyers. Unfortunately, the current system is not providing this efficiency. As the Attorney-General pointed out in his second-reading speech, an ever-increasing proportion of the funds provided to the Victims Assistance Scheme, formerly the Victims Compensation Scheme, is being chewed up in legal costs – it was nearly half of the $5.5m allocated to the scheme in 2001-02. Furthermore, the proportion paid in legal costs nearly doubled from the level in 1998-99 to the $2.25m paid in 2000-01.
Even though there has been an increase in the overall funding to the scheme, legal costs are escalating and chewing up a lot of the available funds within that scheme. It is obvious from these figures that action was needed to redress this situation. Whilst the government recognises the need for a complete overhaul of the Crimes (Victims Assistance) framework, the amendments proposed here today address some urgent matters which, if left unattended, have the potential to threaten the efficient working of the scheme and, in fact, the viability of the scheme. Against this background, I welcome the statement by the Attorney-General in his second-reading speech that the government is committed to conducting a complete review and overhaul of the Crimes (Victims Assistance) Act within the next 12 months.
I wish to turn now to the essence of the current amendments which were recommended following a review of the Crimes Victims Advisory Committee in 1997 which the member for Araluen has referred to. For whatever reason, it is unfortunate that the recommendations, although submitted, are not being implemented until the present time. I take on board the comments from the member for Araluen, but maybe there should have been a bit more work done to try to resolve some of these outstanding issues that she pointed to. The amendments before us today are an attempt on the part of this government to try to put in some interim measures while a more complete overview of the act takes place. The main amendments before us today are as follows, and I have about five all together.
First, remove the offender of the alleged offender from the assistance application process. This is being done to expedite the process and to remove the distress often experienced by victims in being confronted by the offender or alleged offender in an adversarial court situation.
Second, allowing the Territory to recover assistance funds and legal costs from an alleged offender in separate recovery proceedings. To some degree, these amendments arise from the previous amendments. Furthermore, they are being made necessary because often offenders are difficult to locate or are without adequate funds to pay. I believe these two sets of amendments will expedite the process for victims.
The third set of amendments seek to simplify and streamline the processes involved in determining matters relating to victims assistance, namely - and I am coming to the third one now - to allow proceedings to be handled by Judicial Registrars under the appropriate supervision of magistrates. This will allow the majority of evidence to be in the form of written affidavits. It is noteworthy that these changes have the support of the Chief Stipendiary Magistrate of the Northern Territory.
Fourth, halving the scale of legal costs under the scheme from 80% of Supreme Court scale to 40%. Now, some concerns have being raised here today, particularly by the members for Goyder and Macdonnell and the legal profession about this proposal. We have listened to those concerns, and I understand the Attorney-General will be moving committee stage amendments to provide a lump sum payment for legal fees as an alternative cost structure. This government believes that, in tandem with the procedural changes foreshadowed in point three above, which were to allow proceedings to be handled by Judicial Registrars, this amendment should act as a brake to escalating legal costs under the scheme.
Fifth, increasing the victim levy payable by persons convicted of an offence in Northern Territory courts or those paying traffic fines. It is noteworthy that these levies have not increased since 1989. Apart from the issue of rising costs over this period, it is also an unfortunate fact of life that crimes against the person have also increased during this period, and I will come back to what I said about alcohol being the root of a lot of these problems in terms of violent crime. I do not really want to go into some of the issues that were raised here yesterday about customary law and some of the issues there, but it is my firm belief - and I will place it on the record here - that a lot of these problems stem from alcohol and substance abuse, and they escalate into the area of customary law, and often these are exacerbating factors.
In summary, I commend these changes to the Crimes (Victims Assistance) Act because, pending a comprehensive review of the scheme, these interim amendments will safeguard the viability of the scheme and make it more efficient. I applaud the Attorney-General’s pledge for a complete overhaul and review of the Crimes (Victims Assistance) Act over the next 12 months.
I was especially delighted to hear in the Attorney-General’s second-reading speech that the focus of the review will be on rehabilitation and counselling for victims. Sometimes we lose focus of the victims and they are what it is all about. Furthermore, there will be an examination of the potential benefits of an administrative rather than judicial process for the determination of awards.
Madam Speaker, in conclusion, I commend these amendments to the House and I urge members to support them.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I thank all the members who have contributed to the debate on this bill.
I want to begin in summing up the second-reading debate by referring back to the reason this bill has come before the House. The opposition has acknowledged that reform in this area is not only needed, but probably overdue. I would refer back to some of the figures in the second-reading speech: in the 1998-99 financial year 24% of the overall costs of the scheme were spent on legal costs; by 2001-02, that had gone up to 41%. Another way of looking at it is that in 1996-97 to the current year, financial payments to the victims had increased by 60%; the legal costs have increased by 513%. So we have a structural problem, if you like, within the scheme which is having the effect of displacing expenditure that was intended largely to go to the victims into the actual cost of running the scheme and delivering the compensation. Clearly, we had to look for some measures to alleviate that.
I would like to start by clarifying something. We have been talking about the review, and certainly the members for Macdonnell and Johnston have both referred to the further stage of reform that we intend to undertake. In the second-reading speech, I indicated a discussion paper would be coming forward and the original timing of that was in October. I now indicate to members that we will have that ready for the November sittings. That will be a discussion paper to seek community views in a very consultative way, so I hope that will take care of some of the concerns the opposition have had about the consultation process.
When you look at some of the issues that are embodied in the bill before us today, there is a degree of vested interest involved in things such as the scale of legal costs, the actual process issues that have been brought forward in today’s bill, which did make it difficult to go round very widely in the community. We certainly did consult; we took some advice from the Law Society and from individual law firms. Some of that, as has been pointed out earlier in the debate, came after the original bill was tabled in the August sittings. Probably one of the things that has given some opportunity for the legal profession to have a say is that this bill has laid on the Table for a couple of months. As a result of that, we have a number of very good submissions from the legal community, and as a result of those submissions we have prepared some committee stage amendments.
I will deal with some of the issues that were brought up as we went through this debate, of which I believe we need to do some more work on one, and I will get to that in a minute. Regarding the different costs that might apply to Northern Territory government contract work, my department’s CEO has given an absolute undertaking that the legal costs of the NT government will be reviewed to take account of the amendments. The tenders for Territory work will reflect the new cost structure to ensure that firms representing the Territory are not given an unfair advantage over the firms representing victims. So I can give you that assurance here, on Hansard, that that will certainly be done.
Regarding the issue of the victim not being entitled to costs if a reasonable settlement was rejected. Applicants will get their full award entitlement, whether they accept an offer or go to a hearing. Solicitors cannot enter into agreements with applicants to receive costs over and above what the court orders, and they cannot dip into a victim’s award to recover additional legal costs. The aim of the amendment is clearly to reduce the number of matters going to a full hearing. This not only adds to the cost of the scheme, but it also causes further stress on victims and prolongs their recovery process. Currently, the act almost encourages solicitors to advise applicants to reject offers. Solicitors will be paid their costs in any event and, therefore, currently it is in their interest to actually contest all matters, even where they are of the opinion that an offer was reasonable. This is not to say that all solicitors representing applicants adopt this approach, and do not take that meaning from it, because, like all professions, there are all sorts of approaches to the way professional work is pursued.
In respect of the increase in the $25 000 maximum award, I would lead you to stage two of the reforms. We have not changed the $3000 and $25 000 in the two categories simply because the whole aim of the discussion paper is to start to have a good look at victimisation as an issue and how best you can compensate for victimisation. It may well be, as the member for Johnston mentioned, that there will be other interventions that may be more appropriate or more helpful to the victim than simply a payment.
We have not reduced it; we have not increased it. As a result of the second stage of review, we will have a better idea of the total package of support for a victim that might be put in place. If that involves the need for a greater or lesser cash ceiling on the compensation payments, then we will take that into account, but that will be after very wide consultation. I do not think I would want to signal any action of that sort. All we have said today is that we are leaving that cap in place.
In terms of the consultation, I can certainly provide more information on the committee stage amendments and the consultation that we engaged in as a result of that. Some of the amendments contained in the bill came out of the 1998 report to which the member for Araluen referred. Preparing that report, the CVAC did consult widely with stakeholders. In preparing the bill itself, ad hoc consultation with practitioners and stakeholders was undertaken but, as I said, constrained by some of the issues of vested interests in some areas that we were trying to consider.
Close consultation was undertaken with the court system. As a result of tabling the bill, I received a representation from Mr Bill Priestley from Priestley Walsh in Darwin and, through my department, from Mr John Stirk of Povey Stirk in Alice Springs. Both recommend a move to a lump sum scale. I can certainly say that I had a very pleasant conversation with John and he is an extremely good advocate.
Ms Carney: I am sure you did, after I alerted him to your bill. Thank you, Jodeen.
Dr TOYNE: Well, in fact, I was alerted to it over a glass of excellent red down at the Alice Resort quite a time before. However, I do appreciate the member for Araluen’s care, as you always have, of bringing areas of concern to me when you become aware of them. I appreciate that.
I have also received a letter from the Northern Territory Law Society in support of Mr Priestley’s proposal. I have even received a letter from the opposition spokesman on legal affairs, the member for Goyder. So, there you are, we did receive that. That also raised concerns of legal practitioners as to costs.
The costs aspect of the committee stage amendment has been discussed in detail with Mr Priestley who has expressed support for the amendment today. Practitioners and victims groups have also provided comment to me and my department on current problems with the Crime (Victims Assistance) Scheme in general and, in particular, some of the contents of the current bill. Again, those have been largely put away now in consultation with those groups.
Generally, prior to the bringing on of the bill, I have had complaints about the dysfunction of the scheme brought to me. Probably one of the first discussions I had with a legal practitioner was with Bill Priestley, and he alerted me, soon after I became Attorney-General, that it was an area that I would find myself having to deal with because it was just unworkable and unsustainable the way it was going. He is a person, as you well know, who is heavily involved in this area of the law. There were no truer words spoken that I would end up spending a fair bit of time on this.
Coming to the issue of the fee scale, I would like to connect the legal costs that are embodied in that scale to a wider frame. We should look at other jurisdictions. In the Territory, an application’s legal costs average about $4500, with Territory legal costs about $2000. These figures are taken from a sample of 91 files completed as of February 2002. These levels of cost are substantially higher than in any other jurisdiction. They are often disproportionate to the awards ordered. The legal costs can be higher than the Victims Assistance Award.
To give you some examples from interstate: Queensland currently uses District Court scale which, according to the Queensland Costs Assessor, is approximately 40% of the NT Supreme Court scale. The assessor suggests that $1000 is appropriate for most matters. Tasmania currently works off the scale recommended by the DPP of $500 for a simple claim, $700 for a medium claim, and $1000 for a complicated claim. New South Wales, a lump sum of $825 for preparation up to hearing and an additional amount for the hearing. Victoria is $750 for preparation and an additional $400 to $500 for the hearing. South Australia, approximately $1000 for preparation, $750 for hearing; and Western Australia, no legal costs allowed and the applicant must pay the costs out of his or her award, which is very generous.
In terms of the matter of the level of fees to lawyers that the member for Macdonnell raised, the fees to lawyers are at $65 an hour. Amendments will streamline the processes and reduce the actual time that lawyers need to apply to a case. The Law Society now believes that the fees are appropriate with the proposed introduction of the committee stage amendment.
Moving now to a serious issue that has come forward today from the member for Goyder, and that is the issue of retrospectivity, taking 1 November as a starting date of the scheme. I can say as a general principle in pretty well all legislation we introduce, we do not like retrospectivity. If there is going to be any retrospective effect on cases that are currently on foot, or cases that would be brought forward between now and 1 November, we have to ensure that we do not have undue detriment to that case. We will have a look at that, and I can assure you we will have a serious look at it. If there are some boundary issues there that need to be sorted out, if necessary we will bring some further action into the November sittings. I will keep you informed on what we do about that.
I can assure you that what we are trying to get is a clean break between 1 November onwards and pre-1 November. So if there are matters that flow from an existing case beyond 1 November, we have to clarify that.
That is probably all I need to cover. I think I have covered most of the members’ concerns with this. I thank members for their contribution to the debate. I can say I think that the opposition is supporting the broad thrust of what we are doing. We will deal with the particular concerns you have raised if it is appropriate in the committee stage debate. You have indicated you will be bringing things forward there. So, perhaps we can move on.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Clauses 1 to 3, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 4:
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move 24.1 which inserts at the end of proposed section 6:
I want to know what your rationale is for not having the same type of obligations imposed upon, for example, the Territory; in other words, this mutuality of litigants. Why is it that an applicant cannot serve an offer of compromise on the Northern Territory government and then the same ramifications follow - in terms of indemnity costs, not just costs on scale?
Dr TOYNE: I am advised we pay the costs, anyway.
Mr MALEY: Yes, but in terms of indemnity costs, not just your scale costs, but some sort of penalty for you being a bit unreasonable in forcing the applicant to continue down this path. The penalty for this applicant if they refuse to accept the reasonable offer is, of course, they bear their own legal costs.
For example, in the Work Health Court, there is a penalty interest, so it might be an extra 20% on top of what the award is, there might be indemnity costs. In the Local Court there are indemnity costs. In the Work Health Act you have penalty interest.
There needs to be some sort of an equality here. Most of the time the government is very good, but there are occasions when reasonable offers are rejected and there needs to be some sort of equality here.
Dr TOYNE: As the process works, if an offer is made by the government to an applicant, and the applicant or their legal representative considers that to be an unreasonable offer, even though the government is claiming it to be reasonable, then the hearing proceeds and that is challenged through the continued hearing of the matter, and there is a capacity to load up the final outcome in recognition of the government’s misbehaviour.
Mr MALEY: I understand that. I am talking about the reverse. I know the Attorney-General takes some advice, but he did not actually answer the question. I understand that, but I am talking about in most jurisdictions even a statutory regime like this - and I will be as basic as I can - there needs to be some sort of penalty. It might be a penalty interest; it might be extra, like under the Work Health Act; it might be indemnity costs, for example, under the Local Court Rules. But if I am the Northern Territory government, and you are the applicant, and you, as the applicant, say to me: ‘Give me $5000, I am out of here. I do not want the drama, the trauma of going to court’ but I, in my wisdom as the Northern Territory government, say: ‘No, I do not believe you. I reject that and you will get no more than $1000’ and it turns out that, once you go to hearing, that the offer of compromise by you was reasonable, there needs to be a penalty on me for dragging the chain and postponing the payment of $5000 or whatever the award is to you for an extra six months while we go through this process. Do you see what I am saying? I understand precisely what you said in your original response, but my question is: why the unfair treatment of applicants?
Dr TOYNE: The objective of these reforms is to reduce the process costs of the scheme. If you are looking for what would provide an incentive to the government to actually make a reasonable offer - clearly it cannot be just simply a figure stated by the applicant, name a figure - but if you are looking for what would provide a powerful incentive, it is that the only way that further costs can be avoided on the government’s side is to achieve a settlement.
The penalty you are looking for is the further cost to government of all further action, which is all paid by the government. So there is every incentive for us to try and put a reasonable offer in front of an applicant.
Clauses 5 to 8, by leave, taken together:
Ms CARNEY: I am sorry, Mr Chairman, did you say clauses 5 to 8?
Mr CHAIRMAN: Yes, that is what we were dealing with.
Ms CARNEY: In relation to clause 8 and the amendments regarding a Judicial Registrar, I assume the Attorney-General is aware that there is in fact no Judicial Registrar in Alice Springs. There seems to be - and I think the author of the letter I tabled called it a Darwin-centric amendment - so could the Attorney-General indicate whether he proposes to appoint a Judicial Registrar in Alice Springs?
Dr TOYNE: I can only say that if this provides an avenue for getting more resources into Alice Springs, I will certainly explore it. I live in Central Australia as well.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you. You are aware, Attorney-General, also that the two magistrates in Alice Springs are tremendously overworked. Could you indicate whether you have any intention of appointing a third magistrate in Alice Springs?
Dr TOYNE: It is not relevant to this debate, but, yes, we are looking at it.
Clauses 5 to 8 agreed to.
New Clause 8A:
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment schedule 24.2. This amendment inserts a new section 15A into the act to provide for appeals against decisions made by judicial registrars under the act. Appeals are currently provided for under Rule 4.04 of the Local Court Rules, however the Crimes (Victims Assistance) Amendment Bill now provides for final determinations to be made by judicial registrars, where previously only magistrates could make final determinations.
After further consideration, it was decided that specific appeal provisions under Rule 4.04 were inadequate for the appeals from final determinations. Rule 4.04 is a simple rule providing for an appeal de novo - that is, the whole process starts again, for those who do not understand Latin - that that rule is suitable for appeals from interlocutory orders – I am getting used to this; don’t worry - but not appropriate for appeals from final determinations where a specific, more detailed, appeal process should be set out as under Part 37 of the Local Court Rules.
Proposed new section 15A(3), therefore, provides that appeals against decisions by a Judicial Registrar against a decision to issue an assistances certificate, or a decision to allow the Territory to recover from an offender are in accordance with Part 37 of the Local Court Rules. Proposed new section 15A(5) provides that an appeal against an order in proceedings made by a Judicial Registrar is to be in accordance with Rule 4.04 of the Local Court Rules. Proposed new section 15A(6) clarifies that appeals against orders of Judicial Registrars are not to be to the Supreme Court. This is despite section 19 of the Local Court Act which specifies that appeals are to be to the Supreme Court. Proposed section 15A(7) provides that an appeal will only operate at a stay of the relevant order or determination if a magistrate specifically orders.
Mr MALEY: In relation to the amending bill of the original amending bill, could you clarify that an appeal from a decision of the Judicial Registrar goes to the Magistrates Court - it is a hearing de novo, a re-hearing, or even if it is an interlocutory matter or whatever, is that, from your understanding of the new costs provisions, covered by the composite scale which you are about to introduce in relation to the amendments to the new clause 24(5) or are you saying that Local Court Rules should apply?
Dr TOYNE: Yes, I can confirm that it is covered under the Local Court scale.
Mr MALEY: Okay. That being the case, if there is an appeal pursuant to section 15A – I see what you are saying. You are saying that because it is under Part 37 of the Local Court Rules, it is governed by the normal costs arrangements. Thank you for that clarification.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8A, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 9 to 11, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 12:
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment schedule 24.3. This amendment inserts a new section 21(6) of the act to provide that if a court is satisfied that an assistance certificate should not have been issued, it may determine that the Territory is not entitled to recover from the offender. As the bill amends the scheme to remove the offender from the victim assistance process, it was necessary to create a new procedure to recover from the offender which allows the offender to argue against the Territory recovering the amount of the victim’s assistance. The current bill provides for the court to reduce the amount to be recovered if the offender can show that the victim either contributed to his or her injuries, or if the court awarded too much assistance to the victim in the first place.
However, there is no provision for the offender to argue that the assistance certificate should not have been issued, and that he or she should not be liable to pay any money at all. This amendment will allow for situations where the offender can show that the victim, for example, fabricated the offence.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 13:
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 24.4. This amendment omits section 24(4) of the act as proposed by the bill and substitutes a new section 24(4) to provide a new regulation making power.
This amendment allows for the regulations to prescribe a lump sum fee for specified work done in relation to the application under the act. It also allows for the regulations to specify a percentage of the Supreme Court scale payable for work done in relation to an application. The relevant legal practitioner will be able to elect to recover costs either according to the prescribed lump sum fees or to the prescribed percentage of the Supreme Court scale.
Ms CARNEY: Attorney-General, what is going to be the situation in relation to the government contracts that private law firms have? I should say I listened to what you had to say before. I am advised that tenders closed yesterday afternoon in Darwin for the CVA contracts. Those contracts, from memory, are for a period of two years?
Dr TOYNE: I can report that the tender notices that went out indicated that the government was moving to these reforms and that the contracts will subsequently be couched in the same terms as we are considering here, so that is how the payments will be based to the successful tenderers.
Ms CARNEY: When you say that that will be done subsequently, does that mean from the 1 November?
Dr TOYNE: Yes.
Ms CARNEY: It does. Thank you.
In relation to section proposed section 24(4)(a) and the reference to costs if the assistance is over $5000, I am wondering why there has not been any provision in the bill for counsel fees. There are regulations that refer to the fees paid, but nowhere in the proposed regulations was there provision for counsel. Why is that?
Dr TOYNE: There is a reference in the provisions to the payment of all reasonable disbursements excluding counsel fees, but counsel fees are embodied in the actual rates stated above that.
Ms CARNEY: Can you point me to that?
Dr TOYNE: The section dealing with rates for hearing.
Ms CARNEY: The rates for hearing, section 24(4)(a), is $850 per day. Isn’t the effect of these changes in reality to exclude counsel from appearing in these applications?
Dr TOYNE: I am advised that because of the simplification of the process, we do not believe there will be a great need for counsel; they can appear at that rate.
Ms CARNEY: Attorney-General, do you have any idea how much a regular barrister in the Northern Territory charges as a daily rate?
Dr TOYNE: I can only say that the provisions in the bill provide for that scale of payments for hearings, and any legal practitioner appearing in that matter will be paid at that rate.
Ms CARNEY: Attorney-General, let me tell you that last time I engaged counsel, the rate was between $1500 and $2500 per day. Noting that the Attorney-General is obtaining advice, would you like me to sit down so that he can hear that advice - I say that as a matter of courtesy - or would you like me to keep going?
Dr TOYNE: I have nothing more to say.
Ms CARNEY: Now that you know that a counsel in Darwin charges between $1500 and $2500 per day, isn’t it the case that the effect of these regulations will exclude counsel appearing? Does that create any concern for you for necessarily complex applications such as incest cases and/or cases where there are multiple applications?
Dr TOYNE: I can only say the whole spirit of this reform is to try to settle as many as these matters by negotiation initially and, if necessary, by the most streamlined and cost-effective means possible in terms of hearings.
Ms CARNEY: Minister, you have told members of the House that you and your government are committed to victims of crime, to ensuring their interests are protected. How can their interests be protected when the effect of your regulations is that they are deprived and precluded from the use of expert legal advice, as is often the case in these sorts of applications?
Mr Kiely: Worried about your own pocket, aren’t you?
Ms CARNEY: Sit down, you idiot! You are a grub.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Order! Sit down. Member for Araluen, please withdraw both those remarks, grub and idiot.
Ms CARNEY: I will withdraw grub and idiot, Mr Chairman.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order! Mr Chairman, you asked that both remarks be withdrawn.
Mr CHAIRMAN: She did. No, they were both withdrawn.
Ms LAWRIE: Both withdrawn? She said one.
Mr CHAIRMAN: They were both withdrawn.
Dr TOYNE: If we can get back to the matter at hand, you are making a couple of presumptions here. One is that we have changed this process. We have provided a much clarified set of expectations of the process. The first is that there will be, we would expect in most cases, a pre-court settlement with a reasonable offer being made by the government as to compensation.
You are equating the seriousness of the crime with the complexity of the legal judgment as to compensation, and that is not necessarily so at all. We believe that the interest of the victim can be protected without recourse to very expensive and protracted legal testing. We believe that there is sufficient background to the types of cases that come into this victim compensation scheme to allow a simplified and more direct process.
Ms CARNEY: Attorney-General, you have referred to your nave hope that these applications will settle before they get to court. Do you have any idea, on a statistical basis, of how many applications currently do settle?
Dr TOYNE: On the basis of the old structure, I would be interested to know how much of the $2.6m was expended on enormously complex legal argument. When we are looking at the whole question of support of victims, whatever was beneficial or not beneficial to the victims, I cannot imagine that an extraordinarily complex legal testing of their right to compensation was going to help with alleviating the effects of their victimisation. What we are trying to get is not only appropriate support back to the victims, but timely support. I do not believe that this is disadvantaging the victims at all, and you can put up whatever arguments you like …
Ms Carney: I will. I will keep going.
Dr TOYNE: You keep going, but I am saying that we have made a judgment as to how we want this scheme to look as a process. We have moved these reforms to move the whole focal point of the process from a complex and expensive testing back to a more - and one of the options beyond this is to go to a fully administrative scheme which does not involve lawyers at all. That certainly will be an option in terms of a broader discussion about this.
Ms CARNEY: I am sure you are heading in that direction. Attorney-General, did you consult with the Bar Association about these fees?
Dr TOYNE: As I reported in the second-reading speech, while we certainly have talked to members of the legal community and received submissions from them, there are a lot of vested interests in this. In the case of recompense for legal services rendered to a government scheme, I think lawyers, like anyone else who deals with the government, have to recognise there is a vested interest there.
Ms CARNEY: Attorney-General, do you have any idea of the effect of some of your answers on victims in the Northern Territory? Your answers are that they are deprived of expert legal advice, that some cases might settle, and on that basis alone, they are not required to have expert legal advice. I am wondering do you still assert that, through this bill, you will be protecting the interests of victims of crime, or would you like an opportunity to put these provisions on to the back burner while you get additional advice from the profession and victim support organisations?
Dr TOYNE: I make two points here. If you want me to continue on to welcome and engage you in debate, I would suggest you do not get too condescending on your part …
Ms Carney: Well you have shown such astonishing navety, it is hard to resist.
Members interjecting.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Order! Order!
Dr TOYNE: We are discussing an issue here, and I think we can discuss it without you basically characterising me as someone who does not know something about this …
Ms Carney: You do not know! You know you have made a mistake, and you do not even have the guts to admit it.
Dr TOYNE: I know a fair bit about this and I would also like to say …
Mr CHAIRMAN: Order! Order! Address your comments through the Chair, please, member for Araluen.
Ms Carney: You’ve cocked it up.
Mr KEILY: A point of order, Mr Chairman! She – you cocked it up! She keeps using this sort of unparliamentary language in here and she gets away with it day in, day out.
Mr CHAIRMAN: There is no point of order. Quiet please.
Mr Kiely: Cocked it up, eh? Great language, Jodeen. Great debater.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Member for Sanderson!
Dr TOYNE: The other point I make is that your claim about the lack of expert advice - what is every solicitor in the Northern Territory going to think about that, that you have to be a barrister to be an expert? Please! There is legal advice being paid for and supported in this process. We are simplifying the process. We are simply saying that we do not believe that we will need to go as much, if at all, to complex legal arguments. That is the way we want to deliver the victims their compensation. If there is a problem with the delivery through these arrangements, we will look at it. We believe we can deliver an adequate and supportive scheme without the need to spend over $2m on legal costs.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Just before anyone speaks again, I just might ask the member for Araluen: have you many more questions on this bill?
Ms CARNEY: I do, Mr Chairman.
Mr CHAIRMAN: I will suspend this committee until after Question Time, and adjourn for lunch to reconvene at 2.05 pm.
Continued from earlier this day.
In committee:
Clause 13 (continued):
Ms CARNEY: Mr Chairman, can I indicate - and it should be circulated if it has not been already - a proposed amendment 27.1 to clause 14. Having moved that, however, I have some questions for the Attorney-General, although not terribly many, on the issue that we were discussing prior to the luncheon adjournment.
Mr CHAIRMAN: We might wait until it is circulated so that members can see what the amendment is.
Ms Carney: Attorney-General, prior to …
Mr CHAIRMAN: The Attorney-General has the floor.
Ms Carney: I am sorry.
Dr TOYNE: I am quite happy for you to talk about the amendment. I just thought it might be useful if I give you a succinct reply to the various issues you were raising just before lunch. It might help clarify our position.
Mr CHAIRMAN: We are not talking to the amendment.
Dr TOYNE: No, I am not talking to the amendment, I am talking to the original amendment, not the additional one.
Regarding the provision of counsel fees, the first point is - and we have made this in an earlier debate - that we believe that the reforms that we are introducing to the act will simplify the process and, certainly, that most matters will now be heard by a Judicial Registrar rather than a magistrate. A large proportion of matters will not require hearing by court, let alone hearing with a counsel.
There are a lot of solicitors in the Territory who have a real expertise in this area and are very capable of representing their client in a hearing, particularly as the process is to be simplified. It is anticipated that the need for counsel representation will be minimised except in a very small percentage of extremely complex matters. In cases where counsel is to be engaged, there will be two options under the scheme. The solicitor can elect to have costs for the matter recovered at 40% of the Supreme Court scale. In relation to the Supreme Court scale, counsel fees are not restrained by the percentage requirement; this means that counsel would be entitled to full fees. Alternatively, counsel fees can be paid at a rate provided for in the proposed lump sum scale for awards over $5000. Hearing fees are $850 for the first day and then, I believe, it is $500 for any subsequent day of the hearing. This amount reflects the daily fees that are paid to counsel by legal aid and by the Director of Public Prosecutions for matters conducted in the Magistrate’s Court. I am satisfied that the appropriate counsel can be engaged at this rate for Crimes (Victims Assistance) matters. The costs structure further provides a lower daily rate for second and subsequent days, which I have already pointed out. This is to reflect the more simplified process and to discourage over servicing.
Ms CARNEY: I thank you, Attorney-General, for that explanation. However, unfortunately, I am still not satisfied. You make no comment as to what provision exists for an instructing solicitor. It is the case - and I do assume you know this - that counsel appears at the Bar Table with an instructor. There is no provision for both of those individuals to recover costs. The bill expressly precludes the recovery of counsel fees and, in relation to your comment that the Legal Aid Commission and the DPP both brief lawyers out at $500 to $800 per day, neither of those entities perform Crime (Victims’ Assistance) work when it comes to applications. So that is really why I am not satisfied.
There is one other matter, just by way of a response to what you have said. You have indicated that you hope, or expect, that most matters would be heard by Judicial Registrars. Well, there are a couple of problems with that. You conceded earlier today that there is no Judicial Registrar in Alice Springs, so the people in Alice Springs still would be deprived of a Judicial Registrar. In addition, it is the case - or it is the reality - that there are some matters that will need to go before a magistrate, may even need to go to the Supreme Court on appeal, and yet, there is still no provision for counsel. So, I guess that is my reply to what you have said.
Having said that, can I proceed with a couple more questions and, perhaps at the end of that, subject to any questions that my colleague, the member for Goyder has, I would like to talk to the amendment. That is fine?
Mr CHAIRMAN: Yes.
Ms CARNEY: Attorney-General, you indicated before lunch that barristers did not need to deal with Crimes (Victims Assistance) applications. I cannot remember exactly what you said, but it was words to the effect of: ‘solicitors can handle all matters’. Can you tell us do you know the practical difference in the Northern Territory between a solicitor and a barrister and, if so, could you explain it to us?
Dr TOYNE: Next question.
Ms CARNEY: I will repeat the question.
Dr TOYNE: No, you do not have to. It is a disparaging question. I am not going to answer it.
Ms CARNEY: Okay. It will be for the listeners, I guess, to draw their own conclusions as to whether or not the Attorney-General of the Northern Territory, the Territory’s first law officer, knows the answer to that question. Perhaps you would be good enough to answer the second question.
Attorney-General, can you concede that the rights of victims of crime may be compromised without the assistance of counsel in a complex application for victim’s assistance?
Dr TOYNE: I have made it clear from the notes that I brought back from our discussion of this issue that a victim requiring counsel within a hearing, under the 40% option, can have counsel paid at full rates, and, if under the lump sum option, can have counsel paid at the same rates as the Director of Public Prosecutions and legal aid services. They will have counsel, and they will have the representation required. That is all I have to say about it.
Ms CARNEY: Attorney-General, are you aware - and please say so if you are not - that some applications for assistance are multiple applications, and can involve claims of up to $100 000? Do you expect solicitors of the Northern Territory to conduct those applications without the assistance of counsel?
Dr TOYNE: I am not going on much longer with this because we are going into a circular argument. They have the assistance of counsel. I have told you they have the assistance of counsel. That is all I want to be saying about it.
Ms CARNEY: Minister, as a result of what you have said, do you say to the barristers of the Northern Territory, that they, as a result of amendments you propose, will be required to work for $500 to $800 a day when their daily rates are between $1500 and $2500 per day?
Members interjecting.
Ms CARNEY: The answer to the question, Attorney-General? Okay, I note that the Attorney-General is shrugging his shoulders and waves his hands about. Thank you for that indication.
Dr TOYNE: I said I have no further comment. Let us get on with it.
Ms CARNEY: You can bet your bottom dollar that lawyers throughout the Northern Territory, as well as victims of crime, will be fascinated by your pathetic response.
Having said that, I wish now to – I apologise, I will not press my amendment yet. My colleague, the member for Goyder, obviously has ...
Members interjecting.
Mr MALEY: Indeed, in relation to that section we are talking about, I realise, of course, this is my friend’s area of expertise. From a practical perspective, there are a couple of things you said which I think it is appropriate to put on the record and ask you to make a response.
The basis of all the amendments is to streamline the process, and that is a noble goal. The difficulty is, of course, whilst you can streamline the procedural aspects of it, if someone is a victim of a crime - from my prosecuting days and being a defence lawyer - their responses are complex and different depending upon the nature of the subject of the criminal conduct. If you think of the advice that you have that by having less-experienced counsel - and you said there are many experienced solicitors with real expertise in the area in the Northern Territory - in the future, because of these cost reductions, those people will not be able to continue to do that type of work. The work will go, quite frankly, to more junior people, to articled clerks or paralegals, and the reality is that, despite the procedural changes you have made, matters will not settle any quicker. There will be less time spent on serving defendants and the like, but in the long run it is a self-defeating type of amendment.
You have some procedural changes which are good, but then you take away the experience which you would normally have in terms of the people who have the care and conduct of those matters. Do you understand that? That is the point which you could have been going around in circles [inaudible] – not that I agree with that. The lack of experience will have an effect on the capacity of these matters to settle before they go to a hearing or before they are dealt with in front of a Judicial Registrar.
Dr TOYNE: I do not accept your assertions at all. We are on the same scale as the Director of Public Prosecutions and the legal aid services; they have carried out affairs in the magistrates courts for years on these rates of scale. They have successfully dealt with quite complex hearings, and we are on the same level. I do not think I am going around in circles; I have stopped in my spot. You might have your opinions or your own point of view on this. I have also stopped in the spot that seemed to satisfy most of the submissions that came to us including the Law Society, Bill Priestley, and the NT Victims of Crime. I believe we have a proposal that is seen by that body of opinion as being appropriate. I have indicated that the ability to include counsel in the hearing part of a claim is there, and is there at the same rate as is being used elsewhere in the justice system. That is all I need to say about it.
Mr MALEY: Attorney-General, just a point of clarification. I know that from experience - even the police, when you prosecute on their behalf, and I was doing that just prior to the election last year - they were paying $1000 a day. If it was a basic matter, of course the rate was a bit lower, but if it was a more complex matter you would get a lot more. Those organisations including the Legal Aid Commission and NAALAS have the capacity to pay. If it is simple, it is $600 a day, like you say, for a coronial. If it is something complex, it goes up to about $2000 a day. But that is the very point: the nature of this type of application and of the people making the application means that one size does not necessarily fit all, and there will quite genuinely be situations where the nature of the application will require expertise. So that information and that rationale that you relied upon is incorrect and it is flawed.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 14:
Mr CHAIRMAN: We are going to invite defeat of clause 14, and then we will move to the new clause proposed by the Attorney-General, then to the amendment introduced by the member for Araluen.
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I invite defeat of clause 14.
Clause negatived.
New clause 14:
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment schedule 24.5. This amendment omits proposed Regulation 5 of the Crimes (Victims Assistance) Regulations in the current bill, and substitutes new Regulations 5, 6 and 7. These amendments are incorporated in response to suggestions made by members of the legal profession who were concerned that the cost structure proposed in the original bill was so low that practitioners could not afford to represent victims in their assistance applications.
Proposed new Regulation 5 provides for a lump sum fee structure for awards of assistance of up to $5000 as follows: $750 for initial work, up to and including the first pre-hearing conference, or $1050 if that initial work includes an extension of time application, plus an additional fee of $350 for further work up to the hearing or an additional $700 if that further work relates to an application in which the offender is found not guilty of the offence plus an additional fee of $400 for a half-day hearing or $800 for a full-day hearing, plus an additional fee of $400 for each extra day or part day of a hearing in addition to the first day, plus reasonable disbursements, including counsel’s fees.
Proposed new Regulation 6 provides for a lump sum fee structure for awards of assistance of more than $5000 as follows: $1000 for initial work up to and including the first pre-hearing conference or $1300 if that initial work includes an extension of time application; plus an additional fee of $400 for further work up to the hearing; or an additional $800 if that further work relates to an application in which the offender is found not guilty of the offence; plus an additional fee of $500 for a half-day hearing or $850 for a full-day hearing; plus the additional fee of $500 for each extra day or part day of a hearing in addition to the first day; plus reasonable disbursements excluding counsel’s fees. Because of the operation of section 43 of the Financial Relations Agreement (Consequential Amendments) Act, these fees are exclusive of GST.
Proposed new Regulation 7 provides that the prescribed percentage of the Supreme Court scale for the purpose of section 24(4)(b) of the act is 40%.
New clause 14 agreed to.
Ms CARNEY: Mr Chairman, I move an amendment 27.1, at the end insert:
Mr CHAIRMAN: Member for Araluen, it will not be an amendment, it will be a new clause 14A.
Ms CARNEY: My apologies. May I speak to that amendment now?
Mr CHAIRMAN: Yes.
Ms CARNEY: It is possibly not surprising that I bring on this amendment as a result of some of the answers and refusal to answer certain questions of the Attorney-General. The fact of the matter is that there are circumstances in applications of this nature that will warrant counsel. Noting the government’s reluctance to allow any barrister to be paid properly in these applications around the Northern Territory, I think the amendment I have come up with is eminently sensible, because it essentially says: in exceptional circumstances and upon an application by the parties, the court can say: ‘Yes, you need a barrister in this case. The particular circumstances of your case require expert advice. Your case may require an advice from counsel as to quantum’. There are a number of very large claims made. They are, from my experience at least, more often than not incest cases; they are multiple applications. It is sensible for most solicitors doing that sort of work to obtain advice on quantum.
It is the case, as well, that for the government, the government lawyers may also wish to appoint counsel. Of course, you can imagine a situation where the applicant’s barrister’s advice is: ‘This victim might be worth $150 000’. The government’s solicitor’s counsel might say in the advice on quantum: ‘No, the victim is only worth $100 000 in compensation’. Then those barristers might get together and say: ‘Let us split the difference’. Now, this happens every day in the court system. So there is likely to be a saving at the end of the day - a saving of time and money expended by the government. Apart from advice from counsel being required in certain situations, the reality is there may well be a saving in legal costs.
Solicitors in the Northern Territory do not, in the normal course of events - although there are always some exceptions - run cases without a barrister or counsel for, generally in my experience, between $40 000 and $50 000. In other words, if you are a solicitor and you do this sort of work, if you have a victim coming to you and you think: ‘Gee, this person is probably going to get, with a couple of applications, maybe $40 000, $50 000 or $60 000’ - most solicitors would not entertain for a moment acting in that matter without the assistance of counsel. I have done some matters for some clients who have received $100 000 and, quite properly, counsel was briefed.
It is the case that solicitors may, indeed, need advice on behalf of their clients at a very early stage which does not relate to the quantum of their claim. The advice on a range of matters may ultimately protect lawyers from professional negligence claims on the basis that they obtained counsel’s advice very early on - a detail in the interest of their clients - and then the solicitor acted accordingly. So again, having counsel participate in these proceedings and, of course, being paid accordingly, given their hourly rate, it is important for the court because the court is able to be assured that expert material, expert submissions, have gone before it on complicated matters.
It is also the case that the interests of victims are protected. I would hate to imagine that a victim of crime, with a few applications, might be deprived of compensation on the basis that a solicitor could not get a barrister to do the work for $500.
Dr Toyne: $850.
Ms CARNEY: $500 to $800 - big deal, says a barrister! This is not about me pushing how much barristers get paid; I do not really care. However, I do know that barristers will not act in these applications when relatively little money is offered.
The Minister for Central Australia needs to be aware that when counsel come to Alice Springs, their travel and accommodation expenses are paid. There is no provision for that either. So, certainly the people of Alice Springs will be deprived.
As I said, it is not uncommon to have significantly high claims and that they properly warrant counsel. Those matters sum up why it is that I press, I urge, the Attorney-General to accept this amendment. The effects of what the Attorney-General has proposed by way of his bill probably will not be able to be reported. They may not show up in any statistics except for the government’s bottom line: you might save yourself a dollar or two. However, no one will ever have any idea how this has affected the victims of violence in the Northern Territory. The Attorney-General and the government should hang their collective heads in shame because today in this parliament victims have been dudded.
Mr MALEY: Mr Chairman, in speaking in support of what my friend has just said, it seems that the government is intent on keeping lawyers out of the process, or at least severely limit them. It begs the question: is this government making a commitment not to use lawyers either in-house or not to protect itself? If the government is in trouble, the first thing it does is engage a lawyer, yet the very same rights you are trying to prevent members of the public, applicants, making this making an application under legislation which is beneficial and which should assist them. I am sure there are lots of defence lawyers who are defending the rights of applicants every single day. It is not an easy process. It is a difficult process and sometimes things are complicated and sometimes counsel has to be engaged.
It seems this government, like many other bureaucracies, is very keen to pass new legislation. We even heard one of your colleagues, the minister for Industries and Business, bragging about the legislation this parliament has introduced. The difficulty is, of course, when you pass legislation and rules, it ultimately creates rights for some individuals and it seems that this government is intent on ensuring that those individuals do not properly have access to all of those rights.
The very bureaucracy which is creating this beneficial scheme now is placing restraints which will effectively stop people. I think I can say this - not that I have the dates and history before me: there have been other regimes which have moved down the path of trying to ensure that people are not represented - Stalin and his friends and the Nazis did it - and it is tempting for weak governments to go down that same path. Some delusional idea: ‘Oh, we will just remove someone’s right to representation’, and that will somehow fix the system and streamline it. Your astounding concession earlier that you did not know the difference between a barrister and a solicitor has left me gob-smacked.
I support without reservation this very sensible amendment. It is not a difficult amendment for you to get your mind around. You have not had a briefing, I know, but we are happy to talk you through it, and you should be able to get the advice. Then with a bit of luck, with a bit of common sense, if you have any sort of a conviction in what you say in your socialist, Labor Party trendy save-the-world attitudes, then you will readily accept this decent amendment.
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, let us get straight to the point. We will not be accepting this amendment. I have made it clear that the capability of taking on a counsel in a case is built in to both options of the scheme that we are proposing.
We had better remind ourselves of what this bill is all about. We are trying to shift the focal point of the output of the Crimes (Victims Assistance) Scheme to the delivery of compensation in as timely and as efficient manner to the victims as possible. If you want to talk about reintroducing $1500-a-day barristers into protracted court proceedings, that is certainly not the direction we are going in. If we find there are individual cases of a very small proportion that come to any sort of harm from this, we can have a look at it. But the weight of reform that we have put into this bill today is to reduce the cost of delivery of compensation.
We are not going to put a whopping great back door into the capping system structure that we put into these fee scales, which will allow very expensive legal processes to be brought back into the scheme. That is what we are trying to get out of. We want to see people get settlement by agreement; we want to get the compensation paid as quickly as possible and with the most streamlined procedure possible. On the occasions where it has to come to a hearing with representation by counsel, then there is provision for that within our proposal.
We are not accepting this amendment and I remind you that, unlike the amendment we accepted yesterday of which we had warning, I will not be making complex decisions about - this is not simple. It is not simple at all because it would relate to a number of other drafting provisions within this bill. There is absolutely no possibility we can deal with this on the floor today. So if you really had a concern about it, where were you a week ago? You could have given us a bit of time on it.
Ms Carney: Because of your ridiculous answers, we found out what you were proposing to do, Attorney-General.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Order!
Dr TOYNE: I do not think you are helping your cause by that sort of approach to debate, either. But I just want to clarify one other thing before we move to a vote on this amendment, and that is the matter of retrospectivity that the member for Goyder raised earlier on in the debate. I will just clear it up. First of all, we are still following it up and we will get back to you. You made reference to a decision of the Full Court of the ACT, Frank and Ors v The Australian Capital Territory in which it was held that an amendment to the ACT’s Crime (Victim Assistance) legislation was an acquisition other than on just terms and in contravention of the Australian Capital Territory Self-Government Act. The decision on the point was two to one. The amendment to the legislation of the ACT was different from the amendment proposed in this bill. In the ACT case, the amendment removed the ability to be awarded compensation for pain and suffering in actions that were already on foot. The NT amendment does not affect the ability to receive compensation; it only affects the quantum of costs that are accrued through a case. So they are really different in their effect on the law.
I just wanted to clarify that. We will take back the issue of retrospectivity, and I can certainly guarantee you that we will be making sure that there is not a detrimental effect on cases that are already on foot. Let’s move to - if you want to say more about your amendment, otherwise we can vote on it.
Mr MALEY: Just on that point of clarification, I just want to make it clear that the point that I am seeking - and I am indebted to your advisors and yourself for looking at that so quickly, but the other aspect - if there is an application on foot or an application which is being made for Crimes (Victims Assistance) before 1 November, that application, even if it continues on into next year will be subject to the costs regime at the date the application was made.
Only applications that are made from 1 November onwards should be subject to the new regime. So you have a matter which is in the process of being listed and there have been arrangements made, so that is the point - you said that is government’s intention. I was just concerned that that is not reflected in the legislation, but if you look at that and if it is not, your undertaking to this parliament to bring a small amendment in November is welcome, and I am indebted to you for that.
Dr TOYNE: Yes, Mr Chairman, I guarantee that we will clarify that. It is our intent to have no retrospectivity. So I will get back to you.
Dr BURNS: Minister, if I could just clarify something here that I think I have understood from what you have said. In terms of the rates that are being paid to barristers, are you saying that they are on a par or equitable with the rates that are paid to Legal Aid and DPP? Can you also say whether there is any problem in getting barristers for the DPP and the legal aid services to actually represent people? I mean, there seems to be some implication that because we are not paying enough that people will not be represented in these matters.
I suppose I am just a bit cynical about some lawyers that I have heard of in this town who take a lot of money from people and leave them nowhere, right in the middle of their matter, walk away and do not show any commitment. But I know that there are a lot of lawyers who are not like that, who do have a good reputation and who are willing to take cases for the DPP and the legal aid services. Could you just clear that up for me? If we clear this up, if barristers were prepared to work for these sort of rates, I don’t see any problem.
Dr TOYNE: Yes. As I have said, these are the rates that the Director of Public Prosecutions and legal aid services do pay their barristers for cases in the Magistrates Court. They do not have any trouble operating. They have been operating successfully, dealing with everything up to quite complex cases at that rate of return for counsel. I honestly believe that that is a good bench mark for the types of cases we are talking about with Crimes (Victims Assistance) compensation.
Member for Johnston, I can certainly assure you that the benchmark we built in to this amending bill is comparable to DPP and legal aid services.
New Clause 14A negatived.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill, with amendments, 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 VATSKALIS (Lands and Planning): It gives me no small sense of satisfaction, Madam Speaker, to take this opportunity to inform the House of the amendment of the Northern Territory Planning Scheme with the adoption of the Litchfield Planning Concepts and Land Use Objectives.
My pleasure comes from two achievements: the first is the realisation of these particular land use objectives after they have been years in the making; the second is the fact that since taking office, the government has now released or implemented five separate land use objective documents. Many of these documents had been sitting in abeyance for several years awaiting government action. Twelve months after taking office, the bulk of these have now been released, signed into effect or awaiting final ratification following community input.
I am also proud of the way these land use objectives were done. Each and every person who submitted comments in the two rounds of public consultation received an analysis of the total public input. They were advised of where their input fitted into the final outcome. This has received very favourable comments from many participants in the process, and has been adopted as a model by government for all future public consultation processes.
The Litchfield Land Use Concepts and Objectives establish a clear policy framework for the future use and development of land within Litchfield Shire which will maximise opportunities for continued sustainable development. Amendment to the zones and controls within the Litchfield Area Plan, the development provisions relevant to the Litchfield Shire, will be required to give effect to the policies established by the concepts and objectives. A comprehensive review of the area plan is currently being prepared for my consideration prior to exhibition for public consideration.
Probably the most contentious issue within the concepts and objectives, or least that of broadest interest to the community, is the identification of industrial development on Middle Arm Peninsula. I do not propose to dwell on that point, as this House has debated three motions of the member for Nelson on that very point already. Suffice to say that the government is committed to a course of action that is a balanced response to the economic development of the Territory, and the preservation of areas of conservation of significance.
The Litchfield Planning Concepts and Land Use Objectives also highlight the potential development of the Glyde Point area for further industrial development in association with the port facility. While the development may be some years ahead of us, it is important that government plan and preserve for that ultimate use. Glyde Point industrial area will be linked to the East Arm Port and Middle Arm Peninsula by a number of service corridors. These also defined in the planning concepts and will ultimately be appropriately zoned to ensure the community is aware of their existence and their location. Naturally, any significant development of the Glyde Point area will require a nearby service centre and residential area. To this end, the proposed township of Murrumujuk on the coast of Shoal Bay is preserved in the planning concepts.
As we all know, the Litchfield Shire fulfils a number of roles. It is the rural hinterland of major urban areas; a rural residential area; an area of agricultural productivity; has major land uses of defence; is a source of extractive materials and of both ground and surface potable water supplies; and has recreational opportunities and great tourism potential. This very diversity introduces tension between competing land uses, and those potential areas of conflict need to be managed properly.
Many people have been attracted to the rural residential lifestyle available in the shire. Many have chosen to engage in hobby farming, or grow mangoes or other crops, while yet others seek seclusion and a natural environment. These two seemingly innocuous ambitions are often in conflict, where the use of herbicides and insecticides affects adjoining owners through ‘spray drift’. Similarly, those engaged in clean and green organic farming practices can take umbrage where their accreditation can be put at risk from contrary practices nearby. The Planning Concepts and Land Use Objectives propose that an amendment to the planning scheme make commercial horticulture a consent use in areas identified for lots of two hectares minimum, so that farming practices can be controlled to the advantage of all.
The planning concepts provide for additional land to be subdivided to two hectares in size. The most significant area identified for this purpose includes land to the east of Noonamah, and south-east of the Humpty Doo District Centre. An additional area has also been identified to the east of the Berry Springs District Centre. The shire is experiencing an apparent demand for smaller lot divisions, down to 0.4 hectare, or one acre in old terms. As very limited opportunities exist in the shire to fulfil that demand, the extent of the demand is difficult to quantify.
The planning concepts therefore propose the introduction of another new zone permitting some subdivision to 0.4 hectare, provided that the average lot size in the overall subdivision is one hectare; lots are connected to reticulated water; subdivision roads are sealed and connected to a sealed public road; and there is a buffer of two hectare lots adjacent to existing subdivided land. This last provision is to protect the rural amenity of existing residents. As it is intended that activities in the new zone will be limited to residential and ancillary, future land use conflicts will be avoided.
Tourism is a significant component of the regional and local economy, and the increasing population of the shire is creating opportunities for further local commercial and industrial development. The planning concepts identify district and local centres and local and tourist nodes as the preferred location for the commercial, industrial, community, and tourist uses. This approach recognises that ad hoc commercial or tourism development along the highways within the shire has the potential to detrimentally impact on amenity of adjoining residential areas, and on the safety and efficiency of the highways.
Clearing of native vegetation is a highly contentious topic at the national and state levels. No less, is it so in Litchfield Shire. Although the planning scheme controls the clearing of native vegetation within the shire, the instances of unlawful or inappropriate clearing remain an issue. This is why the government has also been working tirelessly on the introduction of the land clearing policy which is currently undergoing some final consultations. The framework for broad environmental management established by the planning concepts consists of two inter-related components: the establishment of principles to be applied to the assessment of any development in the shire; and second, identification as priority environmental management those areas where development, particularly subdivision, should give priority to consideration of potential environmental impacts.
The framework will ensure environmental assessment of the types of division, of the significance of natural vegetation and other landscape features such as rugged terrain, rainforest patches, lagoon, wetlands, rivers and other drainage systems.
The required transfer to public ownership of significant areas at the time of subdivision will contribute to the maintenance of the landscape character, equality and amenity. This broad framework for environmental management, combined with more detailed controls of vegetation clearing, provides for a balance between environment and development which is critical in this fast growing area.
The planning concepts propose the introduction of new controls to provide the opportunity to create exclusive, rural residential areas. It is intended the controls will limit clearing to that required for a dwelling and ancillary structures and restrict activities to residential, so providing opportunities for the many people who want to live in and enjoy the natural environment.
I have mentioned already the importance of horticultural activity within the shire, and its contribution to the Northern Territory economy should not be undervalued. The planning concepts identify areas of land, some of which is already appropriately zoned, that is particularly suited to horticultural activity. This is generally the case because of the coincidence of good, arable soils and adequate and reliable ground water supplies.
It is contrary to the best interests of the Territory and its community if we were to permit the alienation of such land from viable horticultural development through inappropriate small lot subdivision. The concepts propose those areas with high horticultural potential be preserved in holdings of a size that will remain economically viable into the future.
The concepts further recognise opportunities for broadacre organic horticulture and identify areas that are suited for this purpose. Release and development of those areas will require investigation into the conditions and regulations required for organic horticulture that might impact on subdivision design and development controls. The planning concepts also recognise the need to accommodate activities associated with agriculture and horticulture, including processing and packaging establishments and depots serving the live cattle export industry. Parameters established by the concepts will minimise the potential impacts of such activities on the environment and residential amenity.
Continuing interest in the commercial development of aquaculture identifies it as a potential significant contributor to the Territory’s economy. Existing or proposed developments on the Middle Arm Peninsula and adjacent to the Blackmore River are identified in the concepts. Other sites at Saltwater Arm near the mouth of the Adelaide River have been identified as having potential for this use subject, of course, to all the necessary environmental investigations.
The Blackmore Peninsula is also the prospective site for the long-term development of a second airport to serve the Darwin region and that opportunity is recognised in the planning concepts.
The town of Southport was once a bustling community and the jumping-off point for those heading to the Pine Creek goldfields. Despite its decline with the construction of the North Australia Railway, it remains a location for a small community of permanent residents. The blocks within the township are approximately 2000 m in area, too small to achieve the required separation of bores and septic systems. If the township is ever to achieve a size viable for public investment in infrastructure, rationalisation of the existing lots, many of which have untraceable owners, is necessary. Further work is needed on this issue, but the basic framework for the future rationalisation is established in the planning concepts.
The first published reference to the new town site of Weddell was the Darwin Regional Structural Plan of 1984. Despite the reduced area available for the new town site because of the abandonment of plans for the Elizabeth River lake, it remains the preferred site for the next major urban development in the Darwin region. The planning concepts also identify the intention for future development of more detailed concepts and objectives for the new urban area in consultation with the community. I wish to stress here, once again, that this government will not be putting dams or weirs on the Elizabeth River, or any other rivers flowing into the Darwin Harbour. We believe it is not in the long-term or short-term environmental interest of the harbour. The area identified for the new town is largely within the ownership of the Crown and is preserved for that purpose by the present zoning of Future Use.
The provision of a safe and efficient road network is amongst the stated objectives. To this end, the planning concepts identify a number of planned, new arterial roads connections within the shire. Notable amongst these is an arterial connection commencing at Goode Road, south of Noonamah, looping to the east to the Arnhem Highway and proceeding north to connect with Gunn Point Road in the vicinity of the Shoal Bay Coastal Reserve.
This would provide a route for traffic heading to and from the Glyde Point industrial area that avoids the majority of the rural residential area. The route parallels the service corridor between Middle Arm Peninsula and Glyde Point. A further connection is provided between Palmerston and Glyde Point commencing at the junction of Temple Terrace and the Stuart Highway and progressing north east across the hunting reserve and the Shoal Bay Coastal Reserve intersecting with the existing Gunn Point Road beyond the Howard Park Estate.
This new connection is necessary as the width of the existing road reserve at Gunn Point Road in the vicinity of Howard Park Estate is inadequate for the volume and nature of the anticipated traffic. A number of future connector roads are also identified in the planning concepts. Protection of the opportunities to provide these roads in the future will assist in the provision of an efficient and safe local road network.
As I noted at the beginning, the Litchfield Shire is a rich source of extractive materials. As a low-cost, high-volume resource, it is expensive to transport extended distances and it is therefore important that sites of extractive resources be preserved for that use. This has significance for other users, as extractive operations are not compatible with other activities, particularly residential. Planning needs to be cognisant of the incompatibility and prevent the encroachment of other uses that will either preclude later extractive operations or would suffer from these operations.
In concluding, I would like to acknowledge that this amendment is the culmination of several years work by officers of my department and the community to establish a framework for future use and development within the Litchfield Shire. I would like to congratulate the officers involved, most particularly Del Batton, for their work and commitment and to thank the community and Litchfield Shire Council for their ongoing involvement in this process.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the statement be noted.
Mr BALDWIN (Daly): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for presenting this statement today. It is great to see the final sign-off that occurred last week on this set of LUOs. It has been a lot of work and it has been very many years in the making. I, too, would like to congratulate all of the people who have had input into these LUOs, and that includes not just the departmental officers who have spent many hours on this - and I am sure Del Batton, for one, would be extremely happy to see the conclusion of this but, as we all know in planning, it is a very malleable and ongoing process. I am sure that this is really not the end of it, but the conclusion to this point, the signing off, the formalisation of these planning concepts and land use objectives - but also including all of the people who have had input into this by way of public forums and many meetings and attending the displays. I am sure that it has taken a lot of time out of the Litchfield Shire Council’s agenda to provide input and raise their concerns and issues.
So it is good to see that it has come to this point. It probably will not be that many years until we will see a review of it because it is, as the minister said, a very diverse area and it is the expansion area for Darwin. It is a shame we do have Litchfield, Palmerston and all those sorts of designated places when, really, in 50 years time we will talk about Darwin being the greater Darwin area - not meaning the sign out there, the Outer Darwin sign - but certainly Litchfield is the area for Darwin’s future expansion and it has a diverse range of activities that occur in it now and will into the future including, as the minister and these land use objectives point out, things like agriculture and extractive industry, defence, rural living and so on.
The minister said he was delighted since taking office to have implemented five sets of LUOs and that is great to see. I was a little disappointed that he had to make the remark that many of these documents had been sitting in abeyance for several years awaiting government action, which is not correct. I reckon that is a bit of a reflection on the departmental officers who are very hard working and always have a lot of work in front of them and always will. If you ask those very officers how many of sets of LUOs in my term as lands minister that we got through and implemented, they would be able to give you those statistics. It is because of the hard work that they do that you are able to move through those sorts of numbers.
Mr Henderson: Which ones? Name them.
Mr BALDWIN: Where do you want to start? Borroloola, Mataranka, Katherine, Central Darwin, Litchfield. You can go on and on and on, and that’s what I mean.
Mr Henderson: Central Darwin, yes. Where did that go? Litchfield, isn’t that the one we are doing now?
Madam Acting Deputy SPEAKER: Order!
Mr BALDWIN: You go ask them. Do not take my word for it, Minister for Business, Industry and Resource Development.
Mr Henderson: Litchfield is the one we are doing now. That is the one we are doing now, Litchfield.
Mr BALDWIN: Do not take my word; go and talk to them. I knew that would get a bite and it certainly did. Works every time – come in spinner.
I do think it is a bit of a reflection on them, and it is a pity you had to put that in there, but obviously that is politics and that is the way it goes.
Mr Henderson: Mataranka?
Mr BALDWIN: You do not think that is important, I suppose?
Mr Henderson: No, I am just saying it would have taken a long time, that’s all.
Madam Acting DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Henderson: No, I think it is important, but it would have taken many, many years to do the Mataranka one.
Mr BALDWIN: Picking up on the interjection, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, if you do not think Mataranka is important, that is all very well …
Mr Henderson: No, wrong. I just said it would have taken a long time.
Mr BALDWIN: It is the same way as you treat Katherine. You don’t think that place is important.
Mr Henderson: Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Madam Acting DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members! Less of the cross chatting.
Mr BALDWIN: Picking up on the interjection, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, if he does not think Mataranka is important as he thinks about Katherine, that is a problem for him not for me, so I will carry on with the subject matter.
I will point out to the Minister for Lands and Planning that the ones like Litchfield he has signed off on so far were already in the chute.
Mr Vatskalis: Been there seven years. You didn’t sign them off.
Mr BALDWIN: If they were sitting there with no action, why has it taken you a year to sign off on that? I know the answer. I am not blaming you, I know the answer.
Mr Vatskalis: Why didn’t you do it?
Mr BALDWIN: I can tell you - because there are a hell of a lot of issues contained in these, as you are learning now that you have been in there for a year, that need careful consideration and consultation. Things like …
Mr Henderson: A very good minister, as well.
Mr BALDWIN: What, gas? Gas corridors, oh, right. One of the reasons this had to go back out was the need to identify places like Glyde Point for future heavy industry, for reasons like having to secure corridors that we have talked about in here many, many times. You know all this stuff. Things like some of the concepts you have got in there, like clearing over 50% of your five hectare block. Now, as you have in there, which is a new concept, you cannot clear above 50%, without first proving that you have the water for the future development you want to put on there, at mature level, not just put in some little plants, what that production is going to be at mature level. That is a new concept, that had to go back out there and be discussed. Things like the smaller block estates; these are not your ideas. These have been worked through over a number of years …
Mr Vatskalis: No doubt, but why didn’t you put it out?
Mr BALDWIN: … by the department and they all take time, as you will find out. As you are now finding out, minister, with Darwin stage two. You put out a set of plans, as we used to, and you used to complain about the process. And what have people said about the development you want to put around Lake Alexander? ‘Oh, we do not want that there’. Now you are going to take consideration of that, you are going to take time to consider that. That is why these take some time.
I recognise how much time it takes. I know department officials know how much time it takes. I could come in here and complain about things that you are doing that are taking so long - things like the amalgamation of the planning scheme. You have had a year. Where is it?
Mr Vatskalis: The what?
Mr BALDWIN: The amalgamation of the planning scheme …
Madam Acting DEPUTY SPEAKER: Shadow minister, please direct your statements through the Chair.
Mr BALDWIN: Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, it has been over a year since they have been in government and we have not seen it; but I know why - because it is very complex. The work that the officers are doing in the department needs to be done properly, in full consultation with the community, and it will take some time. I appreciate that.
It is like the review of the Planning Act that was announced – when? A year ago was it announced? Have not heard another thing! So, you can complain all you like, but you are now sitting in that seat. I can understand why it will take so long, but do not go throwing it just on this side. Do not sit in a glass house, because some of those rocks might just bounce back at you.
The other comment in here - and I am going to leave a lot of the detail. I know my colleague, the member for Nelson, is probably going to pick through every bit of this because he is very passionate - and I can understand that - about the development of Litchfield. So I am not going to get into too much of that detail, but I will pick up on another part in the minister’s statement where he has picked up on a process that has been adopted as a model by government for all future public consultation processes. That is that everybody who submitted comments in the two rounds of public consultation received an analysis of the total public input. They were advised of where their input fitted into the final outcome. I think that is a good idea; it is a process I started with the Katherine LUOs, and it works very well. I am glad to see that you are continuing with that process. It adds to the benefit of people when they do submit issues and sentiments about things like planning issues when they receive good feedback.
A number of things do jump out at me straight away when I look at the proposed plan and then the finalised plan. The thing I cannot see any more is my - it was not mine really - but the plan had a road corridor from East Arm into Darwin which seems to have disappeared between the two maps. I do not know whether that is still a concept that is on the board. I would have thought it would be, because whether or not it is ever needed, the concept should remain that there is a - I cannot pick it up on the map in the book, anyway, unless it is on your bigger map, is it?
Mr Wood: What was that?
Mr BALDWIN: The bridge coming over from East Arm to …
Mr Wood: On Mud Island?
Mr BALDWIN: Yes, Goyder Island.
Mr Vatskalis: No, no, that disappeared, that is gone. The island sunk.
Mr BALDWIN: So there is no connector road still being proposed between the Darwin CBD and the East Arm area. That is something that jumped out at me straight away, and that would be a shame to lose that as a future provision for traffic flow to get around to what will eventually be expansion of Darwin further and further past Weddell for sure.
The discussion we had in here yesterday about industrial land on Wickham Point: it is a shame that these were signed off - or the press release was last Friday - knowing full well that the member for Nelson, since the last full sittings in this Chamber, had on the books all three of those motions that dealt with that very issue. The minister precipitated that whole debate by signing these off a week early rather than wait one more week to hear the arguments and look at what was being proposed in those arguments. I do think it is a shame - even though you could still have taken it up once signed, as we suggested yesterday - that the motion was not adhered to and put into action so that there was some more community debate; it would not have delayed this process at all. Anyway, that is the choice of the minister and of the government of the day.
The planning concepts for the 0.4 hectare subdivisions is a great new concept in this proposal, not having occurred, I don’t think, in the Litchfield area before. You might disagree with me and that is your prerogative, of course.
The proviso is that there are a number of things which must happen such as has been listed in the statement, the reticulated water and so on, sealed roads and there are buffers between those diverse rural living aspects. The district and local centre has always been an issue in this area and other rural areas in respect of what sort of development should occur in terms of the town centres and the commercial development. Planners and governments have always tried to stay away from strip development.
In fact, as the minister knows, we have gone to some length in Litchfield, particularly on the Berry Springs Road, to head off strip development by purchasing land on that road and consolidating the town site in one area. This now formalises all of those commercial areas which augers very well for the future of commercial development.
The transfer of land at subdivision, of the riparian areas and major water ways, that is a great concept and should be stuck to, except that I do have a rider, and I discussed with the member for Nelson, that from time to time - and I know the documentation says ‘significant’ areas of land such as rugged terrain and rain forest patches, lagoons, wetlands and so forth - they should be preserved in public, major waterways and what have you, to form corridors of riparian areas, but it is those little tiny remnants that always seem to fall out of subdivisions and they are bits of wetland, maybe, that cannot be joined up all over the place. I am not sure about Litchfield Shire, but certainly other jurisdictions, and where there are no local government authorities, I know that the Parks and Wildlife Commission is very reluctant to take on little dots of left over riparian areas to maintain. It can become a public financial burden and it is restricted by the size. There are all the arguments, I know, that can be put about land care groups, and I believe that is quite correct for a lot of those areas, but it is just those little excess bits that no one seems to want to pick up.
The introduction of those exclusive rural residential areas is a must for any rural area. There are many people who just want to go living rural with never the intention to get into any sort of land production. To be able to do that and know that and exclusively you will have your rural amenity maintained in the way that you purchased it and the surrounding amenity is a great thing. I believe that they will attract a lot of interest in the future as far as developers go. There are a number of them around already and that should be continued and maintained.
Aquaculture obviously is going to be a very important industry in the top end of Australia, not just in the Northern Territory. A lot of work has gone into identifying sites. It is not easy to identify sites for aquaculture anywhere in the world because of the nature of things that impact on the environment and the production systems that are used. Sites have been identified here; these go back quite some time. In these LUOs, there are some areas that depict low lying, and we all know that low lying areas can get you into some trouble. I am sure that in the future the environmental assessment process will ensure that any major aquaculture farming will be done on areas that are significantly above the low lying sea level type locations.
The airport is an interesting concept. Every time I think about that proposed second airport, I think: ‘How long is it going to be before we need it?’ but I know for sure that you have to put the area aside now and I think it is a relatively good site. It will be one that we will need sooner than we can even imagine. Hopefully, when the gas comes onshore we will be starting to look at that as a possible major capital works item in the not-too-distant future.
The new connector roads that have been formed into these land use concept took a little bit of jiggling because they required quite a bit of work and attention, not just by the Lands and Planning people, but also by the Transport and Works people in their development and there was some acquisition needed, I believe. Certainly there were issues with Black Jungle involving the connector road going up from Arnhem Highway to Glyde Point and, hopefully, they have been resolved. Similarly with the connection road between Temple Terrace crossing the Stuart Highway going up to Glyde Point, there was quite a bit of reaction to that road going in. I think it needed a bit of Commonwealth land to be acquired in the end to be able to drop it, so to speak, down to the south to get away from the rural blocks that it was going to pass along the back of …
Mr Vatskalis: Yes, have got it. It was agreed by the Commonwealth.
Mr BALDWIN: Yes, and it looks like that has been achieved, so that is a great outcome. Hopefully, for those rural residents, including Mrs Padgham, are satisfied to the best of anybody’s ability that you can be.
It is a shame when you have rural blocks and you think you are out there by yourself and then, all of a sudden, governments and planners want to come and put a major road through the edge of your yard. But, I guess that is progress. The good thing about this whole process – and that is why it takes so long - is that you can look for the best possible practical outcome by going and hearing those concerns and doing something about it. That is a good example of doing that. I will not go on about the detail of that. I know it has been a long time and I have had a very long involvement with this myself, probably not as long as the member for Nelson, and it is great to see the final outcome.
There is an exiting future for the Litchfield area, as I said at the start, because of the way Darwin is going to expand and can only expand into Litchfield. We have to make sure by doing this sort of planning and, as was mentioned in the statement, this planning goes back many years - not just this set of documents, but all of the documents that went before it that have been signed off. We have to keep that process going so that we have not only strategic planning in place for future growth, but that it has been done in full consultation as the needs and wishes of Territorians change, and that is the important thing.
In the old days, I remember the Arnhem Highway going in and the old Humpty Doo pub that was put up by the Skewes’ was about all that was around there for a long time. It is just amazing to go driving out along the Arnhem Highway between the Stuart Highway turnoff and Mt Bundy hills, for instance, and see the development that has occurred over that period - how it is creeping further and further out, and how it represents the need for government and authorities like Litchfield Shire to keep on top of what is going on, and keep in front of the infrastructure needs that are required and the resource needs like water and soil management and so on, so that we can expand in a deliberate and very structured way.
So, an important day today, with the signing off of these the other day and their introduction here. I wish the minister well in the next set of LUOs he undertakes.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, yes, it is an exciting day because it has taken a jolly long time, and a lot of books. I believe I have the full collection here: proposed Litchfield Land Use Objectives; proposed Litchfield Land Use Objectives; and proposed Litchfield Land Use Objectives. I am very glad to see that, eventually, this has come to see the light of day. Bearing in mind I say that, I do believe the plan has some vision in it; in other areas it hasn’t moved, so I have mixed feelings about the land use objectives.
Be that as it may, I certainly welcome a number of ideas that the government has put in to the land use objectives. I welcome the understanding that our water courses and other major wetlands of significance will be removed from the subdivision. Although it has been the norm in planning decisions in recent times, it has not always been the case. I remember arguing with various government people and members of the public service about the concept of removing riparian vegetation or riparian areas from subdivisions.
I have always believed that the one concept we should have had all along is that you have to believe that rivers, creeks and lagoons are part of an entire system, that you have to look at them from top to bottom. You do not slice them up, subdivide them and graze on them; you protect them as a unit. At last we are getting to that. If you look at the Litchfield Land Use Objectives, it is starting to look a little like a jigsaw. There are parts of some of the major rivers, like the Howard River and a small section of the Elizabeth River, which are slowly being set aside as major riparian corridors, so I welcome that move by the government.
However, much as I say that, when you look at the plan, you will find that, to some extent, the government does not quite do what it says. I have two examples. The minister knows the BP Palms site. Anyone going out of town goes past the BP Palms caravan park. Although you might not see from the left hand side, that land was, until this plan came into operation, zoned Open Conservation. The reason it and the land behind it was zoned Open Conservation is because there are major wetlands that feed into the King River. What has happened in this new plan? It is now purple, something the planners have been trying to do for seven years, and they have got their way. There will be a development in that area, I am sure, because the owners of BP Palms, when the government first came into being, asked for that land to be an expansion of their caravan park. On that site, there is a major wetland, and I ask any member of the government to go and have a look and then compare it with the plan that is here. It has now gone from a conservation area with a major paperbark wetland to industrial. I have seen the photographs, and been told there is nothing there, but if you go and have a look, you will see what is being asked for is the destruction of a major wetland. It is disappointing. It is a major area.
Lambells Lagoon is another area. I know that members of the government would remember that, some years ago, in part of the new horticultural subdivisions, there was a major public meeting which we managed to get quite a number of senior public servants to attend. It was attended by large numbers of people from Lambells Lagoon, and a decision was made to remove one large parcel of land from the proposed horticultural subdivisions in that area. There has been a move to try to get that land to belong to a local Landcare group. You will find on this new map that land is now back in horticulture. Having people protest, having the government say that they would remove it, and having identified it as a wetland area - and it is a magnificent wetland area; it has magnetic anthills six, seven, eight foot high, not the little ones you see on the side of the road. It is a wetland. What happens? The government says it will remove these areas of significance. Lo and behold, it is on the plan as horticulture! So its chances of surviving are fairly grim.
I applaud the government for what it is trying to do. It is just a pity that in some cases, and those cases have been raised with the government, that they haven’t done what they said they would do.
Another good initiative is the requirement for commercial horticulture to require consent in the RL2 area. I know too well - in fact, I was probably the reason for a complaint myself - that spraying complaints are a very common problem in the area, and I know because I get them. In fact, I am trying to deal with a particular case in my electorate at the moment, and I had the person on the phone today still saying there are problems. It is a difficult problem because horticulture was permitted and so was rural residential, and you have this clash of lifestyles. It is a very difficult one to overcome. I have heard that, perhaps, some of the so-called spraying guidelines may be legislated, and it is probably time they were because, unless there is some legislation put in about that, the problem will continue. Even though the idea of having consent use commercial horticultural will, perhaps, reduce it in the future, it will not necessarily change the issues that we do have presently because you are allowed to continue with commercial horticulture. You will have to get through some of those issues. There will be some problems with what the minister has defined as commercial horticulture. Is 10 mango trees commercial horticulture if I do not have any loans in the bank, if I am free of all my mortgages and I make some money out of 10 mango trees? There is going to be some tricky little issues there you are going to have to work through; but it is a good start.
Residential: the government has continued with this idea of 0.4 hectare blocks, and I know that came from the last government. The issue is not so much that I am against 0.4 hectare blocks - they are one acre in the old term. Litchfield Shire is generally a rural area and I defy people to say that 0.4 hectares is rural. You are actually bringing five times the population into an area that was once two hectares. You have five blocks equivalent to the two hectares. So you have increased the population, you have added in another five times the number of dogs, probably five times the number of roosters, you name it. You have actually started to become suburban.
While I am not against the idea of having that size block, they should, I believe, be attached to district centres because you are starting to take away the feel of the rural area by bringing it down that low. I have no objection to one hectare; one hectare blocks are quite good. They also require town water and, generally speaking, if anyone has seen one hectare blocks, most of the native vegetation is retained, whereas on 0.4 hectare blocks I can guarantee they will be oversized suburban blocks with lovely lawns, palms and all that, and there will be hardly any vegetation left on them.
The idea of exclusive residential is a great concept. It is a good idea and it is certainly one that needs to be applied. I can give an example, and the government should look at negotiating this zone, and that is the Girraween Estate zone. I know of only one block cleared, and that was cleared illegally. Most of that land, which is the Churcher Estate, has been left basically as it is. By retaining the native vegetation, those blocks will be quite valuable. I ask the government to look at whether they think the Girraween Estate - which is still being developed and will continue to be developed by Churcher - will be a possible area that the exclusive residential zone could be applied to. It is not shown on the maps as being an area set aside for that, but it would be a good area for the minister to look at.
Expansion of the two hectare areas is welcome, especially in the famous Herbert locality. I know there will be one developer who will be very relieved that it has taken at least seven years for this land to be changed from RL2, which is eight hectare, to RL1, which is two hectare. I remember when he applied for this, because I was on the Planning Authority at the stage, and the government said: ‘You will have to wait for a review of the Planning Authority and a review of the land use objectives, and when that is done we will make a decision’. Well, seven years later, he has eventually received his answer. He has been a very patient man; he has actually put a couple of applications in to try and change the area. He has put two hectare subdivisions in as a subdivision application and has been knocked back. So he will be very pleased.
But what is more, because more land in this area has been set aside for two hectares, the one question I am asked the most whenever I go and sit on a corner somewhere is: ‘When will Girraween Road be sealed?’ and that is the eastern section of it which is gravel. It cuts off about 11 km for most people who travel to town because they have to go down towards the Arnhem Highway or along Pioneer Drive and back up again. This road would shorten it. I would presume that when this land is subdivided, the infrastructure levy which is applied to these blocks will be used to bitumenise that road. So hopefully, there will be a lot of happy people in a very short time.
I should highlight to the minister that one of the areas that you are allowing to be cut up now into two hectares is the Beddington Road area which was originally an eight hectare area. There are horticultural blocks in that eight hectare area, and I believe that you may have a conflict again there by putting two hectare blocks next to the eight hectare blocks.
I think the government has made the wrong decision in allowing land in the Elizabeth Valley to be subdivided. That land is eight hectares. It is used primarily for horticulture, especially mangoes, and the government is now allowing that land to be cut up into smaller blocks. They are creating a problem that we already have in the built-up areas, that is people having their residence next to horticultural subdivisions and there will be spraying complaints. It is a foolish idea to cut up that land. I have heard the argument that people will know that when they go into this horticultural area, they will therefore know there is going to be spraying. It will not happen. They will start ringing up to complain. I have already given most people the minister’s phone number, and I am sure he will be able to handle those complaints. It is a very bad decision.
The other area that needs looking at, minister, is the Howard Springs forestry land. It is an area that originally was going to be one hectare subdivisions. It is in line with the sound corridors of the Darwin Airport. There was some move to go back to two hectare subdivisions. I feel the danger of going to two hectares is that you will be putting bores in that area. I would be interested to know whether, by increasing the number of bores in that area, will you dry up the Howard Springs Nature Reserve? If you leave it as one hectare, which I do not believe is going to increase the population markedly, under that sound corridor, you can put town water in there, and there would be less pressure on the Howard Springs Reserve.
I notice communal living got in, after all these years. I know a certain person in Planning who has been pushing for that for a long time. It comes down under estate living, but at least it does not seem to include one of the issues I had: that we would not be able to exclude the wet areas from those pieces of land.
Although we are expanding the Litchfield Shire, especially cutting it up into small blocks, there needs to be some discussion as to where does it end. Do we just keep cutting up the entire shire into two hectare blocks from Gunn Point to Manton Dam? We need to get some sort of idea as to where this type of development is going to finish. When we are looking at concepts, maybe in the next review, we should make sure that we raise that as an issue.
I know there has been plenty of discussion about the industrial land at Ware Peninsula. I know you did not agree with the sentiments of the motion that, hopefully, would have been passed yesterday, and you do praise the manner in which there was public consideration for this land use objective. But, minister, I will show you how hard it was to get any discussion about the industrial area on Ware Peninsula, and this book I am using is the proposed Litchfield Planning Concepts and Land Use Objectives. It is the assessment of submissions. It went like this:
It went on about the preservation of natural values of Darwin Harbour and possible relocation of gas to Glyde Point, and the need for full environmental impact assessment of individual development proposals. Concern was also expressed about extractive mining in the locality. The comment was nothing to do with that, really:
As previously discussed, while industries would have some impact on existing vegetation above the
tidal zone, mangroves and other areas will be retained by virtue of their role as a buffer to industry.
Rehabilitation of extractive mining. The concepts identify the need for assessment of potential
environmental impact.
Proposed response from the department: No amendment to the concepts for the future development of
the Middle Arm locality.
So even though people were expressing, way back then, concern about the area being used for industries in Middle Arm, the government’s response was: ‘That’s it’. I do not know whether people can blame me for trying to at least put this matter on the agenda because it has not been debated. It has not given people a chance to look for alternatives. That is why I was so disappointed yesterday because we are going down the same path.
Regarding the industrial land at Ware Peninsula, I know the minister in his press release announced that there is a 5000 hectare buffer. Minister, 4737 hectares of that buffer are what you said you would protect anyway because they are mangroves. We have an increase of the remainder which is about 236 hectares. Very good, but it sounded better when it was 5000 hectares. It is just a pity it wasn’t 5000 hectares of high ground.
Another good concept the government has introduced is organic horticultural sites. Certainly, organic produce does bring in good prices. I do see that you have made a note that this is going to be an area that is going to have to have more discussion because someone is going to have to police this. If you are going to have organic horticulture, then the bloke next door is not going to be able to go spraying S7 poisons close by or even a farmer who is already on the organic land, someone is going to have make sure they don’t muck it up for the neighbour. So whilst I think it is a good idea, it needs a lot more work. The new Organic Horticultural Association is probably a good place to start those discussions.
The old railway corridor: I am pleased to see that, generally speaking, minister, from the meeting we had earlier this year, that most of the land that we asked to be retained, as was originally retained back in 1990, has been left as Open Conservation except for the famous BP Palms site. That has been taken out and turned into Industrial, and so has the land to the north of BP Palms which we did have as Open Conservation. Sadly, most of that is now Industrial, and that is detrimental. I would not mind asking people who use the bicycle path what they think of an industrial area which was a wetland.
I would also like to mention the issue of the bicycle path, minister. I know you replied to my letter the other day and said it is a low priority. It does get a mention in the Litchfield Land Use Objectives and, if nothing else, people in the rural area have been waiting I don’t know how many years for a little bit of bitumen to move past the boundaries of Palmerston. It would be nice for people to be able to go from Palmerston to Howard Springs and vice versa safely. It would also, as I have always said, help preserve the heritage. With all the works that go on in Palmerston and Darwin as regards things like bicycle paths, a few kilometres of bicycle path would be very much appreciated.
On the area of heritage, a little disappointing although at last it appears as though Strauss Airstrip has at least been removed from possible subdivision under the previous Land Use Objectives. I would have thought one concept the government might have taken up is heritage parks. It is a concept that I think we need, especially with our World War II heritage and there is quite a bit of that in the Territory. It is not recognised in the plan. It may be mentioned, but I think it needs recognition in a zoning.
Land clearing: I am pleased to see land clearing is mentioned by the minister. One of the problems I see with the Land Clearing Guidelines is that there are land clearing guidelines in the proposed NT Planning Scheme and there are land clearing guidelines for the Litchfield Shire. There needs to be some uniformity over land clearing on freehold land. It is good that they have now included that you must have water before you can clear the land. There is nothing worse than having land cleared and finding out there is no water and you end up with a large area of weeds.
The government has identified tourist nodes. I still find it interesting, though, that they pick on Howard Springs Road and the Stuart Highway. The main area for tourists to start thinking about where they are going is the corner of the Arnhem Highway and the Stuart Highway. That is where you go to Kakadu; that’s where you go to Litchfield. That’s the area I believe should be the major centre for tourism. There is land there belonging to the government at the end of Strauss Airstrip, so I think that is where the government should put its emphasis, not so much on the corner of Howard Springs Road and the Stuart Highway.
Weddell is an issue I could speak on for a lot longer than the time I have left but, be that as it may, I think …
Mr Henderson: We will give you an extension, Gerry.
Mr WOOD: Thank you. When I said earlier there wasn’t vision, to me this is the one area that the government has not given enough time to look at. In the plan is this outlining area called the rural area, still in Weddell, and they have this area of pink on the map which is the centre piece of Weddell. What I have argued is: do not allow the outskirts of this city to be developed before you know the total concept of what you want to build. Here is an opportunity - and I have said it to many people - to look at the entire Weddell area as one, and to get some people, whether they are Territory, national or international people, who are experts in town planning, who can look at something in the three dimensional. Love or hate Canberra, Canberra is a beautiful city. Whether you like to live there is another matter, but if you look at Canberra from up on top of the hills with its axis, it is a beautiful city. It is designed over a lake, it has a centre piece. Burly Griffin …
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Speaker, I would like to move that an extension of time be granted in order for the honourable member to conclude his remarks.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Madam Speaker, I think the government should not proceed with developing the whole of Weddell - not just around Noonamah and not around Middle Arm - until we really give it some proper consideration.
I am not knocking Palmerston for Palmerston’s sake; I am saying that there are parts of Palmerston that were poorly planned. I think most people agree the district centre area is not something that excites you because it was missing a focus. It was just a two dimensional plan done on a computer, and we have said: ‘That will do’. We need something for Weddell which will say: ‘I know that city. That’s Weddell’. Why? ‘Because it has been designed this way’. It could have, and I have said before, maybe a large fresh water lake which feeds into wetlands before it goes into the Elizabeth River. There are some concepts there I think need addressing. I hope the government will take these issues up and don’t go down the path of doing something prematurely. As I said before, if you do something now, it is permanent. We need to make sure we do something with a vision and take our time.
Just a couple of other things, some of them I suppose a little less important. The connector road from East Arm Port to Glyde Point on the plans, minister, should have at least shown the railway spur. I know it is shown on other maps, but I believe that any railway spurs that are intended should be on that map so people have an understanding. That is the main map, the map that you tabled yesterday, that people will see. It does not show that extension of the railway line. I also think the road should go from East Arm Port to Glyde Point. At the moment, it comes out of Temple Terrace, ducks under Wallaby Holtz Road, the famous road that the member for Daly just mentioned, I am not sure people are still happy about it, but that is where the government has intended it to go. But there is no extension of that road to East Arm Port, and that seems very strange to me if you are going to connect two major industrial areas.
Aquaculture was mentioned, also by the member for Daly. I am sure the minister remembers the fuss over the aquaculture site at Shoal Bay. If you look at this map here, it seems to cover, in some areas, pretty well the same type of country. I hope there is a lot more work done on these aquaculture sites before anything permanent goes ahead.
The plan also mentions extractive industries, and I always reckoned that Darwin and Palmerston were built on the extractive industries of Litchfield Shire, because that is where it all comes from, the sand and the gravel. One problem is, from the council’s perspective, it is their roads that are used by all these vehicles, and it is those roads that need repairing. There needs to be some recognition that this industry - which does not pay rates; you do not pay rates on mining leases or extractive mineral leases - should pay something towards the maintenance of the roads. I am not asking for huge increases on the companies themselves, but maybe there is a levy on sand and gravel that is removed from there simply because that would reflect the true price of extracting these materials. If you are doing it, and someone else is picking up the cost of repairing the roads, then you really are not showing a true reflection of the cost of those materials.
Southport is mentioned. I notice, minister, Southport has been put in the too hard basket again. I joined Litchfield Shire Council in 1984, and I reckon we were looking at it then. There have been so many different ideas about what to do with Southport. I might make a suggestion because there are so many ideas going around about what to do with Southport: if you could at least, maybe through a work program, extend a domestic water supply - simply put a domestic water supply and maybe get some of the locals to participate in it, a self-help program - you would save a lot of work. All people want is water. They can run their septic on the 2000 m2 block because they will not have to have a bore. If you put down a simple water reticulation service there – it does not have to be 12 inch pipes or anything, it just needs to be enough pipe for people to have a shower, maybe water a little garden - you would at least come up with a solution, maybe not a permanent solution, but it would be a cheaper solution than trying to acquire land and amalgamate blocks, which is going to take a long time and be very difficult.
The aviation one is always interesting. I know the member for Daly mentioned the alternative airport site. I must admit I reckon it will be a long time before the airport shifts, considering the amount of money that has been brought into the RAAF Base over the last couple of years. That airport is there for a long, long time. The only other thing, minister, is there is talk about having a recreational airstrip. Of course, at the moment you would know that the Meyerings run the one airstrip in the Litchfield Shire. If Weddell does go ahead, of course, that one strip would probably have to go. Where another strip would go is going to require a lot of thought because I know past attempts to have another airstrip, such as Hughes, have been very touchy subjects.
Another area, minister - and I have written to you on this - is signage. Signage is always a complicated and controversial subject. At the moment, the government is actually standing still. I have nothing against signage; I think signage is necessary. But the Stuart and Arnhem Highways which run through the Litchfield Shire are the two main tourist corridors into the shire. If someone can tell me that the signage that is on those highways at the moment encourages tourism or makes the place look better, I will eat my hat. There seem to be signs going up at the moment. I ask the minister to pop out to the Adelaide River Queen site where there is a war on signs. They just pop out of the blue. I believe they are important and necessary, but if there are no controls on them - and governments have to be brave, because you know what happens. When you pull a sign down, they knock on the door of the minister, and the minister says: ‘It goes back up’. I understand that, but if there are some clear guidelines and, at least discussions with the local businesses about what is going on, you probably can achieve some goals in that area. But I do not think you can just leave it as it is at the moment. It seems to me to be Rafferty’s rules.
Finally, there were a couple of other issues that I noticed. One here is on infrastructure, the government wishes to facilitate technologically efficient and environmentally friendly sewage waste disposal systems. May I suggest that there is an opportunity with Weddell, not only as a vision about how it looks; there should be a vision about what it does with its waste. The original plans for the Darwin area were to put 16 sewage ponds on the borders of Darwin Harbour and to empty that sewage into the harbour. It is time we looked at not using the harbour for sewage at all, for recycling that water so that when you build the city, you include an alternative reticulation system which enables that sewage waste to be pumped back into the city for parks or whatever, but using the best technology today - not some of the technology that we would perhaps might use on the golf course in Darwin or Marrara where there are some problems with excessive use of high nitrogenous waste.
You also mentioned the continued operation of the Humpty Doo landfill site. Minister, there is a petition around at the moment complaining about the Humpty Doo landfill site. You say that they will have to wait until the regional waste disposal facility is up and running. I would say that is a long time off because Darwin City Council is definitely not going to go shifting its waste site until it is full. In the meantime, Litchfield is going to have a dump within its own district centre which will only exacerbate some of the problems people have now. I would like the minister to at least look at the alternative site of Sunday Creek. It is a site that, for a long time, the Litchfield Shire Council has asked government - and I know they have been reluctant to do it, but there is a problem that is not going to get any better.
There are some good things in the Litchfield Shire Land Use Objectives. I do not believe it is any good just keeping these within the boundaries of Litchfield Shire. You have Dundee on its border, Leaning Tree to the east and Coomalie and other places like Silkwood to the south. If you are going to have land clearing controls, make them uniform. If you are going to have matters like whether you have to put a bore down before you clear, make that uniform. If you have to have one hectare of dry ground in Litchfield, make it uniform. People who buy those blocks are all the same. Just because we move from one side to the other does not mean those people should be protected.
Finally, minister, I applaud the government for at last bringing them out. There are some problems and, as I said, there needs to be more vision. Hopefully, the minister will take up some of the matters that I have raised today.
Debate adjourned.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members, Madam Speaker has received the following letter from the member for Braitling. It is dated 8 October 2002, from the honourable Lorraine Braham MLA, Speaker of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly:
Dear Madam Speaker,
Yours sincerely
Loraine Braham.
Is the proposed discussion supported? I believe that five members need to rise. A surfeit of members! I call on the member for Braitling.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, if we could have the time set for 20 minutes, please.
I raise this as a matter of public importance because of the wide community support in the Territory for container deposit legislation and the increased lobbying, both for and against, that we are seeing in the community at the moment and the need for action on the part of government.
The growth of litter, the cost of waste management and the increasing need for landfill are among the biggest challenges facing local government and the wider Territory community as we strive to strike a balance between preserving a fragile environment and promoting development. Each year the amount of waste goes up and the problems associated with disposing of it increase. If the Territory’s economy grows at the rate predicted by the government, the community then obviously will have a rapidly growing waste problem. There could be an extra 80 000 people in the Darwin, Palmerston and Litchfield areas in the next 20 years, almost doubling the amount of litter and other wastes. It is certainly time to make decisions to reduce rubbish and the need for landfill.
As an example of the existing waste problem, take the Darwin City Council area, a region that has not been experiencing large population growth, but for the years 1999-2000 and 2000-01 the amount of waste placed in landfill in the council area increased by 1500 tonnes to 84 500 tonnes. This is almost one tonne of household industrial waste a year for every man, woman and child living in Darwin, and that is three times as much waste as 10 years ago. We can see that the amount of waste is increasing year by year. This financial year, the Darwin City Council will spend $5.4m on waste management, an increase of $700 000 or more than 10% on last year.
The litter problem not only has an impact on local government and rate payers, it has a large and unsightly impact on the environment. Most people would agree that one of the Territory’s greatest assets is its physical environment; its vast, remote and almost untouched land. This asset is promoted by the Territory’s tourism groups and tourism operators. It is appreciated and valued by all of us as Territorians and all the groups are starting to notice the impact of litter on the Territory’s attractions and amenity. You only have to drive to some of our remote communities and see the amount of litter as you go along these dirt roads.
So the cost to government and councils of clearing up these public places run to several million dollars a year. In my adjournment speech to parliament in August, I outlined the wide benefits of container deposit legislation, and most of them are well known to members in this House. Briefly, they include the high level of community support for it, and that was reinforced by the committee report that the minister tabled in June. The report made no recommendations, but it did state in its summary that there was a very high level of general public support for the concept of CDL - in excess of 90%.
The report also indicated that they did a telephone survey and polling at community events. You may recall they were at the shows along the way. So they had done a great deal of research and polling on this matter.
As well, we know there is a desire amongst Aboriginal communities to take part in such a scheme, and the effectiveness of CDL in clearing up container waste, encouraging recycling and reducing litter and the demand for land fill, which is obviously a problem we are also concerned about. We know it will create jobs. We know it will lower the costs for local government and, most of all, it will improve the environment.
I would like to now update the parliament on my efforts to introduce container deposit legislation. I flagged my intention in August to table a Private Member’s Bill during this sitting. I approached Parliamentary Counsel to prepare a draft based on the preferred model that was devised by the Keep Australia Beautiful people some years ago, and which has won wide support from local government, certainly from Aboriginal communities, environment groups and most Territory residents. They understand it.
Briefly, under this preferred model the beverage industry would pay an up-front deposit and handling fee for every container it marketed in the Territory. This money would go into a central fund controlled by a body, separate from the beverage industry and government, that would pay out the deposits on returned containers and fund collection agencies. The money left over from unredeemed deposits would be used to fund other anti-litter and environmental protection projects. This model differs from that operating in South Australia where the beverage industry runs the container deposit scheme and pays out only on the containers returned.
However, concern was expressed from several quarters when we were developing this draft legislation, including Parliamentary Counsel, that the proposed legislation would breach the Constitution by creating excise or tax and could breach the Commonwealth’s Mutual Recognition Act. The view expressed was that, by requiring the beverage industry to pay a deposit and levy for unredeemed containers, it would create a tax or an excise on the industry. The Mutual Recognition Act promotes the goal of freedom of movement of goods and services across Australia and does not allow goods or services to be treated differently from one jurisdiction to another. South Australia’s CDL, I might add, is exempt because it existed prior to that act coming into effect 10 years ago.
I have asked the Attorney-General to refer it to the Solicitor General, who is preparing an opinion on these matters. Of course, if there are problems with the workability of that model we have developed, then we will obviously just have to look at other models.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, you are probably aware that the beverage industry released a report. It was entitled CDL Legislation in the Northern Territory and it was a report that has been written by Dr Ram Vemuri for the beverage industries. I do have concerns about it; it argues not for CDL at all. I am just wondering what the terms of reference in commissioning that report were. It seems as though it is a document that was put together to argue against CDL, rather than giving us an objective balance. It says that one of the reasons that CDL will fail in the Territory is that Territorians will not be motivated by paying a deposit to take the container to a depot rather than throwing it away. In other words, the deposit will fail to change littering behaviour. But that is not the prime purpose of CDL, as we know. The purpose is to get the litter off the ground and out of the dumps and to increase recycling.
The report is probably a little right in that it might be hard to change people’s littering behaviour. For instance, I am not likely to take my empty containers every Saturday morning down to a depot just to get $1 or $2 back. But I know that if the scouts came around my street once a month and picked them up from outside my house, I would save the containers for them and they would not get thrown away. The matter of changing littering behaviour lies with anti-litter campaigns, and community groups such as the scouts recognise that a container deposit scheme could offer them opportunities to run collection depots, employ people and raise funds. They could rely on the experience of the South Australian Scouts, who have been involved in recycling beverage containers for more than 50 years.
In a recent letter to the Minister for the Environment, the Territory Branch of the Scouts said that should container deposit legislation be passed, there would be a legitimate role for scouts in the area of collection centres. Basically, the letter says:
I am sure the minister has a copy of that letter.
Last month, the beverage industry had two of its officers touring the Territory, visiting local government and community government councils, environmental groups and Aboriginal groups. They were talking about funding for litter projects and highlighting the report that it had commissioned, the one I showed you, which found that a container deposit scheme would not be viable in the Territory because of the dispersed population and the large distances between population centres. At the same time, the Beverage Council told Keep Australia Beautiful it would be withdrawing its $250 000 funding. KAB suspects that its public support for CDL had something to do with that decision. May I say KAB remains a strong supporter of the preferred CDL model, and I have to say that I think it was a fairly spiteful move on the part of the beverage industry.
I really do not have time to make a detailed response to that report, and I hope members will read it, but I will make some brief comments. The terms of the report are not spelt out, so I really cannot see what the author was setting out to determine. I suspect that the case was to argue against CDL. As part of that case, the report suggests that most of the waste generated in the Territory comes from sources other than households because its figures show that the Territory’s urban households generate only 34% of all waste - a low figure compared with Hobart and Adelaide. I am really not sure why we should compare household waste in the Territory with two major capital cities. The table of capital cities listing household waste as a percentage of all waste does not include Darwin, just a global figure for the Northern Territory. Worse, the figures used in that table and in that report are 13 years old. The figures used to argue that urban households in the Territory generate only 34% of total waste, and therefore not enough to make CDL viable, are 13 years old. The table is headed ‘Household Waste as a Percentage of all Wastes - Australia 1996’. What it does not say, and it is very misleading, is that the figures in the tables were collected in 1989, 13 years ago. They were published in 1996. It makes me wonder about the reliability of other figures in that report, and certainly makes me question the credibility of the report when they are using figures that are so old and certainly have no validity today.
The beverage industry report argues that CDL will not work in the Territory because of the dispersed nature of communities and the large number of Aboriginal communities which evidently have a different culture, according to this report, and cultural view of waste and waste behaviour, and I will read what it says:
That is a lot of garbage. How on earth can the recycling facilities be subject to native title legislation? We only have to look at the fact that the community councils are owners of their land where they live, and we only have to look at the major centres to see that their facilities already have growth for expansion. My response to these claims is that South Australia has a similarly dispersed population, long distances between centres, and a large number of remote Aboriginal communities. It also has workable CDL legislation.
The Aboriginal communities in the Territory strongly support CDL. In fact, when a representative of the beverage company Pauls suggested the opposite, Aboriginal community government councils put out a press release to dispute the claim - and it is very rare for Aboriginal communities to go public in such a way. As to the notion that Aboriginal communities have a culturally different view to rubbish, I am not sure, but dozens of them as you know, take part in the Territory Tidy Towns competition each year. Many have won different categories and the overall award, and others have put in place their own recycling programs.
I quote from the press release that community leaders put out in March this year in response to Pauls’ comments. It is headed: ‘Take it all back’. I will read just part of it:
I mention those names to show you the breadth of what we are talking about:
They go on:
That is a very strong statement from community leaders against an accusation made about them.
As for the threat of native title claim, I am not sure where the author of this report got that idea. Certainly, as I said earlier, most towns and communities already have enough unencumbered land to allow for collection depots.
If we have to look at other options for container deposit legislation, perhaps we could be looking at adopting a policy of extended producer responsibility. EPR is a policy principle and strategy that is being adopted more widely in the developed world. At its most advanced in Germany, all manufacturers of goods are responsible for disposal of the rubbish that their products create, be it car parts or beverage containers. The concept is basic. The producer of litter takes more responsibility for its disposal so that, in fact, that responsibility and the costs of disposal do not fall largely on the wider community. The policy provides an economic incentive to producers to prevent waste generation and to increase recycling.
The Australian Local Government Association and the Northern Territory association support EPR. They believe the packaging industry should take more responsibility for the waste it is producing. The Australian Local Government Association decided not to sign the national packaging covenant because it was based more on the principle of shared responsibility than on the notion of ‘polluter pays’ - and a polluter should pay. The association believes that local government is not part of the packaging chain, and that industries should be required to take life cycle responsibility for their products, and financial support for recycling. The Territory government was the only jurisdiction in Australia not to sign the five-year covenant, leaving the way open for it to introduce CDL. A container deposit scheme would shift the cost burden from ratepayers and the wider community to a more equitable spread between consumers and producers.
But, of course, the beverage industry does not agree. As we can see from the report, instead of introducing the legislation, more local government bodies should be doing more to minimise waste in their eyes. It claims that land collection depots in Darwin, Katherine, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs, would cost almost $1m, which, as I said earlier, is absurd. The report concludes the ideal sustainable recycling program incorporates seven key characteristics, none of them CDL. The seven suggested points are already being implemented to various degrees in the Territory and in other jurisdictions, and none of them have been as successful as reducing litter on large scale as CDL has been in South Australia.
The report’s recommendation that stakeholders sit down to work out programs aimed at sustainable recycling, reducing land fill and targetting industrial waste is a valuable one, but such a move should be made in conjunction with the introduction of CDL. It is interesting that the report, which claims to be based on fact, says no Northern Territory-specific data is currently available to determine the waste stream contribution of beverage containers that would be subject to CDL. There are, in my opinion, a lot of flaws in this report.
Opponents of CDL, mainly from the beverage industry, point to the South Australian legislation to argue that South Australians pay more for their beverages and that it does little to reduce litter. But the price of beverages in the state are comparable with the rest of the country, and certainly, I do not believe that people go to one shop in preference to another to save themselves 5 on a can. If, as it appears, there are constitutional problems with the preferred container deposit scheme, and the minister would perhaps be able to inform us about this, and the legislation that I have had drafted, perhaps there could be a simple alternative that would address the litter problem created by the empty beverage containers. Anyone who thinks there is not a problem would only have to see on Clean Up Australia Day how much is actually collected. It is quite overwhelming.
In the Territory, we could adopt the policy with regards to beverage containers made of glass, aluminium, steel and plastic. The Waste Management and Pollution Control Act would be amended to require the beverage industry clean up, for example, 85% of used containers. The industry would determine how it would reach that target. The beverage industry would be required to provide audited monthly figures of their sales in the Territory, and audited figures of container disposal. If the target was not met, the industry would have to pay a fine. Now, that may seem harsh, but I think it should be left to industry to determine how it might best recover its waste. It might decide after all that container deposit legislation is a viable option.
I have been advised that such amendments to the Waste Management and Pollution Control Act …
Mr Wood interjecting.
Mrs BRAHAM: I have one minute.
Mr Wood: No, I was going to ask for an extension of time. It has run out.
Mrs BRAHAM: It has run out?
Mr WOOD: Mr Acting Deputy Chairman, I move that the member be granted an extension of time in order that she may conclude her remarks.
Motion agreed to.
Mrs BRAHAM: I have been advised that such amendments to the Waste Management and Pollution Control Act would not breach the Mutual Recognition Act because the act allows exemptions for laws that are aimed at preventing, minimising or regulating environmental pollution. Another alternative is to lobby the federal government for national container deposit legislation, and support for national legislation is growing across Australia. I would urge the Chief Minister to support those other premiers who are trying to get the matter on the COAG agenda.
When I sought an opinion on my Private Member’s Bill from the Solicitor General through the Attorney-General’s office, I also provided a copy of the draft CDL to the Office of the Environment. I understand the draft and other proposals are being looked at by the minister. I look forward to his contribution to the debate, and perhaps he could give us an update on where we are with this.
I urge the government to find a solution and a means to introduce this legislation, even though it may seem hard at the moment. They would gain much support from the community. I know support is out there in the community, and I ask all members to support CDL.
Mr VATSKALIS (Environment): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I welcome the motion from the member for Braitling. Unfortunately, I cannot give you an answer today. The reason for that is that a Cabinet submission is circulating the departments and it will very soon come to Cabinet. I cannot pre-empt a decision of Cabinet. For the same reason, I cannot give you my personal view on the matter, despite the fact that it is well known whether or not I support container deposit legislation.
You see, I grew up in a town where we used to take our bottles to the supermarket or to the depot for the simple reason to exchange them and not have to pay for the next lot of bottles we were going to pick up - either milk or beer bottles. When you multiply an amount of money 24 or 36 or 48 times, it is a significant amount of money.
However, I want to point out that Cabinet soon will receive an opportunity to discuss the submission in detail and make a decision. When we make this decision then we will make a public announcement. But until that time, I cannot state publicly what position the government is going to adopt.
I just have to say to the member for Braitling and all the other members that unfortunately, it was not an easy decision. I received representation from both Keep Australia Beautiful and the Beverage Council. I received the report by Beverage Council and I received a submission from Keep Australia Beautiful and they surely made by life difficult.
Let us have a look at what has happened in the past 12 months. When I became Minister for the Environment, I inherited a process that was started by the previous government. The CLP government had given Keep Australia Beautiful and Greening Australia Katherine branch $100 000 to do a study of CDL. Keep Australia Beautiful went so quickly. They promoted what they were doing and, of course, they came back and they said: ‘We have done a survey. 95% agree with CDL and we have spent only $30 000 of the $100 000 and we have $70 000 left’.
However, the survey was under severe attack by of course, the other side, the people who oppose CDL, for obvious reasons. The other side argued that the fact that Keep Australia Beautiful undertook the survey in a very biased way because, of course, they had promoted their own position. Of course, I mentioned to the people from the other side that the report that they produced may be very biased because obviously it is in their best interest not to have container deposit legislation.
However, I have to admit that in their report I read - and I went through that one - I think they made a mistake. They employed somebody who insisted that he would be independent. That person did a report and reported back to the Beverage Council and, in his report, says that in some cases, CDL is justified and in other cases it is not. The Beverage Council accept that report but of course the Territory was an area where CDL could not be justified. Once again, I said: ‘Yes, I hear your position but I believe that may be a biased position’.
We then asked Keep Australia Beautiful to provide us with the report and then I formed a steering group to have a look at the issues that were raised by Keep Australia Beautiful. The terms of reference for the steering committee were to consider the result of existing surveys and prepare a balanced report outlining the level of understanding and acceptance of a container deposit scheme within the Northern Territory.
The reports will address:
consultation with the general public and stakeholders regarding all aspects of a container
deposit system and in particular, potential input from Northern Territory consumers,
manufacturers and waste service providers.
type, product type to which the deposit is applied, and especially regional differences.
We actually wanted to have a survey or a report that would address all these issues because the Territory is 1.5m km2 with vast differences. You have the so-called dry Centre to the Top End with severe weather conditions, and also distances between east and west from Queensland and Western Australia.
The steering committee was chaired by Mr Ken Cohalan, former CEO of Pauls Northern Territory, and comprised representatives of Landcare, Northern Territory, the Northern Territory Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Keep Australia Beautiful (Northern Territory), the Commission for Consumer Affairs and my Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment.
The steering committee conducted extensive community consultation and provide its reports to government in May 2002. The steering committee concluded that there was a high level of public support for the introduction of a deposit system. Alignment with the South Australian scheme would be most appropriate and further analysis of outstanding legal, financial, regional and operational issues was warranted.
I do not have to expand on the legal issues because the member for Braitling already referred to some of them, and I believe you expect that response from the Department of Justice. I will be very glad to see a copy of that report. It certainly interests me because it may put a spanner in the works.
Some of the outstanding issues were: is CDL financially viable? Is it economically viable? What resources would it take to run such a system? What environmental benefit would it lead to? Does the Territory have the legislative competence to introduce such an act? Can CDL be implemented throughout the region? Will CDL undermine kerbside recycling? These questions were referred to my department for further and thorough analysis. I gave my department plenty of time to have a look at this issue and come back to us and report on it. They are very complex issues. We have kerbside collection in Darwin introduced by the Darwin City Council. Is CDL going to undermine this? Okay, the first response is: ‘No, of course not’ but if it does undermine it, what impact would it have on the operation of this system, and what impact we have then on the operation of other areas of the whole collection and recycling system.
I received the Cabinet submission from my department in early September. I had a look at it very carefully, and then I decided to circulate it around the departments. It has been circulated, and it is scheduled now to go to Cabinet. I should have explained before, because before Cabinet can tell you if it is going to go through or not going to go through, the Cabinet consists of seven individuals, seven ministers. Every minister has his or her own ideas. Some might support it, some might not. Some might want to support it but might consider that the impact of CDL in the whole recycling stream is such…
Mrs Braham: Give us a hint, minister, give us a hint.
Mr VATSKALIS: I cannot give you a hint for the simple reason that I cannot respond on behalf of the other ministers. The decision will be known the day Cabinet decided. I have said to you before I cannot even tell you publicly now what my personal position is. However, it is well known what I believe, and I have said so publicly. Of course, the decision will be made one way or the other. It is a very difficult decision. As I explained to you before, some of the issues we have to address are the distances, the fact that we are about 900 km from Kununurra. If we introduce this container deposit legislation, the last thing we need is a semi-trailer from Kununurra to arrive in Katherine, put the containers out, and off it goes again.
The other thing, of course, is, the unredeemed deposit. Some organisations believe that there is going to be an unregulated deposit: ‘There is going to be $1m to $1.5m, so we have done it, we can get it and administer it’. But is the best way to administer the unredeemed deposits by existing organisations, or would it be better to actually put in place a new organisation to coordinate all these kinds of activities that can be financed and funded by the unredeemed deposits in the whole Territory?
Other issues of concern are: how are we going to transport the containers from remote communities? The remote communities during the Dry are okay; we can bring it in by road trains, by road, there is back loading. But what would happen in the communities, in the islands, or the remote communities in the north of the Top End, especially during the Wet, when we have extreme conditions? What kind of depot do you have to put in place? What will happen if there is a cyclone, an extreme cyclone? What are you going to do? Because, let us not forget, some of these containers can be very light, some can be very difficult and also lethal. Yes, you can compact cans, but bottles cannot be compacted. The crushing of those then introduces another factor in the equation. That means you have to have the appropriate equipment, the appropriate people to do it safely and, certainly, a way to transport them back.
So we have to examine all these circumstances to make a decision. The issue that the member for Braitling raised about the restriction of trade is very important. If the opponents of this scheme are successful with their arguments, the whole system goes down. The other things is: is it only bottles that pollute the environment? As a matter of fact, glass does not pollute the environment because it is inert material. What it does is creates a nuisance because it breaks. What pollutes the environment is plastics, plastic bags, some of the PET bottles. If we go to CDL, are we going to recycle glass? What about PET? The reality is you can crush glass and use energy to reconstitute it, but for PET you have to use petroleum products to extract the plastic to reform it. Then, of course, you have to grade it - once again using energy to reform the plastic. These are the issues we have to consider very carefully.
I said to you before that I grew up in a country where they did not crush the glass to reform it. Actually, by law, you had to reuse the bottles. That means that the bottle is not crushed but is reused. Of course, the argument is then lately, a lot of people have taken a great fancy to putting syringes or things in glasses. The companies were very, very reluctant to reuse glass for the simple reason they could not find a perfect way of inspection to eliminate the pollution. I have to admit that it is a very, very difficult situation for the beverage companies. In my previous life as an environmental health office, I remember someone coming to my office with an open can of cool drink. On emptying it into a glass, inside the cool drink was a large grasshopper. Of course, we could not find out how this grasshopper could get into a sealed can - but there was evidence; people were there when that person opened the can, and they saw the grasshopper after they opened it - until we went to the factory and we found out that the cans were coming through to be filled and then capped, one of the windows was open, no fly wire, and during the process, obviously, one of the insects fell in, it was filled, capped and served in one of these establishments.
So I can understand the problems faced by the industry. I am not saying because of that reason, we should not go to CDL. The decision will be made by Cabinet and, when this decision is made, then the House and the public will be informed. I know how the public is feeling. At the same time, is 5 on a bottle going to stop people throwing a bottle away, or, say, a plastic bottle or the hamburger wrap away?
When I first came to Australia, we stopped in Singapore. I was surprised, I was dumbfounded how clean the place was. The same happened in 1986 and in 1990. Two years ago, we went back to Singapore, and I could not believe how much litter was on the streets of Singapore. Every piece of litter was quietly marked with a particular trademark on it - pieces of paper used to wrap a multinational chain’s hamburgers. So, even the tough restrictions in Singapore did not stop people from throwing their wraps away and polluting. Is 5 reward per bottle or per container going to stop people? In my opinion, we have to change the attitude and perception of people, and the way they behave.
Again, I am not going to respond to what is going to happen with CDL. I cannot give you a hint, but one thing I am going to say is that we will consider all the issues with regards to container deposit legislation - all the implication for the Territory, on the individuals, on the communities, on the system, on the people who currently collect containers - and then we will respond appropriately. It will not be long; it will be a few weeks. Cabinet will consider the container deposit legislation and soon afterwards, we will advise you about the outcome and decision of the government.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I would like to thank both the member for Braitling and the minister for their contribution to the debate on CDL. There have been some terrific issues raised and I think this is probably the first time, minister, that I have heard you give what I might call a substantial summary of the issues. The issues you and the member for Braitling raised are very important issues. But some of those issues are not exactly right.
Instead of going through what you just said, I might raise them as I go through the container deposit legislation report that BIEC has decided to - it has been out for a while but I think we were only able to get a copy recently. From what I remember of this report, which is a bit of a crying shame, it did not go through that container deposit consultation process. It went directly to the government. You have to ask: ‘Well, why did it do that? Why didn’t it come through the process? Did they have something to hide?’ I think they had something to hide because when you read it, I believe that this document is made up of quite a lot of flaws. I might just go through this document and highlight some of those issues.
In the opening sentence under the executive summary, you will see what the whole packaging industry is about. This is the opening sentence of this report:
Then it says:
It has a diagram there which shows producers, consumers, non-government organisations, government all contributing to sustainable recycling:
Well, what this conveniently forgets to say is that the packaging industry of today has created the throwaway packaging system where before we had a system where the industry was proactive in the return of packaging. That is, in the case of bottles, as the minister said, the consumer was encouraged to return those bottles by way of a refund. So before this whole debate occurred, before we had a throwaway society, we had CDL – that is only the modern term. We did not throw away bottles; we collected them. I should say to the minister: of course, you only got a small return on a bottle, but what you did get is you collected a whole heap of bottles and that gave you your money. I mean, no-one really bothered picking up one can, I suppose, but if you have several cans and you are collecting them to make some money, you will go around and pick them all up.
I do believe the deposit could be higher, but if we went into a program of CDL and we were not uniform with South Australia we would be very foolish. So, unless South Australia raise their deposit it would be very silly for us to do countenance that.
The packaging industry, as you can see in this document, is now trying to look squeaky clean and be a good citizen, and is wanting every one to be part of the shared responsibility as waste generating stakeholders. The so-called win/win/win for all defies logic. Someone loses when someone wins. One team is on top of the ladder and automatically one team will be on the bottom. You cannot all win/win/win otherwise the coaches would never get sacked in Aussie Rules.
The concept of shared responsibility can be seen more clearly when you see who pays for kerbside recycling: the consumer. The Darwin City Council pays a huge subsidy to a company to collect the recyclable who then do their best to recycle those products. With freight, low prices or at least variable prices, especially for glass, it is not an easy business. But in this whole process, who bears the main cost? The consumer. The ratepayer. Who does not? The beverage industry or the packaging industry. They will reluctantly take the product back as long as the consumer pays for it to be picked up and does not receive anything for it, sorts it out and transports it to their recycling centre where the lowest possible price for the product is paid.
The whole push by BIEC is a con. It has the resources, it has the power and has the money to make sure that they are the winners and the rest of the community are the losers. They will be lobbying everyone. I have been lobbied directly not long after I was elected by a representative of BIEC who came to tell me they were going to spend $16m or something on the ‘Do the right thing campaign’, a campaign that existed 20 or 30 years ago. They decided it was time to resurrect this. I thought this is all very strange and then found out that he came up from Sydney on behalf of BIEC to start the soft sell because he knew there was a change of government and he knew there would be a strong push to CDL.
In Darwin I have been dined out by our good friends Wayne Zerbe and Pauls Ltd. I am not knocking Wayne; Wayne was working for Pauls Ltd. But they were trying to convinced me that the Aboriginal communities would not accept this and it would be too complicated by having to barge stuff back in the Wet season, etcetera, and they were the issues that were raised today. I do not accept that, and the reason I do not accept it is because if you get a product in, you can get a product out. I mean, he didn’t drink the milk in the first place by some complicated method; it came in on a truck or on a barge, and that barge will be back in a couple of weeks time. It is not really rocket science to work out that you can take it back.
It may need some negotiation, but people have to remember that within this deposit is a certain amount of money set aside for freight, and I think people forget that. Exactly 5 deposit; in South Australia, you pay 8 more. As long as people are up front with that and know that that money is being used to help recycle, that’s what it is all about.
I was also recently surveyed by a company representing BIEC on the phone, and I was happy to give my ...
Dr Lim: Credentials.
Mr WOOD: No, I had to give my opinion on what I thought they were doing. I thought all they were doing was trying to basically tell people that CDL was no good. They wanted to know my opinion of the grouping, and I told them that as well. BIEC, of course, as I mentioned before, has been travelling through the Territory trying to sell their line. That is what they are good at. That is why this document is here today; it is meant to sell something.
When they have been lobbying the government very hard, I bet the doors have been also open. They know how to lobby; they are the experts. They showed their true colours when they would not put their point of view to the CDL committee set up by the previous government. They sent their comments, this document, straight to the government to avoid scrutiny by the committee and the public.
The packaging industry will continue to fight against CDL because it does not really want to take responsibility for the throw-away philosophy it invented. It will continue to churn out verbal rubbish like this statement, and I will give you a statement from page 3 of this document:
That is the biggest turnaround of logic I have ever seen in my life. The reason it has been going for so long in South Australia is because it affects the hip pocket. People know they can get money for waste. Waste has become valuable. If you pretend you can rely upon people’s warm and fuzzy heart feeling good about returning all those cans and bottles, you are having yourself on. That is just the reverse of what actually happens, and it is meant to be real.
It also cites a low, dispersed population and large distances and climatic extremes as a reason why we shouldn’t have it. What is conveniently forgotten is that South Australia, were CDL works, has similar issues. Take Ceduna, Kangaroo Island, Marla Bore, they are all way out the back of whoop-whoop and have problems trying to get back to the main centres - and Pitjantjatjara country is way out in the desert! These people are able to use CDL quite okay. Why? Because the product comes into those communities and it goes back to where it came from.
What the author of the document does not take into account is that the product reaches the community, so it can go back the same way. CDL, as I said before, does have a freight component built in to it.
What is demonstrated in this document is a lack of understanding of the realities on the ground. This is what I call an airconditioned document. It has been compiled in an airconditioned office, and I do not believe it is really in touch with reality. Try this statement:
That is what they are telling us we should do, but who would pay for that? It certainly would not be BIEC. Who sorts the product? Not BIEC. BIEC does not understand that rubbish, all rubbish, in most communities, perhaps with the exception of Darwin and Palmerston, is collected and dumped in the landfill. A small community could not sort that. But what CDL does, because it makes the containers valuable, is remove the rubbish before it reaches the landfill. If it does reach the landfill, I can bet you there will be people in that landfill removing it because it is valuable. If you had a few hundred aluminium cans in your land fill worth 5 each, I bet you there would be people taking it out because it has a value.
There has also been mention about whether people care because it is 5, or whether people would change their habits about littering. Well they perhaps will not. I think the best example is you will never convince a drunk leaving the pub that it is a really good idea not to throw my can on the road because I have got to do the right thing.
Ms Scrymgour: Done a few nights like that, have you, Gerry?
Mr WOOD: Sorry. No, no, I just have some theatrical experience in a French inn.
Ms Scrymgour: That almost looked real.
Mr WOOD: Yes. I can guarantee that, if it is worth some money, there will be someone come along and pick it up. This is not necessarily about training people in litter control or to stop littering; it is to make sure that those people who could not care two hoots about the mess that they have made will be fixed up by someone else, because someone else will come along and pick it up.
I used to go to the football when I was young. People used to leave all the soft drink bottles under the seats. What did we do? We used to run along and pick them up. Someone did not care about it. You can guarantee someone else will care about it because it is worth money. You should not have got me on this subject, member for Braitling.
I should make a couple of other comments. I think the member for Braitling also mentioned this section, and I reckon it is a classic. I am going through the reasons it states in this report why CDL will not work. Here is the classic one:
Well, you could say that for – what? - about 85% of the population of Australia. So what! It works in South Australia where I would say they are just as dispersed as we are. Second:
Well, blow me down! What has that got to do with the price of fish? Here is what they say.
Talk about up with the fairies! I am sure people know what rubbish is. It does not matter where you come from. Rubbish is rubbish; litter is litter. This whole thing, the whole idea of CDL, is to overcome all that. It will be worth the money. If a particular culture did not like it, I am sure someone else will pick up the product and get some return.
He says:
Third:
The member for Braitling has said enough about that, and her description of it as being garbage is spot on.
We come to an issue about increasing the collection and recycling of waste materials. This is another area that the report covers. It says:
He does not say why, but I know that I used to try and get my 20 back and you would not, because the whole system really was not thought out properly. It was not easy to get your money back, and they took if off the market because people got the old lever in there and tried to get the money out, anyway. It was a system that was open for vandalism and theft. To try and compare that with what we are talking about is just a red herring.
I reckon this is a classic, too:
That is why I say this has been made by some airconditioned recluse because I see cash-a-can everywhere - Humpty Doo, Howard Springs. You get money back for cans. It is a deposit system. You get something like an eighth of a can. It depends on the value of aluminum. But you can put down a monetary value to each can. And why is aluminum the highest returnable product in the Northern Territory? Because it has a monetary value on it. Because you can get some money back when you take it to the Scouts. It is just amazing to see a statement like that. How can you believe this document when it makes silly statements like that?
Then it talks about kerbside recycling, and it makes this classic statement:
I make Litchfield the comment here:
I do not know whether the person who wrote this has been to Litchfield. It is a big area. It costs a fortune to have kerbside recycling. The other thing, of course, is that we do not have any kerbs. Well, we have a few. I honestly do not believe that the person has looked at the reality of what goes on.
I do not believe that you are going to be able to have recycling containers at Timber Creek or on the highway simply because no one is going to be able to pick the stuff up. I do not think the concepts discussed have taken any account or demonstrate any understanding of who would pay. It will not be BIEC paying, it will be some little community council trying to pay for products that are probably uneconomic to recycle.
It also says:
Well, blow me down! I do not know people that well that I know who dropped that can or threw that bottle out. I think it would be a bit harder in Darwin. I do not know where he gets ‘stigmatisation’ from.
Their solution to some of this is to encourage people to put recyclable material in designated collection bins. Again, all they want is people to put them in the bins. Who picks them up? Who gets rid of the product? In a lot of cases, they just go back into landfill. This is not the solution. The reason CDL is good is because not only does it pick it up, it separates it, and it pays for it to go back to the area that it came from. That is what the crux of this is: it automatically separates. All you have to do is say to a consumer: ‘We will not give you your deposit until you have separated your glass from your aluminium from your plastic’, and so the products will come in separated. So you do not have to have big separation: As long as you bring it in separated, you will get your money. If you do not bring it in separated, you take it home and start again. So, there are some great advantages in the operation of CDL.
Finally, it needs to be reinforced why CDL is so good, and the member for Braitling did touch on it before. It certainly will reduce landfill. I do not see any notion here - when you are talking about working out the economy, do they work out the effect of the reduced money spent on landfill? It says that only 20% of the product is theirs - that is, in bottles and cans and stuff - but I am not sure what 80% means. Is it 80% of weight, volume; or number? It does not explain. But I can tell you if you go down to a landfill site, you will see an awful lot of plastic bottles, and they take up an awful lot of space, and they do not break down.
CDL will increase recycling amounts. If you have been to South Australia, you will know that recycling amounts in South Australia are higher than all other states. Also, in South Australia kerbside recycling is still in operation. If you go to a council, as I have been to West Torrens Council, they will tell you that both of them can co-exist, and it increases the amount of product that they receive by having them both operating. There, the council picks up the material and it gets the materials as well. Perhaps that is the problem with outsourcing your kerbside recycling, but in South Australia those councils get that money. It certainly lowers the litter.
There is talk about it not helping the economy. What it does not look at is that what it helps is the mini-economy. Those kids picking up the cans in the community or on the street out the front here or something, they are helping the mini-economy; because what happens? They will go along to the shop and buy another drink. So you actually have a little economy that is operating because some people, some kids, some communities saw some entrepreneurial benefits in picking them up for money. I call that the mini-economy. It is probably called the micro-economy by the economist. There is also the mini-employment - that is a form of employment. All right, it might be part-time, but that is employment.
The minister touched on this: should we increase the amount of products that CDL covers? Could I ask for an extension of time?
Mrs Braham: We only have two hours, that is the trouble.
Ms LAWRIE: Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the member be granted an extension of time such that he may conclude his remarks.
Motion agreed to.
Mrs Braham: For one minute.
Mr WOOD: Okay, I will be as quick as I can. Thank you, member for Braitling, but you are not in the Chair at the moment.
I also believe that it should cover a large range of other products, anything from liquid soap containers to baked bean tins. I have no problem with that and a lot of times that is what the industry complains about. But you could not do it as a territory unless South Australia did it because we are too small for that. We certainly should look at that.
This document’s total reason for existing is to put down CDL, and the basis upon which they try to destroy CDL is based on false assumptions. It is a bit sad that such a document has hit the light of day. Well, it is probably not sad because now we know what the industry thinks. But I do not think it is really worth the paper it is written on.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, before we go on, I would like to draw your attention to a very patient delegation of visitors from the Queensland parliament: Mr Neil Roberts, member for Nudgee, who is also Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Employment, Training and Youth and Minister for the Arts; Mr Andrew McNamara, member for Hervey Bay; and Mr Robert Poole, member for Gaven. I am sure you will join me in wishing members well and welcoming them to the Northern Territory parliament.
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I will not take as long, not even as fraction as long as the member for Nelson but, as we all know, he is passionate about his issues.
I wanted to put on the record that I, too, share the concerns about the indiscriminate dumping of litter in our society, how it is essentially clogging up our environment and, in my view, there need to be a raft of actions taken to ensure that environmental litter is well and truly reduced and, hopefully, as some examples from around the world demonstrate, are removed from our society altogether.
In that vein, I congratulate the member for Braitling for bringing on this Matter of Public Importance which gives us an opportunity to debate it today.
Obviously, as a member of government, I am aware of the hard work that has been going on since we took government by our Minister for the Environment. He has not been shy in progressing this issue at all within government. He has had extensive discussions with all stakeholders in this debate and has sought advice from the departments and has a very clear and intimate understanding and knowledge of this issue. Rest assured that our government has not been idle on the issue of container deposit legislation unlike, shall I say, the opposition.
The CLP had 27 years to introduce CDL and they did not. When the former Leader of the Opposition, Maggie Hickey, time and time again called for its introduction in this Chamber, what occurred? Nothing. So I will listen with interest to the member opposite and what he has to say in contribution to this debate because we are getting a little sick and tired of the hypocrisy coming from the other side.
Labor is, as I say, on record as supporting CDL in this Chamber. We are coming from the perspective of not being against it and not being negative to it but obviously, in government, we have to look very carefully at the details, whether it is practical, whether we have the resources available to actually implement it properly. The reason I say this is because overall, there are a number of ways in which to tackle the issue of litter.
First of all, we can ensure that people are aware that everyone is a contributor to this issue. They are contributors to both a solution as well as the problem. We need to make them aware that there are some fairly simple things that everyone can do to reduce the amount of litter in the environment. This is basically the reason the government continues to provide funding to the Keep Australia Beautiful Council of $160 000 per year and with a considerable amount of in-kind support.
We are wholeheartedly behind the Keep Australia Beautiful Council, specifically the work they deliver throughout the Territory and particularly in our remote communities through the Territory Tidy Towns projects and competition. I will make a note that I will be attending the awards ceremony coming up in November. To any member who has not had the opportunity to attend a Territory Tidy Town awards presentation, I really recommend that you get along there because it is a wonderful example of the partnerships that can occur to create what I call community renewal at the local level. Keep Australia Beautiful Council have been doing that for some years now with tremendous successes in our communities and, indeed, our more remote communities that I believe were the subject of abject neglect of the previous CLP regime. Thank God they have gone.
We could look at making people who produce what becomes the litter pay the cost or part of the cost for picking up the rubbish and properly disposing of it. For many years, the Beverage Industry Environmental Council has paid money to the Territory Anti-Litter Committee which in later years has been paid directly to Keep Australia Beautiful. This money, some $250 000 per annum, until this year, had been a substantial and important component of the money used by Keep Australia Beautiful for a whole range of programs and these programs, as you heard me say, have brought tremendous results in our remote communities. There are other legislative mechanisms that could be used to target businesses that produce the material that ultimately becomes litter. But none of these are on the agenda at the moment.
We could also make the people who litter pay. This is the approach taken by the Litter Act which has fines for those who litter. There is a difficulty with this legislation, though, in that it is extremely difficult to obtain the information that will stand up as evidence in court so that we can actually nail someone for the offence of littering.
We could also make litter valuable. This is the approach that puts a value into litter. Sometimes you can get this through recycling from the value of, say, the aluminium in cars or the rubber in tyres. Recycling in the Territory we know is problematic in many areas owing, as speakers in this debate today have said, to our size and population.
Another way is to use container deposit legislation which is the subject of today’s discussion.
So all four strategic approaches probably need to be looked at as a coordinated approach to really deliver an effective way to combat litter in our society. The solution to most problems, as we all know, is not a one-shoe-fits-all solution. There is not just the one, simple answer. This is why the Minister for the Environment has been very carefully and diligently moving through the arguments for and against CDL, the practical aspects of CDL and how it can be delivered, what the cost impact would be, not just in the major towns of Darwin and Alice Springs. Quite clearly, we have a commitment in this government to ensure that we are not putting any extra burden on the people who are the most disadvantaged, that is Territorians living in remote communities.
In that vein, I would also like to commend the efforts of our Minister for Community Development because he has always been a tremendous supporter of Keep Australia Beautiful who are the protagonists in trying to pursue this CDL legislation. I know Lorna Woods who quite effectively operates Keep Australia Beautiful here, and I have had many conservations with her on this subject. The Minister for Community Development has shown his support. He is continuing to fund Keep Australia Beautiful and he is a big fan of the tremendous work they do in our remote and regional communities.
Yet, as I said, balanced with this is the need to ensure that any CDL does not have a negative economic impact on our regional and remote communities. How do we recycle in remote areas? How do we transport from remote areas? All of these details and issues that our Minister for the Environment has already raised in this debate are details that government has to sort out to the nth degree before Cabinet can actually consider suggested legislation.
I remind members that we have been in government one year. The minister responsible has already indicated there will be a Cabinet discussion on a Cabinet submission on this subject after just one year. Meanwhile, the CLP had 27 years and nothing occurred. One review that many people argued was terminally flawed because of its terms of reference. Unlike the member for Nelson, the beverage industry council has not been near me, they are not even trying to lobby me, maybe I am a little too green for them, I do not know.
I look at both of the arguments. I have seen the submissions by the beverage industry council. I am not going to go into the detail of discussion on those submissions, but what I will say to Keep Australia Beautiful, who have been delivering fine work on behalf of Territorians on the ground in remote communities - take heart. This is under active consideration and it will go to Cabinet for discussion. It obviously will be part of Caucus discussions, and give people like myself the opportunity to participate further in this debate. Indeed, discussions with government are continuing, and, quite rightly, should continue through this entire process of looking into the detail, really burrowing down into just what it means and just what its implications to our society, both socially and economically, are.
I believe that Labor is, of all parties in Australian political history, the most fundamentally supportive of any initiatives to reduce litter in our society. To this end, I will continue to support the good work and efforts of Keep Australia Beautiful. I will continue to work with the members for Braitling and Nelson who I know share concern about litter in our society. Most importantly, I will make sure that the excellent work of our Minister for the Environment and the strong commitments by our Minister for Community Development do not go unrecognised. I support them in their efforts to, after many years of debate on CDL in the Territory, find the details required for solutions – a range of solutions – to the litter problem that exists.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I join in congratulating the member for Braitling for bringing this MPI on for debate today. It has been a while coming, and I am glad to see that, at long last, government is also dealing with it. I am surprised to hear the minister say that his public position is well known. Yet, if you listened closely to what he had to say in the debate this afternoon, I was not quite sure whether he was in favour or not in favour of CDL. Maybe that is the difficulty. As the member for Karama said, in government, one has to be very careful how one plots these sorts of strategies for the Territory.
This report, a report to the Northern Territory Minister for the Environment, the Hon Kon Vatskalis MLA on container deposit consultation, was presented in May 2002, five months ago. It was not recently presented to him, but presented quite some time ago, and only recently has there been a Cabinet submission to be considered.
I think it is important to note that CDL will obviously help with the litter situation in the Northern Territory, and when you compare the Northern Territory to South Australia, it might be an indication that CDL does indeed work. I went to a CPA conference in South Australia a few months ago during which container deposit legislation in South Australia was a topic of discussion. I drew the member for Braitling’s attention to that paper, and the issues that were discussed that day.
I do not think I need to go into the detail as to the benefits as seen by the South Australian people, nor the benefits as outlined in this report that was presented to the minister. There was an item in the South Australian report to the CPA conference that did concern me a little, and was alluded to by the member for Braitling. It was about the issue of extended producer responsibility or EPR. EPR, if I may elaborate on that a little, was first used early this decade by Thomas Lindquist, to describe a policy shift in Europe and supposedly now gaining support throughout the industrialised world. Lindquist was a Swedish professor of Environmental Economics, and he defined EPR as this:
The way I see it, consumers also produce rubbish. We have to take some responsibility ourselves; you cannot just blame somebody for the rubbish that you produce yourself. For goodness sake, we have to deal with it, dispose of it in a way that is environmentally friendly. To say that it is all entirely the producer’s fault, the manufacturer’s fault, is again, living in a fool’s world where you blame somebody else for the actions you create yourself. Therefore, I would suggest to people that, if EPR is being considered, think it through carefully. We, the final users of the product, must take responsibility for the disposal of the product, too. Otherwise it will always be somebody else’s problem and not ours, and then where does that go?
There are issues about costs and whether the cost is to the manufacturer or to the consumer. The member for Nelson brought up the issue about bush communities and how they deal with recycled or reclaimed containers. As the Chairman of the Select Committee on Territory Food Prices, we looked into the cost of food in bush communities and we realised that it is quite expensive to buy food out there. It will definitely escalate the cost of beverages and other foods that are purchased in containers. As it is now, the cost of buying food out there with limited welfare funds causes hardship. Will this add another burden to bush communities? Will it be offset by the money received from the container deposit? I do not think so because, while the member for Nelson says the recycled containers will come out the same way it went in, which is through transport, somebody has to pay for the transport. Who is going to pay for that? Ultimately, it is the community or the business person who promotes the container recycling. So, somewhere, somehow, those finances need to be worked through.
It is important for all these issues to be discussed thoroughly, and we must be sure that whatever system that is introduced, or not introduced, into the Territory, is the right one. I would like to see the minister be a little more - not so much hasty - but a little more expeditious in getting this through. He has had this report now for five months, and it will be interesting to see what his Cabinet colleagues think about the matter.
When I was the Minister for Local Government and considering this issue myself, the matter of the Mutual Recognition Act was never raised. However, in retrospect, having discussed it with several other people, it is a significant hurdle to the possibility of introducing CDL in the Territory. It appears that we might have to look at a national level of agreement to allow this to be enacted - not only in the Territory but across the country - and that will pose another major debate about whether every state and other territory will want to have CDL.
The comments made by the member for Nelson about the beverage industry probably was a little unfair. I found it humorous in the sarcastic way he got stuck into the beverage industry. In my discussions with the beverage industry, they were interested in seeing a level playing field. We pick on beverages only. What about the other foods that are in containers like cereal boxes, cartons and other plastics. How do we deal with that? The bigger the range of containers we take on to deal with, the more difficult the process will be to try and address our litter problem.
Maybe CDL might be a good way to do it. Take it in small chunks and bring that on first and then consider the other type of containers at a later stage. But if that were the case, I believe the beverage industry needs to be reassured that is something the government will look at, otherwise it will continue to argue that it is unfair to that industry only having to bear the brunt of the costs of container returns.
It is important for the government to encourage communities and people in the Territory to be conscious about their litter. It is important that we promote that the consumer is literally the last arbiter as to what happens to the container that they used. If we do not take the responsibility ourselves, obviously the litter will still be there no matter what anybody does. If you put $10 to the can, if you do not treat it with any respect, it will still be littered everywhere.
I hope the government will be expeditious with what it does with this legislation and at least tell the Territory whether it wants to bring it on or not bring it on because we still do not know. I look forward to hearing from the minister in the next few weeks perhaps, and I congratulate the member for Braitling for bringing it on.
Mr HENDERSON (Business, Industry and Resource Development): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise tonight to talk of a very important celebration that recently incurred in the Hermannsburg community which is in my electorate. I had a great time there. It was a triple celebration: 125 years since the arrivals of the Lutherans in the area, 100 years since Albert Namatjira’s birth, and 20 years of self and local government in the Hermannsburg area. Indeed, my colleague, the erstwhile member for Greatorex, also attended and we had a great time there together. I got to spend the night there and enjoy the enthusiasm and hospitality of the community which always makes me welcome when I go out there. It is something I am grateful for.
The celebration went over several days while I was there. I have to say that I had a very good time with the local community. They had any number of parts of the celebration. The Lutherans arrived en masse. There would have easily been 100 to 150 Lutherans there and people who formerly worked in the area of Hermannsburg were also there, and it was great to see them there. People like Pastor Paul Albrecht, who was around up until a few years ago in Alice Springs, and Gary Stolle, another great fellow who worked in the Lutheran area. I was delighted to see that they were still received by the people of the Hermannsburg community with open arms.
The famous Ian McNamara, or ‘Macca’, who does the Australia All Over show on Sunday mornings in the wee small hours did his show from that area because of the celebrations. We had many people - Maccarights, I suppose you would call them - attend to worship Macca. I have to say that I enjoyed sitting there and watching him do his show. It was great to see people like John Brockbank talk about the teaching that he does in that area and let the people of Australia know what is still happening in that community.
I have to say that this community is finding its feet again. It is going definitely in the right direction under the leadership of Gus Williams, and people assisting him, like Elena Alcorta and Steve Scarlett and Les and Julie Smith who are very great supporters of what happens out there. They have helped to make the place a success.
I went to a concert on the Saturday night while the celebrations were going on, and I got to see both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people climb up on the stage and have a sing song, and it was great to see ...
Dr Burns: Did you have a sing?
Dr Lim: Yes! He was on stage himself, yes.
Mr ELFERINK: It was great to see Sammy Butcher with his kids. These are kids that he has brought under his wing. Unfortunately, for various reasons, these kids have been orphaned. We are talking about kids of about eight or nine. They climbed up on the stage, and I have to say I was expecting to see them play a few bars of a simple song, and we would all applaud politely. Well, I was absolutely blown away. I closed my eyes and the only reason the drummer occasionally missed a bass beat on what were terrific pieces of reggae was because his legs were too short to reach the bass pedal on the drum and so every so often, while he was concentrating on other stuff, the odd bass note was missed.
The kids on the guitars were brilliant, the kids on the drums were brilliant. They got another young fellow on the drums, he would have been about four or five years old - couldn’t see him until such time as he went ballistic on these drums and all you saw were these sticks flying around. These kids are being looked after by Sammy Butcher who was a guitarist in a much more famous band, the Warrumpi Band. The kids were obviously relishing it, and I have to say that Sammy looked for all the world like a proud parent, sort of poking and prodding and making sure that everything worked just wonderfully.
We sat there, listened into the late night, had a bit of a dance in the desert sands in front of the stage, traditional and non-traditional folk. I had a blast; I had an absolutely terrific time. The next morning, of course, we had Macca and later on in the day, we had the service, and I was grateful for the opportunity to present a small gift to the people of Hermannsburg for their achievements. Gus Williams was kind enough to receive that. Then the band struck up again, and on this occasion I was, unfortunately, called up to the stage to sing a quick song, and …
Dr Burns: Which song?
Mr ELFERINK: I pick up on the question from the member for Johnston. The song was Country Road.
Mr Henderson: Used to be one of my favourites when I was about 12.
Mr ELFERINK: If there is ever, I suppose, a John Denver crimes trial, I will be first to the gallows. But anyway, it was great fun, and the mood there the whole weekend was brilliant. There was no grog that I was aware of, everybody was having a great time. Elva Cook came out from Injartnama with her kids.
I love going to these sorts of shows. Okay, so you end up sitting in dirt and doing all those sorts of things, but there is a real sense of family at these occasions. Coming from a small family myself, with only a few siblings with my father passed on and my brother working in the United States, I sometimes look at the large extended families of Aboriginal people and the way that they just stick together through thick and thin with envious eyes. I have to confess to an element of enviousness on those occasions. The sense of community in Hermannsburg is strong, vibrant, healthy and you can have an extraordinary amount of fun with the folk who live there, and I was able to do that on this occasion.
Since coming into parliament and spending time in Aboriginal communities, particularly Hermannsburg, I have seen a whole other side of Aboriginal people that I never seen, and I thought I knew, when I was a member of the police force. But naturally, of course, what you do not realise when you are member of the police force is that there is a whole part of that population that you never have anything to do with simply because you never have any cause to. Since entering parliament five years ago, I have learned to appreciate that there are great people out there, and you can have a great relationship with those folk, and I consider myself blessed to be able to have those relationships, and hope that that situation continues.
The parliament should be aware of what is happening in Hermannsburg; it is starting to move ahead with a real sense of direction. I certainly hope that they go from strength to strength. Not that long ago, I was presented with a shirt from the women of Hermannsburg, and that shirt was made out of silk. Now, they normally do this silk for wall hangings. Without a word of a lie, I went to a function in Darwin - it is a fairly tropical shirt and indeed, it is a unique shirt – and somebody started offering me money for the shirt. Naturally, I refused. But those offers reached $1000, which is an extraordinary thing. It shows you the level of interest which is shown in these sorts of art work, and the way that this sort of art work catches the people’s eye. I hope that the commercial potential of this sort of art work is completely ramped up so that these people who live in Hermannsburg can make a wonderful income for themselves and strengthen their community and their family in the process.
I have to voice my congratulations to this Chamber, and to the people of the Northern Territory, and all the parliamentarians who are listening, to the people of Hermannsburg and Gus Williams. They did a terrific job, and I thank the Northern Territory government for finally spending some money on the occasion, after some badgering. They handed over some $10 000 so that the celebration could be a success. That enabled the community also to put on a few fireworks that night, and their fireworks display truly gave the occasion a sense of celebration. There is nothing like a desert night sky, where there is no other light available, to sit down and watch a fireworks display because it really is a treat for the eyeballs.
I congratulate them. I wish all of those people who live there the very best. I know that they have a wonderful future. I hope that other communities start looking at Hermannsburg and start taking direction from Hermannsburg, because I think it bodes well for the whole of Central Australia as a community.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Mr Deputy Speaker, on 24 August, I attended the Legends of Motor Sports spectacular at Hidden Valley. I was invited by a constituent, Mr Chris Willes from Jingili, who has had a long association with motor sport in Darwin. This particular night was organised by Phil Brock, who is Peter’s younger brother, and it included legends such as Peter Brock, Gary Rush, George Tatnell, John Goss, Alan Grice, Jim Richards, Murray Carter and Gary Rogers. I am mindful of this, because I know that the people out there at Hidden Valley are going through very tough times at present, and I know that Chris Willes is very committed to motor sport. He has approached me and I have tried to advocate on behalf of motor sport, but it is a very difficult situation there.
On 25 August, I was a competitor in the inaugural Dragons Abreast Regatta, along with Trish Crossin, Marion Scrymgour, Delia Lawrie, and Marg Wheeler amongst others. Our coach was Alan Culbertson who, I believe, is the NT coach. We came up against a far stronger and experienced team in the CLP team. They certainly had better uniforms than us, and I guess they wiped the bay with us. But we tried our best. We were amateurs, we tried our best, and we had a lot of fun competing
Dr Lim: Those who fail to prepare, prepare to fail.
Dr BURNS: Thank you, member for Greatorex. We did try our best, and I offer my hearty congratulations to the CLP who were great winners, and they won with great spirit, with great humility. I guess we lost with humility too, because we were humiliated - no, we were not humiliated; we tried our best and we gave it a shot in the true, good old Australian tradition. There was money raised for charity and I commend Trish Crossin for getting a team together. I think she wants to get a team together again next year although, unless there are changes to the rules or the composition of the teams, it will be an inevitable result. But let us see what happens next year.
On 25 August, I attend the Blessing of the Fleet by Stella Maris. That is an organisation which is very active in looking after the welfare of seafarers. There was a barbeque back at Stella Maris after the Blessing of the Fleet. Father Peter Woods went around – it was very interesting - offering a blessing to each prawn trawler and boat. All the sailors accepted that blessings very gratefully. There was a Mass said there and prayers, and it was a great gathering of people. We had a barbeque later back at Stella Maris with Jack and Margaret Evans who, unfortunately, left the Territory to go to Canberra to be closer with their family. They have done great work with St Vincent de Paul and Stella Maris over many years. Norman Douglas and Mrs Shirley Davies, who is a constituent of mine, is also a great supporter of St Vincent de Paul and Stella Maris; Brother Allan Kinane were also there. Peter O’Dwyer, Michael Sheehan, Val Kirk who is stalwart of St Vincent de Paul out there at Bakhita, and Les and Clare Fern who do great work for St Vincent de Paul.
On 25 August, I was invited to be the Returning Officer for the Filipino Community Council of the Northern Territory. I was honoured by that. It was attended, amongst others, by Tina Black, Elena Ralph, Fele Mann, Laila Galang, Nanette Thiel, Judith Ventic, Lorenzo Carino, Rose Tanquatco, Lyn Donaire and Narcisa Carino. We had the elections, we had a meal, and it was a great get together. They are a great group; representatives from all the various Filipino community groups.
On 27 August, I attended the senior citizens group at Casuarina and presented a cheque to support them with funds from the Lottery Fund, which they used to buy CDs and a CD player. I am sure they will come in very handy in the months leading up to Christmas. I always commend Mrs Doris Ford, who is a great worker for that group. Doris is a great person and very well respected. Mr Arsenio de Guzman is always there and working hard on the door. Peggy Ang sets up before everyone arrives. Marie Heavey cleans up after lunch, along with help from others. Audrey Ellis, Kerry Harkin, June Daley, who lives in Amsterdam Circuit and is very active in the community, also helps prepare lunch. Loraine Watts gives general help. Frieda Brocker keeps that important birthday book and helps calling numbers for tables for lunch. The mighty bingo caller, Pat Wright, does a fantastic job.
On 29 August, I intended a very interesting talk by His Excellency, Mr Allaster Cox, who is the Australian High Commissioner to Bandar Seri Begawan, or Brunei. He was an excellent speaker and I certainly got a lot of information about one of our near neighbours, an area that is very important economically for the Territory. Of course, there is an important airline link there also.
On 30 August, I attended the Jingili Primary School father’s day breakfast. There were a lot of people there helping. Jill, Peter, Allan and Sam Sommerville are great helpers for the school and they put in a lot and they really help out with these barbeques. Of course, Peter is a professional chef and it shows in his sons who can also cook up a mean sausage and barbecue. They certainly put me to shame. Glenda Sutardy was there. Quito and Joan Washington – Quito is probably known to members of the Assembly. Quito’s kids go to Jingili Primary School. Also there were Elaine Hellyer, Lindsay Cleak, Leanne and Ben Vincent, Marg Woolley, Luke and Jarod Eggins, Robyn Levick, Nena Zanos and Leigh Lockley. This breakfast raised about $263 profit and the raffle profit was approximately $100. So, a tidy little fundraiser for the Jingili Primary School.
On 30 August, I attended Deva Desai’s fundraiser dinner. She was seeking sponsorship and funds to attend the Hague International Model United Nations Parliament for Youth. Mr Bharat and Mrs Priya Desai of Moil have a restaurant called the Passage to India which serves great food. It is off the Mall, and I commend it to members. There was a good crowd there and although there was a tinge of sadness because one of the teachers at Casuarina Senior College had recently passed away. It raised quite a lot of funds and Deva is quite an articulate young woman with a great future. I think she will represent the Territory well in this youth model parliament in the Hague. Also there was Dr Vino Kulkarni and Sabaratam Prathapan who lives in Wulagi, who is very active in the ethnic community.
On 31 August, I attended the Cypriot Cultural and Wine Festival and had quite a number of drinks with a constituent of mine, Mr Andreas Demetriou. We had a great night. He and I got up and danced. I probably made a fool of myself, but he is one fantastic dancer and people in the Greek and Cypriot communities love to watch him dance. He puts so much energy into it and he just has so much stamina. Of course, my landlord and friend, Mr John Nikolakis, was there and it is always great to see him there and Leo Athanasiou who always shows great hospitality and cooks a pretty great barbecued octopus which I always enjoy. Leo is always a great host.
On the same night many of us attended the Barrio Fiesta Festival at the Filipino Community Centre. There was a cast of about a thousand helpers but officers of FAANT, John Rivas, President and 2002 coordinator of the festival, Apol Craufurd, vice president, Cristesta Salandanan, treasurer and Virginia Sharpe, secretary plus the executive committee. These people are involved in all areas of the fiesta organisation such as the pageantry direction, stage decoration, trophy and stage art design, sash designs, floral bouquets, equipment hire, sound and lighting, DJs, souvenir program editing and production and sale, raffle ticketing, invitations, parking, sponsorship, drink stall, ground preparation and clean-up and stage managing. There was a very impressive Filipino international singer, Dulce Amor, who entertained the crowd that night. At the Barrio Fiesta, Niressa Fenis, a student at Wagaman Primary was crowned Princess of the Community Festival so I congratulate Niressa.
On 1 September, I attended the Blind Bowlers 10th anniversary celebrations. There was a triples event. I attended for a short while and I know the member for Port Darwin was in there competing; she had a team together. I know the Health minister also attended later in the day and I guess she will be speaking about that. Winners were Mick Petrovic, Cherie Lewis, Brian Smith just beating Andy Cruse, Bronwyn Butler, who is known to us, and Bill McGrath. During the prize giving Laurie Reed was asked to step up and receive the inaugural Life Membership of the Northern Territory Blind Bowlers Association. Laurie was a founding member and his dedication, selfless work and consideration over the past decade was recognised. I also recognise the work of Mr Dave Byars who does a great job for the blind bowlers.
On 11 September, I unveiled the Traveller’s Walk mosaic art work by Mr Ro Koch-Laurie who is a very famous artist here in Darwin. There is some controversy about Stuart’s Spire, but I will not comment on the disagreement that happened there. I can commend this mosaic that Mr Koch-Laurie has constructed. It is down there near Stella Maris on the Walk and it is in the form of a compass that is also the wheel of a ship. There are a lot pictures that are ceramic, shards of various things and commentary in there. It is a very interesting mosaic and Ro Koch-Laurie is to be commended. It is a very impressive piece of art. I have actually opened another piece of Mr Koch-Laurie’s work in the Jingili Water Gardens and that was fantastic, too, because he was getting disabled people involved in producing art. He is a very community minded person. Once again, Mrs Shirley Davies and Mr Davies were there. They are constituents of mine, very active in St Vincent de Paul and also the Stella Maris. Father Peter Woods blessed the mosaic. Les and Clare Fern were there and it was a great morning. Once again, we had a barbecue. So that was fantastic.
On 11 September I presented a cheque to the Jingili School for a bubbler and seating at their fitness track. That was from the Lotteries Fund. Present at that Council meeting were Lesley Wilcox, Ursula Sulatycki-Holloway, who does a great job as the Secretary, Lynne Strathie who is the chair, Jill Sommerville, Leanne Vincent, Janet King, Charise Boase, Robyn Levick and Kathy Brown. I commend all of those members of the Jingili School Council. They really get in there and work. There are good things happening around the Jingili School in terms of their fitness track.
On 13 September I attend a luncheon at the NT Minerals Council and the guest speaker was Mike Lane from Woodside. That was a very, very interesting presentation which elicited a lot of discussion and questions from the floor.
I am not going to steal the member for Millner’s thunder because I attended his special function at the Kalymnian Club, and I am sure he will go into a lot of detail of that. There were literally hundreds of people there and everyone had a fantastic time. Great music. But I want to commend Frank Moukaddem and George Mu who work so tirelessly for the Labor Party. They do so much, and they really supported Matthew and helped him organise and cater for this function. I know they have recently helped the member for Sanderson with his function. So Frank and George, thanks very much. You are great workers for the party and it is very, very much appreciated.
On 14 September I attended the St Mary’s Build-Up Ball. I have a connection with St Mary’s, having been a past Chairman of that Council. The ball was at the MGM Grand. It was great to see Sister Helen Little, the principal, there. It is sad to hear that she is moving on. She has done such a great job there and she will be sorely missed. Sue Goodrich, a teacher who taught my daughter, was there. It was great to catch up with Sue. Bishop Ted Collins said grace. It is good to see Bishop Ted looking well and getting around town.
I think I might just leave it there, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am only two pages through quite a few pages which I will deliver next week.
Mr VATSKALIS (Casuarina): I will be very brief, Mr Deputy Speaker. First of all, I would like to thank very much all the people who supported me during the recent fund raising for Kids with Cancer. It was an event that was organised by Dripstone High School. I have to admit my wife came home - she teaches at Dripstone – and asked me if I would like to participate in an event to raise money for kids with cancer. Very cleverly, she did not mention what the event will include. I said ‘yes’ and then she popped the secret that I had to cut my hair very short.
I made the silly comment that if I raise more than $10 000, I am prepared to shave my head. I have to say that the principal of the school, Ms Marion Guppy and the organiser of the event, Mr Greg Solento, deserve all the thanks from all the participants and all the kids who have benefitted from this event. The Cancer Council of the Northern Territory advised me that the money that we raised through the fundraising event at Dripstone will be used not only to buy equipment for the kids who have to stay at a hostel to undergo chemotherapy but also to produce video tapes appropriate for children from the Territory since some of the video tapes they use today are produced in Canada and they have to dub them with Australian language to make them more familiar to children.
I was very impressed with the responses of people who, when they heard that I was fund raising for Kids with Cancer, generously donated to me not $5, $10 or $20 but up to $1000. It does not matter how much money they donated, the significance was the gesture of donating money. I am not going to name everybody here. I am prepared to provide the list of names to Hansard to be incorporated but I would like to thank very much, everybody, all my colleagues in government, ministers and backbenchers, but also I would like to thank people from the other side who also very generously donated money to me. I would like to thank Mr Terry Mills, the member for Blain, Daryl Manzie, ex-member for Sanderson. I would also like to thank the Palmerston Business Association, who generously donated, Mr Neville Walker, Dr Len Notaras, John Elferink, the member for Macdonnell, George Kapetas, Nick Mitaros, his Honour the Administrator, John Anictomatis, Mr Alan Garraway, Mr Martin Jarvis, the member for Nelson, Mr Gerry Wood, the member for Braitling, Mrs Loraine Braham, the member for Daly, Tim Baldwin, Mr Shane Stone, Mr David Tollner, member for Solomon, David Malone, Herbie, Mr Michael Spadaccini. There was a list of people who donated money. Of course the difficulty now is trying to catch up with all these people to hand the money over. Quite a few people already donated the money, and it is a matter of time before I take the others. All these people are going to receive is a thank you letter and a receipt because the donation is tax deductible.
I ended up with a very shiny head, but only for a few hours; hair tends to come back very quickly. I am very proud that I was part of this fundraising event, and I am very proud that the money raised will go towards a worthwhile cause and I am prepared to do it again next year, so put some money aside, because I am going to ask more people in this House to donate money. Thank you very much to all of you for your support and thanks very much for everybody who donated from $1 to $1000 or whatever you donated, it is just as important.
I would also like to pay tribute tonight to one of my constituents, and a long time supporter of the Australian Labor Party, Miss Rowena Stroud, known to friends and family as ‘Aunty Ro’. Aunty Ro is a Larrakia woman from the McGuinness who grew up as Rowena Abala after her mother married a Maltese fellow, and had the children’s names changed by deed poll. I can understand why. Aunty Ro is very proud of her Larrakia heritage and has endeavoured to instil that pride of her identity in the younger member of her very large extended family, she has always stood against the activities of some in the past who would treat indigenous people as less than full citizens. She did this with dignity, strength and humour. She was very well educated. I remember once I mentioned Auntie Ro’s name and some Aboriginal people told me that she has finished high school and she can even play the piano. She really admired her for those achievements.
Auntie Ro is a Labor supporter to the core. She has long campaigned for the principles which have been the hallmark of the ALP social justice platform, principles which underlie the ethos of Australian culture itself: that everyone deserves a fair go, and should be judged for who they are, not what they are, or where they come from.
Unfortunately, Auntie Ro is not very well, she is currently undergoing a course of chemotherapy, requiring her to attend the hospital five days every month. As we all know, chemotherapy can be a very painful treatment, but also a necessary treatment. However, Auntie Ro is handling it with her usual good humour, and the doctors are very pleased with her progress. I am sure every member of this House will join me in wishing Auntie Ro all the best for a speedy recovery. Get well soon, Auntie Ro, we are looking forward to seeing you again in our meetings and our functions and barbecues.
I would like to close my adjournment by paying tribute to the Chinese community in the Territory, in particular, the Chung Wah Society for their excellent Moon Festival. My sincere thanks to the member for Greatorex who was the chairperson of the festivities. It was an excellent afternoon. I enjoyed attending the evening with the food, the hospitality, and most of all, the performance of the young children of Chinese and non-Chinese background who came up to the stage - five, six, seven years old - and sang some of the traditional children’s songs in fluent Chinese.
These children are born and grow up in Darwin, Australia, but they are very keen to maintain their cultural links, and certainly the Chinese language. Congratulations to Ms Po Chow, who is the Chairperson of the Chinese Language Centre. She was very heavily involved in the Moon Festival. I sought some information about the Chinese language classes. The classes commenced in 1980 at the Chung Wah Society and have been run at the Alawa Primary School, which is in my electorate, since 1990. The school currently has 100 students in nine different classes, and there are Cantonese and Mandarin classes. Many more children from members of the Chung Wah Society are now attending, not only children from Chinese backgrounds, but also children from other cultural backgrounds, which is excellent because what we have to learn is that we should not isolate ourselves with our own culture, with our own language, we should actually spread our culture around.
The best way to live peacefully and harmoniously with other people is if you share culture. Culture does not only mean food, it means the customs, traditions, festivals. Here I was, a person of Greek background in enjoying a Chinese festival. The interesting thing is recognising some of the elements of the festival, because there are common elements in all cultures around the world. For example, the member for Greatorex lined up some offerings that were mandarines. In my culture, they are referred to as the apples of the Hesperides. Some 2000 years ago, they came from the Far East, and that is probably some indication that there was contact between society in the civilisations in the Far East with the civilisation in southern Europe.
Back to the Chinese Language Centre, they offer Mandarin or Cantonese language classes from beginners to advanced levels. The classes are held from 9 am to 12 noon every Saturday at the Alawa School. Enrolment fees are $40 per student per half-year, so it seems we have beginners to advanced levels. We have a good opportunity here to acquire new language skills, because we are trying to open up our trade with China and it might come in handy.
The other thing I noticed is that the centre formerly ran a Chinese radio program at Top FM. It used to come after the Greek program I used to present at Top FM. It used to be from 6 to 7. Unfortunately, the program ceased in September 2002 because the community now has Chinese satellite and SBS television. Unfortunately, the technology has killed the radio. Other community activities at the centre include the annual Chinese New Year and Moon Festival celebrations, and periodically, Chinese dancing and Chinese art and craft workshops. I am very impressed with the work the Chinese Language Centre is doing. On the night of the Moon Festival, I promised the chairperson, Ms Po Chow, that I am prepared to contribute $200 from my allowance to go towards the school to provide either for books for the kids, or why not just a small party for the children. I am prepared to visit the school and see the operations of the school, and sit in one of the classes for the children.
I enjoy watching young children learning the language of their parents, since I taught at the Greek school for a number of years here and in Western Australia. Some of the children are now adults, married with their own children, still call me ‘Sir’ and they still remember the history and language I taught them. It is very important that we do not lose our culture, our background, and it is also very important that we do not lose our language skills. I might add again that they will come in very handy, especially in our modern society where we are dealing with so many people from so many countries.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): I rise tonight to speak on two matters that relate to my electorate. Both matters affect two small local communities, one near the area of Ptilotus Crescent, and the other is around the Salvation Army Red Shield Hostel.
These two areas, while on opposite sides of the electorate, have somehow, or through some coincidence, developed similar problems. The Red Shield Hostel, as you know, was recently re-opened by the government, but this time with 10 dedicated beds for residents with ‘dual diagnosis’. This was the formal application of funds to help provide core residents for the Red Shield Hostel so that it can be economically viable to run the men’s shelter, I suppose you would call it.
Until the minister made that announcement about two months ago, the community was not aware that it was going to be a residence for people with ‘dual diagnosis’. As a result of the publicity, the local community within the surrounds of the Red Shield Hostel have expressed their concerns. They are concerned that the people who would be occupying those beds specifically for ‘dual diagnosis’ might not be suitable for the community.
I do not want to misinterpret what the community is saying because they feel a level of anxiety about who will go there. Because these are people with ‘dual diagnosis’, I suppose the community is concerned that there might be inappropriate behaviour by those people. There is a very large park just across a suburban road from the Red Shield Hostel frequented by many of the children and some of the parents.
I was at a meeting of residents in that area with Captain Derek Schmidke who is in charge of the Red Shield Hostel and the manager of the hostel, Christine Pilbrow. They were all there together to discuss the issue. I thought it was a very good discussion. It would have gone on for probably three hours, where Captain Schmidke tried to explain what the Red Shield Hostel was attempting to do, and tried to reassure the community that people who will be staying at the Red Shield Hostel, will be essentially no different from the ones who had stayed there in previous years.
However, there were a few people there who were particularly concerned. They recalled the incident of the Scotty case in Alice Springs and obviously if you are a parent with children in that area, you do not want to expose yourself to that sort of risk. At the end of the evening, the general consensus of feeling or opinion was that in any community in which we live, we all accept a certain level of risk. You live in Fannie Bay, you live in Parap, you live in Humpty Doo, wherever, there is an element of risk. We assess the level of risk and say: ‘Yes, I am happy to live in this place, because the risk is not very high. I can cope with that’. You then organise your home to deal with whatever risk factor that you think might be there. Walking across the street, there is a risk you might be run over, so you assess the risk, you accept the level of risk and then you might cross the road. There was sort of the agreement that the community came to agree with the Red Shield Hostel.
They wanted to be able to express, for the health professionals who are going to refer the people with ‘dual diagnosis’ to the Red Shield Hostel, they want to be able to talk to them and say: ‘Look, this is the level of risk that we are prepared to accept, living in this community, so if you want to refer any people to live in the Red Shield Hostel, we want to be assured by you, the health professional, that this resident will not exceed the level of risk that we are prepared to accept for ourselves and for our children’.
I have been receiving minutes from the community group. I see real progress in the negotiations that are taking place currently between them and Red Shield Hostel. It was unfortunate what Captain Schmidke said: the Red Shield Hostel Salvation Army will be responsible for the residents while they are within the compound of the Red Shield Hostel, but once they leave the compound, the Red Shield Hostel cannot be responsible for them. I think that was an unfortunate statement. Fair enough, if they are within the boundary of the block, the Red Shield Hostel would be responsible. But if they were to take only a 50 m walk across the road to the park and just recreate in the park, the Red Shield Hostel says: ‘We will not have any responsibility for that person’.
So that leaves the community really concerned. What do we do? We are living here. We want to use the park. If one of the residents played up, where do we go? The Red Shield Hostel says: ‘We do not have responsibility for this person because that person is no longer within the perimeter of our block’. That needs to be thought through a bit more so that the community can be reassured that the Red Shield Hostel and whatever agencies that are providing supervisory roles or case management roles for the residents that these people, the case managers or the Red Shield Hostel, understand the concerns that the community has and try to address it so that the community can come to some level of peace. Otherwise, there is going to be an ongoing conflict and that would be most unfortunate.
Within the community group that was discussing the issues with the Red Shield Hostel was one of the health professionals that would also be referring some of the residents to the Red Shield Hostel. He wrote a very good history of the community, about what it was like in previous years and tried to explain what the community is like at the moment and made what I thought were very good suggestions. For instance, I will read from this document.
Which is the one I am talking about:
Now, that is the community:
So that is what the local committee wants to try to develop: a working, friendly relationship with the Red Shield Hostel but also with the case managers and health professionals who are going to be referring residents to the Red Shield Hostel.
I hope the minister, the government would facilitate some sort of discussions between the community group and the health professionals so that they can come together and work out some criteria that will provide the community with an acceptable level of risk.
The other property that is also of concern and with a similar sort of situation is at Ptilotus Crescent. Recently, the Department of Health and Community Services was provided with a house from Territory Housing. It has received approval from the Development Consent Authority to rezone the house for community use. This house will now be used to accommodate at least one person. Again, some issues are not quite resolved. There is a proposal to build a six foot fence right around the block, and that on its own has caused the committee quite a lot of concern. Why are you putting up this six foot fence? Are you trying to keep somebody inside the block? If you are doing that, what is wrong with the person who is going to occupy the house? I understand that this person also has a ‘dual diagnosis’ label, unfortunately, and that has generated a lot of discussion, a lot of calls to my office. Some of the people in surrounding streets know who this person is, and that has caused them even more anguish, that a person who they know, with a history that they are acutely aware of, is going to occupy that house. While they have been assured that there will be a health professional, or some sort of companion living in the house with this resident, they have not been reassured adequately that they, the community, are going to be secure in their own homes.
While I understand the department’s position that they do not want to generate a huge community reaction to their proposal, the community continues to tell me that they have not been reassured by the visits from the health department when they have been out there to talk to them. They have not been reassured, they are not being comforted by the comments that have been given to them. I suggested that there might be a public meeting, but the health department officials ran a million miles. I can understand their position. A public meeting might stir up more heat than resolve problems.
I believe it is important for the department to reassure the community. I suggest that if I can get together the main complainants, the ones who have come to see me and express their concerns, with some officials of the department, maybe the minister, if she wants to, could come and address the people, and listen to them, allay their anxiety if she or the health professionals can, and if they cannot, then maybe they have to reconsider where else to put this resident. But at the moment. it is causing a lot of anguish in the community, both at Ptilotus Crescent and also at the Red Shield Hostel.
It is one of those issues that is going to continue to occur, because we are now having people living in a community rather than in mental institutions of 20 or 30 years ago. I recall working in hospitals where people used to be locked up. They are no longer locked up; they are out there and they are going to cause the community concerns. So the health department has to look at that closely.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
RESPONSE TO PETITION
The CLERK: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 100A, I inform honourable members that a response to petition No 15 has been received and circulated to honourable members. The text of the response will be included in the Parliamentary Record.
- Petition No 15
Fireworks
Date Petition presented: 19 June 2002
Presented by: Dr Toyne
Referred to: Minister for Employment, Education and Training
Date response received: 10 October 2002
Date response presented: 10 October 2002
- Response:
regulate fireworks sale and use during Territory Day celebrations. The petitioners particularly, were
seeking to ban all noise emitting fireworks and to restrict the sale and personal use of fireworks to one
day, one place, at one time, with strictly observed time limits.
Whilst there appears to be strong support for organised community-based display fireworks, there
continues to be community support at this time to maintain sales and personal use of fireworks for
Territory Day celebrations. However, public safety and public amenity during the prescribed times
remains an important matter for consideration by government.
As responsible minister, I have announced that in the 2003 celebration period, the sale and personal
use of fireworks will continue. However, the controls and regulations that may be applied in 2003 are
yet to be determined and the future of the sale and personal use of fireworks beyond 2003 will be
subject to critical discussion by government.
- Informing this discussion will be a report on the conduct of the 2002 Territory Day celebrations.
This jointly developed report by the Office of Work Health and Electrical Safety (OWHES), the NT Fire
and Rescue Service (NTFRS) and the Department of Health and Community Services (HACS) has been
prepared and forwarded to my office for consideration. The report canvasses a range of issues relating to:
testing and approval of fireworks products;
limitations upon sale and use of fireworks;
the costs of the Territory Day fireworks project to government and the
community; and
recommendations relating to the future conduct of the Territory Day fireworks
celebrations throughout the Northern Territory.
- Issues and concerns have been identified within that report. Government’s response to the report will
provide further advice and guidance to the community about the nature and extent of any future Territory
Day fireworks activity.
Government recognises that continuing personal use of fireworks needs to be considered against growth in:
fireworks project; and
- Once the report has been fully considered government will determine the appropriate action to take in relation
to the issues raised, both by the petitioners and by the report.
MINISTERIAL REPORTS
Alcohol Restriction Trials - Alice Springs
Alcohol Restriction Trials - Alice Springs
Dr TOYNE (Central Australia): Madam Speaker, it is timely that I again update the House on the alcohol trials and complementary measures in Alice Springs.
As part of the 12-month trial of alcohol restrictions in Alice Springs starting 1 April 2001, a rigorous evaluation of the restrictions and measures is being undertaken. An experienced research officer has been seconded from government and a community-based evaluation reference group (ERG) is overseeing the process. The ERG is being chaired by Dr Ian Crundall, a Department of Health and Community Services’ employee who has over 18 years of experience working in the alcohol field, and is the former Director of the NT’s Living With Alcohol program. The study is monitoring the effectiveness of licensing restrictions and other initiatives and will make recommendations about future actions while maintaining its momentum and focus.
The ERG met on 25 June and again on 26 September for its first and second quarterly meetings. On 26 September, the ERG viewed the first wholesale sales figures for alcohol since the liquor trial began in April. Those figures relate to the months of April, May and June. Compared to the same period in the previous two years, the amount of pure alcohol sold was 4.6% lower for that time period, the first quarter of the trials.
This shift is made up of some very marked changes across different beverages as a result of the restrictions the commissioner introduced. There was an 81% reduction in cask wine sales, as it went from around a third of the market to about one-twentieth of the market. Fortified wines increased by more than 700%, increasing the market share from 2% to 19%. Mixed spirits more than doubled and heavy and mid-strength beers rose by nearly 12%. These findings confirm the anecdotal reports that have been received by the ERG over the early months of the trials. Dr Crundall commented that the restrictions targetted larger containers such as casks, and these figures clearly demonstrate an impact. While some of that reduction has been transferred to the increase in other beverages, indications are that early problems associated with the change are now settling down.
Compared to the same period in 2001, other data found that, over the five months since the start of the trial, police report an 11% reduction of alcohol-related incidents. There had been an overall increase of 4% in alcohol-related assaults in the very early part of the trial, but this has mainly now decreased. The number of protective custodies has dropped by 15%; ambulance call-outs related to alcohol dropped by 5%; selected presentations at the Accident and Emergency Department are 16% lower; and fewer people have been placed in the sobering-up shelter.
Feedback from the community indicates that many problems that occurred early in the trial are now returning to pre-trial levels. The early reports of increased aggressive behaviour have receded. The trial has now been operating for nearly six months, and it seems that some of the initial teething problems are starting to be rectified. There has clearly been a shift to beverages of higher alcohol content, but there is increasing evidence that, particularly the drinkers of port or monkey blood as it is called down there, are now starting to mix the port with water. In fact, the sobering-up shelter is now taking that message out, particularly to the drinkers who have come from remote communities. The town families have generally shifted to that tactic a lot earlier. There has clearly been a shift to those beverages.
There are ongoing matters such as litter. Some significant gains are being reported in terms of health and amenity. The overall level of violence has levelled off. However, there will be a watching brief by the ERG, and the data collected by the Day and Night Patrols will ascertain what is happening now in the town camps because of the displacement of many of the drinkers away from the central business district.
It is encouraging that the overall quantum of violence is still below what was happening previously - and very significantly below. Despite reports of more people hanging around town, it has also been observed that the CBD is quieter during business hours in terms of disruptive and drunken behaviour.
I remind honourable members that this is a one-year trial and there are three-year funding arrangements in place. This is a long haul. Some of these early results are encouraging, and some are cause for concern, but we are on the track.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I was also very interested in the results in this quarterly survey by the alcohol reference group in Alice Springs. The 4.6% reduction in pure alcohol consumed, as the minister mentioned, is really statistically still not significant from the pure research point of view. However, there is definitely a decrease of social disruption through the town during business hours. But when you talk to people walking through the mall, even the police, the social disruption has shifted to the later parts of the day.
I do not believe that there has been much reduction in the Emergency Department attendances in the evening, and that is something that we have to wait to see what will happen in the longer term. Product substitution was something that we all expected to see happen, and it has come to pass. It is up to us now to educate people not to concentrate on the fortified wines. I hear they are mixing it with other products, and that is going to be of concern.
There still is a section of the community in Alice Springs which is very keen to bring in just about total prohibition. That, I believe, is too extreme and I would recommend to those people: make sure that you bring the community with you in this trial and if that happens, then maybe we might see some success in reducing the total amount of alcohol consumed in Alice Springs. In the meantime, we will watch cautiously to see how the things pan out over the next six months.
Dr TOYNE (Central Australia): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Greatorex for his measured response to this and that is exactly the spirit that I hope we all take to these trials and the measures.
We have a long way to go yet and some of those early changes have been encouraging. We have work to do to continue to focus on. One point I will make additional to what was said earlier is that the police are reporting, because of that delay in the beginning of drinking each day, that they have been able to redeploy police patrols on to other areas of crime prevention, particularly property crime and drugs. It basically means that there are three additional hours in each day where the police are not going around picking up drunk and disorderly people off the street; they can start to concentrate on other areas. That is a very good bonus to what has happened to date.
- AustralAsia Railway – Progress Report
Mr HENDERSON (AustralAsia Railway): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House of progress on the Alice Springs to Darwin railway. Since track laying began in April this year, over 477 km of track is now completed. Two crews have been laying track at an average of 1.8 km per day and the tracks north of Tennant Creek and south of Katherine are scheduled to meet on or about 9 December this year. Some track work has been completed both south of Tennant Creek and north of Katherine.
To date, 1159 km of the total of 1420 km of clearing is now complete; 815 000 sleepers have been manufactured; 1 456 000 tonnes of ballast produced; and 73 000 tonnes of rail delivered to Roe Creek near Alice Springs from Whyalla in South Australia.
I also draw to members’ attention the activity that is occurring at our back door. At the Elizabeth River bridge site, the first of 17 massive 30 m 60 tonne concrete spans was put in place last week. Spans will continue to be placed by a gantry system on a weekly basis. The Elizabeth River bridge, at 510 m, is the longest bridge on the project and is due for completion in February/March 2003. The railway embankment construction work at the East Arm wharf is well advanced with the bulk earthworks now complete. Over 2500 people attended the East Arm wharf inspection day and were able to view the construction progress first hand.
Employment has reached a peak of 1359 direct employees. Of those, 860 are from the Northern Territory. Training, in particular Aboriginal participation, is an important aspect of the work being carried out by ADrail, the Territory Construction Agency and the Northern and Central Land Councils. Of the 660 nationally accredited training courses run since the railway project began, over 100 Aboriginal participants have completed the courses and now have skills that are transferable to other fields such as mining and construction.
The total value of direct contracts awarded to date is $791m and, of that amount, $450m has been awarded to Northern Territory-based business and industry.
The issue of passenger terminal locations is currently under consideration by government. A great deal of detail has been gathered and presented about the options available and, although the issue must be resolved sooner rather than later, it is one that does deserve a considered and reasoned approach rather than a knee-jerk reaction to subjective pressure.
An ADrail open day in Katherine was held on 11 September 2002. It was an excellent opportunity for the people of Katherine to view track laying and chat with ADrail employees over a cup of coffee. On the day prior to the open day, two significant ceremonies were held in Katherine by ADrail. The first of these was to mark the start of track laying across the Katherine River bridge. The Chief Minister, the Katherine Mayor and others were fortunate to witness the track layer begin track laying on this bridge and it was a pity that the Leader of the Opposition’s plane had a problem and he could not get there.
As mentioned earlier, some track has been laid north of Katherine and, in fact, extends for 16 km reaching the ballast quarry. This has now enabled all the ballast to be transported by locomotive instead of truck, alleviating the need for large ballast laden trucks to travel through Katherine all hours of the day and night.
Later on the same day, a ceremony took place at the sleeper factory to mark the naming two locomotives: Kurra Kurraka and Wagiman, named for two local traditional owner families from north and south of Katherine. A similar ceremony took place in Tennant Creek a week later with two locomotives named Aboriginal Stockman and Purnu.
Prior to concluding, I wish to point out once again that although construction is going ahead at a rapid rate, it is prudent to remember that there are two Wet seasons from now until the official completion date of 2004, therefore it would be unwise to predict an earlier completion date just yet. Again, I am sure all honourable members of this House would applaud ADrail in terms of the magnificent work that they are doing.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his continuing updates with regard to construction of the railway. He made the point - and I have raised it before - in terms of the location of the passenger terminals for both Katherine and Darwin. It seems to me that it is incredible that at this late stage the government has not made a decision on where those passenger terminals will be located. There is clearly a lot of confusion being caused in the community - unnecessary animosity in some respects - as to the proper location for the railway station in Darwin, and it seems to me that the government should come forward fairly quickly and make a decision on this issue, particularly when I know of at least one public forum where your roving ambassador for the Office of Territory Development has been definitive as to where that passenger terminal will be located, yet what we see from the government is various ministers coming out with various ideas as to what could happen, what consultations are taking place.
I understand that one group has expensive feasibility studies going on at the moment for a proposal to be put to government, so at the very least it seems to me that the government needs to be on the front foot and get a decision out to the community as soon as possible so that everyone knows where they stand.
Mr HENDERSON (AustralAsia Railway): I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his comments. Obviously, there is bipartisan support. On the issue of the passenger terminals, we are doing a lot of considered and detailed work in terms of the various options and there should be a decision on this by the end of this year. However, the money will be available in future budgets. Wherever we decide to construct the stations, we will certainly meet the targets.
Certainly, when we inherited this project coming to government, there had been no work done within the public sector. There was nothing in the budget for passenger railway facilities so it is something that we have had to pick up from scratch. So it is a little cute for the Leader of the Opposition to state that we are being a bit tardy on it. Expectations were raised, there was nothing in the budget from the previous government, no work done, and a lot of pork barrelling hype in Palmerston in the run-up to the election.
Madam Speaker, we are doing the work. We are undertaking considered and detailed studies and we will make an announcement by the end of the year.
Health and Community Services - Update on Departmental Review
Mrs AAGAARD (Health and Community Services): Madam Speaker, I would like to give an update on the review of my department. When announcing the review of the activities of the department, I stated that the aim was to ensure that the department was well placed to implement the government’s health and community services reform. The focus of the review was to consider and recommend a future strategy of funding and service focus that would allow the department to deliver essential services efficiently and effectively within its budget allocation.
In the first year of government, I made a number of significant announcements in the area of the government’s reform agenda such as the indigenous health statement, hospital improvement project, tobacco reform, the findings of the Illicit Drug Task Force and work force recruitment and retention strategies. It is critical the department is able to deliver on these reforms. To this end, I encouraged all key stakeholders to have input into the review process. The review of the Department of Health and Community Services is now in its 17th week. During this time, the review team has travelled to Katherine, Gove, Tennant Creek, Alice Springs, Kintore and the Tiwi Islands, consulting with Department of Health and Community Services staff and peak organisations, unions, NGOs, service providers and health professionals.
As the review progressed, some issues emerged which the review saw as being of very real importance to the health of Territorians but which were outside the original terms of reference of the review. I accepted the review team’s advice and approved work separate from the review to redress these important issues. I referred a number of additional important issues to the review team and asked the team to report to me on those issues.
The review recently conducted a renal clinical consultation; bringing together a top Australian renal clinician with over 30 people with a key involvement in current and future renal service delivery in the Northern Territory. Renal disease is a major contributor to ill health and death in the Territory. People from within the department, from other primary health care providers and relevant organisations attended. The participants provided comment on the current renal service, and suggested ways to ensure a viable and effective service for the future. The outcomes of this consultation will be included in the review report.
The review team also conducted a hospital clinical governance workshop earlier this month, that involved clinicians from across the Territory. There is increasing interest, nationally and internationally, in using clinical governance as a tool to assist hospitals and, in particular, clinicians to operate successfully in pursuing their purpose and aims within a highly complex and demanding environment. This concept was explored by the participants, including the practical on-the-ground issues of working in the Northern Territory. The workshop’s discussions will also inform the review report.
To date, the review has been consulting with key stakeholders and ascertaining common views and issues. Submissions have been received through the review team Intranet and Internet web sites, by e-mail and as hard copy. I have extended the review by six weeks because of the overwhelming response by stakeholders, and to ensure that the people who want to be involved have the opportunity to do so. To date, over 400 internal and external stakeholders from all parts of the Northern Territory have expressed a desire to present oral submissions to the review, or to make written submissions. These have provided invaluable insights into the issues and challenges that the health and community services sector are facing. I am confident, from the briefings I have received, that the direction the review team is taking will ensure that the department is in the best possible position to deliver improved health and community service outcomes for Territorians.
The team is considering, in the next phase, the most effective way in which it can test ideas and propositions, with both internal and external stakeholders, prior to finalising the report. A departmental communications strategy in the form of a fortnightly update has been implemented to keep staff informed as to the review’s progress.
The review has provided evidence, once again, of the enthusiasm and dedication of the staff of Health and Community Services, and their willingness to have input into the future health and community service outcomes in the Northern Territory. Madam Speaker, I look forward to informing the House of the outcome of the review later in the year.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): We have yet another review, Madam Speaker, and this review is a hidey-hole for the minister. We have a minister who has been on deck for a year. This pretence at a review, which is looking at the core business of what public servants do - what do public servants do? They look at what they have to deliver and the best way of delivering it, they work out how much money they need. They do it every year through estimates, they do it every year through budgets.
There has been this gammon review sooled on to do exactly what the department has the capability of doing. The minister pointed out at the end of her statement when she said ‘the staff are enthusiastic and are dedicated and can do this’. Of course, they can! It is what they do, and it is what they do well. The problem is they do not have a CEO. The problem is this is a department that has spiralling problems with over-spending that is out of control in areas. It is a problem with some significant indicators that show a lack of ministerial capability for intervention, and it is a problem where you just cannot fob it off and say: ‘Oh, we will fix it up, because there is a review looking at it’. It is our core job. It has to be done every day. You cannot just do this thing where you wheel in a review team, use it as a convenient excuse, wind ‘em off for 17 weeks, give ‘em an extra six weeks to look at it. That is half a year!
Mr Ah Kit: What did you do? You left a mess!
Mr DUNHAM: I did it every day, that is what I did. Every day I did this review - every day! There are people within the department who are capable of doing this, who can advise the minister. There is $7m sitting there in case the review comes up and says: ‘We need some cash’. I have never seen the like of it before. There is $7m that is a gammon Treasurer’s Advance sitting within the department in case they need an extra lump of cash. That is an unders and overs tin. This minister has said she will pick up every recommendation of this review without looking at it. That is a department on auto-pilot. Unless you get recommendations you choose to take or not, you may as well hand the whole lot over to them, which is essentially what has happened. I commend the fact that she is looking at renal and hospitals - but that is her job, Madam Speaker.
Mrs AAGAARD (Health and Community Services): Madam Speaker, it never ceases to amaze me how negative the member for Drysdale is. This review has been extraordinarily well accepted from staff, the non-government sector, unions, from extraordinary people throughout the community.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, members! The minister has not had a chance to respond at all because of the interjections.
Mrs AAGAARD: Since we announced the extension of this review, in fact, more people from the department have asked to make more submissions. This has been a fantastic response. Unlike reviews in the past where the previous government just ignored the recommendations, we are taking this seriously. We have, for the first time, involved staff in this review. Staff are actually allowed to have input and that is what we are doing. It is very successful, will be a very good review of the department. I am very confident of the outcomes.
Australian Transport Council Special Meetings
Mr VATSKALIS (Transport and Infrastructure): Madam Speaker, special meetings of the Australian Transport Council were held in Auckland, New Zealand on 8 August 2002, and in Canberra on 18 September 2002. The council, which comprises Commonwealth, state and territory ministers responsible for transport and roads, aims to meet twice a year, and provides a forum for government consultation and advice on transport and road policy issues at the national level.
The Auckland special meeting was originally organised to deal specifically with the review of the National Road Transport Commission Act. However, following cancellation of the May 2002 Australian Transport Council meeting, a number of additional items were discussed to ensure progress of important issues.
The Canberra special meeting was held to specifically discuss progress of the Commonwealth government’s proposal for a new inter-government agreement on funding of land transport infrastructure. The Commonwealth proposal would provide a new, long-term inter-governmental framework for planning, funding and development of an integrated national land transport infrastructure network. The Commonwealth minister refers this proposal as Auslink. The Commonwealth is due to release a green paper of this proposal in the near future.
Ministers agreed to the establishment of a National Transport Commission to cover road, rail and inter-modal regulation, and a National Transport Advisory Council to provide ministers with strategic analysis and advice on priorities for national infrastructure investment and reforms to support inter-modal integration. Inter-governmental agreements are being developed to establish both the National Transport Council and the National Transport Advisory Council. These will address such issues as processes, funding and the role of jurisdictions. An inter-governmental agreement will also need to be prepared to cover the implementation of the federal government’s proposal for new funding arrangements for land transport infrastructure.
I have serious reservations about the very scant details that the Commonwealth has released in regard to the Auslink proposal. Under the proposal, the federal minister has stated that the Commonwealth plans to step away from its current commitment to 100% funding of the national highway. This commitment is confirmed in the current inter-governmental agreement. The national highway network in the Northern Territory is not yet fully developed. Of special concern is that fact that the Victoria Highway is not developed to a reasonable level of flood immunity. This vital link was closed or had severe weight restrictions applied to it for a total of several months during the Wet season. This adds many thousands of dollars to interstate freight movements that have to divert to the central corridor to access Western Australia.
It is not only the Victoria Highway that presents problems for the Northern Territory. Last Wet season, the national highway was once again cut between Darwin and Katherine on several occasions. Across the border going to Queensland, it is ludicrous to consider the Commonwealth should walk away from its commitment to upgrade the goat-track standard of the Barkly Highway between Camooweal and Mt Isa.
The outline of the Commonwealth proposal states it would be based on an assessment of bids for funding on an economic rationalist basis. This includes bids for private sector projects such as toll roads. It is obvious that the Northern Territory, and remote Australia in general, will be disadvantaged in competing with projects assessed on a purely economic rationalist approach in the congested corridors of Sydney and Melbourne. The Northern Territory will continue to push the case for special consideration of remote communities and potential for economic and social development, to ensure that the Territory’s unique circumstances are taken into account in the Commonwealth’s proposal.
Road safety concerns in relation to four-wheel drives were raised by the Victorian and New South Wales ministers. The meeting agreed in principle to the introduction of reversing alarms and improved mirrors for four-wheel drive vehicles, and requested that a national standard for bull bars be developed. I stressed to the meeting that a national standard must also consider the safety of vehicle drivers and passengers in the event of hitting an animal. Officials will prepare a report for the November council meeting on measures to improve safety for vehicle occupants and pedestrians.
Tariff arrangements applying to four-wheel drives are currently under review as part of the Productivity Commission’s review of assistance arrangements for the automotive industry. I advised the council that I did consider four-wheel drives to be a necessity for many Territorians and did not support any increase in the import tariffs on four-wheel drives. I am pleased to report that the Commonwealth minister also supported me on this issue.
I expressed my concern about the possible impact of these measures on regional and remote area motorists and the council acknowledged this by including a provision that the needs of remote areas be addressed. I stressed to the meeting that the national standard must also consider the safety of vehicle drivers and pedestrians. Once again, I was assured that the national council will consider these issues.
Mr REED (Katherine): Madam Speaker, before the minister criticises the federal government too much at the forthcoming meeting, he should be aware, in relation to his remarks about the upgrade of the Barkly Highway in Queensland, that $33m in fact, is being spent on the highway in that area, including a new bridge at Camooweal. He should get his facts right before he says that nothing is being done to upgrade it.
I was pleased to hear the minister make remarks in relation to four-wheel drives and particularly bull bars. This is going to be a critical issue for the Territory, with a high ownership of four-wheel drives. There is nonsense now being talked about in New South Wales that bull bars are going to have to follow the profile of the body, the front of the vehicle. If we are landed with some ridiculous notion like that, dreamt up by someone who does not know what a bull bar does, then many Territorians and other people in outback Australia are going to be disadvantaged. That is a very important issue and one that the minister quite rightly should pursue very vehemently.
Another matter is speed limits on our open roads. It is important that the minister continues to reinforce the fact that they are to remain, and I hope that that is the government’s interest in that regard. Also, the fact that we do not have demerit points. These meetings often come up with pressure on the Northern Territory in relation to demerit points and speed limits on our open roads. That is something that he should also pursue, I believe, and so should the government on behalf of Territorians.
The other thing I would ask the minister to do when he is speaking to the federal minister is explain why this government did not slash road verges. In fact, some parts of the Barkly Highway have still not been slashed and that is creating a dangerous situation for Territorians, bearing in mind that the government receives Commonwealth funding to maintain the national highways. Some slashing was not undertaken until only a month or so ago, putting Territorians and visitors to the Territory using our roads at risk. He might explain to the federal minister what happened to that money.
Mr VATSKALIS (Transport and Infrastructure): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his comments. Certainly, I support his comments about the bull bars and the design of bull bars with respect to four-wheel drives. Regarding the speed limits on our highways; there is not going to be a speed limit on the Stuart Highway, I assure you of that. However, we have to take into consideration special circumstances such as highways are used a lot by tourists and overseas tourists. We have recently seen many deaths on some of our highways and we have to consider these issues. As for the Queensland/Northern Territory highway, there are problems. They might have spent $33m, but the highway is not up to the national standards. At the same time, the Victoria Highway goes under water for a number of months every year. I also pointed out to the federal minister that they spent a lot of money for the Defence Force facility that they will not be able to access when the Victoria Highway goes under water.
As for the slashing of the highways, that is a period contract and all of these verges are slashes periodically. I make sure of that because I tend to drive around and I will continue to drive around because I enjoy driving my four-wheel drive.
Reports noted pursuant to Sessional Order.
CROWN PROCEEDINGS AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 100)
(Serial 100)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to repeal sections 13(1), 13(2), 13(3) and section 21 of the act. Section 13 of the act currently provides that a statement is to be endorsed on, or annexed to, the process by which proceedings against the Territory Crown are commenced containing information prescribed by the Supreme Court Rules. Section 21 currently provides that the judges of the Supreme Court may make rules subject to the Supreme Court Act prescribing the particulars to be endorsed on, or annexed to, process to be served on the Territory Crown.
There is no information currently prescribed by the Supreme Court Rules to be endorsed on process against the Territory Crown. There would not appear to be any necessity for the current provisions in sections 13 and 21 of the act as they serve no useful purpose and may potentially lead to confusion. Sections 13(1), (2) and (3) and section 21 are repealed by this bill.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
CRIMES (VICTIMS ASSISTANCE) AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 95)
(Serial 95)
Continued from 22 August 2002.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I rise to place on the record the opposition’s observations and some concerns about the proposed amendment to the Crimes (Victims Assistance) Act in the form of Crimes (Victims Assistance) Amendment Bill 2002 (Serial 95), and the further amendment which we understand will be introduced during the course of the committee stage affecting the costs aspect to the amending legislation.
I can say generally from the outset that the aims of the legislation, the Crimes (Victims Assistance) Act, is of course to assist victims of crime. It is beneficial legislation and the courts traditionally interpret any ambiguities, generally, in favour of the victim of crime. The amendments should be drafted generously to assist people who are in the category of victims of crime, a very vulnerable group who do need our collective support and, through government, it is in the form of this beneficial legislation.
Of course, whilst the amount of compensation and costs of enforcing the scheme are certainly a consideration, they are not the only considerations. When we hear the Labor government whingeing and whining about the cost of helping victims, there really needs to be a fairly compelling argument before there is a substantial review of the scheme. One of the arguments which has been put forward is that a disproportionate amount of money is consumed in costs as opposed to disbursements and paying money to the victims to assist them to get on with their lives. Accordingly, a review of the legislation, certainly from the procedural aspect, is welcome. Certain parts of the review will be supported by the opposition.
There have been some concerns raised by solicitors both in Alice Springs and Darwin, and particularly in Alice Springs, who say they were not asked to contribute to the review and they have taken the time to reduce their concerns to writing. They forwarded a letter to the Attorney-General with a copy to me, some other members of parliament, and to the Northern Territory Law Society.
One of the concerns which the law firms have touched upon is broadly under the category of the mutuality of litigants; that is, it seems the amendments are drafted in such a way that the Northern Territory government is in a better position than plaintiff lawyers or lawyers acting for the applicants. An example of that is in section 5(3) of the proposed amendment to section 10(a) of the principal act - that is section 5(3) of the amending legislation - which provides that the applicant is not entitled to costs from a time that the government offers a settlement and it turns out that, when the assistance certificate is issued, that the award to the applicant is equal to or less than the offer that was made by the government. From that moment on, there is the ability for the government to refuse to pay for the applicant’s costs.
It seems the same does not apply to the Northern Territory government, and to suggest that the offers made are always in accordance with the assistance certificates issued by the court is simply not true. I am told, quite reliably, that a review of offers that have been made and the eventual awards given by the court will confirm that salient fact. We have the situation where the government has put itself in a better position than the litigant. The government has decided that all people are not equal before the law, and this system of offers of compromise will only apply to the poor victim, the applicant.
In the second-reading speech, there is a reference to the maximum statutory limit. The maximum award is $25 000. In other jurisdictions, that has been increased. In some jurisdictions it is as much as $50 000. The $25 000 maximum statutory limit has not been increased for 13 years in the Northern Territory. Indeed, whilst a review is under way, and we are talking about insuring that more money gets to these people and that victims are properly compensated for what has occurred to them, then this, I would have thought, would be an ideal opportunity to increase that statutory maximum from $25 000 to something a little more reasonable in terms of giving the courts the flexibility to award larger sums of money to people who have been the subject of some of the more serious type of offences which occur in the Northern Territory.
Understandably, from an industry perspective, some of the solicitors who provided input to the proposed amendments in the second-reading speech were very critical of the reduction in fees. I do note, and the Attorney-General should be given some credit for responding to concerns which he was also made aware of, there will be an amendment at the committee stage which will address, very specifically, the costs aspect. It seems now there is an introduction of a composite scale or there is an alternative to use a composite scale. It is an 11th hour amendment, but an amendment which is at least a step in the right direction.
A composite scale means that, irrespective of the amount of work done in a particular matter, an applicant is entitled to recover costs for that matter being taken up to the hearing, then the hearing, and then for each and every day that the hearing continues, there is a set fee which is payable. That is, irrespective of whether the matter is a complicated or a straightforward matter, it is a set fee.
The other alternative, which was originally flagged without any consultation, it seems, was the reduction of fees payable to the applicant to 40% of the Supreme Court scale of costs. By way of background, given that the Supreme Court Rules provide for costs formulated on the basis that a legal practice operates on a 70% overheads and 30% profit margin, and the proposed percentage of 40% reduces further what the applicant can recover from running the application, it really leaves a number of law firms in a position where they will be running at a loss, and it simply will not be economical for them, at the 40% scale, to act for applicants. The plaintiff lawyers and, I suspect, members of the Northern Territory branch of the Australian Plaintiff Lawyers Association, will have a real difficulty acting for these people. I heard a portion of an interview - I think it was Michael Grove from Ward Keller who made some comments on radio confirming that it simply puts the courts in the unenviable position that many applicants who will appear before judicial registrars and, potentially magistrates, will not be represented.
The type of people who are most likely to be affected by not having the resources to engage a lawyer will be the type of people you would have thought the Labor Party would be trying to stand beside and assist: people who perhaps come from a different cultural background - by way of an example, a traditional Aboriginal woman who is the victim of a serious assault and perhaps English is a second, third or even fourth language. The effect of the review and the re-jigging of the costs aspect of the legislation means that person will have difficulty finding a private lawyer to represent them in court and take them through the …
Dr Burns: They would without an interpreter service!
Mr Elferink: That is why the CLP created one.
Members interjecting.
Mr MALEY: Madam Speaker, I am not going to labour the point, but the legislation is beneficial legislation. It should be setting in place structures to ensure that applicants, the victims, are in a position where they can run the gauntlet of this system with the least amount of trauma possible. Not having the resources to have a lawyer because of the financial constraints imposed by the act will put them at a significant disadvantage.
One of the complaints - and a fairly significant complaint - from one of the prominent Alice Springs firms regularly involved on a day-to-day basis of crimes compensation matters, was the complete lack of consultation. In the letter I received - and the Attorney-General has a copy of it - the managing partner of that firm said:
- The lack of consultation for this amendment bill is truly appalling. If there had been any consultation,
it is have [sic] obviously been north of the Berrimah line.
And Alice Springs would have been left out on a limb. That is certainly the impression they have, which you as a government have created. He goes on to say that the government clearly does not have a handle on the amendment because some of the proposals - this is relating to the original costs proposal of only 40% of Supreme Court scale - leaves people out on a limb.
The review seems to have continued and, perhaps in light of the letter that the Attorney-General received, and the representations from the Law Society which also said it was concerned about some of the costs aspect of things, have led to the 11th hour amendment which will have the effect of setting up a composite scale. It divides lump sum fees allowable if assistance is not over $5000, and another category for those awards which are in excess of $5000.
There is a criticism I have of the amended bill, albeit I have not had a chance to trawl through it in an enormous amount of detail. Whilst reasonable disbursements are recoverable, it seems that counsel’s fees are not recoverable. So there may be a complicated matter, there may be a need to engage a specialist counsel who may have a particular rapport with a client or may be able to assist this person who may have a particular cultural sensitivity. That will not be occurring. That counsel has effectively been excluded from this process and the baton will fall to be carried by, in reality, junior legal practitioners and paralegals - no disrespect to them, they certainly do a good job. There is no flexibility to engage counsel.
Before we go to the committee stage - and it is a point of clarification. Whilst your advisors and the drafter of the legislation are infinitely more familiar with the act than me, they might be able to assist you, Attorney-General. I just ask this question: the act deals with coming into force on 1 November and there is a quite appropriately drafted transitional provision contained in clause 16 of the principal amending bill. Section 24(4) of the principal act is amended by this act and regulation 5 of the Crimes (Victims Assistance) Regulations apply only in relation to costs for work done on or after 1 November 2002. Whilst the substantive provisions of the amendment apply to applications made, whether before, on, or after 1 November, it is clear that from a costs perspective, it only applies to work done from 1 November.
My concern is this: if you have an amendment taking away an existing right - and I am not sure whether it is an existing right, and this is the point of clarification - you have an applicant who has engaged a solicitor who has counsel, they are prepared to go, they are all ready to undertake a hearing, the hearing is any date after 1 November. This amendment takes away the right that person would have had to recoup those costs from the government because it is a statutory right here: an applicant cannot pay the lawyer personally. The issue of costs is addressed once the certificate has been issued by the Northern Territory government.
Is it an acquisition on just terms? If so, there is a recent case in the ACT Supreme Court in Frank v ACT, 146 ACTR 15. It only came down on 16 September - albeit I have not gone in detail through that case – but it deals with whether provisions similar to this could amount to an acquisition under the equivalent provisions of our Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act. Perhaps I could just seek some clarification on that and perhaps there is absolutely nothing in the point, but I think it is something which should be discussed and should be aired in parliament.
In my view, certainly from an administrative perspective, what should occur is that an application that was made before 1 November continues under the old rules and new applications are subject to the new rules as opposed to, from my reading of section 5, if an application is on foot as of 1 November, whilst it still continues the costs provisions are reviewed and the new cost scale applies from 1 November. I seek clarification on that.
The other point is just a drafting observation. It seems that more and more the term ‘victim’ - it is in the title of the legislation of course - is creeping into the legislation. For the sake of objectivity, it really should be that this person is the applicant, and the applicant may not be a victim in some situations. Indeed, that is often why matters go to hearing. You have applicants and that is the end of it. It is not really the place to put in emotional type of feel-good things like …
Mr Kiely: Too much Chardonnay.
Mr MALEY: Too much Chardonnay perhaps is what you guys are doing, I do not know. But it is just a criticism of one of the amending comments in the schedule.
The opposition certainly supports the procedural aspects of the review. We do have some reservations about the lack of consultation, and that is said in the feedback that we have from the community. We do have some reservations about the significant reduction on costs recoverable from the applicant and what effect that will have on their capacity to engage a solicitor of their choice. We do have some concerns about the transitional provisions.
I have already asked for specific clarification on clause 16. The response of the Attorney-General will determine whether or not we can, with clear conscience, support the legislation in its totality. I can say that from procedural perspective, most of the procedural changes are common sense and they are welcomed.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I have a couple of points to raise in relation to this legislation. I notice that the amendments which have just turned up on my desk - and I have only had a chance to flick through quickly - actually address one of the major concerns that I had about this legislation in its original form.
It is worth reiterating for members, that this sort of legislation was designed by governments around the world to assist people who become the victims of crime. The traditional form assistance has been a monetary payment, and monetary payment has or has not been effective as a way to assist victims. I remember coming into the former Legislative Assembly as a then Legislative Assembly guard. As part of my duties as a police officer, I had to look after the Legislative Assembly, and it was a very informative debate. I remember it was Steve Hatton, the former member for Nightcliff, who was being challenged quite vigorously by the then Labor opposition in relation to a specific payment. The debate was in about 1985 or 1986 if memory serves me correctly, and it was a rather ghastly set of circumstances. It went to the issue of who was deserving of a full payment under the legislation. The top end of the scale, which I think at that time was set at $25 000, was reserved for the very worst crime, of course, and that was the crime of murder. There was a lady in Tennant Creek who had, without going into any graphic details of the offence that was committed upon her person, had been seriously damaged as a result of a gross sexual assault, and her payment was substantially less than the $25 000 amount. It was an issue that had caused great fire and anger on both sides of the House.
I remember it struck me at the time that the government felt quite offended by the fact that it was being challenged on the scale of payments being made, and the opposition at the time said that she was thoroughly deserving of the full amount. Frankly, I remember thinking to myself at the time: ‘I can well understand why the opposition thought she was deserving of the full amount’. However, I am often struck that cash payments may not be the only way to go, and there may be other types of assistance that would be more appropriate than a simple cash payment.
I will return to the issue that has been concerning me, and that is the issue of fees paid to representing lawyers and solicitors. I had somebody work it out for me, and they calculated that, on the original scale that was brought before this Chamber, it was somewhere in the order of $65 an hour for the lawyer to appear. I cannot get a mechanic for that sort of money to work on my Harley Davidson motorcycle. In fact, it costs me about $80 an hour for a mechanic. So I think it is a bit of a tall ask, and I think that the government, in bringing these amendments forward, have acknowledged that $65 an hour is a little on the shy side to try and get representation for these people.
As the shadow Attorney-General so effectively pointed out, the issue of payment is something that has a direct effect on the issues that this legislation is trying to address. Indeed, I have something to say on it myself: if the payments were not sufficient for those classes of people who are victims of crime but least able to employ their own solicitors to pursue this matter, they would be severely disadvantaged. The disadvantage, of course, that I am referring to is Aboriginal people. As the shadow minister for Aboriginal Affairs, as well as a person who has a majority of traditional folk in my own electorate, I am very concerned that they are equally represented in relation to these sorts of payments. If the scale dropped too low, the scale would have had the effect of taking away the representation of these people in terms of getting this sort of assistance.
Normally, a person would receive legal aid if they are not particularly wealthy. Aboriginal Legal Aid services, as well as general legal aid services, do this work but, as I understand the mechanics of the system, that work is then farmed out by these legal aid services to private lawyers. The effect of reducing the payments too much is that the legal aid services will not, in every likelihood, be able to get lawyers to represent their clients which will have one of two effects: either the legal aid service will become even more stretched in the services it is trying to provide because it now has to cover this other body of work, or people simply are not represented.
I notice that the amendments are before the House. What I seek from the minister is simply a reassurance that the new scales that he is introducing today are going to be sufficient to attract private firms and firms that pick up contracting work to come and do this work, so that people on the lower end of the economic scale, and Aboriginal people included in many instances, are represented in court in these sorts of applications.
I do also want to pick up on an interjection that occurred before in relation to the interpreter service. The interpreter service is particularly dear to my heart. As members will be aware, in the former parliament I had quite a bit to say about it, and the CLP government saw the wisdom of having an Aboriginal Interpreter Service and funded it accordingly. Before members opposite become too cute about Aboriginal Interpreter Services, I do recall in the mini-budget that they cut funding to the Aboriginal Interpreter Service, and it was not until I got back onto my old hobby horse about the Aboriginal Interpreter Service that they saw the error of their ways and corrected the funding amounts accordingly.
So, if they want to be a little cute about these sorts of things, then they had better check their own back yard. If they look at their mini-budget figures, when they originally published them, they will be reminded that the members opposite were actually involved in cutting funding to the Aboriginal Interpreter Service. However, once I took up the cudgels on behalf of the service and Aboriginal Territorians, they did see the error of their ways and were kind enough to fund the service properly.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I am very happy to contribute to this debate. It is an area I practiced in and an area I know well. Indeed, I even brought along my very own well-thumbed copy of the Crimes (Victims Assistance) Act that was once owned by Carney’s Barristers and Solicitors. Having said that, I think I can constructively contribute to this debate.
Initially I was very troubled by the proposal about legal costs. Quite frankly, I am not really concerned about how much money lawyers make. For me, the issue was the possibility that it would preclude victims of crime from being represented. So I am very happy that the Attorney-General has seen fit to amend those parts. I should say, however, noting his second-reading speech, there was no indication in that speech that the bill, at that time, was provided on a draft basis. There is a comment later on that eventually the act will be reviewed and a discussion paper and draft bill will be circulated. That was not the case with this. The Attorney-General received letters from law firms, representations from his shadow and, only at that point said: ‘Okay, we will change the costs’. I congratulate him and thank him for that.
However, can I say with respect that, if the Attorney-General is going to bring bills into this House, then he should at least do his homework beforehand. This is a government that says it is going to consult, consult, consult, and it did not. I will now table, with leave, a copy of a letter from the law firm in Alice Springs, Povey Stirk.
Leave granted.
Ms CARNEY: I did not hear all of what the member for Goyder had to contribute in this debate, so I apologise if there is any repetition. This letter dated 19 September was sent to the Attorney-General and, indeed, I think yourself, Madam Speaker, and the member for Nelson. The author of that letter says that the lack of consultation for this amendment bill is truly appalling. He suggested that the bill be adjourned:
- … to enable proper consultation to take place and accurate statistical figures put before the parliament.
So government has been caught out on that front. Nevertheless, I welcome the amendments in relation to costs. I should also say that I received several letters from law firms when I went back to Alice Springs after the last sittings. I wrote to those law firms and ask for their comment. With the exception of one, however, they did not want me to publish or table their letters. There was a concern that, if they spoke out against this government, they might be at risk in terms of losing future contracts and tenders with this government. I say that because the government might be interested in addressing what seems to be a perception of the vindictiveness of this government if people speak out.
I have some problems with other sections which I can say, very seriously, I am hoping to resolve in the course of the committee stages. It may well be that by explanation of a couple of points the Attorney-General can placate me. I do not think they are all that significant. I should pause, though, to go back briefly to what the Attorney-General said in his second-reading speech. He referred to the Crimes (Victims Assistance) Committee Report in 1997. I know that report well. I made a submission to the panel and, from memory. made a submission to the former Attorney-General, Shane Stone, because when that draft report came out there were great chunks of it that were unsatisfactory. The Attorney-General indicated in his second-reading speech that there was some criticism against the former government for not implementing part of that report.
Well it was not implemented, I can tell the Attorney-General, because the legal profession on balance was not happy with the outcome of that report. The CLP has been accused of many things but, unlike this new government, the CLP did not commission reports just for the sake of it. It went through them and did consult …
Mr Stirling: Rubbish! Keep it honest, please.
Ms CARNEY: It consulted and any suggestion that it did not is an untruth. I, and indeed many other lawyers, contributed to that report and the Attorney-General at the time did not implement any of the recommendations because they were bagged. So I say to the Attorney-General: just because you get a report, it does not mean that the contents of it are always needed to be implemented.
As I said, I do have a couple of issues with a couple of clauses of the act which I am hopeful can be resolved in the committee. I am slightly troubled, but I am hoping that we can work them out.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Madam Speaker, I rise to support amendments to the Crimes (Victims Assistance) Act. Unfortunately, the Northern Territory can be quite a violent place, and I believe much of the problem is alcohol –related. According to the NT Police Fire and Emergency Services 2000-01 Annual Report, there were 2533 offences related to assault in 1999-2000, compared with 3124 in 2000-01. Similarly, there were 187 sexual assault offences in 1999-2000 compared with 284 in 2000-01. According to the Victims of Crime Assistance League (VOCAL) annual report - I think it is about two years old; I have not been able to get hold of a more contemporary one, but I doubt whether the situation has changed - by far and away the largest category of people whom they support are those who experienced assault, domestic violence and sexual assault.
Each one of these offences has a victim who must cope, not only with the physical trauma, but also with the emotional and mental trauma of their attack. We are very fortunate to have an organisation like VOCAL working so hard in our community to alleviate the distress and trauma experienced by victims of crime. A number of victims of crime have told me just how supportive VOCAL have been and how much help that they have had from VOCAL. I know amongst the victims of crime, VOCAL gets a big ‘thumbs up’; they are very well thought of and people really appreciate the work that they do.
Nevertheless, as a community and a government, we must ensure that judicial systems which are responsible for compensating such victims are working efficiently and providing the maximum possible benefit to the victims of crime. It was refreshing to hear the member for Araluen put on the record her commitment as an advocate for those victims of crime. However, what was a little disappointing was that the member for Goyder seemed as though he was really representing, in many ways in what he had to say, the interest of lawyers. Unfortunately, the current system is not providing this efficiency. As the Attorney-General pointed out in his second-reading speech, an ever-increasing proportion of the funds provided to the Victims Assistance Scheme, formerly the Victims Compensation Scheme, is being chewed up in legal costs – it was nearly half of the $5.5m allocated to the scheme in 2001-02. Furthermore, the proportion paid in legal costs nearly doubled from the level in 1998-99 to the $2.25m paid in 2000-01.
Even though there has been an increase in the overall funding to the scheme, legal costs are escalating and chewing up a lot of the available funds within that scheme. It is obvious from these figures that action was needed to redress this situation. Whilst the government recognises the need for a complete overhaul of the Crimes (Victims Assistance) framework, the amendments proposed here today address some urgent matters which, if left unattended, have the potential to threaten the efficient working of the scheme and, in fact, the viability of the scheme. Against this background, I welcome the statement by the Attorney-General in his second-reading speech that the government is committed to conducting a complete review and overhaul of the Crimes (Victims Assistance) Act within the next 12 months.
I wish to turn now to the essence of the current amendments which were recommended following a review of the Crimes Victims Advisory Committee in 1997 which the member for Araluen has referred to. For whatever reason, it is unfortunate that the recommendations, although submitted, are not being implemented until the present time. I take on board the comments from the member for Araluen, but maybe there should have been a bit more work done to try to resolve some of these outstanding issues that she pointed to. The amendments before us today are an attempt on the part of this government to try to put in some interim measures while a more complete overview of the act takes place. The main amendments before us today are as follows, and I have about five all together.
First, remove the offender of the alleged offender from the assistance application process. This is being done to expedite the process and to remove the distress often experienced by victims in being confronted by the offender or alleged offender in an adversarial court situation.
Second, allowing the Territory to recover assistance funds and legal costs from an alleged offender in separate recovery proceedings. To some degree, these amendments arise from the previous amendments. Furthermore, they are being made necessary because often offenders are difficult to locate or are without adequate funds to pay. I believe these two sets of amendments will expedite the process for victims.
The third set of amendments seek to simplify and streamline the processes involved in determining matters relating to victims assistance, namely - and I am coming to the third one now - to allow proceedings to be handled by Judicial Registrars under the appropriate supervision of magistrates. This will allow the majority of evidence to be in the form of written affidavits. It is noteworthy that these changes have the support of the Chief Stipendiary Magistrate of the Northern Territory.
Fourth, halving the scale of legal costs under the scheme from 80% of Supreme Court scale to 40%. Now, some concerns have being raised here today, particularly by the members for Goyder and Macdonnell and the legal profession about this proposal. We have listened to those concerns, and I understand the Attorney-General will be moving committee stage amendments to provide a lump sum payment for legal fees as an alternative cost structure. This government believes that, in tandem with the procedural changes foreshadowed in point three above, which were to allow proceedings to be handled by Judicial Registrars, this amendment should act as a brake to escalating legal costs under the scheme.
Fifth, increasing the victim levy payable by persons convicted of an offence in Northern Territory courts or those paying traffic fines. It is noteworthy that these levies have not increased since 1989. Apart from the issue of rising costs over this period, it is also an unfortunate fact of life that crimes against the person have also increased during this period, and I will come back to what I said about alcohol being the root of a lot of these problems in terms of violent crime. I do not really want to go into some of the issues that were raised here yesterday about customary law and some of the issues there, but it is my firm belief - and I will place it on the record here - that a lot of these problems stem from alcohol and substance abuse, and they escalate into the area of customary law, and often these are exacerbating factors.
In summary, I commend these changes to the Crimes (Victims Assistance) Act because, pending a comprehensive review of the scheme, these interim amendments will safeguard the viability of the scheme and make it more efficient. I applaud the Attorney-General’s pledge for a complete overhaul and review of the Crimes (Victims Assistance) Act over the next 12 months.
I was especially delighted to hear in the Attorney-General’s second-reading speech that the focus of the review will be on rehabilitation and counselling for victims. Sometimes we lose focus of the victims and they are what it is all about. Furthermore, there will be an examination of the potential benefits of an administrative rather than judicial process for the determination of awards.
Madam Speaker, in conclusion, I commend these amendments to the House and I urge members to support them.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I thank all the members who have contributed to the debate on this bill.
I want to begin in summing up the second-reading debate by referring back to the reason this bill has come before the House. The opposition has acknowledged that reform in this area is not only needed, but probably overdue. I would refer back to some of the figures in the second-reading speech: in the 1998-99 financial year 24% of the overall costs of the scheme were spent on legal costs; by 2001-02, that had gone up to 41%. Another way of looking at it is that in 1996-97 to the current year, financial payments to the victims had increased by 60%; the legal costs have increased by 513%. So we have a structural problem, if you like, within the scheme which is having the effect of displacing expenditure that was intended largely to go to the victims into the actual cost of running the scheme and delivering the compensation. Clearly, we had to look for some measures to alleviate that.
I would like to start by clarifying something. We have been talking about the review, and certainly the members for Macdonnell and Johnston have both referred to the further stage of reform that we intend to undertake. In the second-reading speech, I indicated a discussion paper would be coming forward and the original timing of that was in October. I now indicate to members that we will have that ready for the November sittings. That will be a discussion paper to seek community views in a very consultative way, so I hope that will take care of some of the concerns the opposition have had about the consultation process.
When you look at some of the issues that are embodied in the bill before us today, there is a degree of vested interest involved in things such as the scale of legal costs, the actual process issues that have been brought forward in today’s bill, which did make it difficult to go round very widely in the community. We certainly did consult; we took some advice from the Law Society and from individual law firms. Some of that, as has been pointed out earlier in the debate, came after the original bill was tabled in the August sittings. Probably one of the things that has given some opportunity for the legal profession to have a say is that this bill has laid on the Table for a couple of months. As a result of that, we have a number of very good submissions from the legal community, and as a result of those submissions we have prepared some committee stage amendments.
I will deal with some of the issues that were brought up as we went through this debate, of which I believe we need to do some more work on one, and I will get to that in a minute. Regarding the different costs that might apply to Northern Territory government contract work, my department’s CEO has given an absolute undertaking that the legal costs of the NT government will be reviewed to take account of the amendments. The tenders for Territory work will reflect the new cost structure to ensure that firms representing the Territory are not given an unfair advantage over the firms representing victims. So I can give you that assurance here, on Hansard, that that will certainly be done.
Regarding the issue of the victim not being entitled to costs if a reasonable settlement was rejected. Applicants will get their full award entitlement, whether they accept an offer or go to a hearing. Solicitors cannot enter into agreements with applicants to receive costs over and above what the court orders, and they cannot dip into a victim’s award to recover additional legal costs. The aim of the amendment is clearly to reduce the number of matters going to a full hearing. This not only adds to the cost of the scheme, but it also causes further stress on victims and prolongs their recovery process. Currently, the act almost encourages solicitors to advise applicants to reject offers. Solicitors will be paid their costs in any event and, therefore, currently it is in their interest to actually contest all matters, even where they are of the opinion that an offer was reasonable. This is not to say that all solicitors representing applicants adopt this approach, and do not take that meaning from it, because, like all professions, there are all sorts of approaches to the way professional work is pursued.
In respect of the increase in the $25 000 maximum award, I would lead you to stage two of the reforms. We have not changed the $3000 and $25 000 in the two categories simply because the whole aim of the discussion paper is to start to have a good look at victimisation as an issue and how best you can compensate for victimisation. It may well be, as the member for Johnston mentioned, that there will be other interventions that may be more appropriate or more helpful to the victim than simply a payment.
We have not reduced it; we have not increased it. As a result of the second stage of review, we will have a better idea of the total package of support for a victim that might be put in place. If that involves the need for a greater or lesser cash ceiling on the compensation payments, then we will take that into account, but that will be after very wide consultation. I do not think I would want to signal any action of that sort. All we have said today is that we are leaving that cap in place.
In terms of the consultation, I can certainly provide more information on the committee stage amendments and the consultation that we engaged in as a result of that. Some of the amendments contained in the bill came out of the 1998 report to which the member for Araluen referred. Preparing that report, the CVAC did consult widely with stakeholders. In preparing the bill itself, ad hoc consultation with practitioners and stakeholders was undertaken but, as I said, constrained by some of the issues of vested interests in some areas that we were trying to consider.
Close consultation was undertaken with the court system. As a result of tabling the bill, I received a representation from Mr Bill Priestley from Priestley Walsh in Darwin and, through my department, from Mr John Stirk of Povey Stirk in Alice Springs. Both recommend a move to a lump sum scale. I can certainly say that I had a very pleasant conversation with John and he is an extremely good advocate.
Ms Carney: I am sure you did, after I alerted him to your bill. Thank you, Jodeen.
Dr TOYNE: Well, in fact, I was alerted to it over a glass of excellent red down at the Alice Resort quite a time before. However, I do appreciate the member for Araluen’s care, as you always have, of bringing areas of concern to me when you become aware of them. I appreciate that.
I have also received a letter from the Northern Territory Law Society in support of Mr Priestley’s proposal. I have even received a letter from the opposition spokesman on legal affairs, the member for Goyder. So, there you are, we did receive that. That also raised concerns of legal practitioners as to costs.
The costs aspect of the committee stage amendment has been discussed in detail with Mr Priestley who has expressed support for the amendment today. Practitioners and victims groups have also provided comment to me and my department on current problems with the Crime (Victims Assistance) Scheme in general and, in particular, some of the contents of the current bill. Again, those have been largely put away now in consultation with those groups.
Generally, prior to the bringing on of the bill, I have had complaints about the dysfunction of the scheme brought to me. Probably one of the first discussions I had with a legal practitioner was with Bill Priestley, and he alerted me, soon after I became Attorney-General, that it was an area that I would find myself having to deal with because it was just unworkable and unsustainable the way it was going. He is a person, as you well know, who is heavily involved in this area of the law. There were no truer words spoken that I would end up spending a fair bit of time on this.
Coming to the issue of the fee scale, I would like to connect the legal costs that are embodied in that scale to a wider frame. We should look at other jurisdictions. In the Territory, an application’s legal costs average about $4500, with Territory legal costs about $2000. These figures are taken from a sample of 91 files completed as of February 2002. These levels of cost are substantially higher than in any other jurisdiction. They are often disproportionate to the awards ordered. The legal costs can be higher than the Victims Assistance Award.
To give you some examples from interstate: Queensland currently uses District Court scale which, according to the Queensland Costs Assessor, is approximately 40% of the NT Supreme Court scale. The assessor suggests that $1000 is appropriate for most matters. Tasmania currently works off the scale recommended by the DPP of $500 for a simple claim, $700 for a medium claim, and $1000 for a complicated claim. New South Wales, a lump sum of $825 for preparation up to hearing and an additional amount for the hearing. Victoria is $750 for preparation and an additional $400 to $500 for the hearing. South Australia, approximately $1000 for preparation, $750 for hearing; and Western Australia, no legal costs allowed and the applicant must pay the costs out of his or her award, which is very generous.
In terms of the matter of the level of fees to lawyers that the member for Macdonnell raised, the fees to lawyers are at $65 an hour. Amendments will streamline the processes and reduce the actual time that lawyers need to apply to a case. The Law Society now believes that the fees are appropriate with the proposed introduction of the committee stage amendment.
Moving now to a serious issue that has come forward today from the member for Goyder, and that is the issue of retrospectivity, taking 1 November as a starting date of the scheme. I can say as a general principle in pretty well all legislation we introduce, we do not like retrospectivity. If there is going to be any retrospective effect on cases that are currently on foot, or cases that would be brought forward between now and 1 November, we have to ensure that we do not have undue detriment to that case. We will have a look at that, and I can assure you we will have a serious look at it. If there are some boundary issues there that need to be sorted out, if necessary we will bring some further action into the November sittings. I will keep you informed on what we do about that.
I can assure you that what we are trying to get is a clean break between 1 November onwards and pre-1 November. So if there are matters that flow from an existing case beyond 1 November, we have to clarify that.
That is probably all I need to cover. I think I have covered most of the members’ concerns with this. I thank members for their contribution to the debate. I can say I think that the opposition is supporting the broad thrust of what we are doing. We will deal with the particular concerns you have raised if it is appropriate in the committee stage debate. You have indicated you will be bringing things forward there. So, perhaps we can move on.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Clauses 1 to 3, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 4:
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move 24.1 which inserts at the end of proposed section 6:
- (2) Service under subsection (1) may be effected by post, facsimile transmission or personal service.
…the applicant is not entitled to costs incurred by him after the date on which the Territory made that offer.
I want to know what your rationale is for not having the same type of obligations imposed upon, for example, the Territory; in other words, this mutuality of litigants. Why is it that an applicant cannot serve an offer of compromise on the Northern Territory government and then the same ramifications follow - in terms of indemnity costs, not just costs on scale?
Dr TOYNE: I am advised we pay the costs, anyway.
Mr MALEY: Yes, but in terms of indemnity costs, not just your scale costs, but some sort of penalty for you being a bit unreasonable in forcing the applicant to continue down this path. The penalty for this applicant if they refuse to accept the reasonable offer is, of course, they bear their own legal costs.
For example, in the Work Health Court, there is a penalty interest, so it might be an extra 20% on top of what the award is, there might be indemnity costs. In the Local Court there are indemnity costs. In the Work Health Act you have penalty interest.
There needs to be some sort of an equality here. Most of the time the government is very good, but there are occasions when reasonable offers are rejected and there needs to be some sort of equality here.
Dr TOYNE: As the process works, if an offer is made by the government to an applicant, and the applicant or their legal representative considers that to be an unreasonable offer, even though the government is claiming it to be reasonable, then the hearing proceeds and that is challenged through the continued hearing of the matter, and there is a capacity to load up the final outcome in recognition of the government’s misbehaviour.
Mr MALEY: I understand that. I am talking about the reverse. I know the Attorney-General takes some advice, but he did not actually answer the question. I understand that, but I am talking about in most jurisdictions even a statutory regime like this - and I will be as basic as I can - there needs to be some sort of penalty. It might be a penalty interest; it might be extra, like under the Work Health Act; it might be indemnity costs, for example, under the Local Court Rules. But if I am the Northern Territory government, and you are the applicant, and you, as the applicant, say to me: ‘Give me $5000, I am out of here. I do not want the drama, the trauma of going to court’ but I, in my wisdom as the Northern Territory government, say: ‘No, I do not believe you. I reject that and you will get no more than $1000’ and it turns out that, once you go to hearing, that the offer of compromise by you was reasonable, there needs to be a penalty on me for dragging the chain and postponing the payment of $5000 or whatever the award is to you for an extra six months while we go through this process. Do you see what I am saying? I understand precisely what you said in your original response, but my question is: why the unfair treatment of applicants?
Dr TOYNE: The objective of these reforms is to reduce the process costs of the scheme. If you are looking for what would provide an incentive to the government to actually make a reasonable offer - clearly it cannot be just simply a figure stated by the applicant, name a figure - but if you are looking for what would provide a powerful incentive, it is that the only way that further costs can be avoided on the government’s side is to achieve a settlement.
The penalty you are looking for is the further cost to government of all further action, which is all paid by the government. So there is every incentive for us to try and put a reasonable offer in front of an applicant.
Clauses 5 to 8, by leave, taken together:
Ms CARNEY: I am sorry, Mr Chairman, did you say clauses 5 to 8?
Mr CHAIRMAN: Yes, that is what we were dealing with.
Ms CARNEY: In relation to clause 8 and the amendments regarding a Judicial Registrar, I assume the Attorney-General is aware that there is in fact no Judicial Registrar in Alice Springs. There seems to be - and I think the author of the letter I tabled called it a Darwin-centric amendment - so could the Attorney-General indicate whether he proposes to appoint a Judicial Registrar in Alice Springs?
Dr TOYNE: I can only say that if this provides an avenue for getting more resources into Alice Springs, I will certainly explore it. I live in Central Australia as well.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you. You are aware, Attorney-General, also that the two magistrates in Alice Springs are tremendously overworked. Could you indicate whether you have any intention of appointing a third magistrate in Alice Springs?
Dr TOYNE: It is not relevant to this debate, but, yes, we are looking at it.
Clauses 5 to 8 agreed to.
New Clause 8A:
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment schedule 24.2. This amendment inserts a new section 15A into the act to provide for appeals against decisions made by judicial registrars under the act. Appeals are currently provided for under Rule 4.04 of the Local Court Rules, however the Crimes (Victims Assistance) Amendment Bill now provides for final determinations to be made by judicial registrars, where previously only magistrates could make final determinations.
After further consideration, it was decided that specific appeal provisions under Rule 4.04 were inadequate for the appeals from final determinations. Rule 4.04 is a simple rule providing for an appeal de novo - that is, the whole process starts again, for those who do not understand Latin - that that rule is suitable for appeals from interlocutory orders – I am getting used to this; don’t worry - but not appropriate for appeals from final determinations where a specific, more detailed, appeal process should be set out as under Part 37 of the Local Court Rules.
Proposed new section 15A(3), therefore, provides that appeals against decisions by a Judicial Registrar against a decision to issue an assistances certificate, or a decision to allow the Territory to recover from an offender are in accordance with Part 37 of the Local Court Rules. Proposed new section 15A(5) provides that an appeal against an order in proceedings made by a Judicial Registrar is to be in accordance with Rule 4.04 of the Local Court Rules. Proposed new section 15A(6) clarifies that appeals against orders of Judicial Registrars are not to be to the Supreme Court. This is despite section 19 of the Local Court Act which specifies that appeals are to be to the Supreme Court. Proposed section 15A(7) provides that an appeal will only operate at a stay of the relevant order or determination if a magistrate specifically orders.
Mr MALEY: In relation to the amending bill of the original amending bill, could you clarify that an appeal from a decision of the Judicial Registrar goes to the Magistrates Court - it is a hearing de novo, a re-hearing, or even if it is an interlocutory matter or whatever, is that, from your understanding of the new costs provisions, covered by the composite scale which you are about to introduce in relation to the amendments to the new clause 24(5) or are you saying that Local Court Rules should apply?
Dr TOYNE: Yes, I can confirm that it is covered under the Local Court scale.
Mr MALEY: Okay. That being the case, if there is an appeal pursuant to section 15A – I see what you are saying. You are saying that because it is under Part 37 of the Local Court Rules, it is governed by the normal costs arrangements. Thank you for that clarification.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8A, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 9 to 11, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 12:
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment schedule 24.3. This amendment inserts a new section 21(6) of the act to provide that if a court is satisfied that an assistance certificate should not have been issued, it may determine that the Territory is not entitled to recover from the offender. As the bill amends the scheme to remove the offender from the victim assistance process, it was necessary to create a new procedure to recover from the offender which allows the offender to argue against the Territory recovering the amount of the victim’s assistance. The current bill provides for the court to reduce the amount to be recovered if the offender can show that the victim either contributed to his or her injuries, or if the court awarded too much assistance to the victim in the first place.
However, there is no provision for the offender to argue that the assistance certificate should not have been issued, and that he or she should not be liable to pay any money at all. This amendment will allow for situations where the offender can show that the victim, for example, fabricated the offence.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 13:
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 24.4. This amendment omits section 24(4) of the act as proposed by the bill and substitutes a new section 24(4) to provide a new regulation making power.
This amendment allows for the regulations to prescribe a lump sum fee for specified work done in relation to the application under the act. It also allows for the regulations to specify a percentage of the Supreme Court scale payable for work done in relation to an application. The relevant legal practitioner will be able to elect to recover costs either according to the prescribed lump sum fees or to the prescribed percentage of the Supreme Court scale.
Ms CARNEY: Attorney-General, what is going to be the situation in relation to the government contracts that private law firms have? I should say I listened to what you had to say before. I am advised that tenders closed yesterday afternoon in Darwin for the CVA contracts. Those contracts, from memory, are for a period of two years?
Dr TOYNE: I can report that the tender notices that went out indicated that the government was moving to these reforms and that the contracts will subsequently be couched in the same terms as we are considering here, so that is how the payments will be based to the successful tenderers.
Ms CARNEY: When you say that that will be done subsequently, does that mean from the 1 November?
Dr TOYNE: Yes.
Ms CARNEY: It does. Thank you.
In relation to section proposed section 24(4)(a) and the reference to costs if the assistance is over $5000, I am wondering why there has not been any provision in the bill for counsel fees. There are regulations that refer to the fees paid, but nowhere in the proposed regulations was there provision for counsel. Why is that?
Dr TOYNE: There is a reference in the provisions to the payment of all reasonable disbursements excluding counsel fees, but counsel fees are embodied in the actual rates stated above that.
Ms CARNEY: Can you point me to that?
Dr TOYNE: The section dealing with rates for hearing.
Ms CARNEY: The rates for hearing, section 24(4)(a), is $850 per day. Isn’t the effect of these changes in reality to exclude counsel from appearing in these applications?
Dr TOYNE: I am advised that because of the simplification of the process, we do not believe there will be a great need for counsel; they can appear at that rate.
Ms CARNEY: Attorney-General, do you have any idea how much a regular barrister in the Northern Territory charges as a daily rate?
Dr TOYNE: I can only say that the provisions in the bill provide for that scale of payments for hearings, and any legal practitioner appearing in that matter will be paid at that rate.
Ms CARNEY: Attorney-General, let me tell you that last time I engaged counsel, the rate was between $1500 and $2500 per day. Noting that the Attorney-General is obtaining advice, would you like me to sit down so that he can hear that advice - I say that as a matter of courtesy - or would you like me to keep going?
Dr TOYNE: I have nothing more to say.
Ms CARNEY: Now that you know that a counsel in Darwin charges between $1500 and $2500 per day, isn’t it the case that the effect of these regulations will exclude counsel appearing? Does that create any concern for you for necessarily complex applications such as incest cases and/or cases where there are multiple applications?
Dr TOYNE: I can only say the whole spirit of this reform is to try to settle as many as these matters by negotiation initially and, if necessary, by the most streamlined and cost-effective means possible in terms of hearings.
Ms CARNEY: Minister, you have told members of the House that you and your government are committed to victims of crime, to ensuring their interests are protected. How can their interests be protected when the effect of your regulations is that they are deprived and precluded from the use of expert legal advice, as is often the case in these sorts of applications?
Mr Kiely: Worried about your own pocket, aren’t you?
Ms CARNEY: Sit down, you idiot! You are a grub.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Order! Sit down. Member for Araluen, please withdraw both those remarks, grub and idiot.
Ms CARNEY: I will withdraw grub and idiot, Mr Chairman.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order! Mr Chairman, you asked that both remarks be withdrawn.
Mr CHAIRMAN: She did. No, they were both withdrawn.
Ms LAWRIE: Both withdrawn? She said one.
Mr CHAIRMAN: They were both withdrawn.
Dr TOYNE: If we can get back to the matter at hand, you are making a couple of presumptions here. One is that we have changed this process. We have provided a much clarified set of expectations of the process. The first is that there will be, we would expect in most cases, a pre-court settlement with a reasonable offer being made by the government as to compensation.
You are equating the seriousness of the crime with the complexity of the legal judgment as to compensation, and that is not necessarily so at all. We believe that the interest of the victim can be protected without recourse to very expensive and protracted legal testing. We believe that there is sufficient background to the types of cases that come into this victim compensation scheme to allow a simplified and more direct process.
Ms CARNEY: Attorney-General, you have referred to your nave hope that these applications will settle before they get to court. Do you have any idea, on a statistical basis, of how many applications currently do settle?
Dr TOYNE: On the basis of the old structure, I would be interested to know how much of the $2.6m was expended on enormously complex legal argument. When we are looking at the whole question of support of victims, whatever was beneficial or not beneficial to the victims, I cannot imagine that an extraordinarily complex legal testing of their right to compensation was going to help with alleviating the effects of their victimisation. What we are trying to get is not only appropriate support back to the victims, but timely support. I do not believe that this is disadvantaging the victims at all, and you can put up whatever arguments you like …
Ms Carney: I will. I will keep going.
Dr TOYNE: You keep going, but I am saying that we have made a judgment as to how we want this scheme to look as a process. We have moved these reforms to move the whole focal point of the process from a complex and expensive testing back to a more - and one of the options beyond this is to go to a fully administrative scheme which does not involve lawyers at all. That certainly will be an option in terms of a broader discussion about this.
Ms CARNEY: I am sure you are heading in that direction. Attorney-General, did you consult with the Bar Association about these fees?
Dr TOYNE: As I reported in the second-reading speech, while we certainly have talked to members of the legal community and received submissions from them, there are a lot of vested interests in this. In the case of recompense for legal services rendered to a government scheme, I think lawyers, like anyone else who deals with the government, have to recognise there is a vested interest there.
Ms CARNEY: Attorney-General, do you have any idea of the effect of some of your answers on victims in the Northern Territory? Your answers are that they are deprived of expert legal advice, that some cases might settle, and on that basis alone, they are not required to have expert legal advice. I am wondering do you still assert that, through this bill, you will be protecting the interests of victims of crime, or would you like an opportunity to put these provisions on to the back burner while you get additional advice from the profession and victim support organisations?
Dr TOYNE: I make two points here. If you want me to continue on to welcome and engage you in debate, I would suggest you do not get too condescending on your part …
Ms Carney: Well you have shown such astonishing navety, it is hard to resist.
Members interjecting.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Order! Order!
Dr TOYNE: We are discussing an issue here, and I think we can discuss it without you basically characterising me as someone who does not know something about this …
Ms Carney: You do not know! You know you have made a mistake, and you do not even have the guts to admit it.
Dr TOYNE: I know a fair bit about this and I would also like to say …
Mr CHAIRMAN: Order! Order! Address your comments through the Chair, please, member for Araluen.
Ms Carney: You’ve cocked it up.
Mr KEILY: A point of order, Mr Chairman! She – you cocked it up! She keeps using this sort of unparliamentary language in here and she gets away with it day in, day out.
Mr CHAIRMAN: There is no point of order. Quiet please.
Mr Kiely: Cocked it up, eh? Great language, Jodeen. Great debater.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Member for Sanderson!
Dr TOYNE: The other point I make is that your claim about the lack of expert advice - what is every solicitor in the Northern Territory going to think about that, that you have to be a barrister to be an expert? Please! There is legal advice being paid for and supported in this process. We are simplifying the process. We are simply saying that we do not believe that we will need to go as much, if at all, to complex legal arguments. That is the way we want to deliver the victims their compensation. If there is a problem with the delivery through these arrangements, we will look at it. We believe we can deliver an adequate and supportive scheme without the need to spend over $2m on legal costs.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Just before anyone speaks again, I just might ask the member for Araluen: have you many more questions on this bill?
Ms CARNEY: I do, Mr Chairman.
Mr CHAIRMAN: I will suspend this committee until after Question Time, and adjourn for lunch to reconvene at 2.05 pm.
CRIMES (VICTIMS ASSISTANCE) AMENDMENT BILL
(SERIAL 95)
(SERIAL 95)
Continued from earlier this day.
In committee:
Clause 13 (continued):
Ms CARNEY: Mr Chairman, can I indicate - and it should be circulated if it has not been already - a proposed amendment 27.1 to clause 14. Having moved that, however, I have some questions for the Attorney-General, although not terribly many, on the issue that we were discussing prior to the luncheon adjournment.
Mr CHAIRMAN: We might wait until it is circulated so that members can see what the amendment is.
Ms Carney: Attorney-General, prior to …
Mr CHAIRMAN: The Attorney-General has the floor.
Ms Carney: I am sorry.
Dr TOYNE: I am quite happy for you to talk about the amendment. I just thought it might be useful if I give you a succinct reply to the various issues you were raising just before lunch. It might help clarify our position.
Mr CHAIRMAN: We are not talking to the amendment.
Dr TOYNE: No, I am not talking to the amendment, I am talking to the original amendment, not the additional one.
Regarding the provision of counsel fees, the first point is - and we have made this in an earlier debate - that we believe that the reforms that we are introducing to the act will simplify the process and, certainly, that most matters will now be heard by a Judicial Registrar rather than a magistrate. A large proportion of matters will not require hearing by court, let alone hearing with a counsel.
There are a lot of solicitors in the Territory who have a real expertise in this area and are very capable of representing their client in a hearing, particularly as the process is to be simplified. It is anticipated that the need for counsel representation will be minimised except in a very small percentage of extremely complex matters. In cases where counsel is to be engaged, there will be two options under the scheme. The solicitor can elect to have costs for the matter recovered at 40% of the Supreme Court scale. In relation to the Supreme Court scale, counsel fees are not restrained by the percentage requirement; this means that counsel would be entitled to full fees. Alternatively, counsel fees can be paid at a rate provided for in the proposed lump sum scale for awards over $5000. Hearing fees are $850 for the first day and then, I believe, it is $500 for any subsequent day of the hearing. This amount reflects the daily fees that are paid to counsel by legal aid and by the Director of Public Prosecutions for matters conducted in the Magistrate’s Court. I am satisfied that the appropriate counsel can be engaged at this rate for Crimes (Victims Assistance) matters. The costs structure further provides a lower daily rate for second and subsequent days, which I have already pointed out. This is to reflect the more simplified process and to discourage over servicing.
Ms CARNEY: I thank you, Attorney-General, for that explanation. However, unfortunately, I am still not satisfied. You make no comment as to what provision exists for an instructing solicitor. It is the case - and I do assume you know this - that counsel appears at the Bar Table with an instructor. There is no provision for both of those individuals to recover costs. The bill expressly precludes the recovery of counsel fees and, in relation to your comment that the Legal Aid Commission and the DPP both brief lawyers out at $500 to $800 per day, neither of those entities perform Crime (Victims’ Assistance) work when it comes to applications. So that is really why I am not satisfied.
There is one other matter, just by way of a response to what you have said. You have indicated that you hope, or expect, that most matters would be heard by Judicial Registrars. Well, there are a couple of problems with that. You conceded earlier today that there is no Judicial Registrar in Alice Springs, so the people in Alice Springs still would be deprived of a Judicial Registrar. In addition, it is the case - or it is the reality - that there are some matters that will need to go before a magistrate, may even need to go to the Supreme Court on appeal, and yet, there is still no provision for counsel. So, I guess that is my reply to what you have said.
Having said that, can I proceed with a couple more questions and, perhaps at the end of that, subject to any questions that my colleague, the member for Goyder has, I would like to talk to the amendment. That is fine?
Mr CHAIRMAN: Yes.
Ms CARNEY: Attorney-General, you indicated before lunch that barristers did not need to deal with Crimes (Victims Assistance) applications. I cannot remember exactly what you said, but it was words to the effect of: ‘solicitors can handle all matters’. Can you tell us do you know the practical difference in the Northern Territory between a solicitor and a barrister and, if so, could you explain it to us?
Dr TOYNE: Next question.
Ms CARNEY: I will repeat the question.
Dr TOYNE: No, you do not have to. It is a disparaging question. I am not going to answer it.
Ms CARNEY: Okay. It will be for the listeners, I guess, to draw their own conclusions as to whether or not the Attorney-General of the Northern Territory, the Territory’s first law officer, knows the answer to that question. Perhaps you would be good enough to answer the second question.
Attorney-General, can you concede that the rights of victims of crime may be compromised without the assistance of counsel in a complex application for victim’s assistance?
Dr TOYNE: I have made it clear from the notes that I brought back from our discussion of this issue that a victim requiring counsel within a hearing, under the 40% option, can have counsel paid at full rates, and, if under the lump sum option, can have counsel paid at the same rates as the Director of Public Prosecutions and legal aid services. They will have counsel, and they will have the representation required. That is all I have to say about it.
Ms CARNEY: Attorney-General, are you aware - and please say so if you are not - that some applications for assistance are multiple applications, and can involve claims of up to $100 000? Do you expect solicitors of the Northern Territory to conduct those applications without the assistance of counsel?
Dr TOYNE: I am not going on much longer with this because we are going into a circular argument. They have the assistance of counsel. I have told you they have the assistance of counsel. That is all I want to be saying about it.
Ms CARNEY: Minister, as a result of what you have said, do you say to the barristers of the Northern Territory, that they, as a result of amendments you propose, will be required to work for $500 to $800 a day when their daily rates are between $1500 and $2500 per day?
Members interjecting.
Ms CARNEY: The answer to the question, Attorney-General? Okay, I note that the Attorney-General is shrugging his shoulders and waves his hands about. Thank you for that indication.
Dr TOYNE: I said I have no further comment. Let us get on with it.
Ms CARNEY: You can bet your bottom dollar that lawyers throughout the Northern Territory, as well as victims of crime, will be fascinated by your pathetic response.
Having said that, I wish now to – I apologise, I will not press my amendment yet. My colleague, the member for Goyder, obviously has ...
Members interjecting.
Mr MALEY: Indeed, in relation to that section we are talking about, I realise, of course, this is my friend’s area of expertise. From a practical perspective, there are a couple of things you said which I think it is appropriate to put on the record and ask you to make a response.
The basis of all the amendments is to streamline the process, and that is a noble goal. The difficulty is, of course, whilst you can streamline the procedural aspects of it, if someone is a victim of a crime - from my prosecuting days and being a defence lawyer - their responses are complex and different depending upon the nature of the subject of the criminal conduct. If you think of the advice that you have that by having less-experienced counsel - and you said there are many experienced solicitors with real expertise in the area in the Northern Territory - in the future, because of these cost reductions, those people will not be able to continue to do that type of work. The work will go, quite frankly, to more junior people, to articled clerks or paralegals, and the reality is that, despite the procedural changes you have made, matters will not settle any quicker. There will be less time spent on serving defendants and the like, but in the long run it is a self-defeating type of amendment.
You have some procedural changes which are good, but then you take away the experience which you would normally have in terms of the people who have the care and conduct of those matters. Do you understand that? That is the point which you could have been going around in circles [inaudible] – not that I agree with that. The lack of experience will have an effect on the capacity of these matters to settle before they go to a hearing or before they are dealt with in front of a Judicial Registrar.
Dr TOYNE: I do not accept your assertions at all. We are on the same scale as the Director of Public Prosecutions and the legal aid services; they have carried out affairs in the magistrates courts for years on these rates of scale. They have successfully dealt with quite complex hearings, and we are on the same level. I do not think I am going around in circles; I have stopped in my spot. You might have your opinions or your own point of view on this. I have also stopped in the spot that seemed to satisfy most of the submissions that came to us including the Law Society, Bill Priestley, and the NT Victims of Crime. I believe we have a proposal that is seen by that body of opinion as being appropriate. I have indicated that the ability to include counsel in the hearing part of a claim is there, and is there at the same rate as is being used elsewhere in the justice system. That is all I need to say about it.
Mr MALEY: Attorney-General, just a point of clarification. I know that from experience - even the police, when you prosecute on their behalf, and I was doing that just prior to the election last year - they were paying $1000 a day. If it was a basic matter, of course the rate was a bit lower, but if it was a more complex matter you would get a lot more. Those organisations including the Legal Aid Commission and NAALAS have the capacity to pay. If it is simple, it is $600 a day, like you say, for a coronial. If it is something complex, it goes up to about $2000 a day. But that is the very point: the nature of this type of application and of the people making the application means that one size does not necessarily fit all, and there will quite genuinely be situations where the nature of the application will require expertise. So that information and that rationale that you relied upon is incorrect and it is flawed.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 14:
Mr CHAIRMAN: We are going to invite defeat of clause 14, and then we will move to the new clause proposed by the Attorney-General, then to the amendment introduced by the member for Araluen.
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I invite defeat of clause 14.
Clause negatived.
New clause 14:
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment schedule 24.5. This amendment omits proposed Regulation 5 of the Crimes (Victims Assistance) Regulations in the current bill, and substitutes new Regulations 5, 6 and 7. These amendments are incorporated in response to suggestions made by members of the legal profession who were concerned that the cost structure proposed in the original bill was so low that practitioners could not afford to represent victims in their assistance applications.
Proposed new Regulation 5 provides for a lump sum fee structure for awards of assistance of up to $5000 as follows: $750 for initial work, up to and including the first pre-hearing conference, or $1050 if that initial work includes an extension of time application, plus an additional fee of $350 for further work up to the hearing or an additional $700 if that further work relates to an application in which the offender is found not guilty of the offence plus an additional fee of $400 for a half-day hearing or $800 for a full-day hearing, plus an additional fee of $400 for each extra day or part day of a hearing in addition to the first day, plus reasonable disbursements, including counsel’s fees.
Proposed new Regulation 6 provides for a lump sum fee structure for awards of assistance of more than $5000 as follows: $1000 for initial work up to and including the first pre-hearing conference or $1300 if that initial work includes an extension of time application; plus an additional fee of $400 for further work up to the hearing; or an additional $800 if that further work relates to an application in which the offender is found not guilty of the offence; plus an additional fee of $500 for a half-day hearing or $850 for a full-day hearing; plus the additional fee of $500 for each extra day or part day of a hearing in addition to the first day; plus reasonable disbursements excluding counsel’s fees. Because of the operation of section 43 of the Financial Relations Agreement (Consequential Amendments) Act, these fees are exclusive of GST.
Proposed new Regulation 7 provides that the prescribed percentage of the Supreme Court scale for the purpose of section 24(4)(b) of the act is 40%.
New clause 14 agreed to.
Ms CARNEY: Mr Chairman, I move an amendment 27.1, at the end insert:
- 8. Costs if counsel retained.
If, on application, the court orders that because of the particular circumstances of proceedings in respect
of an application under section 5, a party to the proceedings should retain counsel, counsel is entitled to
costs at the rate prescribed in the scale of costs under the Supreme Court Rules or at any other rate
ordered by the court.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Member for Araluen, it will not be an amendment, it will be a new clause 14A.
Ms CARNEY: My apologies. May I speak to that amendment now?
Mr CHAIRMAN: Yes.
Ms CARNEY: It is possibly not surprising that I bring on this amendment as a result of some of the answers and refusal to answer certain questions of the Attorney-General. The fact of the matter is that there are circumstances in applications of this nature that will warrant counsel. Noting the government’s reluctance to allow any barrister to be paid properly in these applications around the Northern Territory, I think the amendment I have come up with is eminently sensible, because it essentially says: in exceptional circumstances and upon an application by the parties, the court can say: ‘Yes, you need a barrister in this case. The particular circumstances of your case require expert advice. Your case may require an advice from counsel as to quantum’. There are a number of very large claims made. They are, from my experience at least, more often than not incest cases; they are multiple applications. It is sensible for most solicitors doing that sort of work to obtain advice on quantum.
It is the case, as well, that for the government, the government lawyers may also wish to appoint counsel. Of course, you can imagine a situation where the applicant’s barrister’s advice is: ‘This victim might be worth $150 000’. The government’s solicitor’s counsel might say in the advice on quantum: ‘No, the victim is only worth $100 000 in compensation’. Then those barristers might get together and say: ‘Let us split the difference’. Now, this happens every day in the court system. So there is likely to be a saving at the end of the day - a saving of time and money expended by the government. Apart from advice from counsel being required in certain situations, the reality is there may well be a saving in legal costs.
Solicitors in the Northern Territory do not, in the normal course of events - although there are always some exceptions - run cases without a barrister or counsel for, generally in my experience, between $40 000 and $50 000. In other words, if you are a solicitor and you do this sort of work, if you have a victim coming to you and you think: ‘Gee, this person is probably going to get, with a couple of applications, maybe $40 000, $50 000 or $60 000’ - most solicitors would not entertain for a moment acting in that matter without the assistance of counsel. I have done some matters for some clients who have received $100 000 and, quite properly, counsel was briefed.
It is the case that solicitors may, indeed, need advice on behalf of their clients at a very early stage which does not relate to the quantum of their claim. The advice on a range of matters may ultimately protect lawyers from professional negligence claims on the basis that they obtained counsel’s advice very early on - a detail in the interest of their clients - and then the solicitor acted accordingly. So again, having counsel participate in these proceedings and, of course, being paid accordingly, given their hourly rate, it is important for the court because the court is able to be assured that expert material, expert submissions, have gone before it on complicated matters.
It is also the case that the interests of victims are protected. I would hate to imagine that a victim of crime, with a few applications, might be deprived of compensation on the basis that a solicitor could not get a barrister to do the work for $500.
Dr Toyne: $850.
Ms CARNEY: $500 to $800 - big deal, says a barrister! This is not about me pushing how much barristers get paid; I do not really care. However, I do know that barristers will not act in these applications when relatively little money is offered.
The Minister for Central Australia needs to be aware that when counsel come to Alice Springs, their travel and accommodation expenses are paid. There is no provision for that either. So, certainly the people of Alice Springs will be deprived.
As I said, it is not uncommon to have significantly high claims and that they properly warrant counsel. Those matters sum up why it is that I press, I urge, the Attorney-General to accept this amendment. The effects of what the Attorney-General has proposed by way of his bill probably will not be able to be reported. They may not show up in any statistics except for the government’s bottom line: you might save yourself a dollar or two. However, no one will ever have any idea how this has affected the victims of violence in the Northern Territory. The Attorney-General and the government should hang their collective heads in shame because today in this parliament victims have been dudded.
Mr MALEY: Mr Chairman, in speaking in support of what my friend has just said, it seems that the government is intent on keeping lawyers out of the process, or at least severely limit them. It begs the question: is this government making a commitment not to use lawyers either in-house or not to protect itself? If the government is in trouble, the first thing it does is engage a lawyer, yet the very same rights you are trying to prevent members of the public, applicants, making this making an application under legislation which is beneficial and which should assist them. I am sure there are lots of defence lawyers who are defending the rights of applicants every single day. It is not an easy process. It is a difficult process and sometimes things are complicated and sometimes counsel has to be engaged.
It seems this government, like many other bureaucracies, is very keen to pass new legislation. We even heard one of your colleagues, the minister for Industries and Business, bragging about the legislation this parliament has introduced. The difficulty is, of course, when you pass legislation and rules, it ultimately creates rights for some individuals and it seems that this government is intent on ensuring that those individuals do not properly have access to all of those rights.
The very bureaucracy which is creating this beneficial scheme now is placing restraints which will effectively stop people. I think I can say this - not that I have the dates and history before me: there have been other regimes which have moved down the path of trying to ensure that people are not represented - Stalin and his friends and the Nazis did it - and it is tempting for weak governments to go down that same path. Some delusional idea: ‘Oh, we will just remove someone’s right to representation’, and that will somehow fix the system and streamline it. Your astounding concession earlier that you did not know the difference between a barrister and a solicitor has left me gob-smacked.
I support without reservation this very sensible amendment. It is not a difficult amendment for you to get your mind around. You have not had a briefing, I know, but we are happy to talk you through it, and you should be able to get the advice. Then with a bit of luck, with a bit of common sense, if you have any sort of a conviction in what you say in your socialist, Labor Party trendy save-the-world attitudes, then you will readily accept this decent amendment.
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, let us get straight to the point. We will not be accepting this amendment. I have made it clear that the capability of taking on a counsel in a case is built in to both options of the scheme that we are proposing.
We had better remind ourselves of what this bill is all about. We are trying to shift the focal point of the output of the Crimes (Victims Assistance) Scheme to the delivery of compensation in as timely and as efficient manner to the victims as possible. If you want to talk about reintroducing $1500-a-day barristers into protracted court proceedings, that is certainly not the direction we are going in. If we find there are individual cases of a very small proportion that come to any sort of harm from this, we can have a look at it. But the weight of reform that we have put into this bill today is to reduce the cost of delivery of compensation.
We are not going to put a whopping great back door into the capping system structure that we put into these fee scales, which will allow very expensive legal processes to be brought back into the scheme. That is what we are trying to get out of. We want to see people get settlement by agreement; we want to get the compensation paid as quickly as possible and with the most streamlined procedure possible. On the occasions where it has to come to a hearing with representation by counsel, then there is provision for that within our proposal.
We are not accepting this amendment and I remind you that, unlike the amendment we accepted yesterday of which we had warning, I will not be making complex decisions about - this is not simple. It is not simple at all because it would relate to a number of other drafting provisions within this bill. There is absolutely no possibility we can deal with this on the floor today. So if you really had a concern about it, where were you a week ago? You could have given us a bit of time on it.
Ms Carney: Because of your ridiculous answers, we found out what you were proposing to do, Attorney-General.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Order!
Dr TOYNE: I do not think you are helping your cause by that sort of approach to debate, either. But I just want to clarify one other thing before we move to a vote on this amendment, and that is the matter of retrospectivity that the member for Goyder raised earlier on in the debate. I will just clear it up. First of all, we are still following it up and we will get back to you. You made reference to a decision of the Full Court of the ACT, Frank and Ors v The Australian Capital Territory in which it was held that an amendment to the ACT’s Crime (Victim Assistance) legislation was an acquisition other than on just terms and in contravention of the Australian Capital Territory Self-Government Act. The decision on the point was two to one. The amendment to the legislation of the ACT was different from the amendment proposed in this bill. In the ACT case, the amendment removed the ability to be awarded compensation for pain and suffering in actions that were already on foot. The NT amendment does not affect the ability to receive compensation; it only affects the quantum of costs that are accrued through a case. So they are really different in their effect on the law.
I just wanted to clarify that. We will take back the issue of retrospectivity, and I can certainly guarantee you that we will be making sure that there is not a detrimental effect on cases that are already on foot. Let’s move to - if you want to say more about your amendment, otherwise we can vote on it.
Mr MALEY: Just on that point of clarification, I just want to make it clear that the point that I am seeking - and I am indebted to your advisors and yourself for looking at that so quickly, but the other aspect - if there is an application on foot or an application which is being made for Crimes (Victims Assistance) before 1 November, that application, even if it continues on into next year will be subject to the costs regime at the date the application was made.
Only applications that are made from 1 November onwards should be subject to the new regime. So you have a matter which is in the process of being listed and there have been arrangements made, so that is the point - you said that is government’s intention. I was just concerned that that is not reflected in the legislation, but if you look at that and if it is not, your undertaking to this parliament to bring a small amendment in November is welcome, and I am indebted to you for that.
Dr TOYNE: Yes, Mr Chairman, I guarantee that we will clarify that. It is our intent to have no retrospectivity. So I will get back to you.
Dr BURNS: Minister, if I could just clarify something here that I think I have understood from what you have said. In terms of the rates that are being paid to barristers, are you saying that they are on a par or equitable with the rates that are paid to Legal Aid and DPP? Can you also say whether there is any problem in getting barristers for the DPP and the legal aid services to actually represent people? I mean, there seems to be some implication that because we are not paying enough that people will not be represented in these matters.
I suppose I am just a bit cynical about some lawyers that I have heard of in this town who take a lot of money from people and leave them nowhere, right in the middle of their matter, walk away and do not show any commitment. But I know that there are a lot of lawyers who are not like that, who do have a good reputation and who are willing to take cases for the DPP and the legal aid services. Could you just clear that up for me? If we clear this up, if barristers were prepared to work for these sort of rates, I don’t see any problem.
Dr TOYNE: Yes. As I have said, these are the rates that the Director of Public Prosecutions and legal aid services do pay their barristers for cases in the Magistrates Court. They do not have any trouble operating. They have been operating successfully, dealing with everything up to quite complex cases at that rate of return for counsel. I honestly believe that that is a good bench mark for the types of cases we are talking about with Crimes (Victims Assistance) compensation.
Member for Johnston, I can certainly assure you that the benchmark we built in to this amending bill is comparable to DPP and legal aid services.
New Clause 14A negatived.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill, with amendments, 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.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Litchfield Planning Concepts and Land Use Objectives
Litchfield Planning Concepts and Land Use Objectives
Mr VATSKALIS (Lands and Planning): It gives me no small sense of satisfaction, Madam Speaker, to take this opportunity to inform the House of the amendment of the Northern Territory Planning Scheme with the adoption of the Litchfield Planning Concepts and Land Use Objectives.
My pleasure comes from two achievements: the first is the realisation of these particular land use objectives after they have been years in the making; the second is the fact that since taking office, the government has now released or implemented five separate land use objective documents. Many of these documents had been sitting in abeyance for several years awaiting government action. Twelve months after taking office, the bulk of these have now been released, signed into effect or awaiting final ratification following community input.
I am also proud of the way these land use objectives were done. Each and every person who submitted comments in the two rounds of public consultation received an analysis of the total public input. They were advised of where their input fitted into the final outcome. This has received very favourable comments from many participants in the process, and has been adopted as a model by government for all future public consultation processes.
The Litchfield Land Use Concepts and Objectives establish a clear policy framework for the future use and development of land within Litchfield Shire which will maximise opportunities for continued sustainable development. Amendment to the zones and controls within the Litchfield Area Plan, the development provisions relevant to the Litchfield Shire, will be required to give effect to the policies established by the concepts and objectives. A comprehensive review of the area plan is currently being prepared for my consideration prior to exhibition for public consideration.
Probably the most contentious issue within the concepts and objectives, or least that of broadest interest to the community, is the identification of industrial development on Middle Arm Peninsula. I do not propose to dwell on that point, as this House has debated three motions of the member for Nelson on that very point already. Suffice to say that the government is committed to a course of action that is a balanced response to the economic development of the Territory, and the preservation of areas of conservation of significance.
The Litchfield Planning Concepts and Land Use Objectives also highlight the potential development of the Glyde Point area for further industrial development in association with the port facility. While the development may be some years ahead of us, it is important that government plan and preserve for that ultimate use. Glyde Point industrial area will be linked to the East Arm Port and Middle Arm Peninsula by a number of service corridors. These also defined in the planning concepts and will ultimately be appropriately zoned to ensure the community is aware of their existence and their location. Naturally, any significant development of the Glyde Point area will require a nearby service centre and residential area. To this end, the proposed township of Murrumujuk on the coast of Shoal Bay is preserved in the planning concepts.
As we all know, the Litchfield Shire fulfils a number of roles. It is the rural hinterland of major urban areas; a rural residential area; an area of agricultural productivity; has major land uses of defence; is a source of extractive materials and of both ground and surface potable water supplies; and has recreational opportunities and great tourism potential. This very diversity introduces tension between competing land uses, and those potential areas of conflict need to be managed properly.
Many people have been attracted to the rural residential lifestyle available in the shire. Many have chosen to engage in hobby farming, or grow mangoes or other crops, while yet others seek seclusion and a natural environment. These two seemingly innocuous ambitions are often in conflict, where the use of herbicides and insecticides affects adjoining owners through ‘spray drift’. Similarly, those engaged in clean and green organic farming practices can take umbrage where their accreditation can be put at risk from contrary practices nearby. The Planning Concepts and Land Use Objectives propose that an amendment to the planning scheme make commercial horticulture a consent use in areas identified for lots of two hectares minimum, so that farming practices can be controlled to the advantage of all.
The planning concepts provide for additional land to be subdivided to two hectares in size. The most significant area identified for this purpose includes land to the east of Noonamah, and south-east of the Humpty Doo District Centre. An additional area has also been identified to the east of the Berry Springs District Centre. The shire is experiencing an apparent demand for smaller lot divisions, down to 0.4 hectare, or one acre in old terms. As very limited opportunities exist in the shire to fulfil that demand, the extent of the demand is difficult to quantify.
The planning concepts therefore propose the introduction of another new zone permitting some subdivision to 0.4 hectare, provided that the average lot size in the overall subdivision is one hectare; lots are connected to reticulated water; subdivision roads are sealed and connected to a sealed public road; and there is a buffer of two hectare lots adjacent to existing subdivided land. This last provision is to protect the rural amenity of existing residents. As it is intended that activities in the new zone will be limited to residential and ancillary, future land use conflicts will be avoided.
Tourism is a significant component of the regional and local economy, and the increasing population of the shire is creating opportunities for further local commercial and industrial development. The planning concepts identify district and local centres and local and tourist nodes as the preferred location for the commercial, industrial, community, and tourist uses. This approach recognises that ad hoc commercial or tourism development along the highways within the shire has the potential to detrimentally impact on amenity of adjoining residential areas, and on the safety and efficiency of the highways.
Clearing of native vegetation is a highly contentious topic at the national and state levels. No less, is it so in Litchfield Shire. Although the planning scheme controls the clearing of native vegetation within the shire, the instances of unlawful or inappropriate clearing remain an issue. This is why the government has also been working tirelessly on the introduction of the land clearing policy which is currently undergoing some final consultations. The framework for broad environmental management established by the planning concepts consists of two inter-related components: the establishment of principles to be applied to the assessment of any development in the shire; and second, identification as priority environmental management those areas where development, particularly subdivision, should give priority to consideration of potential environmental impacts.
The framework will ensure environmental assessment of the types of division, of the significance of natural vegetation and other landscape features such as rugged terrain, rainforest patches, lagoon, wetlands, rivers and other drainage systems.
The required transfer to public ownership of significant areas at the time of subdivision will contribute to the maintenance of the landscape character, equality and amenity. This broad framework for environmental management, combined with more detailed controls of vegetation clearing, provides for a balance between environment and development which is critical in this fast growing area.
The planning concepts propose the introduction of new controls to provide the opportunity to create exclusive, rural residential areas. It is intended the controls will limit clearing to that required for a dwelling and ancillary structures and restrict activities to residential, so providing opportunities for the many people who want to live in and enjoy the natural environment.
I have mentioned already the importance of horticultural activity within the shire, and its contribution to the Northern Territory economy should not be undervalued. The planning concepts identify areas of land, some of which is already appropriately zoned, that is particularly suited to horticultural activity. This is generally the case because of the coincidence of good, arable soils and adequate and reliable ground water supplies.
It is contrary to the best interests of the Territory and its community if we were to permit the alienation of such land from viable horticultural development through inappropriate small lot subdivision. The concepts propose those areas with high horticultural potential be preserved in holdings of a size that will remain economically viable into the future.
The concepts further recognise opportunities for broadacre organic horticulture and identify areas that are suited for this purpose. Release and development of those areas will require investigation into the conditions and regulations required for organic horticulture that might impact on subdivision design and development controls. The planning concepts also recognise the need to accommodate activities associated with agriculture and horticulture, including processing and packaging establishments and depots serving the live cattle export industry. Parameters established by the concepts will minimise the potential impacts of such activities on the environment and residential amenity.
Continuing interest in the commercial development of aquaculture identifies it as a potential significant contributor to the Territory’s economy. Existing or proposed developments on the Middle Arm Peninsula and adjacent to the Blackmore River are identified in the concepts. Other sites at Saltwater Arm near the mouth of the Adelaide River have been identified as having potential for this use subject, of course, to all the necessary environmental investigations.
The Blackmore Peninsula is also the prospective site for the long-term development of a second airport to serve the Darwin region and that opportunity is recognised in the planning concepts.
The town of Southport was once a bustling community and the jumping-off point for those heading to the Pine Creek goldfields. Despite its decline with the construction of the North Australia Railway, it remains a location for a small community of permanent residents. The blocks within the township are approximately 2000 m in area, too small to achieve the required separation of bores and septic systems. If the township is ever to achieve a size viable for public investment in infrastructure, rationalisation of the existing lots, many of which have untraceable owners, is necessary. Further work is needed on this issue, but the basic framework for the future rationalisation is established in the planning concepts.
The first published reference to the new town site of Weddell was the Darwin Regional Structural Plan of 1984. Despite the reduced area available for the new town site because of the abandonment of plans for the Elizabeth River lake, it remains the preferred site for the next major urban development in the Darwin region. The planning concepts also identify the intention for future development of more detailed concepts and objectives for the new urban area in consultation with the community. I wish to stress here, once again, that this government will not be putting dams or weirs on the Elizabeth River, or any other rivers flowing into the Darwin Harbour. We believe it is not in the long-term or short-term environmental interest of the harbour. The area identified for the new town is largely within the ownership of the Crown and is preserved for that purpose by the present zoning of Future Use.
The provision of a safe and efficient road network is amongst the stated objectives. To this end, the planning concepts identify a number of planned, new arterial roads connections within the shire. Notable amongst these is an arterial connection commencing at Goode Road, south of Noonamah, looping to the east to the Arnhem Highway and proceeding north to connect with Gunn Point Road in the vicinity of the Shoal Bay Coastal Reserve.
This would provide a route for traffic heading to and from the Glyde Point industrial area that avoids the majority of the rural residential area. The route parallels the service corridor between Middle Arm Peninsula and Glyde Point. A further connection is provided between Palmerston and Glyde Point commencing at the junction of Temple Terrace and the Stuart Highway and progressing north east across the hunting reserve and the Shoal Bay Coastal Reserve intersecting with the existing Gunn Point Road beyond the Howard Park Estate.
This new connection is necessary as the width of the existing road reserve at Gunn Point Road in the vicinity of Howard Park Estate is inadequate for the volume and nature of the anticipated traffic. A number of future connector roads are also identified in the planning concepts. Protection of the opportunities to provide these roads in the future will assist in the provision of an efficient and safe local road network.
As I noted at the beginning, the Litchfield Shire is a rich source of extractive materials. As a low-cost, high-volume resource, it is expensive to transport extended distances and it is therefore important that sites of extractive resources be preserved for that use. This has significance for other users, as extractive operations are not compatible with other activities, particularly residential. Planning needs to be cognisant of the incompatibility and prevent the encroachment of other uses that will either preclude later extractive operations or would suffer from these operations.
In concluding, I would like to acknowledge that this amendment is the culmination of several years work by officers of my department and the community to establish a framework for future use and development within the Litchfield Shire. I would like to congratulate the officers involved, most particularly Del Batton, for their work and commitment and to thank the community and Litchfield Shire Council for their ongoing involvement in this process.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the statement be noted.
Mr BALDWIN (Daly): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for presenting this statement today. It is great to see the final sign-off that occurred last week on this set of LUOs. It has been a lot of work and it has been very many years in the making. I, too, would like to congratulate all of the people who have had input into these LUOs, and that includes not just the departmental officers who have spent many hours on this - and I am sure Del Batton, for one, would be extremely happy to see the conclusion of this but, as we all know in planning, it is a very malleable and ongoing process. I am sure that this is really not the end of it, but the conclusion to this point, the signing off, the formalisation of these planning concepts and land use objectives - but also including all of the people who have had input into this by way of public forums and many meetings and attending the displays. I am sure that it has taken a lot of time out of the Litchfield Shire Council’s agenda to provide input and raise their concerns and issues.
So it is good to see that it has come to this point. It probably will not be that many years until we will see a review of it because it is, as the minister said, a very diverse area and it is the expansion area for Darwin. It is a shame we do have Litchfield, Palmerston and all those sorts of designated places when, really, in 50 years time we will talk about Darwin being the greater Darwin area - not meaning the sign out there, the Outer Darwin sign - but certainly Litchfield is the area for Darwin’s future expansion and it has a diverse range of activities that occur in it now and will into the future including, as the minister and these land use objectives point out, things like agriculture and extractive industry, defence, rural living and so on.
The minister said he was delighted since taking office to have implemented five sets of LUOs and that is great to see. I was a little disappointed that he had to make the remark that many of these documents had been sitting in abeyance for several years awaiting government action, which is not correct. I reckon that is a bit of a reflection on the departmental officers who are very hard working and always have a lot of work in front of them and always will. If you ask those very officers how many of sets of LUOs in my term as lands minister that we got through and implemented, they would be able to give you those statistics. It is because of the hard work that they do that you are able to move through those sorts of numbers.
Mr Henderson: Which ones? Name them.
Mr BALDWIN: Where do you want to start? Borroloola, Mataranka, Katherine, Central Darwin, Litchfield. You can go on and on and on, and that’s what I mean.
Mr Henderson: Central Darwin, yes. Where did that go? Litchfield, isn’t that the one we are doing now?
Madam Acting Deputy SPEAKER: Order!
Mr BALDWIN: You go ask them. Do not take my word for it, Minister for Business, Industry and Resource Development.
Mr Henderson: Litchfield is the one we are doing now. That is the one we are doing now, Litchfield.
Mr BALDWIN: Do not take my word; go and talk to them. I knew that would get a bite and it certainly did. Works every time – come in spinner.
I do think it is a bit of a reflection on them, and it is a pity you had to put that in there, but obviously that is politics and that is the way it goes.
Mr Henderson: Mataranka?
Mr BALDWIN: You do not think that is important, I suppose?
Mr Henderson: No, I am just saying it would have taken a long time, that’s all.
Madam Acting DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Henderson: No, I think it is important, but it would have taken many, many years to do the Mataranka one.
Mr BALDWIN: Picking up on the interjection, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, if you do not think Mataranka is important, that is all very well …
Mr Henderson: No, wrong. I just said it would have taken a long time.
Mr BALDWIN: It is the same way as you treat Katherine. You don’t think that place is important.
Mr Henderson: Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Madam Acting DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members! Less of the cross chatting.
Mr BALDWIN: Picking up on the interjection, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, if he does not think Mataranka is important as he thinks about Katherine, that is a problem for him not for me, so I will carry on with the subject matter.
I will point out to the Minister for Lands and Planning that the ones like Litchfield he has signed off on so far were already in the chute.
Mr Vatskalis: Been there seven years. You didn’t sign them off.
Mr BALDWIN: If they were sitting there with no action, why has it taken you a year to sign off on that? I know the answer. I am not blaming you, I know the answer.
Mr Vatskalis: Why didn’t you do it?
Mr BALDWIN: I can tell you - because there are a hell of a lot of issues contained in these, as you are learning now that you have been in there for a year, that need careful consideration and consultation. Things like …
Mr Henderson: A very good minister, as well.
Mr BALDWIN: What, gas? Gas corridors, oh, right. One of the reasons this had to go back out was the need to identify places like Glyde Point for future heavy industry, for reasons like having to secure corridors that we have talked about in here many, many times. You know all this stuff. Things like some of the concepts you have got in there, like clearing over 50% of your five hectare block. Now, as you have in there, which is a new concept, you cannot clear above 50%, without first proving that you have the water for the future development you want to put on there, at mature level, not just put in some little plants, what that production is going to be at mature level. That is a new concept, that had to go back out there and be discussed. Things like the smaller block estates; these are not your ideas. These have been worked through over a number of years …
Mr Vatskalis: No doubt, but why didn’t you put it out?
Mr BALDWIN: … by the department and they all take time, as you will find out. As you are now finding out, minister, with Darwin stage two. You put out a set of plans, as we used to, and you used to complain about the process. And what have people said about the development you want to put around Lake Alexander? ‘Oh, we do not want that there’. Now you are going to take consideration of that, you are going to take time to consider that. That is why these take some time.
I recognise how much time it takes. I know department officials know how much time it takes. I could come in here and complain about things that you are doing that are taking so long - things like the amalgamation of the planning scheme. You have had a year. Where is it?
Mr Vatskalis: The what?
Mr BALDWIN: The amalgamation of the planning scheme …
Madam Acting DEPUTY SPEAKER: Shadow minister, please direct your statements through the Chair.
Mr BALDWIN: Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, it has been over a year since they have been in government and we have not seen it; but I know why - because it is very complex. The work that the officers are doing in the department needs to be done properly, in full consultation with the community, and it will take some time. I appreciate that.
It is like the review of the Planning Act that was announced – when? A year ago was it announced? Have not heard another thing! So, you can complain all you like, but you are now sitting in that seat. I can understand why it will take so long, but do not go throwing it just on this side. Do not sit in a glass house, because some of those rocks might just bounce back at you.
The other comment in here - and I am going to leave a lot of the detail. I know my colleague, the member for Nelson, is probably going to pick through every bit of this because he is very passionate - and I can understand that - about the development of Litchfield. So I am not going to get into too much of that detail, but I will pick up on another part in the minister’s statement where he has picked up on a process that has been adopted as a model by government for all future public consultation processes. That is that everybody who submitted comments in the two rounds of public consultation received an analysis of the total public input. They were advised of where their input fitted into the final outcome. I think that is a good idea; it is a process I started with the Katherine LUOs, and it works very well. I am glad to see that you are continuing with that process. It adds to the benefit of people when they do submit issues and sentiments about things like planning issues when they receive good feedback.
A number of things do jump out at me straight away when I look at the proposed plan and then the finalised plan. The thing I cannot see any more is my - it was not mine really - but the plan had a road corridor from East Arm into Darwin which seems to have disappeared between the two maps. I do not know whether that is still a concept that is on the board. I would have thought it would be, because whether or not it is ever needed, the concept should remain that there is a - I cannot pick it up on the map in the book, anyway, unless it is on your bigger map, is it?
Mr Wood: What was that?
Mr BALDWIN: The bridge coming over from East Arm to …
Mr Wood: On Mud Island?
Mr BALDWIN: Yes, Goyder Island.
Mr Vatskalis: No, no, that disappeared, that is gone. The island sunk.
Mr BALDWIN: So there is no connector road still being proposed between the Darwin CBD and the East Arm area. That is something that jumped out at me straight away, and that would be a shame to lose that as a future provision for traffic flow to get around to what will eventually be expansion of Darwin further and further past Weddell for sure.
The discussion we had in here yesterday about industrial land on Wickham Point: it is a shame that these were signed off - or the press release was last Friday - knowing full well that the member for Nelson, since the last full sittings in this Chamber, had on the books all three of those motions that dealt with that very issue. The minister precipitated that whole debate by signing these off a week early rather than wait one more week to hear the arguments and look at what was being proposed in those arguments. I do think it is a shame - even though you could still have taken it up once signed, as we suggested yesterday - that the motion was not adhered to and put into action so that there was some more community debate; it would not have delayed this process at all. Anyway, that is the choice of the minister and of the government of the day.
The planning concepts for the 0.4 hectare subdivisions is a great new concept in this proposal, not having occurred, I don’t think, in the Litchfield area before. You might disagree with me and that is your prerogative, of course.
The proviso is that there are a number of things which must happen such as has been listed in the statement, the reticulated water and so on, sealed roads and there are buffers between those diverse rural living aspects. The district and local centre has always been an issue in this area and other rural areas in respect of what sort of development should occur in terms of the town centres and the commercial development. Planners and governments have always tried to stay away from strip development.
In fact, as the minister knows, we have gone to some length in Litchfield, particularly on the Berry Springs Road, to head off strip development by purchasing land on that road and consolidating the town site in one area. This now formalises all of those commercial areas which augers very well for the future of commercial development.
The transfer of land at subdivision, of the riparian areas and major water ways, that is a great concept and should be stuck to, except that I do have a rider, and I discussed with the member for Nelson, that from time to time - and I know the documentation says ‘significant’ areas of land such as rugged terrain and rain forest patches, lagoons, wetlands and so forth - they should be preserved in public, major waterways and what have you, to form corridors of riparian areas, but it is those little tiny remnants that always seem to fall out of subdivisions and they are bits of wetland, maybe, that cannot be joined up all over the place. I am not sure about Litchfield Shire, but certainly other jurisdictions, and where there are no local government authorities, I know that the Parks and Wildlife Commission is very reluctant to take on little dots of left over riparian areas to maintain. It can become a public financial burden and it is restricted by the size. There are all the arguments, I know, that can be put about land care groups, and I believe that is quite correct for a lot of those areas, but it is just those little excess bits that no one seems to want to pick up.
The introduction of those exclusive rural residential areas is a must for any rural area. There are many people who just want to go living rural with never the intention to get into any sort of land production. To be able to do that and know that and exclusively you will have your rural amenity maintained in the way that you purchased it and the surrounding amenity is a great thing. I believe that they will attract a lot of interest in the future as far as developers go. There are a number of them around already and that should be continued and maintained.
Aquaculture obviously is going to be a very important industry in the top end of Australia, not just in the Northern Territory. A lot of work has gone into identifying sites. It is not easy to identify sites for aquaculture anywhere in the world because of the nature of things that impact on the environment and the production systems that are used. Sites have been identified here; these go back quite some time. In these LUOs, there are some areas that depict low lying, and we all know that low lying areas can get you into some trouble. I am sure that in the future the environmental assessment process will ensure that any major aquaculture farming will be done on areas that are significantly above the low lying sea level type locations.
The airport is an interesting concept. Every time I think about that proposed second airport, I think: ‘How long is it going to be before we need it?’ but I know for sure that you have to put the area aside now and I think it is a relatively good site. It will be one that we will need sooner than we can even imagine. Hopefully, when the gas comes onshore we will be starting to look at that as a possible major capital works item in the not-too-distant future.
The new connector roads that have been formed into these land use concept took a little bit of jiggling because they required quite a bit of work and attention, not just by the Lands and Planning people, but also by the Transport and Works people in their development and there was some acquisition needed, I believe. Certainly there were issues with Black Jungle involving the connector road going up from Arnhem Highway to Glyde Point and, hopefully, they have been resolved. Similarly with the connection road between Temple Terrace crossing the Stuart Highway going up to Glyde Point, there was quite a bit of reaction to that road going in. I think it needed a bit of Commonwealth land to be acquired in the end to be able to drop it, so to speak, down to the south to get away from the rural blocks that it was going to pass along the back of …
Mr Vatskalis: Yes, have got it. It was agreed by the Commonwealth.
Mr BALDWIN: Yes, and it looks like that has been achieved, so that is a great outcome. Hopefully, for those rural residents, including Mrs Padgham, are satisfied to the best of anybody’s ability that you can be.
It is a shame when you have rural blocks and you think you are out there by yourself and then, all of a sudden, governments and planners want to come and put a major road through the edge of your yard. But, I guess that is progress. The good thing about this whole process – and that is why it takes so long - is that you can look for the best possible practical outcome by going and hearing those concerns and doing something about it. That is a good example of doing that. I will not go on about the detail of that. I know it has been a long time and I have had a very long involvement with this myself, probably not as long as the member for Nelson, and it is great to see the final outcome.
There is an exiting future for the Litchfield area, as I said at the start, because of the way Darwin is going to expand and can only expand into Litchfield. We have to make sure by doing this sort of planning and, as was mentioned in the statement, this planning goes back many years - not just this set of documents, but all of the documents that went before it that have been signed off. We have to keep that process going so that we have not only strategic planning in place for future growth, but that it has been done in full consultation as the needs and wishes of Territorians change, and that is the important thing.
In the old days, I remember the Arnhem Highway going in and the old Humpty Doo pub that was put up by the Skewes’ was about all that was around there for a long time. It is just amazing to go driving out along the Arnhem Highway between the Stuart Highway turnoff and Mt Bundy hills, for instance, and see the development that has occurred over that period - how it is creeping further and further out, and how it represents the need for government and authorities like Litchfield Shire to keep on top of what is going on, and keep in front of the infrastructure needs that are required and the resource needs like water and soil management and so on, so that we can expand in a deliberate and very structured way.
So, an important day today, with the signing off of these the other day and their introduction here. I wish the minister well in the next set of LUOs he undertakes.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, yes, it is an exciting day because it has taken a jolly long time, and a lot of books. I believe I have the full collection here: proposed Litchfield Land Use Objectives; proposed Litchfield Land Use Objectives; and proposed Litchfield Land Use Objectives. I am very glad to see that, eventually, this has come to see the light of day. Bearing in mind I say that, I do believe the plan has some vision in it; in other areas it hasn’t moved, so I have mixed feelings about the land use objectives.
Be that as it may, I certainly welcome a number of ideas that the government has put in to the land use objectives. I welcome the understanding that our water courses and other major wetlands of significance will be removed from the subdivision. Although it has been the norm in planning decisions in recent times, it has not always been the case. I remember arguing with various government people and members of the public service about the concept of removing riparian vegetation or riparian areas from subdivisions.
I have always believed that the one concept we should have had all along is that you have to believe that rivers, creeks and lagoons are part of an entire system, that you have to look at them from top to bottom. You do not slice them up, subdivide them and graze on them; you protect them as a unit. At last we are getting to that. If you look at the Litchfield Land Use Objectives, it is starting to look a little like a jigsaw. There are parts of some of the major rivers, like the Howard River and a small section of the Elizabeth River, which are slowly being set aside as major riparian corridors, so I welcome that move by the government.
However, much as I say that, when you look at the plan, you will find that, to some extent, the government does not quite do what it says. I have two examples. The minister knows the BP Palms site. Anyone going out of town goes past the BP Palms caravan park. Although you might not see from the left hand side, that land was, until this plan came into operation, zoned Open Conservation. The reason it and the land behind it was zoned Open Conservation is because there are major wetlands that feed into the King River. What has happened in this new plan? It is now purple, something the planners have been trying to do for seven years, and they have got their way. There will be a development in that area, I am sure, because the owners of BP Palms, when the government first came into being, asked for that land to be an expansion of their caravan park. On that site, there is a major wetland, and I ask any member of the government to go and have a look and then compare it with the plan that is here. It has now gone from a conservation area with a major paperbark wetland to industrial. I have seen the photographs, and been told there is nothing there, but if you go and have a look, you will see what is being asked for is the destruction of a major wetland. It is disappointing. It is a major area.
Lambells Lagoon is another area. I know that members of the government would remember that, some years ago, in part of the new horticultural subdivisions, there was a major public meeting which we managed to get quite a number of senior public servants to attend. It was attended by large numbers of people from Lambells Lagoon, and a decision was made to remove one large parcel of land from the proposed horticultural subdivisions in that area. There has been a move to try to get that land to belong to a local Landcare group. You will find on this new map that land is now back in horticulture. Having people protest, having the government say that they would remove it, and having identified it as a wetland area - and it is a magnificent wetland area; it has magnetic anthills six, seven, eight foot high, not the little ones you see on the side of the road. It is a wetland. What happens? The government says it will remove these areas of significance. Lo and behold, it is on the plan as horticulture! So its chances of surviving are fairly grim.
I applaud the government for what it is trying to do. It is just a pity that in some cases, and those cases have been raised with the government, that they haven’t done what they said they would do.
Another good initiative is the requirement for commercial horticulture to require consent in the RL2 area. I know too well - in fact, I was probably the reason for a complaint myself - that spraying complaints are a very common problem in the area, and I know because I get them. In fact, I am trying to deal with a particular case in my electorate at the moment, and I had the person on the phone today still saying there are problems. It is a difficult problem because horticulture was permitted and so was rural residential, and you have this clash of lifestyles. It is a very difficult one to overcome. I have heard that, perhaps, some of the so-called spraying guidelines may be legislated, and it is probably time they were because, unless there is some legislation put in about that, the problem will continue. Even though the idea of having consent use commercial horticultural will, perhaps, reduce it in the future, it will not necessarily change the issues that we do have presently because you are allowed to continue with commercial horticulture. You will have to get through some of those issues. There will be some problems with what the minister has defined as commercial horticulture. Is 10 mango trees commercial horticulture if I do not have any loans in the bank, if I am free of all my mortgages and I make some money out of 10 mango trees? There is going to be some tricky little issues there you are going to have to work through; but it is a good start.
Residential: the government has continued with this idea of 0.4 hectare blocks, and I know that came from the last government. The issue is not so much that I am against 0.4 hectare blocks - they are one acre in the old term. Litchfield Shire is generally a rural area and I defy people to say that 0.4 hectares is rural. You are actually bringing five times the population into an area that was once two hectares. You have five blocks equivalent to the two hectares. So you have increased the population, you have added in another five times the number of dogs, probably five times the number of roosters, you name it. You have actually started to become suburban.
While I am not against the idea of having that size block, they should, I believe, be attached to district centres because you are starting to take away the feel of the rural area by bringing it down that low. I have no objection to one hectare; one hectare blocks are quite good. They also require town water and, generally speaking, if anyone has seen one hectare blocks, most of the native vegetation is retained, whereas on 0.4 hectare blocks I can guarantee they will be oversized suburban blocks with lovely lawns, palms and all that, and there will be hardly any vegetation left on them.
The idea of exclusive residential is a great concept. It is a good idea and it is certainly one that needs to be applied. I can give an example, and the government should look at negotiating this zone, and that is the Girraween Estate zone. I know of only one block cleared, and that was cleared illegally. Most of that land, which is the Churcher Estate, has been left basically as it is. By retaining the native vegetation, those blocks will be quite valuable. I ask the government to look at whether they think the Girraween Estate - which is still being developed and will continue to be developed by Churcher - will be a possible area that the exclusive residential zone could be applied to. It is not shown on the maps as being an area set aside for that, but it would be a good area for the minister to look at.
Expansion of the two hectare areas is welcome, especially in the famous Herbert locality. I know there will be one developer who will be very relieved that it has taken at least seven years for this land to be changed from RL2, which is eight hectare, to RL1, which is two hectare. I remember when he applied for this, because I was on the Planning Authority at the stage, and the government said: ‘You will have to wait for a review of the Planning Authority and a review of the land use objectives, and when that is done we will make a decision’. Well, seven years later, he has eventually received his answer. He has been a very patient man; he has actually put a couple of applications in to try and change the area. He has put two hectare subdivisions in as a subdivision application and has been knocked back. So he will be very pleased.
But what is more, because more land in this area has been set aside for two hectares, the one question I am asked the most whenever I go and sit on a corner somewhere is: ‘When will Girraween Road be sealed?’ and that is the eastern section of it which is gravel. It cuts off about 11 km for most people who travel to town because they have to go down towards the Arnhem Highway or along Pioneer Drive and back up again. This road would shorten it. I would presume that when this land is subdivided, the infrastructure levy which is applied to these blocks will be used to bitumenise that road. So hopefully, there will be a lot of happy people in a very short time.
I should highlight to the minister that one of the areas that you are allowing to be cut up now into two hectares is the Beddington Road area which was originally an eight hectare area. There are horticultural blocks in that eight hectare area, and I believe that you may have a conflict again there by putting two hectare blocks next to the eight hectare blocks.
I think the government has made the wrong decision in allowing land in the Elizabeth Valley to be subdivided. That land is eight hectares. It is used primarily for horticulture, especially mangoes, and the government is now allowing that land to be cut up into smaller blocks. They are creating a problem that we already have in the built-up areas, that is people having their residence next to horticultural subdivisions and there will be spraying complaints. It is a foolish idea to cut up that land. I have heard the argument that people will know that when they go into this horticultural area, they will therefore know there is going to be spraying. It will not happen. They will start ringing up to complain. I have already given most people the minister’s phone number, and I am sure he will be able to handle those complaints. It is a very bad decision.
The other area that needs looking at, minister, is the Howard Springs forestry land. It is an area that originally was going to be one hectare subdivisions. It is in line with the sound corridors of the Darwin Airport. There was some move to go back to two hectare subdivisions. I feel the danger of going to two hectares is that you will be putting bores in that area. I would be interested to know whether, by increasing the number of bores in that area, will you dry up the Howard Springs Nature Reserve? If you leave it as one hectare, which I do not believe is going to increase the population markedly, under that sound corridor, you can put town water in there, and there would be less pressure on the Howard Springs Reserve.
I notice communal living got in, after all these years. I know a certain person in Planning who has been pushing for that for a long time. It comes down under estate living, but at least it does not seem to include one of the issues I had: that we would not be able to exclude the wet areas from those pieces of land.
Although we are expanding the Litchfield Shire, especially cutting it up into small blocks, there needs to be some discussion as to where does it end. Do we just keep cutting up the entire shire into two hectare blocks from Gunn Point to Manton Dam? We need to get some sort of idea as to where this type of development is going to finish. When we are looking at concepts, maybe in the next review, we should make sure that we raise that as an issue.
I know there has been plenty of discussion about the industrial land at Ware Peninsula. I know you did not agree with the sentiments of the motion that, hopefully, would have been passed yesterday, and you do praise the manner in which there was public consideration for this land use objective. But, minister, I will show you how hard it was to get any discussion about the industrial area on Ware Peninsula, and this book I am using is the proposed Litchfield Planning Concepts and Land Use Objectives. It is the assessment of submissions. It went like this:
- Middle Arm Peninsula: Reservations were expressed about the identification of Middle Arm
for industries.
It went on about the preservation of natural values of Darwin Harbour and possible relocation of gas to Glyde Point, and the need for full environmental impact assessment of individual development proposals. Concern was also expressed about extractive mining in the locality. The comment was nothing to do with that, really:
As previously discussed, while industries would have some impact on existing vegetation above the
tidal zone, mangroves and other areas will be retained by virtue of their role as a buffer to industry.
Rehabilitation of extractive mining. The concepts identify the need for assessment of potential
environmental impact.
Proposed response from the department: No amendment to the concepts for the future development of
the Middle Arm locality.
So even though people were expressing, way back then, concern about the area being used for industries in Middle Arm, the government’s response was: ‘That’s it’. I do not know whether people can blame me for trying to at least put this matter on the agenda because it has not been debated. It has not given people a chance to look for alternatives. That is why I was so disappointed yesterday because we are going down the same path.
Regarding the industrial land at Ware Peninsula, I know the minister in his press release announced that there is a 5000 hectare buffer. Minister, 4737 hectares of that buffer are what you said you would protect anyway because they are mangroves. We have an increase of the remainder which is about 236 hectares. Very good, but it sounded better when it was 5000 hectares. It is just a pity it wasn’t 5000 hectares of high ground.
Another good concept the government has introduced is organic horticultural sites. Certainly, organic produce does bring in good prices. I do see that you have made a note that this is going to be an area that is going to have to have more discussion because someone is going to have to police this. If you are going to have organic horticulture, then the bloke next door is not going to be able to go spraying S7 poisons close by or even a farmer who is already on the organic land, someone is going to have make sure they don’t muck it up for the neighbour. So whilst I think it is a good idea, it needs a lot more work. The new Organic Horticultural Association is probably a good place to start those discussions.
The old railway corridor: I am pleased to see that, generally speaking, minister, from the meeting we had earlier this year, that most of the land that we asked to be retained, as was originally retained back in 1990, has been left as Open Conservation except for the famous BP Palms site. That has been taken out and turned into Industrial, and so has the land to the north of BP Palms which we did have as Open Conservation. Sadly, most of that is now Industrial, and that is detrimental. I would not mind asking people who use the bicycle path what they think of an industrial area which was a wetland.
I would also like to mention the issue of the bicycle path, minister. I know you replied to my letter the other day and said it is a low priority. It does get a mention in the Litchfield Land Use Objectives and, if nothing else, people in the rural area have been waiting I don’t know how many years for a little bit of bitumen to move past the boundaries of Palmerston. It would be nice for people to be able to go from Palmerston to Howard Springs and vice versa safely. It would also, as I have always said, help preserve the heritage. With all the works that go on in Palmerston and Darwin as regards things like bicycle paths, a few kilometres of bicycle path would be very much appreciated.
On the area of heritage, a little disappointing although at last it appears as though Strauss Airstrip has at least been removed from possible subdivision under the previous Land Use Objectives. I would have thought one concept the government might have taken up is heritage parks. It is a concept that I think we need, especially with our World War II heritage and there is quite a bit of that in the Territory. It is not recognised in the plan. It may be mentioned, but I think it needs recognition in a zoning.
Land clearing: I am pleased to see land clearing is mentioned by the minister. One of the problems I see with the Land Clearing Guidelines is that there are land clearing guidelines in the proposed NT Planning Scheme and there are land clearing guidelines for the Litchfield Shire. There needs to be some uniformity over land clearing on freehold land. It is good that they have now included that you must have water before you can clear the land. There is nothing worse than having land cleared and finding out there is no water and you end up with a large area of weeds.
The government has identified tourist nodes. I still find it interesting, though, that they pick on Howard Springs Road and the Stuart Highway. The main area for tourists to start thinking about where they are going is the corner of the Arnhem Highway and the Stuart Highway. That is where you go to Kakadu; that’s where you go to Litchfield. That’s the area I believe should be the major centre for tourism. There is land there belonging to the government at the end of Strauss Airstrip, so I think that is where the government should put its emphasis, not so much on the corner of Howard Springs Road and the Stuart Highway.
Weddell is an issue I could speak on for a lot longer than the time I have left but, be that as it may, I think …
Mr Henderson: We will give you an extension, Gerry.
Mr WOOD: Thank you. When I said earlier there wasn’t vision, to me this is the one area that the government has not given enough time to look at. In the plan is this outlining area called the rural area, still in Weddell, and they have this area of pink on the map which is the centre piece of Weddell. What I have argued is: do not allow the outskirts of this city to be developed before you know the total concept of what you want to build. Here is an opportunity - and I have said it to many people - to look at the entire Weddell area as one, and to get some people, whether they are Territory, national or international people, who are experts in town planning, who can look at something in the three dimensional. Love or hate Canberra, Canberra is a beautiful city. Whether you like to live there is another matter, but if you look at Canberra from up on top of the hills with its axis, it is a beautiful city. It is designed over a lake, it has a centre piece. Burly Griffin …
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Speaker, I would like to move that an extension of time be granted in order for the honourable member to conclude his remarks.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Madam Speaker, I think the government should not proceed with developing the whole of Weddell - not just around Noonamah and not around Middle Arm - until we really give it some proper consideration.
I am not knocking Palmerston for Palmerston’s sake; I am saying that there are parts of Palmerston that were poorly planned. I think most people agree the district centre area is not something that excites you because it was missing a focus. It was just a two dimensional plan done on a computer, and we have said: ‘That will do’. We need something for Weddell which will say: ‘I know that city. That’s Weddell’. Why? ‘Because it has been designed this way’. It could have, and I have said before, maybe a large fresh water lake which feeds into wetlands before it goes into the Elizabeth River. There are some concepts there I think need addressing. I hope the government will take these issues up and don’t go down the path of doing something prematurely. As I said before, if you do something now, it is permanent. We need to make sure we do something with a vision and take our time.
Just a couple of other things, some of them I suppose a little less important. The connector road from East Arm Port to Glyde Point on the plans, minister, should have at least shown the railway spur. I know it is shown on other maps, but I believe that any railway spurs that are intended should be on that map so people have an understanding. That is the main map, the map that you tabled yesterday, that people will see. It does not show that extension of the railway line. I also think the road should go from East Arm Port to Glyde Point. At the moment, it comes out of Temple Terrace, ducks under Wallaby Holtz Road, the famous road that the member for Daly just mentioned, I am not sure people are still happy about it, but that is where the government has intended it to go. But there is no extension of that road to East Arm Port, and that seems very strange to me if you are going to connect two major industrial areas.
Aquaculture was mentioned, also by the member for Daly. I am sure the minister remembers the fuss over the aquaculture site at Shoal Bay. If you look at this map here, it seems to cover, in some areas, pretty well the same type of country. I hope there is a lot more work done on these aquaculture sites before anything permanent goes ahead.
The plan also mentions extractive industries, and I always reckoned that Darwin and Palmerston were built on the extractive industries of Litchfield Shire, because that is where it all comes from, the sand and the gravel. One problem is, from the council’s perspective, it is their roads that are used by all these vehicles, and it is those roads that need repairing. There needs to be some recognition that this industry - which does not pay rates; you do not pay rates on mining leases or extractive mineral leases - should pay something towards the maintenance of the roads. I am not asking for huge increases on the companies themselves, but maybe there is a levy on sand and gravel that is removed from there simply because that would reflect the true price of extracting these materials. If you are doing it, and someone else is picking up the cost of repairing the roads, then you really are not showing a true reflection of the cost of those materials.
Southport is mentioned. I notice, minister, Southport has been put in the too hard basket again. I joined Litchfield Shire Council in 1984, and I reckon we were looking at it then. There have been so many different ideas about what to do with Southport. I might make a suggestion because there are so many ideas going around about what to do with Southport: if you could at least, maybe through a work program, extend a domestic water supply - simply put a domestic water supply and maybe get some of the locals to participate in it, a self-help program - you would save a lot of work. All people want is water. They can run their septic on the 2000 m2 block because they will not have to have a bore. If you put down a simple water reticulation service there – it does not have to be 12 inch pipes or anything, it just needs to be enough pipe for people to have a shower, maybe water a little garden - you would at least come up with a solution, maybe not a permanent solution, but it would be a cheaper solution than trying to acquire land and amalgamate blocks, which is going to take a long time and be very difficult.
The aviation one is always interesting. I know the member for Daly mentioned the alternative airport site. I must admit I reckon it will be a long time before the airport shifts, considering the amount of money that has been brought into the RAAF Base over the last couple of years. That airport is there for a long, long time. The only other thing, minister, is there is talk about having a recreational airstrip. Of course, at the moment you would know that the Meyerings run the one airstrip in the Litchfield Shire. If Weddell does go ahead, of course, that one strip would probably have to go. Where another strip would go is going to require a lot of thought because I know past attempts to have another airstrip, such as Hughes, have been very touchy subjects.
Another area, minister - and I have written to you on this - is signage. Signage is always a complicated and controversial subject. At the moment, the government is actually standing still. I have nothing against signage; I think signage is necessary. But the Stuart and Arnhem Highways which run through the Litchfield Shire are the two main tourist corridors into the shire. If someone can tell me that the signage that is on those highways at the moment encourages tourism or makes the place look better, I will eat my hat. There seem to be signs going up at the moment. I ask the minister to pop out to the Adelaide River Queen site where there is a war on signs. They just pop out of the blue. I believe they are important and necessary, but if there are no controls on them - and governments have to be brave, because you know what happens. When you pull a sign down, they knock on the door of the minister, and the minister says: ‘It goes back up’. I understand that, but if there are some clear guidelines and, at least discussions with the local businesses about what is going on, you probably can achieve some goals in that area. But I do not think you can just leave it as it is at the moment. It seems to me to be Rafferty’s rules.
Finally, there were a couple of other issues that I noticed. One here is on infrastructure, the government wishes to facilitate technologically efficient and environmentally friendly sewage waste disposal systems. May I suggest that there is an opportunity with Weddell, not only as a vision about how it looks; there should be a vision about what it does with its waste. The original plans for the Darwin area were to put 16 sewage ponds on the borders of Darwin Harbour and to empty that sewage into the harbour. It is time we looked at not using the harbour for sewage at all, for recycling that water so that when you build the city, you include an alternative reticulation system which enables that sewage waste to be pumped back into the city for parks or whatever, but using the best technology today - not some of the technology that we would perhaps might use on the golf course in Darwin or Marrara where there are some problems with excessive use of high nitrogenous waste.
You also mentioned the continued operation of the Humpty Doo landfill site. Minister, there is a petition around at the moment complaining about the Humpty Doo landfill site. You say that they will have to wait until the regional waste disposal facility is up and running. I would say that is a long time off because Darwin City Council is definitely not going to go shifting its waste site until it is full. In the meantime, Litchfield is going to have a dump within its own district centre which will only exacerbate some of the problems people have now. I would like the minister to at least look at the alternative site of Sunday Creek. It is a site that, for a long time, the Litchfield Shire Council has asked government - and I know they have been reluctant to do it, but there is a problem that is not going to get any better.
There are some good things in the Litchfield Shire Land Use Objectives. I do not believe it is any good just keeping these within the boundaries of Litchfield Shire. You have Dundee on its border, Leaning Tree to the east and Coomalie and other places like Silkwood to the south. If you are going to have land clearing controls, make them uniform. If you are going to have matters like whether you have to put a bore down before you clear, make that uniform. If you have to have one hectare of dry ground in Litchfield, make it uniform. People who buy those blocks are all the same. Just because we move from one side to the other does not mean those people should be protected.
Finally, minister, I applaud the government for at last bringing them out. There are some problems and, as I said, there needs to be more vision. Hopefully, the minister will take up some of the matters that I have raised today.
Debate adjourned.
MATTER OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Container Deposit Legislation
Container Deposit Legislation
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members, Madam Speaker has received the following letter from the member for Braitling. It is dated 8 October 2002, from the honourable Lorraine Braham MLA, Speaker of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly:
Dear Madam Speaker,
- In accordance with Standing Order 94, I intend to raise on Thursday, 10 October 2002 as a matter of
public importance the need for the introduction of container deposit legislation in the Territory.
Yours sincerely
Loraine Braham.
Is the proposed discussion supported? I believe that five members need to rise. A surfeit of members! I call on the member for Braitling.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, if we could have the time set for 20 minutes, please.
I raise this as a matter of public importance because of the wide community support in the Territory for container deposit legislation and the increased lobbying, both for and against, that we are seeing in the community at the moment and the need for action on the part of government.
The growth of litter, the cost of waste management and the increasing need for landfill are among the biggest challenges facing local government and the wider Territory community as we strive to strike a balance between preserving a fragile environment and promoting development. Each year the amount of waste goes up and the problems associated with disposing of it increase. If the Territory’s economy grows at the rate predicted by the government, the community then obviously will have a rapidly growing waste problem. There could be an extra 80 000 people in the Darwin, Palmerston and Litchfield areas in the next 20 years, almost doubling the amount of litter and other wastes. It is certainly time to make decisions to reduce rubbish and the need for landfill.
As an example of the existing waste problem, take the Darwin City Council area, a region that has not been experiencing large population growth, but for the years 1999-2000 and 2000-01 the amount of waste placed in landfill in the council area increased by 1500 tonnes to 84 500 tonnes. This is almost one tonne of household industrial waste a year for every man, woman and child living in Darwin, and that is three times as much waste as 10 years ago. We can see that the amount of waste is increasing year by year. This financial year, the Darwin City Council will spend $5.4m on waste management, an increase of $700 000 or more than 10% on last year.
The litter problem not only has an impact on local government and rate payers, it has a large and unsightly impact on the environment. Most people would agree that one of the Territory’s greatest assets is its physical environment; its vast, remote and almost untouched land. This asset is promoted by the Territory’s tourism groups and tourism operators. It is appreciated and valued by all of us as Territorians and all the groups are starting to notice the impact of litter on the Territory’s attractions and amenity. You only have to drive to some of our remote communities and see the amount of litter as you go along these dirt roads.
So the cost to government and councils of clearing up these public places run to several million dollars a year. In my adjournment speech to parliament in August, I outlined the wide benefits of container deposit legislation, and most of them are well known to members in this House. Briefly, they include the high level of community support for it, and that was reinforced by the committee report that the minister tabled in June. The report made no recommendations, but it did state in its summary that there was a very high level of general public support for the concept of CDL - in excess of 90%.
The report also indicated that they did a telephone survey and polling at community events. You may recall they were at the shows along the way. So they had done a great deal of research and polling on this matter.
As well, we know there is a desire amongst Aboriginal communities to take part in such a scheme, and the effectiveness of CDL in clearing up container waste, encouraging recycling and reducing litter and the demand for land fill, which is obviously a problem we are also concerned about. We know it will create jobs. We know it will lower the costs for local government and, most of all, it will improve the environment.
I would like to now update the parliament on my efforts to introduce container deposit legislation. I flagged my intention in August to table a Private Member’s Bill during this sitting. I approached Parliamentary Counsel to prepare a draft based on the preferred model that was devised by the Keep Australia Beautiful people some years ago, and which has won wide support from local government, certainly from Aboriginal communities, environment groups and most Territory residents. They understand it.
Briefly, under this preferred model the beverage industry would pay an up-front deposit and handling fee for every container it marketed in the Territory. This money would go into a central fund controlled by a body, separate from the beverage industry and government, that would pay out the deposits on returned containers and fund collection agencies. The money left over from unredeemed deposits would be used to fund other anti-litter and environmental protection projects. This model differs from that operating in South Australia where the beverage industry runs the container deposit scheme and pays out only on the containers returned.
However, concern was expressed from several quarters when we were developing this draft legislation, including Parliamentary Counsel, that the proposed legislation would breach the Constitution by creating excise or tax and could breach the Commonwealth’s Mutual Recognition Act. The view expressed was that, by requiring the beverage industry to pay a deposit and levy for unredeemed containers, it would create a tax or an excise on the industry. The Mutual Recognition Act promotes the goal of freedom of movement of goods and services across Australia and does not allow goods or services to be treated differently from one jurisdiction to another. South Australia’s CDL, I might add, is exempt because it existed prior to that act coming into effect 10 years ago.
I have asked the Attorney-General to refer it to the Solicitor General, who is preparing an opinion on these matters. Of course, if there are problems with the workability of that model we have developed, then we will obviously just have to look at other models.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, you are probably aware that the beverage industry released a report. It was entitled CDL Legislation in the Northern Territory and it was a report that has been written by Dr Ram Vemuri for the beverage industries. I do have concerns about it; it argues not for CDL at all. I am just wondering what the terms of reference in commissioning that report were. It seems as though it is a document that was put together to argue against CDL, rather than giving us an objective balance. It says that one of the reasons that CDL will fail in the Territory is that Territorians will not be motivated by paying a deposit to take the container to a depot rather than throwing it away. In other words, the deposit will fail to change littering behaviour. But that is not the prime purpose of CDL, as we know. The purpose is to get the litter off the ground and out of the dumps and to increase recycling.
The report is probably a little right in that it might be hard to change people’s littering behaviour. For instance, I am not likely to take my empty containers every Saturday morning down to a depot just to get $1 or $2 back. But I know that if the scouts came around my street once a month and picked them up from outside my house, I would save the containers for them and they would not get thrown away. The matter of changing littering behaviour lies with anti-litter campaigns, and community groups such as the scouts recognise that a container deposit scheme could offer them opportunities to run collection depots, employ people and raise funds. They could rely on the experience of the South Australian Scouts, who have been involved in recycling beverage containers for more than 50 years.
In a recent letter to the Minister for the Environment, the Territory Branch of the Scouts said that should container deposit legislation be passed, there would be a legitimate role for scouts in the area of collection centres. Basically, the letter says:
- The introduction of CDL and our now subsequent involvement in recycling collection centres would afford
Scouts NT the opportunity to generate additional funds which would allow us to provide our outdoor
education program to more young people throughout the Territory.
Minister, we urge you, along with your colleagues, to support the introduction of CDL for the obvious benefits
to be gained in terms of the environment, and for the add-on benefits the creation of this industry would have
for community groups such as Scouts NT.
I am sure the minister has a copy of that letter.
Last month, the beverage industry had two of its officers touring the Territory, visiting local government and community government councils, environmental groups and Aboriginal groups. They were talking about funding for litter projects and highlighting the report that it had commissioned, the one I showed you, which found that a container deposit scheme would not be viable in the Territory because of the dispersed population and the large distances between population centres. At the same time, the Beverage Council told Keep Australia Beautiful it would be withdrawing its $250 000 funding. KAB suspects that its public support for CDL had something to do with that decision. May I say KAB remains a strong supporter of the preferred CDL model, and I have to say that I think it was a fairly spiteful move on the part of the beverage industry.
I really do not have time to make a detailed response to that report, and I hope members will read it, but I will make some brief comments. The terms of the report are not spelt out, so I really cannot see what the author was setting out to determine. I suspect that the case was to argue against CDL. As part of that case, the report suggests that most of the waste generated in the Territory comes from sources other than households because its figures show that the Territory’s urban households generate only 34% of all waste - a low figure compared with Hobart and Adelaide. I am really not sure why we should compare household waste in the Territory with two major capital cities. The table of capital cities listing household waste as a percentage of all waste does not include Darwin, just a global figure for the Northern Territory. Worse, the figures used in that table and in that report are 13 years old. The figures used to argue that urban households in the Territory generate only 34% of total waste, and therefore not enough to make CDL viable, are 13 years old. The table is headed ‘Household Waste as a Percentage of all Wastes - Australia 1996’. What it does not say, and it is very misleading, is that the figures in the tables were collected in 1989, 13 years ago. They were published in 1996. It makes me wonder about the reliability of other figures in that report, and certainly makes me question the credibility of the report when they are using figures that are so old and certainly have no validity today.
The beverage industry report argues that CDL will not work in the Territory because of the dispersed nature of communities and the large number of Aboriginal communities which evidently have a different culture, according to this report, and cultural view of waste and waste behaviour, and I will read what it says:
- The prevalence of culturally diverse population impacts on perception of what constitutes waste and
how behaviour, including waste behaviour, is affected by monetary transaction. This is particularly
relevant to indigenous communities. A large mass is affected culturally in this respect, and any
additional waste disposal and recycling facility will be subject to native title legislation
That is a lot of garbage. How on earth can the recycling facilities be subject to native title legislation? We only have to look at the fact that the community councils are owners of their land where they live, and we only have to look at the major centres to see that their facilities already have growth for expansion. My response to these claims is that South Australia has a similarly dispersed population, long distances between centres, and a large number of remote Aboriginal communities. It also has workable CDL legislation.
The Aboriginal communities in the Territory strongly support CDL. In fact, when a representative of the beverage company Pauls suggested the opposite, Aboriginal community government councils put out a press release to dispute the claim - and it is very rare for Aboriginal communities to go public in such a way. As to the notion that Aboriginal communities have a culturally different view to rubbish, I am not sure, but dozens of them as you know, take part in the Territory Tidy Towns competition each year. Many have won different categories and the overall award, and others have put in place their own recycling programs.
I quote from the press release that community leaders put out in March this year in response to Pauls’ comments. It is headed: ‘Take it all back’. I will read just part of it:
- Elected council members including President Willie Johnson from Lajamanu; Peter Gunner from
Urapuntja; councillors Brian Pedwell for Yarralin; Gibson Farmer from Tiwi Islands; Roy Harrington
from Timber Creek; Peter Hooker from Lajamanu; and Ken Ogden from Minjilang …
I mention those names to show you the breadth of what we are talking about:
- … called on Pauls Pty Ltd to withdraw the comments made on ABC radio early this week that remote
Aboriginal communities do not want container deposit legislation. Mr Hill is wrong, does not know
what he was talking about; we do want container deposits in our community, we want that system
to help make our communities cleaner, to do more recycling, and to help our kids make extra pocket
money by picking up cans and returning them for a deposit. Some communities in the NT including
Peppimenarti, have introduced a local deposit system which has been very successful.
They go on:
- We need laws to make these systems operate right across the NT so that everyone can benefit.
That is a very strong statement from community leaders against an accusation made about them.
As for the threat of native title claim, I am not sure where the author of this report got that idea. Certainly, as I said earlier, most towns and communities already have enough unencumbered land to allow for collection depots.
If we have to look at other options for container deposit legislation, perhaps we could be looking at adopting a policy of extended producer responsibility. EPR is a policy principle and strategy that is being adopted more widely in the developed world. At its most advanced in Germany, all manufacturers of goods are responsible for disposal of the rubbish that their products create, be it car parts or beverage containers. The concept is basic. The producer of litter takes more responsibility for its disposal so that, in fact, that responsibility and the costs of disposal do not fall largely on the wider community. The policy provides an economic incentive to producers to prevent waste generation and to increase recycling.
The Australian Local Government Association and the Northern Territory association support EPR. They believe the packaging industry should take more responsibility for the waste it is producing. The Australian Local Government Association decided not to sign the national packaging covenant because it was based more on the principle of shared responsibility than on the notion of ‘polluter pays’ - and a polluter should pay. The association believes that local government is not part of the packaging chain, and that industries should be required to take life cycle responsibility for their products, and financial support for recycling. The Territory government was the only jurisdiction in Australia not to sign the five-year covenant, leaving the way open for it to introduce CDL. A container deposit scheme would shift the cost burden from ratepayers and the wider community to a more equitable spread between consumers and producers.
But, of course, the beverage industry does not agree. As we can see from the report, instead of introducing the legislation, more local government bodies should be doing more to minimise waste in their eyes. It claims that land collection depots in Darwin, Katherine, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs, would cost almost $1m, which, as I said earlier, is absurd. The report concludes the ideal sustainable recycling program incorporates seven key characteristics, none of them CDL. The seven suggested points are already being implemented to various degrees in the Territory and in other jurisdictions, and none of them have been as successful as reducing litter on large scale as CDL has been in South Australia.
The report’s recommendation that stakeholders sit down to work out programs aimed at sustainable recycling, reducing land fill and targetting industrial waste is a valuable one, but such a move should be made in conjunction with the introduction of CDL. It is interesting that the report, which claims to be based on fact, says no Northern Territory-specific data is currently available to determine the waste stream contribution of beverage containers that would be subject to CDL. There are, in my opinion, a lot of flaws in this report.
Opponents of CDL, mainly from the beverage industry, point to the South Australian legislation to argue that South Australians pay more for their beverages and that it does little to reduce litter. But the price of beverages in the state are comparable with the rest of the country, and certainly, I do not believe that people go to one shop in preference to another to save themselves 5 on a can. If, as it appears, there are constitutional problems with the preferred container deposit scheme, and the minister would perhaps be able to inform us about this, and the legislation that I have had drafted, perhaps there could be a simple alternative that would address the litter problem created by the empty beverage containers. Anyone who thinks there is not a problem would only have to see on Clean Up Australia Day how much is actually collected. It is quite overwhelming.
In the Territory, we could adopt the policy with regards to beverage containers made of glass, aluminium, steel and plastic. The Waste Management and Pollution Control Act would be amended to require the beverage industry clean up, for example, 85% of used containers. The industry would determine how it would reach that target. The beverage industry would be required to provide audited monthly figures of their sales in the Territory, and audited figures of container disposal. If the target was not met, the industry would have to pay a fine. Now, that may seem harsh, but I think it should be left to industry to determine how it might best recover its waste. It might decide after all that container deposit legislation is a viable option.
I have been advised that such amendments to the Waste Management and Pollution Control Act …
Mr Wood interjecting.
Mrs BRAHAM: I have one minute.
Mr Wood: No, I was going to ask for an extension of time. It has run out.
Mrs BRAHAM: It has run out?
Mr WOOD: Mr Acting Deputy Chairman, I move that the member be granted an extension of time in order that she may conclude her remarks.
Motion agreed to.
Mrs BRAHAM: I have been advised that such amendments to the Waste Management and Pollution Control Act would not breach the Mutual Recognition Act because the act allows exemptions for laws that are aimed at preventing, minimising or regulating environmental pollution. Another alternative is to lobby the federal government for national container deposit legislation, and support for national legislation is growing across Australia. I would urge the Chief Minister to support those other premiers who are trying to get the matter on the COAG agenda.
When I sought an opinion on my Private Member’s Bill from the Solicitor General through the Attorney-General’s office, I also provided a copy of the draft CDL to the Office of the Environment. I understand the draft and other proposals are being looked at by the minister. I look forward to his contribution to the debate, and perhaps he could give us an update on where we are with this.
I urge the government to find a solution and a means to introduce this legislation, even though it may seem hard at the moment. They would gain much support from the community. I know support is out there in the community, and I ask all members to support CDL.
Mr VATSKALIS (Environment): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I welcome the motion from the member for Braitling. Unfortunately, I cannot give you an answer today. The reason for that is that a Cabinet submission is circulating the departments and it will very soon come to Cabinet. I cannot pre-empt a decision of Cabinet. For the same reason, I cannot give you my personal view on the matter, despite the fact that it is well known whether or not I support container deposit legislation.
You see, I grew up in a town where we used to take our bottles to the supermarket or to the depot for the simple reason to exchange them and not have to pay for the next lot of bottles we were going to pick up - either milk or beer bottles. When you multiply an amount of money 24 or 36 or 48 times, it is a significant amount of money.
However, I want to point out that Cabinet soon will receive an opportunity to discuss the submission in detail and make a decision. When we make this decision then we will make a public announcement. But until that time, I cannot state publicly what position the government is going to adopt.
I just have to say to the member for Braitling and all the other members that unfortunately, it was not an easy decision. I received representation from both Keep Australia Beautiful and the Beverage Council. I received the report by Beverage Council and I received a submission from Keep Australia Beautiful and they surely made by life difficult.
Let us have a look at what has happened in the past 12 months. When I became Minister for the Environment, I inherited a process that was started by the previous government. The CLP government had given Keep Australia Beautiful and Greening Australia Katherine branch $100 000 to do a study of CDL. Keep Australia Beautiful went so quickly. They promoted what they were doing and, of course, they came back and they said: ‘We have done a survey. 95% agree with CDL and we have spent only $30 000 of the $100 000 and we have $70 000 left’.
However, the survey was under severe attack by of course, the other side, the people who oppose CDL, for obvious reasons. The other side argued that the fact that Keep Australia Beautiful undertook the survey in a very biased way because, of course, they had promoted their own position. Of course, I mentioned to the people from the other side that the report that they produced may be very biased because obviously it is in their best interest not to have container deposit legislation.
However, I have to admit that in their report I read - and I went through that one - I think they made a mistake. They employed somebody who insisted that he would be independent. That person did a report and reported back to the Beverage Council and, in his report, says that in some cases, CDL is justified and in other cases it is not. The Beverage Council accept that report but of course the Territory was an area where CDL could not be justified. Once again, I said: ‘Yes, I hear your position but I believe that may be a biased position’.
We then asked Keep Australia Beautiful to provide us with the report and then I formed a steering group to have a look at the issues that were raised by Keep Australia Beautiful. The terms of reference for the steering committee were to consider the result of existing surveys and prepare a balanced report outlining the level of understanding and acceptance of a container deposit scheme within the Northern Territory.
The reports will address:
consultation with the general public and stakeholders regarding all aspects of a container
deposit system and in particular, potential input from Northern Territory consumers,
manufacturers and waste service providers.
type, product type to which the deposit is applied, and especially regional differences.
We actually wanted to have a survey or a report that would address all these issues because the Territory is 1.5m km2 with vast differences. You have the so-called dry Centre to the Top End with severe weather conditions, and also distances between east and west from Queensland and Western Australia.
The steering committee was chaired by Mr Ken Cohalan, former CEO of Pauls Northern Territory, and comprised representatives of Landcare, Northern Territory, the Northern Territory Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Keep Australia Beautiful (Northern Territory), the Commission for Consumer Affairs and my Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment.
The steering committee conducted extensive community consultation and provide its reports to government in May 2002. The steering committee concluded that there was a high level of public support for the introduction of a deposit system. Alignment with the South Australian scheme would be most appropriate and further analysis of outstanding legal, financial, regional and operational issues was warranted.
I do not have to expand on the legal issues because the member for Braitling already referred to some of them, and I believe you expect that response from the Department of Justice. I will be very glad to see a copy of that report. It certainly interests me because it may put a spanner in the works.
Some of the outstanding issues were: is CDL financially viable? Is it economically viable? What resources would it take to run such a system? What environmental benefit would it lead to? Does the Territory have the legislative competence to introduce such an act? Can CDL be implemented throughout the region? Will CDL undermine kerbside recycling? These questions were referred to my department for further and thorough analysis. I gave my department plenty of time to have a look at this issue and come back to us and report on it. They are very complex issues. We have kerbside collection in Darwin introduced by the Darwin City Council. Is CDL going to undermine this? Okay, the first response is: ‘No, of course not’ but if it does undermine it, what impact would it have on the operation of this system, and what impact we have then on the operation of other areas of the whole collection and recycling system.
I received the Cabinet submission from my department in early September. I had a look at it very carefully, and then I decided to circulate it around the departments. It has been circulated, and it is scheduled now to go to Cabinet. I should have explained before, because before Cabinet can tell you if it is going to go through or not going to go through, the Cabinet consists of seven individuals, seven ministers. Every minister has his or her own ideas. Some might support it, some might not. Some might want to support it but might consider that the impact of CDL in the whole recycling stream is such…
Mrs Braham: Give us a hint, minister, give us a hint.
Mr VATSKALIS: I cannot give you a hint for the simple reason that I cannot respond on behalf of the other ministers. The decision will be known the day Cabinet decided. I have said to you before I cannot even tell you publicly now what my personal position is. However, it is well known what I believe, and I have said so publicly. Of course, the decision will be made one way or the other. It is a very difficult decision. As I explained to you before, some of the issues we have to address are the distances, the fact that we are about 900 km from Kununurra. If we introduce this container deposit legislation, the last thing we need is a semi-trailer from Kununurra to arrive in Katherine, put the containers out, and off it goes again.
The other thing, of course, is, the unredeemed deposit. Some organisations believe that there is going to be an unregulated deposit: ‘There is going to be $1m to $1.5m, so we have done it, we can get it and administer it’. But is the best way to administer the unredeemed deposits by existing organisations, or would it be better to actually put in place a new organisation to coordinate all these kinds of activities that can be financed and funded by the unredeemed deposits in the whole Territory?
Other issues of concern are: how are we going to transport the containers from remote communities? The remote communities during the Dry are okay; we can bring it in by road trains, by road, there is back loading. But what would happen in the communities, in the islands, or the remote communities in the north of the Top End, especially during the Wet, when we have extreme conditions? What kind of depot do you have to put in place? What will happen if there is a cyclone, an extreme cyclone? What are you going to do? Because, let us not forget, some of these containers can be very light, some can be very difficult and also lethal. Yes, you can compact cans, but bottles cannot be compacted. The crushing of those then introduces another factor in the equation. That means you have to have the appropriate equipment, the appropriate people to do it safely and, certainly, a way to transport them back.
So we have to examine all these circumstances to make a decision. The issue that the member for Braitling raised about the restriction of trade is very important. If the opponents of this scheme are successful with their arguments, the whole system goes down. The other things is: is it only bottles that pollute the environment? As a matter of fact, glass does not pollute the environment because it is inert material. What it does is creates a nuisance because it breaks. What pollutes the environment is plastics, plastic bags, some of the PET bottles. If we go to CDL, are we going to recycle glass? What about PET? The reality is you can crush glass and use energy to reconstitute it, but for PET you have to use petroleum products to extract the plastic to reform it. Then, of course, you have to grade it - once again using energy to reform the plastic. These are the issues we have to consider very carefully.
I said to you before that I grew up in a country where they did not crush the glass to reform it. Actually, by law, you had to reuse the bottles. That means that the bottle is not crushed but is reused. Of course, the argument is then lately, a lot of people have taken a great fancy to putting syringes or things in glasses. The companies were very, very reluctant to reuse glass for the simple reason they could not find a perfect way of inspection to eliminate the pollution. I have to admit that it is a very, very difficult situation for the beverage companies. In my previous life as an environmental health office, I remember someone coming to my office with an open can of cool drink. On emptying it into a glass, inside the cool drink was a large grasshopper. Of course, we could not find out how this grasshopper could get into a sealed can - but there was evidence; people were there when that person opened the can, and they saw the grasshopper after they opened it - until we went to the factory and we found out that the cans were coming through to be filled and then capped, one of the windows was open, no fly wire, and during the process, obviously, one of the insects fell in, it was filled, capped and served in one of these establishments.
So I can understand the problems faced by the industry. I am not saying because of that reason, we should not go to CDL. The decision will be made by Cabinet and, when this decision is made, then the House and the public will be informed. I know how the public is feeling. At the same time, is 5 on a bottle going to stop people throwing a bottle away, or, say, a plastic bottle or the hamburger wrap away?
When I first came to Australia, we stopped in Singapore. I was surprised, I was dumbfounded how clean the place was. The same happened in 1986 and in 1990. Two years ago, we went back to Singapore, and I could not believe how much litter was on the streets of Singapore. Every piece of litter was quietly marked with a particular trademark on it - pieces of paper used to wrap a multinational chain’s hamburgers. So, even the tough restrictions in Singapore did not stop people from throwing their wraps away and polluting. Is 5 reward per bottle or per container going to stop people? In my opinion, we have to change the attitude and perception of people, and the way they behave.
Again, I am not going to respond to what is going to happen with CDL. I cannot give you a hint, but one thing I am going to say is that we will consider all the issues with regards to container deposit legislation - all the implication for the Territory, on the individuals, on the communities, on the system, on the people who currently collect containers - and then we will respond appropriately. It will not be long; it will be a few weeks. Cabinet will consider the container deposit legislation and soon afterwards, we will advise you about the outcome and decision of the government.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I would like to thank both the member for Braitling and the minister for their contribution to the debate on CDL. There have been some terrific issues raised and I think this is probably the first time, minister, that I have heard you give what I might call a substantial summary of the issues. The issues you and the member for Braitling raised are very important issues. But some of those issues are not exactly right.
Instead of going through what you just said, I might raise them as I go through the container deposit legislation report that BIEC has decided to - it has been out for a while but I think we were only able to get a copy recently. From what I remember of this report, which is a bit of a crying shame, it did not go through that container deposit consultation process. It went directly to the government. You have to ask: ‘Well, why did it do that? Why didn’t it come through the process? Did they have something to hide?’ I think they had something to hide because when you read it, I believe that this document is made up of quite a lot of flaws. I might just go through this document and highlight some of those issues.
In the opening sentence under the executive summary, you will see what the whole packaging industry is about. This is the opening sentence of this report:
- This report concludes that a sustainable recycling system for the Northern Territory can be better achieved
through the concept of shared responsibility amongst all waste generating stakeholders rather than relying
upon a single use of legislative market instrumentation.
Then it says:
- Sustainable recycling as depicted below…
It has a diagram there which shows producers, consumers, non-government organisations, government all contributing to sustainable recycling:
- … it must be a win/win/win for all.
Well, what this conveniently forgets to say is that the packaging industry of today has created the throwaway packaging system where before we had a system where the industry was proactive in the return of packaging. That is, in the case of bottles, as the minister said, the consumer was encouraged to return those bottles by way of a refund. So before this whole debate occurred, before we had a throwaway society, we had CDL – that is only the modern term. We did not throw away bottles; we collected them. I should say to the minister: of course, you only got a small return on a bottle, but what you did get is you collected a whole heap of bottles and that gave you your money. I mean, no-one really bothered picking up one can, I suppose, but if you have several cans and you are collecting them to make some money, you will go around and pick them all up.
I do believe the deposit could be higher, but if we went into a program of CDL and we were not uniform with South Australia we would be very foolish. So, unless South Australia raise their deposit it would be very silly for us to do countenance that.
The packaging industry, as you can see in this document, is now trying to look squeaky clean and be a good citizen, and is wanting every one to be part of the shared responsibility as waste generating stakeholders. The so-called win/win/win for all defies logic. Someone loses when someone wins. One team is on top of the ladder and automatically one team will be on the bottom. You cannot all win/win/win otherwise the coaches would never get sacked in Aussie Rules.
The concept of shared responsibility can be seen more clearly when you see who pays for kerbside recycling: the consumer. The Darwin City Council pays a huge subsidy to a company to collect the recyclable who then do their best to recycle those products. With freight, low prices or at least variable prices, especially for glass, it is not an easy business. But in this whole process, who bears the main cost? The consumer. The ratepayer. Who does not? The beverage industry or the packaging industry. They will reluctantly take the product back as long as the consumer pays for it to be picked up and does not receive anything for it, sorts it out and transports it to their recycling centre where the lowest possible price for the product is paid.
The whole push by BIEC is a con. It has the resources, it has the power and has the money to make sure that they are the winners and the rest of the community are the losers. They will be lobbying everyone. I have been lobbied directly not long after I was elected by a representative of BIEC who came to tell me they were going to spend $16m or something on the ‘Do the right thing campaign’, a campaign that existed 20 or 30 years ago. They decided it was time to resurrect this. I thought this is all very strange and then found out that he came up from Sydney on behalf of BIEC to start the soft sell because he knew there was a change of government and he knew there would be a strong push to CDL.
In Darwin I have been dined out by our good friends Wayne Zerbe and Pauls Ltd. I am not knocking Wayne; Wayne was working for Pauls Ltd. But they were trying to convinced me that the Aboriginal communities would not accept this and it would be too complicated by having to barge stuff back in the Wet season, etcetera, and they were the issues that were raised today. I do not accept that, and the reason I do not accept it is because if you get a product in, you can get a product out. I mean, he didn’t drink the milk in the first place by some complicated method; it came in on a truck or on a barge, and that barge will be back in a couple of weeks time. It is not really rocket science to work out that you can take it back.
It may need some negotiation, but people have to remember that within this deposit is a certain amount of money set aside for freight, and I think people forget that. Exactly 5 deposit; in South Australia, you pay 8 more. As long as people are up front with that and know that that money is being used to help recycle, that’s what it is all about.
I was also recently surveyed by a company representing BIEC on the phone, and I was happy to give my ...
Dr Lim: Credentials.
Mr WOOD: No, I had to give my opinion on what I thought they were doing. I thought all they were doing was trying to basically tell people that CDL was no good. They wanted to know my opinion of the grouping, and I told them that as well. BIEC, of course, as I mentioned before, has been travelling through the Territory trying to sell their line. That is what they are good at. That is why this document is here today; it is meant to sell something.
When they have been lobbying the government very hard, I bet the doors have been also open. They know how to lobby; they are the experts. They showed their true colours when they would not put their point of view to the CDL committee set up by the previous government. They sent their comments, this document, straight to the government to avoid scrutiny by the committee and the public.
The packaging industry will continue to fight against CDL because it does not really want to take responsibility for the throw-away philosophy it invented. It will continue to churn out verbal rubbish like this statement, and I will give you a statement from page 3 of this document:
- CDL relies upon a nominal financial incentive to motivate people to recycle while kerbside and other
recycling and waste reduction schemes rely on people’s desire to directly contribute to a sustainable
environment. Any effect based on a monetary incentive does not last long in the Northern Territory
and only impacts on one segment of the waste stream.
That is the biggest turnaround of logic I have ever seen in my life. The reason it has been going for so long in South Australia is because it affects the hip pocket. People know they can get money for waste. Waste has become valuable. If you pretend you can rely upon people’s warm and fuzzy heart feeling good about returning all those cans and bottles, you are having yourself on. That is just the reverse of what actually happens, and it is meant to be real.
It also cites a low, dispersed population and large distances and climatic extremes as a reason why we shouldn’t have it. What is conveniently forgotten is that South Australia, were CDL works, has similar issues. Take Ceduna, Kangaroo Island, Marla Bore, they are all way out the back of whoop-whoop and have problems trying to get back to the main centres - and Pitjantjatjara country is way out in the desert! These people are able to use CDL quite okay. Why? Because the product comes into those communities and it goes back to where it came from.
What the author of the document does not take into account is that the product reaches the community, so it can go back the same way. CDL, as I said before, does have a freight component built in to it.
What is demonstrated in this document is a lack of understanding of the realities on the ground. This is what I call an airconditioned document. It has been compiled in an airconditioned office, and I do not believe it is really in touch with reality. Try this statement:
- Communities need to be able to bring waste products to conveniently located facilities for recycling.
That is what they are telling us we should do, but who would pay for that? It certainly would not be BIEC. Who sorts the product? Not BIEC. BIEC does not understand that rubbish, all rubbish, in most communities, perhaps with the exception of Darwin and Palmerston, is collected and dumped in the landfill. A small community could not sort that. But what CDL does, because it makes the containers valuable, is remove the rubbish before it reaches the landfill. If it does reach the landfill, I can bet you there will be people in that landfill removing it because it is valuable. If you had a few hundred aluminium cans in your land fill worth 5 each, I bet you there would be people taking it out because it has a value.
There has also been mention about whether people care because it is 5, or whether people would change their habits about littering. Well they perhaps will not. I think the best example is you will never convince a drunk leaving the pub that it is a really good idea not to throw my can on the road because I have got to do the right thing.
Ms Scrymgour: Done a few nights like that, have you, Gerry?
Mr WOOD: Sorry. No, no, I just have some theatrical experience in a French inn.
Ms Scrymgour: That almost looked real.
Mr WOOD: Yes. I can guarantee that, if it is worth some money, there will be someone come along and pick it up. This is not necessarily about training people in litter control or to stop littering; it is to make sure that those people who could not care two hoots about the mess that they have made will be fixed up by someone else, because someone else will come along and pick it up.
I used to go to the football when I was young. People used to leave all the soft drink bottles under the seats. What did we do? We used to run along and pick them up. Someone did not care about it. You can guarantee someone else will care about it because it is worth money. You should not have got me on this subject, member for Braitling.
I should make a couple of other comments. I think the member for Braitling also mentioned this section, and I reckon it is a classic. I am going through the reasons it states in this report why CDL will not work. Here is the classic one:
- However the Northern Territory is unique in a number of ways. First, there is a population that is
widely spread across a large land mass.
Well, you could say that for – what? - about 85% of the population of Australia. So what! It works in South Australia where I would say they are just as dispersed as we are. Second:
- The Northern Territory is characterised as a home for diverse cultures.
Well, blow me down! What has that got to do with the price of fish? Here is what they say.
- The prevalence of a culturally diverse population impacts on perception of what constitutes waste
and how behaviour, including waste behaviour, is affected by monetary transactions.
Talk about up with the fairies! I am sure people know what rubbish is. It does not matter where you come from. Rubbish is rubbish; litter is litter. This whole thing, the whole idea of CDL, is to overcome all that. It will be worth the money. If a particular culture did not like it, I am sure someone else will pick up the product and get some return.
He says:
- This is particularly relevant to indigenous communities.
Third:
- A large land mass is affected culturally in this respect, as any additional waste disposal and recycling
facility will be subjected to native title legislation.
The member for Braitling has said enough about that, and her description of it as being garbage is spot on.
We come to an issue about increasing the collection and recycling of waste materials. This is another area that the report covers. It says:
- All of the proposed strategies are fundamentally of non-monetary nature as previous attempts at changing
behavior through monetary incentives did not have a sustained impact on behavioral shifts. For example,
the initiative to use returnable shopping trolleys at Casuarina Shopping Centre for a 20 coin deposit had
to be abandoned soon after its introduction.
He does not say why, but I know that I used to try and get my 20 back and you would not, because the whole system really was not thought out properly. It was not easy to get your money back, and they took if off the market because people got the old lever in there and tried to get the money out, anyway. It was a system that was open for vandalism and theft. To try and compare that with what we are talking about is just a red herring.
I reckon this is a classic, too:
- Another monetary initiative that was also abandoned shortly after its introduction was the collection
of aluminum cans.
That is why I say this has been made by some airconditioned recluse because I see cash-a-can everywhere - Humpty Doo, Howard Springs. You get money back for cans. It is a deposit system. You get something like an eighth of a can. It depends on the value of aluminum. But you can put down a monetary value to each can. And why is aluminum the highest returnable product in the Northern Territory? Because it has a monetary value on it. Because you can get some money back when you take it to the Scouts. It is just amazing to see a statement like that. How can you believe this document when it makes silly statements like that?
Then it talks about kerbside recycling, and it makes this classic statement:
- Other major urban centres, such as Alice Springs, Litchfield …
I make Litchfield the comment here:
- … Katherine, Tennant Creek, Nhulunbuy and Jabiru could introduce similar recycling systems
for householders.
I do not know whether the person who wrote this has been to Litchfield. It is a big area. It costs a fortune to have kerbside recycling. The other thing, of course, is that we do not have any kerbs. Well, we have a few. I honestly do not believe that the person has looked at the reality of what goes on.
- It says here:
- Improving Waste Behaviour: Waste generated in public areas such as sports grounds, parks, schools,
shopping centres, airports, street bins and so forth does not get sent back to the recycling stream
because of contamination and co-mingling with non-recyclable items.
I do not believe that you are going to be able to have recycling containers at Timber Creek or on the highway simply because no one is going to be able to pick the stuff up. I do not think the concepts discussed have taken any account or demonstrate any understanding of who would pay. It will not be BIEC paying, it will be some little community council trying to pay for products that are probably uneconomic to recycle.
It also says:
- Because we have such small populations, including Darwin and Palmerston, there will be a sense of social
stigmatisation that renders the unique opportunity for improving waste especially as everyone knows
everyone else.
Well, blow me down! I do not know people that well that I know who dropped that can or threw that bottle out. I think it would be a bit harder in Darwin. I do not know where he gets ‘stigmatisation’ from.
Their solution to some of this is to encourage people to put recyclable material in designated collection bins. Again, all they want is people to put them in the bins. Who picks them up? Who gets rid of the product? In a lot of cases, they just go back into landfill. This is not the solution. The reason CDL is good is because not only does it pick it up, it separates it, and it pays for it to go back to the area that it came from. That is what the crux of this is: it automatically separates. All you have to do is say to a consumer: ‘We will not give you your deposit until you have separated your glass from your aluminium from your plastic’, and so the products will come in separated. So you do not have to have big separation: As long as you bring it in separated, you will get your money. If you do not bring it in separated, you take it home and start again. So, there are some great advantages in the operation of CDL.
Finally, it needs to be reinforced why CDL is so good, and the member for Braitling did touch on it before. It certainly will reduce landfill. I do not see any notion here - when you are talking about working out the economy, do they work out the effect of the reduced money spent on landfill? It says that only 20% of the product is theirs - that is, in bottles and cans and stuff - but I am not sure what 80% means. Is it 80% of weight, volume; or number? It does not explain. But I can tell you if you go down to a landfill site, you will see an awful lot of plastic bottles, and they take up an awful lot of space, and they do not break down.
CDL will increase recycling amounts. If you have been to South Australia, you will know that recycling amounts in South Australia are higher than all other states. Also, in South Australia kerbside recycling is still in operation. If you go to a council, as I have been to West Torrens Council, they will tell you that both of them can co-exist, and it increases the amount of product that they receive by having them both operating. There, the council picks up the material and it gets the materials as well. Perhaps that is the problem with outsourcing your kerbside recycling, but in South Australia those councils get that money. It certainly lowers the litter.
There is talk about it not helping the economy. What it does not look at is that what it helps is the mini-economy. Those kids picking up the cans in the community or on the street out the front here or something, they are helping the mini-economy; because what happens? They will go along to the shop and buy another drink. So you actually have a little economy that is operating because some people, some kids, some communities saw some entrepreneurial benefits in picking them up for money. I call that the mini-economy. It is probably called the micro-economy by the economist. There is also the mini-employment - that is a form of employment. All right, it might be part-time, but that is employment.
The minister touched on this: should we increase the amount of products that CDL covers? Could I ask for an extension of time?
Mrs Braham: We only have two hours, that is the trouble.
Ms LAWRIE: Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the member be granted an extension of time such that he may conclude his remarks.
Motion agreed to.
Mrs Braham: For one minute.
Mr WOOD: Okay, I will be as quick as I can. Thank you, member for Braitling, but you are not in the Chair at the moment.
I also believe that it should cover a large range of other products, anything from liquid soap containers to baked bean tins. I have no problem with that and a lot of times that is what the industry complains about. But you could not do it as a territory unless South Australia did it because we are too small for that. We certainly should look at that.
This document’s total reason for existing is to put down CDL, and the basis upon which they try to destroy CDL is based on false assumptions. It is a bit sad that such a document has hit the light of day. Well, it is probably not sad because now we know what the industry thinks. But I do not think it is really worth the paper it is written on.
____________________________
Distinguished Visitors
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, before we go on, I would like to draw your attention to a very patient delegation of visitors from the Queensland parliament: Mr Neil Roberts, member for Nudgee, who is also Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Employment, Training and Youth and Minister for the Arts; Mr Andrew McNamara, member for Hervey Bay; and Mr Robert Poole, member for Gaven. I am sure you will join me in wishing members well and welcoming them to the Northern Territory parliament.
Members: Hear, hear!
____________________________
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I will not take as long, not even as fraction as long as the member for Nelson but, as we all know, he is passionate about his issues.
I wanted to put on the record that I, too, share the concerns about the indiscriminate dumping of litter in our society, how it is essentially clogging up our environment and, in my view, there need to be a raft of actions taken to ensure that environmental litter is well and truly reduced and, hopefully, as some examples from around the world demonstrate, are removed from our society altogether.
In that vein, I congratulate the member for Braitling for bringing on this Matter of Public Importance which gives us an opportunity to debate it today.
Obviously, as a member of government, I am aware of the hard work that has been going on since we took government by our Minister for the Environment. He has not been shy in progressing this issue at all within government. He has had extensive discussions with all stakeholders in this debate and has sought advice from the departments and has a very clear and intimate understanding and knowledge of this issue. Rest assured that our government has not been idle on the issue of container deposit legislation unlike, shall I say, the opposition.
The CLP had 27 years to introduce CDL and they did not. When the former Leader of the Opposition, Maggie Hickey, time and time again called for its introduction in this Chamber, what occurred? Nothing. So I will listen with interest to the member opposite and what he has to say in contribution to this debate because we are getting a little sick and tired of the hypocrisy coming from the other side.
Labor is, as I say, on record as supporting CDL in this Chamber. We are coming from the perspective of not being against it and not being negative to it but obviously, in government, we have to look very carefully at the details, whether it is practical, whether we have the resources available to actually implement it properly. The reason I say this is because overall, there are a number of ways in which to tackle the issue of litter.
First of all, we can ensure that people are aware that everyone is a contributor to this issue. They are contributors to both a solution as well as the problem. We need to make them aware that there are some fairly simple things that everyone can do to reduce the amount of litter in the environment. This is basically the reason the government continues to provide funding to the Keep Australia Beautiful Council of $160 000 per year and with a considerable amount of in-kind support.
We are wholeheartedly behind the Keep Australia Beautiful Council, specifically the work they deliver throughout the Territory and particularly in our remote communities through the Territory Tidy Towns projects and competition. I will make a note that I will be attending the awards ceremony coming up in November. To any member who has not had the opportunity to attend a Territory Tidy Town awards presentation, I really recommend that you get along there because it is a wonderful example of the partnerships that can occur to create what I call community renewal at the local level. Keep Australia Beautiful Council have been doing that for some years now with tremendous successes in our communities and, indeed, our more remote communities that I believe were the subject of abject neglect of the previous CLP regime. Thank God they have gone.
We could look at making people who produce what becomes the litter pay the cost or part of the cost for picking up the rubbish and properly disposing of it. For many years, the Beverage Industry Environmental Council has paid money to the Territory Anti-Litter Committee which in later years has been paid directly to Keep Australia Beautiful. This money, some $250 000 per annum, until this year, had been a substantial and important component of the money used by Keep Australia Beautiful for a whole range of programs and these programs, as you heard me say, have brought tremendous results in our remote communities. There are other legislative mechanisms that could be used to target businesses that produce the material that ultimately becomes litter. But none of these are on the agenda at the moment.
We could also make the people who litter pay. This is the approach taken by the Litter Act which has fines for those who litter. There is a difficulty with this legislation, though, in that it is extremely difficult to obtain the information that will stand up as evidence in court so that we can actually nail someone for the offence of littering.
We could also make litter valuable. This is the approach that puts a value into litter. Sometimes you can get this through recycling from the value of, say, the aluminium in cars or the rubber in tyres. Recycling in the Territory we know is problematic in many areas owing, as speakers in this debate today have said, to our size and population.
Another way is to use container deposit legislation which is the subject of today’s discussion.
So all four strategic approaches probably need to be looked at as a coordinated approach to really deliver an effective way to combat litter in our society. The solution to most problems, as we all know, is not a one-shoe-fits-all solution. There is not just the one, simple answer. This is why the Minister for the Environment has been very carefully and diligently moving through the arguments for and against CDL, the practical aspects of CDL and how it can be delivered, what the cost impact would be, not just in the major towns of Darwin and Alice Springs. Quite clearly, we have a commitment in this government to ensure that we are not putting any extra burden on the people who are the most disadvantaged, that is Territorians living in remote communities.
In that vein, I would also like to commend the efforts of our Minister for Community Development because he has always been a tremendous supporter of Keep Australia Beautiful who are the protagonists in trying to pursue this CDL legislation. I know Lorna Woods who quite effectively operates Keep Australia Beautiful here, and I have had many conservations with her on this subject. The Minister for Community Development has shown his support. He is continuing to fund Keep Australia Beautiful and he is a big fan of the tremendous work they do in our remote and regional communities.
Yet, as I said, balanced with this is the need to ensure that any CDL does not have a negative economic impact on our regional and remote communities. How do we recycle in remote areas? How do we transport from remote areas? All of these details and issues that our Minister for the Environment has already raised in this debate are details that government has to sort out to the nth degree before Cabinet can actually consider suggested legislation.
I remind members that we have been in government one year. The minister responsible has already indicated there will be a Cabinet discussion on a Cabinet submission on this subject after just one year. Meanwhile, the CLP had 27 years and nothing occurred. One review that many people argued was terminally flawed because of its terms of reference. Unlike the member for Nelson, the beverage industry council has not been near me, they are not even trying to lobby me, maybe I am a little too green for them, I do not know.
I look at both of the arguments. I have seen the submissions by the beverage industry council. I am not going to go into the detail of discussion on those submissions, but what I will say to Keep Australia Beautiful, who have been delivering fine work on behalf of Territorians on the ground in remote communities - take heart. This is under active consideration and it will go to Cabinet for discussion. It obviously will be part of Caucus discussions, and give people like myself the opportunity to participate further in this debate. Indeed, discussions with government are continuing, and, quite rightly, should continue through this entire process of looking into the detail, really burrowing down into just what it means and just what its implications to our society, both socially and economically, are.
I believe that Labor is, of all parties in Australian political history, the most fundamentally supportive of any initiatives to reduce litter in our society. To this end, I will continue to support the good work and efforts of Keep Australia Beautiful. I will continue to work with the members for Braitling and Nelson who I know share concern about litter in our society. Most importantly, I will make sure that the excellent work of our Minister for the Environment and the strong commitments by our Minister for Community Development do not go unrecognised. I support them in their efforts to, after many years of debate on CDL in the Territory, find the details required for solutions – a range of solutions – to the litter problem that exists.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I join in congratulating the member for Braitling for bringing this MPI on for debate today. It has been a while coming, and I am glad to see that, at long last, government is also dealing with it. I am surprised to hear the minister say that his public position is well known. Yet, if you listened closely to what he had to say in the debate this afternoon, I was not quite sure whether he was in favour or not in favour of CDL. Maybe that is the difficulty. As the member for Karama said, in government, one has to be very careful how one plots these sorts of strategies for the Territory.
This report, a report to the Northern Territory Minister for the Environment, the Hon Kon Vatskalis MLA on container deposit consultation, was presented in May 2002, five months ago. It was not recently presented to him, but presented quite some time ago, and only recently has there been a Cabinet submission to be considered.
I think it is important to note that CDL will obviously help with the litter situation in the Northern Territory, and when you compare the Northern Territory to South Australia, it might be an indication that CDL does indeed work. I went to a CPA conference in South Australia a few months ago during which container deposit legislation in South Australia was a topic of discussion. I drew the member for Braitling’s attention to that paper, and the issues that were discussed that day.
I do not think I need to go into the detail as to the benefits as seen by the South Australian people, nor the benefits as outlined in this report that was presented to the minister. There was an item in the South Australian report to the CPA conference that did concern me a little, and was alluded to by the member for Braitling. It was about the issue of extended producer responsibility or EPR. EPR, if I may elaborate on that a little, was first used early this decade by Thomas Lindquist, to describe a policy shift in Europe and supposedly now gaining support throughout the industrialised world. Lindquist was a Swedish professor of Environmental Economics, and he defined EPR as this:
- It is an environment protection strategy to reach an environmental objective of a decreased total environment
impact from a product, making the manufacturer of the product responsible for the entire life cycle of the
product and especially for the take-back, recycling and final disposal of the product.
The way I see it, consumers also produce rubbish. We have to take some responsibility ourselves; you cannot just blame somebody for the rubbish that you produce yourself. For goodness sake, we have to deal with it, dispose of it in a way that is environmentally friendly. To say that it is all entirely the producer’s fault, the manufacturer’s fault, is again, living in a fool’s world where you blame somebody else for the actions you create yourself. Therefore, I would suggest to people that, if EPR is being considered, think it through carefully. We, the final users of the product, must take responsibility for the disposal of the product, too. Otherwise it will always be somebody else’s problem and not ours, and then where does that go?
There are issues about costs and whether the cost is to the manufacturer or to the consumer. The member for Nelson brought up the issue about bush communities and how they deal with recycled or reclaimed containers. As the Chairman of the Select Committee on Territory Food Prices, we looked into the cost of food in bush communities and we realised that it is quite expensive to buy food out there. It will definitely escalate the cost of beverages and other foods that are purchased in containers. As it is now, the cost of buying food out there with limited welfare funds causes hardship. Will this add another burden to bush communities? Will it be offset by the money received from the container deposit? I do not think so because, while the member for Nelson says the recycled containers will come out the same way it went in, which is through transport, somebody has to pay for the transport. Who is going to pay for that? Ultimately, it is the community or the business person who promotes the container recycling. So, somewhere, somehow, those finances need to be worked through.
It is important for all these issues to be discussed thoroughly, and we must be sure that whatever system that is introduced, or not introduced, into the Territory, is the right one. I would like to see the minister be a little more - not so much hasty - but a little more expeditious in getting this through. He has had this report now for five months, and it will be interesting to see what his Cabinet colleagues think about the matter.
When I was the Minister for Local Government and considering this issue myself, the matter of the Mutual Recognition Act was never raised. However, in retrospect, having discussed it with several other people, it is a significant hurdle to the possibility of introducing CDL in the Territory. It appears that we might have to look at a national level of agreement to allow this to be enacted - not only in the Territory but across the country - and that will pose another major debate about whether every state and other territory will want to have CDL.
The comments made by the member for Nelson about the beverage industry probably was a little unfair. I found it humorous in the sarcastic way he got stuck into the beverage industry. In my discussions with the beverage industry, they were interested in seeing a level playing field. We pick on beverages only. What about the other foods that are in containers like cereal boxes, cartons and other plastics. How do we deal with that? The bigger the range of containers we take on to deal with, the more difficult the process will be to try and address our litter problem.
Maybe CDL might be a good way to do it. Take it in small chunks and bring that on first and then consider the other type of containers at a later stage. But if that were the case, I believe the beverage industry needs to be reassured that is something the government will look at, otherwise it will continue to argue that it is unfair to that industry only having to bear the brunt of the costs of container returns.
It is important for the government to encourage communities and people in the Territory to be conscious about their litter. It is important that we promote that the consumer is literally the last arbiter as to what happens to the container that they used. If we do not take the responsibility ourselves, obviously the litter will still be there no matter what anybody does. If you put $10 to the can, if you do not treat it with any respect, it will still be littered everywhere.
I hope the government will be expeditious with what it does with this legislation and at least tell the Territory whether it wants to bring it on or not bring it on because we still do not know. I look forward to hearing from the minister in the next few weeks perhaps, and I congratulate the member for Braitling for bringing it on.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr HENDERSON (Business, Industry and Resource Development): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise tonight to talk of a very important celebration that recently incurred in the Hermannsburg community which is in my electorate. I had a great time there. It was a triple celebration: 125 years since the arrivals of the Lutherans in the area, 100 years since Albert Namatjira’s birth, and 20 years of self and local government in the Hermannsburg area. Indeed, my colleague, the erstwhile member for Greatorex, also attended and we had a great time there together. I got to spend the night there and enjoy the enthusiasm and hospitality of the community which always makes me welcome when I go out there. It is something I am grateful for.
The celebration went over several days while I was there. I have to say that I had a very good time with the local community. They had any number of parts of the celebration. The Lutherans arrived en masse. There would have easily been 100 to 150 Lutherans there and people who formerly worked in the area of Hermannsburg were also there, and it was great to see them there. People like Pastor Paul Albrecht, who was around up until a few years ago in Alice Springs, and Gary Stolle, another great fellow who worked in the Lutheran area. I was delighted to see that they were still received by the people of the Hermannsburg community with open arms.
The famous Ian McNamara, or ‘Macca’, who does the Australia All Over show on Sunday mornings in the wee small hours did his show from that area because of the celebrations. We had many people - Maccarights, I suppose you would call them - attend to worship Macca. I have to say that I enjoyed sitting there and watching him do his show. It was great to see people like John Brockbank talk about the teaching that he does in that area and let the people of Australia know what is still happening in that community.
I have to say that this community is finding its feet again. It is going definitely in the right direction under the leadership of Gus Williams, and people assisting him, like Elena Alcorta and Steve Scarlett and Les and Julie Smith who are very great supporters of what happens out there. They have helped to make the place a success.
I went to a concert on the Saturday night while the celebrations were going on, and I got to see both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people climb up on the stage and have a sing song, and it was great to see ...
Dr Burns: Did you have a sing?
Dr Lim: Yes! He was on stage himself, yes.
Mr ELFERINK: It was great to see Sammy Butcher with his kids. These are kids that he has brought under his wing. Unfortunately, for various reasons, these kids have been orphaned. We are talking about kids of about eight or nine. They climbed up on the stage, and I have to say I was expecting to see them play a few bars of a simple song, and we would all applaud politely. Well, I was absolutely blown away. I closed my eyes and the only reason the drummer occasionally missed a bass beat on what were terrific pieces of reggae was because his legs were too short to reach the bass pedal on the drum and so every so often, while he was concentrating on other stuff, the odd bass note was missed.
The kids on the guitars were brilliant, the kids on the drums were brilliant. They got another young fellow on the drums, he would have been about four or five years old - couldn’t see him until such time as he went ballistic on these drums and all you saw were these sticks flying around. These kids are being looked after by Sammy Butcher who was a guitarist in a much more famous band, the Warrumpi Band. The kids were obviously relishing it, and I have to say that Sammy looked for all the world like a proud parent, sort of poking and prodding and making sure that everything worked just wonderfully.
We sat there, listened into the late night, had a bit of a dance in the desert sands in front of the stage, traditional and non-traditional folk. I had a blast; I had an absolutely terrific time. The next morning, of course, we had Macca and later on in the day, we had the service, and I was grateful for the opportunity to present a small gift to the people of Hermannsburg for their achievements. Gus Williams was kind enough to receive that. Then the band struck up again, and on this occasion I was, unfortunately, called up to the stage to sing a quick song, and …
Dr Burns: Which song?
Mr ELFERINK: I pick up on the question from the member for Johnston. The song was Country Road.
Mr Henderson: Used to be one of my favourites when I was about 12.
Mr ELFERINK: If there is ever, I suppose, a John Denver crimes trial, I will be first to the gallows. But anyway, it was great fun, and the mood there the whole weekend was brilliant. There was no grog that I was aware of, everybody was having a great time. Elva Cook came out from Injartnama with her kids.
I love going to these sorts of shows. Okay, so you end up sitting in dirt and doing all those sorts of things, but there is a real sense of family at these occasions. Coming from a small family myself, with only a few siblings with my father passed on and my brother working in the United States, I sometimes look at the large extended families of Aboriginal people and the way that they just stick together through thick and thin with envious eyes. I have to confess to an element of enviousness on those occasions. The sense of community in Hermannsburg is strong, vibrant, healthy and you can have an extraordinary amount of fun with the folk who live there, and I was able to do that on this occasion.
Since coming into parliament and spending time in Aboriginal communities, particularly Hermannsburg, I have seen a whole other side of Aboriginal people that I never seen, and I thought I knew, when I was a member of the police force. But naturally, of course, what you do not realise when you are member of the police force is that there is a whole part of that population that you never have anything to do with simply because you never have any cause to. Since entering parliament five years ago, I have learned to appreciate that there are great people out there, and you can have a great relationship with those folk, and I consider myself blessed to be able to have those relationships, and hope that that situation continues.
The parliament should be aware of what is happening in Hermannsburg; it is starting to move ahead with a real sense of direction. I certainly hope that they go from strength to strength. Not that long ago, I was presented with a shirt from the women of Hermannsburg, and that shirt was made out of silk. Now, they normally do this silk for wall hangings. Without a word of a lie, I went to a function in Darwin - it is a fairly tropical shirt and indeed, it is a unique shirt – and somebody started offering me money for the shirt. Naturally, I refused. But those offers reached $1000, which is an extraordinary thing. It shows you the level of interest which is shown in these sorts of art work, and the way that this sort of art work catches the people’s eye. I hope that the commercial potential of this sort of art work is completely ramped up so that these people who live in Hermannsburg can make a wonderful income for themselves and strengthen their community and their family in the process.
I have to voice my congratulations to this Chamber, and to the people of the Northern Territory, and all the parliamentarians who are listening, to the people of Hermannsburg and Gus Williams. They did a terrific job, and I thank the Northern Territory government for finally spending some money on the occasion, after some badgering. They handed over some $10 000 so that the celebration could be a success. That enabled the community also to put on a few fireworks that night, and their fireworks display truly gave the occasion a sense of celebration. There is nothing like a desert night sky, where there is no other light available, to sit down and watch a fireworks display because it really is a treat for the eyeballs.
I congratulate them. I wish all of those people who live there the very best. I know that they have a wonderful future. I hope that other communities start looking at Hermannsburg and start taking direction from Hermannsburg, because I think it bodes well for the whole of Central Australia as a community.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Mr Deputy Speaker, on 24 August, I attended the Legends of Motor Sports spectacular at Hidden Valley. I was invited by a constituent, Mr Chris Willes from Jingili, who has had a long association with motor sport in Darwin. This particular night was organised by Phil Brock, who is Peter’s younger brother, and it included legends such as Peter Brock, Gary Rush, George Tatnell, John Goss, Alan Grice, Jim Richards, Murray Carter and Gary Rogers. I am mindful of this, because I know that the people out there at Hidden Valley are going through very tough times at present, and I know that Chris Willes is very committed to motor sport. He has approached me and I have tried to advocate on behalf of motor sport, but it is a very difficult situation there.
On 25 August, I was a competitor in the inaugural Dragons Abreast Regatta, along with Trish Crossin, Marion Scrymgour, Delia Lawrie, and Marg Wheeler amongst others. Our coach was Alan Culbertson who, I believe, is the NT coach. We came up against a far stronger and experienced team in the CLP team. They certainly had better uniforms than us, and I guess they wiped the bay with us. But we tried our best. We were amateurs, we tried our best, and we had a lot of fun competing
Dr Lim: Those who fail to prepare, prepare to fail.
Dr BURNS: Thank you, member for Greatorex. We did try our best, and I offer my hearty congratulations to the CLP who were great winners, and they won with great spirit, with great humility. I guess we lost with humility too, because we were humiliated - no, we were not humiliated; we tried our best and we gave it a shot in the true, good old Australian tradition. There was money raised for charity and I commend Trish Crossin for getting a team together. I think she wants to get a team together again next year although, unless there are changes to the rules or the composition of the teams, it will be an inevitable result. But let us see what happens next year.
On 25 August, I attend the Blessing of the Fleet by Stella Maris. That is an organisation which is very active in looking after the welfare of seafarers. There was a barbeque back at Stella Maris after the Blessing of the Fleet. Father Peter Woods went around – it was very interesting - offering a blessing to each prawn trawler and boat. All the sailors accepted that blessings very gratefully. There was a Mass said there and prayers, and it was a great gathering of people. We had a barbeque later back at Stella Maris with Jack and Margaret Evans who, unfortunately, left the Territory to go to Canberra to be closer with their family. They have done great work with St Vincent de Paul and Stella Maris over many years. Norman Douglas and Mrs Shirley Davies, who is a constituent of mine, is also a great supporter of St Vincent de Paul and Stella Maris; Brother Allan Kinane were also there. Peter O’Dwyer, Michael Sheehan, Val Kirk who is stalwart of St Vincent de Paul out there at Bakhita, and Les and Clare Fern who do great work for St Vincent de Paul.
On 25 August, I was invited to be the Returning Officer for the Filipino Community Council of the Northern Territory. I was honoured by that. It was attended, amongst others, by Tina Black, Elena Ralph, Fele Mann, Laila Galang, Nanette Thiel, Judith Ventic, Lorenzo Carino, Rose Tanquatco, Lyn Donaire and Narcisa Carino. We had the elections, we had a meal, and it was a great get together. They are a great group; representatives from all the various Filipino community groups.
On 27 August, I attended the senior citizens group at Casuarina and presented a cheque to support them with funds from the Lottery Fund, which they used to buy CDs and a CD player. I am sure they will come in very handy in the months leading up to Christmas. I always commend Mrs Doris Ford, who is a great worker for that group. Doris is a great person and very well respected. Mr Arsenio de Guzman is always there and working hard on the door. Peggy Ang sets up before everyone arrives. Marie Heavey cleans up after lunch, along with help from others. Audrey Ellis, Kerry Harkin, June Daley, who lives in Amsterdam Circuit and is very active in the community, also helps prepare lunch. Loraine Watts gives general help. Frieda Brocker keeps that important birthday book and helps calling numbers for tables for lunch. The mighty bingo caller, Pat Wright, does a fantastic job.
On 29 August, I intended a very interesting talk by His Excellency, Mr Allaster Cox, who is the Australian High Commissioner to Bandar Seri Begawan, or Brunei. He was an excellent speaker and I certainly got a lot of information about one of our near neighbours, an area that is very important economically for the Territory. Of course, there is an important airline link there also.
On 30 August, I attended the Jingili Primary School father’s day breakfast. There were a lot of people there helping. Jill, Peter, Allan and Sam Sommerville are great helpers for the school and they put in a lot and they really help out with these barbeques. Of course, Peter is a professional chef and it shows in his sons who can also cook up a mean sausage and barbecue. They certainly put me to shame. Glenda Sutardy was there. Quito and Joan Washington – Quito is probably known to members of the Assembly. Quito’s kids go to Jingili Primary School. Also there were Elaine Hellyer, Lindsay Cleak, Leanne and Ben Vincent, Marg Woolley, Luke and Jarod Eggins, Robyn Levick, Nena Zanos and Leigh Lockley. This breakfast raised about $263 profit and the raffle profit was approximately $100. So, a tidy little fundraiser for the Jingili Primary School.
On 30 August, I attended Deva Desai’s fundraiser dinner. She was seeking sponsorship and funds to attend the Hague International Model United Nations Parliament for Youth. Mr Bharat and Mrs Priya Desai of Moil have a restaurant called the Passage to India which serves great food. It is off the Mall, and I commend it to members. There was a good crowd there and although there was a tinge of sadness because one of the teachers at Casuarina Senior College had recently passed away. It raised quite a lot of funds and Deva is quite an articulate young woman with a great future. I think she will represent the Territory well in this youth model parliament in the Hague. Also there was Dr Vino Kulkarni and Sabaratam Prathapan who lives in Wulagi, who is very active in the ethnic community.
On 31 August, I attended the Cypriot Cultural and Wine Festival and had quite a number of drinks with a constituent of mine, Mr Andreas Demetriou. We had a great night. He and I got up and danced. I probably made a fool of myself, but he is one fantastic dancer and people in the Greek and Cypriot communities love to watch him dance. He puts so much energy into it and he just has so much stamina. Of course, my landlord and friend, Mr John Nikolakis, was there and it is always great to see him there and Leo Athanasiou who always shows great hospitality and cooks a pretty great barbecued octopus which I always enjoy. Leo is always a great host.
On the same night many of us attended the Barrio Fiesta Festival at the Filipino Community Centre. There was a cast of about a thousand helpers but officers of FAANT, John Rivas, President and 2002 coordinator of the festival, Apol Craufurd, vice president, Cristesta Salandanan, treasurer and Virginia Sharpe, secretary plus the executive committee. These people are involved in all areas of the fiesta organisation such as the pageantry direction, stage decoration, trophy and stage art design, sash designs, floral bouquets, equipment hire, sound and lighting, DJs, souvenir program editing and production and sale, raffle ticketing, invitations, parking, sponsorship, drink stall, ground preparation and clean-up and stage managing. There was a very impressive Filipino international singer, Dulce Amor, who entertained the crowd that night. At the Barrio Fiesta, Niressa Fenis, a student at Wagaman Primary was crowned Princess of the Community Festival so I congratulate Niressa.
On 1 September, I attended the Blind Bowlers 10th anniversary celebrations. There was a triples event. I attended for a short while and I know the member for Port Darwin was in there competing; she had a team together. I know the Health minister also attended later in the day and I guess she will be speaking about that. Winners were Mick Petrovic, Cherie Lewis, Brian Smith just beating Andy Cruse, Bronwyn Butler, who is known to us, and Bill McGrath. During the prize giving Laurie Reed was asked to step up and receive the inaugural Life Membership of the Northern Territory Blind Bowlers Association. Laurie was a founding member and his dedication, selfless work and consideration over the past decade was recognised. I also recognise the work of Mr Dave Byars who does a great job for the blind bowlers.
On 11 September, I unveiled the Traveller’s Walk mosaic art work by Mr Ro Koch-Laurie who is a very famous artist here in Darwin. There is some controversy about Stuart’s Spire, but I will not comment on the disagreement that happened there. I can commend this mosaic that Mr Koch-Laurie has constructed. It is down there near Stella Maris on the Walk and it is in the form of a compass that is also the wheel of a ship. There are a lot pictures that are ceramic, shards of various things and commentary in there. It is a very interesting mosaic and Ro Koch-Laurie is to be commended. It is a very impressive piece of art. I have actually opened another piece of Mr Koch-Laurie’s work in the Jingili Water Gardens and that was fantastic, too, because he was getting disabled people involved in producing art. He is a very community minded person. Once again, Mrs Shirley Davies and Mr Davies were there. They are constituents of mine, very active in St Vincent de Paul and also the Stella Maris. Father Peter Woods blessed the mosaic. Les and Clare Fern were there and it was a great morning. Once again, we had a barbecue. So that was fantastic.
On 11 September I presented a cheque to the Jingili School for a bubbler and seating at their fitness track. That was from the Lotteries Fund. Present at that Council meeting were Lesley Wilcox, Ursula Sulatycki-Holloway, who does a great job as the Secretary, Lynne Strathie who is the chair, Jill Sommerville, Leanne Vincent, Janet King, Charise Boase, Robyn Levick and Kathy Brown. I commend all of those members of the Jingili School Council. They really get in there and work. There are good things happening around the Jingili School in terms of their fitness track.
On 13 September I attend a luncheon at the NT Minerals Council and the guest speaker was Mike Lane from Woodside. That was a very, very interesting presentation which elicited a lot of discussion and questions from the floor.
I am not going to steal the member for Millner’s thunder because I attended his special function at the Kalymnian Club, and I am sure he will go into a lot of detail of that. There were literally hundreds of people there and everyone had a fantastic time. Great music. But I want to commend Frank Moukaddem and George Mu who work so tirelessly for the Labor Party. They do so much, and they really supported Matthew and helped him organise and cater for this function. I know they have recently helped the member for Sanderson with his function. So Frank and George, thanks very much. You are great workers for the party and it is very, very much appreciated.
On 14 September I attended the St Mary’s Build-Up Ball. I have a connection with St Mary’s, having been a past Chairman of that Council. The ball was at the MGM Grand. It was great to see Sister Helen Little, the principal, there. It is sad to hear that she is moving on. She has done such a great job there and she will be sorely missed. Sue Goodrich, a teacher who taught my daughter, was there. It was great to catch up with Sue. Bishop Ted Collins said grace. It is good to see Bishop Ted looking well and getting around town.
I think I might just leave it there, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am only two pages through quite a few pages which I will deliver next week.
Mr VATSKALIS (Casuarina): I will be very brief, Mr Deputy Speaker. First of all, I would like to thank very much all the people who supported me during the recent fund raising for Kids with Cancer. It was an event that was organised by Dripstone High School. I have to admit my wife came home - she teaches at Dripstone – and asked me if I would like to participate in an event to raise money for kids with cancer. Very cleverly, she did not mention what the event will include. I said ‘yes’ and then she popped the secret that I had to cut my hair very short.
I made the silly comment that if I raise more than $10 000, I am prepared to shave my head. I have to say that the principal of the school, Ms Marion Guppy and the organiser of the event, Mr Greg Solento, deserve all the thanks from all the participants and all the kids who have benefitted from this event. The Cancer Council of the Northern Territory advised me that the money that we raised through the fundraising event at Dripstone will be used not only to buy equipment for the kids who have to stay at a hostel to undergo chemotherapy but also to produce video tapes appropriate for children from the Territory since some of the video tapes they use today are produced in Canada and they have to dub them with Australian language to make them more familiar to children.
I was very impressed with the responses of people who, when they heard that I was fund raising for Kids with Cancer, generously donated to me not $5, $10 or $20 but up to $1000. It does not matter how much money they donated, the significance was the gesture of donating money. I am not going to name everybody here. I am prepared to provide the list of names to Hansard to be incorporated but I would like to thank very much, everybody, all my colleagues in government, ministers and backbenchers, but also I would like to thank people from the other side who also very generously donated money to me. I would like to thank Mr Terry Mills, the member for Blain, Daryl Manzie, ex-member for Sanderson. I would also like to thank the Palmerston Business Association, who generously donated, Mr Neville Walker, Dr Len Notaras, John Elferink, the member for Macdonnell, George Kapetas, Nick Mitaros, his Honour the Administrator, John Anictomatis, Mr Alan Garraway, Mr Martin Jarvis, the member for Nelson, Mr Gerry Wood, the member for Braitling, Mrs Loraine Braham, the member for Daly, Tim Baldwin, Mr Shane Stone, Mr David Tollner, member for Solomon, David Malone, Herbie, Mr Michael Spadaccini. There was a list of people who donated money. Of course the difficulty now is trying to catch up with all these people to hand the money over. Quite a few people already donated the money, and it is a matter of time before I take the others. All these people are going to receive is a thank you letter and a receipt because the donation is tax deductible.
I ended up with a very shiny head, but only for a few hours; hair tends to come back very quickly. I am very proud that I was part of this fundraising event, and I am very proud that the money raised will go towards a worthwhile cause and I am prepared to do it again next year, so put some money aside, because I am going to ask more people in this House to donate money. Thank you very much to all of you for your support and thanks very much for everybody who donated from $1 to $1000 or whatever you donated, it is just as important.
I would also like to pay tribute tonight to one of my constituents, and a long time supporter of the Australian Labor Party, Miss Rowena Stroud, known to friends and family as ‘Aunty Ro’. Aunty Ro is a Larrakia woman from the McGuinness who grew up as Rowena Abala after her mother married a Maltese fellow, and had the children’s names changed by deed poll. I can understand why. Aunty Ro is very proud of her Larrakia heritage and has endeavoured to instil that pride of her identity in the younger member of her very large extended family, she has always stood against the activities of some in the past who would treat indigenous people as less than full citizens. She did this with dignity, strength and humour. She was very well educated. I remember once I mentioned Auntie Ro’s name and some Aboriginal people told me that she has finished high school and she can even play the piano. She really admired her for those achievements.
Auntie Ro is a Labor supporter to the core. She has long campaigned for the principles which have been the hallmark of the ALP social justice platform, principles which underlie the ethos of Australian culture itself: that everyone deserves a fair go, and should be judged for who they are, not what they are, or where they come from.
Unfortunately, Auntie Ro is not very well, she is currently undergoing a course of chemotherapy, requiring her to attend the hospital five days every month. As we all know, chemotherapy can be a very painful treatment, but also a necessary treatment. However, Auntie Ro is handling it with her usual good humour, and the doctors are very pleased with her progress. I am sure every member of this House will join me in wishing Auntie Ro all the best for a speedy recovery. Get well soon, Auntie Ro, we are looking forward to seeing you again in our meetings and our functions and barbecues.
I would like to close my adjournment by paying tribute to the Chinese community in the Territory, in particular, the Chung Wah Society for their excellent Moon Festival. My sincere thanks to the member for Greatorex who was the chairperson of the festivities. It was an excellent afternoon. I enjoyed attending the evening with the food, the hospitality, and most of all, the performance of the young children of Chinese and non-Chinese background who came up to the stage - five, six, seven years old - and sang some of the traditional children’s songs in fluent Chinese.
These children are born and grow up in Darwin, Australia, but they are very keen to maintain their cultural links, and certainly the Chinese language. Congratulations to Ms Po Chow, who is the Chairperson of the Chinese Language Centre. She was very heavily involved in the Moon Festival. I sought some information about the Chinese language classes. The classes commenced in 1980 at the Chung Wah Society and have been run at the Alawa Primary School, which is in my electorate, since 1990. The school currently has 100 students in nine different classes, and there are Cantonese and Mandarin classes. Many more children from members of the Chung Wah Society are now attending, not only children from Chinese backgrounds, but also children from other cultural backgrounds, which is excellent because what we have to learn is that we should not isolate ourselves with our own culture, with our own language, we should actually spread our culture around.
The best way to live peacefully and harmoniously with other people is if you share culture. Culture does not only mean food, it means the customs, traditions, festivals. Here I was, a person of Greek background in enjoying a Chinese festival. The interesting thing is recognising some of the elements of the festival, because there are common elements in all cultures around the world. For example, the member for Greatorex lined up some offerings that were mandarines. In my culture, they are referred to as the apples of the Hesperides. Some 2000 years ago, they came from the Far East, and that is probably some indication that there was contact between society in the civilisations in the Far East with the civilisation in southern Europe.
Back to the Chinese Language Centre, they offer Mandarin or Cantonese language classes from beginners to advanced levels. The classes are held from 9 am to 12 noon every Saturday at the Alawa School. Enrolment fees are $40 per student per half-year, so it seems we have beginners to advanced levels. We have a good opportunity here to acquire new language skills, because we are trying to open up our trade with China and it might come in handy.
The other thing I noticed is that the centre formerly ran a Chinese radio program at Top FM. It used to come after the Greek program I used to present at Top FM. It used to be from 6 to 7. Unfortunately, the program ceased in September 2002 because the community now has Chinese satellite and SBS television. Unfortunately, the technology has killed the radio. Other community activities at the centre include the annual Chinese New Year and Moon Festival celebrations, and periodically, Chinese dancing and Chinese art and craft workshops. I am very impressed with the work the Chinese Language Centre is doing. On the night of the Moon Festival, I promised the chairperson, Ms Po Chow, that I am prepared to contribute $200 from my allowance to go towards the school to provide either for books for the kids, or why not just a small party for the children. I am prepared to visit the school and see the operations of the school, and sit in one of the classes for the children.
I enjoy watching young children learning the language of their parents, since I taught at the Greek school for a number of years here and in Western Australia. Some of the children are now adults, married with their own children, still call me ‘Sir’ and they still remember the history and language I taught them. It is very important that we do not lose our culture, our background, and it is also very important that we do not lose our language skills. I might add again that they will come in very handy, especially in our modern society where we are dealing with so many people from so many countries.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): I rise tonight to speak on two matters that relate to my electorate. Both matters affect two small local communities, one near the area of Ptilotus Crescent, and the other is around the Salvation Army Red Shield Hostel.
These two areas, while on opposite sides of the electorate, have somehow, or through some coincidence, developed similar problems. The Red Shield Hostel, as you know, was recently re-opened by the government, but this time with 10 dedicated beds for residents with ‘dual diagnosis’. This was the formal application of funds to help provide core residents for the Red Shield Hostel so that it can be economically viable to run the men’s shelter, I suppose you would call it.
Until the minister made that announcement about two months ago, the community was not aware that it was going to be a residence for people with ‘dual diagnosis’. As a result of the publicity, the local community within the surrounds of the Red Shield Hostel have expressed their concerns. They are concerned that the people who would be occupying those beds specifically for ‘dual diagnosis’ might not be suitable for the community.
I do not want to misinterpret what the community is saying because they feel a level of anxiety about who will go there. Because these are people with ‘dual diagnosis’, I suppose the community is concerned that there might be inappropriate behaviour by those people. There is a very large park just across a suburban road from the Red Shield Hostel frequented by many of the children and some of the parents.
I was at a meeting of residents in that area with Captain Derek Schmidke who is in charge of the Red Shield Hostel and the manager of the hostel, Christine Pilbrow. They were all there together to discuss the issue. I thought it was a very good discussion. It would have gone on for probably three hours, where Captain Schmidke tried to explain what the Red Shield Hostel was attempting to do, and tried to reassure the community that people who will be staying at the Red Shield Hostel, will be essentially no different from the ones who had stayed there in previous years.
However, there were a few people there who were particularly concerned. They recalled the incident of the Scotty case in Alice Springs and obviously if you are a parent with children in that area, you do not want to expose yourself to that sort of risk. At the end of the evening, the general consensus of feeling or opinion was that in any community in which we live, we all accept a certain level of risk. You live in Fannie Bay, you live in Parap, you live in Humpty Doo, wherever, there is an element of risk. We assess the level of risk and say: ‘Yes, I am happy to live in this place, because the risk is not very high. I can cope with that’. You then organise your home to deal with whatever risk factor that you think might be there. Walking across the street, there is a risk you might be run over, so you assess the risk, you accept the level of risk and then you might cross the road. There was sort of the agreement that the community came to agree with the Red Shield Hostel.
They wanted to be able to express, for the health professionals who are going to refer the people with ‘dual diagnosis’ to the Red Shield Hostel, they want to be able to talk to them and say: ‘Look, this is the level of risk that we are prepared to accept, living in this community, so if you want to refer any people to live in the Red Shield Hostel, we want to be assured by you, the health professional, that this resident will not exceed the level of risk that we are prepared to accept for ourselves and for our children’.
I have been receiving minutes from the community group. I see real progress in the negotiations that are taking place currently between them and Red Shield Hostel. It was unfortunate what Captain Schmidke said: the Red Shield Hostel Salvation Army will be responsible for the residents while they are within the compound of the Red Shield Hostel, but once they leave the compound, the Red Shield Hostel cannot be responsible for them. I think that was an unfortunate statement. Fair enough, if they are within the boundary of the block, the Red Shield Hostel would be responsible. But if they were to take only a 50 m walk across the road to the park and just recreate in the park, the Red Shield Hostel says: ‘We will not have any responsibility for that person’.
So that leaves the community really concerned. What do we do? We are living here. We want to use the park. If one of the residents played up, where do we go? The Red Shield Hostel says: ‘We do not have responsibility for this person because that person is no longer within the perimeter of our block’. That needs to be thought through a bit more so that the community can be reassured that the Red Shield Hostel and whatever agencies that are providing supervisory roles or case management roles for the residents that these people, the case managers or the Red Shield Hostel, understand the concerns that the community has and try to address it so that the community can come to some level of peace. Otherwise, there is going to be an ongoing conflict and that would be most unfortunate.
Within the community group that was discussing the issues with the Red Shield Hostel was one of the health professionals that would also be referring some of the residents to the Red Shield Hostel. He wrote a very good history of the community, about what it was like in previous years and tried to explain what the community is like at the moment and made what I thought were very good suggestions. For instance, I will read from this document.
- East Side Residents Association is a local formal body which attends to neighbourhood matters whereas
this is a residents association to which some of us belong. The specific Goyder Green locality …
Which is the one I am talking about:
- … does not have its own association. There is an informal network of residents, some of whom are close friends
and others not so. Nevertheless, the network is there and from time to time, events are held in the park which
strengthen this association of neighbours.
Now, that is the community:
- In effect, the residents and management of Red Shield Hostel are also residents of and thus a part of this
neighbourhood and it would be courteous and sensible for the Red Shield members to operate with at
least the same level of community responsibility and neighbourhood observance as do most of the locals.
This might ensure that the local mental observation and responsibility is maintained. Basically, most of us
look out for each other and for each other’s children and property. This is a neighbourly attitude and
a position which Neighbourhood Watch also advocates.
So that is what the local committee wants to try to develop: a working, friendly relationship with the Red Shield Hostel but also with the case managers and health professionals who are going to be referring residents to the Red Shield Hostel.
I hope the minister, the government would facilitate some sort of discussions between the community group and the health professionals so that they can come together and work out some criteria that will provide the community with an acceptable level of risk.
The other property that is also of concern and with a similar sort of situation is at Ptilotus Crescent. Recently, the Department of Health and Community Services was provided with a house from Territory Housing. It has received approval from the Development Consent Authority to rezone the house for community use. This house will now be used to accommodate at least one person. Again, some issues are not quite resolved. There is a proposal to build a six foot fence right around the block, and that on its own has caused the committee quite a lot of concern. Why are you putting up this six foot fence? Are you trying to keep somebody inside the block? If you are doing that, what is wrong with the person who is going to occupy the house? I understand that this person also has a ‘dual diagnosis’ label, unfortunately, and that has generated a lot of discussion, a lot of calls to my office. Some of the people in surrounding streets know who this person is, and that has caused them even more anguish, that a person who they know, with a history that they are acutely aware of, is going to occupy that house. While they have been assured that there will be a health professional, or some sort of companion living in the house with this resident, they have not been reassured adequately that they, the community, are going to be secure in their own homes.
While I understand the department’s position that they do not want to generate a huge community reaction to their proposal, the community continues to tell me that they have not been reassured by the visits from the health department when they have been out there to talk to them. They have not been reassured, they are not being comforted by the comments that have been given to them. I suggested that there might be a public meeting, but the health department officials ran a million miles. I can understand their position. A public meeting might stir up more heat than resolve problems.
I believe it is important for the department to reassure the community. I suggest that if I can get together the main complainants, the ones who have come to see me and express their concerns, with some officials of the department, maybe the minister, if she wants to, could come and address the people, and listen to them, allay their anxiety if she or the health professionals can, and if they cannot, then maybe they have to reconsider where else to put this resident. But at the moment. it is causing a lot of anguish in the community, both at Ptilotus Crescent and also at the Red Shield Hostel.
It is one of those issues that is going to continue to occur, because we are now having people living in a community rather than in mental institutions of 20 or 30 years ago. I recall working in hospitals where people used to be locked up. They are no longer locked up; they are out there and they are going to cause the community concerns. So the health department has to look at that closely.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016