2004-03-31
Madam Speaker Braham took the Chair at 10 am.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I present a petition not conforming with standing orders from 35 petitioners relating to funding arrangements for the Croc Festival. I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, this morning I make a ministerial report on the current situation facing indigenous Territorians. As members will be aware, the federal Opposition Leader announced yesterday that a future federal Labor government would abolish ATSIC and ATSIS and create a new national indigenous body to advocate on behalf of indigenous interests.
There have been serious problems associated with ATSIC’s performance and the consequent shift in attention, particularly by the Australian government, away from focussing on the urgent needs facing remote Aboriginal communities. Those serious problems with ATSIC were identified in the report that went to the federal government last year - one that they initiated and that was done in great detail; it is a complex area - by Bob Collins, John Hannaford and Jackie Huggins. That report was presented to the indigenous affairs minister last year.
This government, and the minister assisting me on indigenous affairs in particular, have spoken about the continuing crisis that faces Aboriginal people. To do nothing about addressing the crisis in the living conditions, and the duplication of program and service delivery that exists now, is not an option for this government and the members on this side. These are matters that I have been consistently raising with the Prime Minister and the federal minister for indigenous affairs on behalf of the Territory government for some time now.
When the federal government came into power in 1996, it had a policy of practical reconciliation; in other words, raising the social and economic status of indigenous people. It has become apparent that there has been little progress or improvement since the Howard government came to office. Whilst there has been undoubted problems with ATSIC - and these should have been addressed well before now - responsibilities for government policies must rest with government and ministers. ATSIC has been embroiled in controversy for too long and new solutions are required. It is now time to move on and establish arrangements that will make a real difference. ATSIC should be abolished. Currently, we look at an ATSIC that, without its funding responsibilities is, in effect, a shadow of what it was actually created to do.
I first wrote to the Prime Minister about the need for all Australian governments to reassess the level and focus of our engagement with indigenous communities, in August last year. In particular, I strongly argued that there needs to be far greater engagement by Australian government and state and territory mainstream agencies along the lines we are encouraging at Wadeye. Of course, as this House knows, the community of Wadeye is the subject of a COAG pilot and is about how we better coordinate service delivery through all levels of government - federal, Territory and at local level – to get better results than we have seen in the past. From that initial trial, there are very positive results. I have also argued strongly against the recreation of a Department of Aboriginal Affairs which, I believe would be a retrograde step. This is particularly the case in the Territory, where 30% of our citizens are indigenous. They are the poorest and most disadvantaged sector in both the indigenous and wider Australian community. In these circumstances, their needs are core business for government and its programs.
It was for this reason that, when coming into power, I abolished the Office of Aboriginal Development and made sure all Territory agencies would deliver programs for all Territory citizens. There should be a national indigenous representative body with advisory and advocacy functions - and complementing that and very importantly - strong regional representation should also be supported. Furthermore, in the light of the federal government’s decision to remove funding responsibility from ATSIC to ATSIS, there should be direct bilateral agreements between the states and territories and the Australian government in program and service delivery. I do not consider that the approach taken to date is inconsistent with that articulated by the federal Opposition Leader in his statement yesterday. However, I have placed a greater emphasis on ensuring a greater engagement by mainstream agencies and programs in addressing indigenous disadvantage.
It is well past the time for rhetoric on the continuing crisis facing Aboriginal Territorians; we must get this right. It is time to get the proper processes and program delivery in place. I welcome the opportunity to talk to Aboriginal people about how these changes can best occur, and to continue discussions with the Australian government and federal opposition regarding future arrangements which will be most beneficial to the Territory’s unique circumstances.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I believe that this should be a matter for a ministerial statement, at the outset, because it is so important how it affects the Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory. Having said that, it is good to see that the government’s finally got its act together and decided on a position.
Yesterday, the Chief Minister was not sure, the member for Nhulunbuy was, and the much-lauded Minister Assisting the Chief Minister on Indigenous Affairs, was not to be seen or heard anywhere, and was saying, ‘Oh my god, I am not going to touch this’. So much for the front page of The Australian, saying the great leader ran for cover when it got a little tough.
I do not care how you arrange the deck chairs on the Titanic. At the end of the day, I have heard about improvements and improving outcomes now in this House and seen improving outcomes before I entered this House for well over two decades in the Territory. The fact is, when I travel around my electorate and other places in the Northern Territory, I do not see improved outcomes; I only see the continuing cycle of poverty which is entirely attributable to one single issue that underlines it all. The single thing that underlines Aboriginal helplessness in these remote communities in the Northern Territory is the provision of welfare services and the way that they come from Canberra at the moment.
Welfare has been identified as a major issue by Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal leaders alike. Whatever arrangement comes into place, under any future Labor or Liberal government, must address this one particular issue. At the moment, you have Northern Territory government departments combating the effects of welfare payments and the way that they come forward. We have had the Department of Aboriginal Affairs try to do it; Aboriginal Development Corporations, any number of other organisations that combat the affects of welfare - and what do we see? At the end of the day, not much at all.
Any process which is going to affect Aboriginal people is going to have to see a total, complete review on the way that welfare is delivered into the remote parts of this country.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, it is interesting. This is a very important issue for the Territory and we put a very considered submission to the ATSIC review. It is disappointing to see that the Opposition Leader does not think this is serious enough to get to his feet and respond. It is an issue across government, very importantly. It is an issue that affects many Territorians and one I would have thought the Opposition Leader might have had some interest in. It is very disappointing to have a report come into this House this morning and the Opposition Leader either does not know enough about it or does not have enough interest to make a response. That should be put on the record.
Mr HENDERSON (Asian Relations and Trade): Madam Speaker, today I report on my recent visit to Brunei Darussalam and the outcomes of the Northern Territory business delegation to the Brunei International Trade Exhibition 2004, BITE.
On 28 February 2004, I visited Brunei to attend the official opening of BITE and to meet with ministerial counterparts and senior government officials. My visit program included meetings with Pehin Zakaria, Minister for Communications, Aviation and Ports, Dato Idris Belaman, Permanent Secretary of the Ministry for Industry and Primary Resources, John Perry, the Chief Executive Officer for the Brunei Economic Development Board, and other senior representatives.
I also hosted a business networking function to support our Northern Territory business delegation at BITE. My meeting with Pehin Zakaria and Dato Idris were particularly useful. In these meetings, I provided briefings on current economic developments in the Territory, and exchanged views on the potential for trade for our mutual benefit.
The Brunei officials suggested that our business and industrial bases are not dissimilar, and that many potential synergies exist for greater cooperation. It was suggested that our respective business and industry departments consider and identify areas of mutual economic benefit in consultation with our respective business communities. My department and the International Business Council are following these issues up.
Minister Zakaria expressed the ongoing support of the Brunei government in maintaining the direct air link between Brunei and Darwin. This is a significant gesture and further demonstrates the commitment that the Brunei government has in strengthening its relationship with the Northern Territory. I also advised minister Zakaria that the Territory government had support Royal Brunei’s application for landing rights at Sydney Airport, and I am pleased that the Minister for Transport has allowed Royal Brunei access starting later this year.
I also met with John Perry, Chief Executive Officer of the Brunei Economic Development Board, as well as other senior business people representing Citibank and Asia Inc. In these meetings, I was briefed on potential new industrial developments in Brunei: Alcoa is currently undertaking a feasibility study into the establishment of an aluminium smelting plant in Brunei; and ACI Corporation has undertaken its due diligence process on the establishment of a tyre recycling plant using leading-edge technology. These projects may present the Northern Territory with potential business opportunities, and Mr Perry has been invited to Darwin to view Northern Territory business capability first-hand.
Whilst in Brunei, I hosted a business networking function in support of the Northern Territory business men and women who participated in the trade delegation to BITE. This function was supported by the Australian High Commission in Brunei and attracted more than 40 Brunei trade contacts to meet with our Territory representatives.
I now briefly report on the outcomes of the Northern Territory business delegation to BITE 2004. The delegation was organised and let by the International Business Council of the Chamber of Commerce, and supported by the Territory government through my department. Twenty-two business men and women participated in the delegation representing 12 companies and four industry associations, and included representatives from the Northern Territory government and local governments. Six of the 12 companies applied for trade support funding, and funding of over $20 000 was allocated to those companies. The businesses were from a variety of industry sectors including transport, manufacturing, health, communication services and construction.
The Northern Territory delegation was the largest delegation from Australia at BITE and our stand occupied 50% of the Australian pavilion. Several companies that participated in the delegation have already reported valuable business outcomes. Export orders have been received by two firms worth in excess of $25 000, and others have been asked to prepare quotes in excess of $100 000. My department will actively work with all businesses that participated in the delegation to assist them in achieving positive export outcomes.
Brunei is important to the Northern Territory, not only as a trading and foreign investment partner, but as a friendly Asian neighbour. The continued support of Royal Brunei Airlines is one example of our interdependence. Strategically, we can offer each other many advantages. The relatively small size of Brunei in population terms is an attracting factor for our business community, and the potential for ongoing engagement is high. I move that the Assembly take note of the report.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I put on the record that I do not believe that you will achieve very much from the strategies that you have in place with regard to Asian relations and trade. You can start by removing ‘Relations’ from your portfolio heading. You are talking about trade exclusively. You are talking about reporting on meetings that you had with people who are interested in trade in the region. What is the most important thing in doing trade in the region? If you understand your region, you have to build relationships first. You have to include education, sport and a bit of creative thinking.
I believe you have neglected the relationship part of your ministerial responsibilities. This is demonstrated quite clearly. When we had the railway that took off with a symbolic load of freight from Adelaide to Darwin, we dusted off our passports and decided to get some activity up in the region. That event was a very symbolic event where you could have demonstrated, quite clearly, your understanding and interest in the region. Why wasn’t the Indonesian Consul invited to that function? Why were there not delegations from the major hubs and ports of the region? Why were they not at that celebration? Why were they not at that symbolic event? That demonstrates that you have no understanding of how to build real bridges with the region. Why is it that the Indonesian Consul takes off on his own initiative to go to the expo in Alice Springs? I inquired and found he had no support or direction from the department. It was his own initiative and great credit to him.
I tell you, minister, that you have to get your act together, otherwise we are going to lose all the infrastructure, all the interest, and the real connections we have in the region.
Mr HENDERSON (Asian Relations and Trade): Madam Speaker, it really is like being lectured by a primary school teacher. The successful outcomes that are being achieved by these Territory businesses that did participate in BITE are an absolute contradiction to the honourable member’s response to the statement. Asian Relations and Trade is all about building relationships in the region, leading to trade outcomes. It is a bit chicken and the egg in some areas. However, what we are seeing through strategic partnerships between the business community in the Northern Territory and countries in the region who want to trade with us, is successful outcomes. That is demonstrated by the IT community’s successful focus on Singapore, which is leading to read trade outcomes, as opposed to the Leader of the Opposition’s sole policy in this area, which is more public servants, more shining examples of pieces of paper on ministerial walls, but no support backing those up and no trade outcomes for the Northern Territory.
They want to focus on thing, we are focussing on trade outcomes.
Madam SPEAKER: Your time has expired, minister.
Mr AH KIT (Community Development): Madam Speaker, in the budget for 2003-04, the government announced a new initiative in the planned appointment of a further 10 community development officers to be employed in the Department of Community Development, Sport and Cultural Affairs. This followed the launch of the Building Stronger Regions, Stronger Futures strategy which aims, in part, to pursue a strong community development approach as a foundation for community and regional development.
Two weeks ago, the new community development officers, together with all other CDOs employed by the department, participated in a workshop aimed at giving all officers a clear view of their role and responsibility, and of the tasks that lay before them. We have been able to employ a total of 13 new community development officers, utilising the combination of the new funds made available and vacant positions. The new officers bring a breadth of experience and capacity to the team, coming with a mix of long local experience, together with experience working with international aid agencies and non-government organisations.
With the 13 new CDOs, we now have a total compliment of 32 community development officers across a number of levels throughout the Northern Territory. This number has been achieved through reorganising the resources of the department to ensure that there is a clear focus on the priorities established by the Martin Labor government. The primary focus of the new officers will be in the capacity building development of communities and regions. Wherever possible, they will work in teams that comprise two community development officers working at a community level, backed by policy and management staff who will ensure that they have the necessary support to do the job.
Even with this significant reallocation of resources, it is recognised that there will not be enough to do the whole job. The department has carefully considered the overall task and is applying its resources to priority areas. Priority areas are places such as Wadeye, where the major indigenous community coordination project is under way in cooperation with the Commonwealth government and Thamarrurr; Nyirranggulung-Mardrulk-Ngadberre in the Katherine East area, where a new regional local government body is now in place; on the Tiwi Islands, where there are a range of Tiwi organisations; Anindilyakwa on Groote Eylandt, where there is a strong need for the effective government structures and a whole-of-island approach to issues of concern; Jabiru and Kakadu, where long-running issues need to be dealt with by the communities in the region with government; the Barkly, where the Barkly Blueprint provides direction; and Anmatjere, the West MacDonnell and Alyawarra regions in Central Australia, where work has been under way for some time. We will also be working to develop other regions.
The workshop that has been held aimed to bring together the whole team to ensure that they are able to start to deal with the issues and opportunities that are important to regions and communities. The department has a comprehensive strategy in place to gives its CDOs the opportunity to continue to develop. It has organised, in partnership with the Charles Darwin University, for the delivery of a graduate certificate program that all CDOs will progressively undertake. It has also arranged a series of seminars that give the CDOs the opportunity to hear from, and talk to, key academics and practitioners in the field. As the process continues, CDOs will facilitate the negotiations of community and regional partnership agreements that will focus on achieving outcomes on issues and opportunities jointly agreed by communities, regions and the government. They will also play an important role, feeding into the regional process and supporting the work of regional development boards. Along with this new focus, CDOs will continue to liaise closely with councils and community organisations.
The regulation and compliance roles previously carried out by CDOs, will now be carried out by a separate compliance group. This group will conduct regular audits of financial and service delivery accountability of councils. Their role is to ensure that there is a foundation of effective service delivery and financial accountability on which the development functions can be built.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his comments, although I am not entirely sure where he is going with this. This is obviously based partly on the changes that we made recently to the Local Government Act of the Northern Territory, which now allows for greater ministerial involvement and interference in local government community councils. The first step the minister has taken is to create a police force quite separate from another group of people which is going to deal compliance issues for local councils and the like.
However, that came at four-and-a-half minutes into a five minute statement. He spent the first four-and-a-half minutes, talking about community development officers and the workshop that they had attended, and outlining priority areas and key strategies, and those sorts of things. This is what happens when you have bureaucrats writing speeches for you. Listening to what he had to say and, without in any way doubting the hard work of these public servants, the minister actually did not inform us of one actual thing that these CDOs are going to do. They have attended a workshop and they are going to go through an education process - a graduate certificate. However, what are they actually going to do on the ground - what physical thing? I am sure they are working quite hard, but the whole thing has been wrapped up in bureau-speak. I did not hear one story of any deal that has been organised, or one institution that has been laid down, or anything else like that. It is just this ethereal muck that we have to walk or wade knee-deep through. It is like wading knee-deep in treacle sometimes.
What I urge the minister to do is to actually tell us what the CDOs are doing in the community, because I believe they actually might be doing some useful things. But, gee whiz! I am not hearing from the minister. If the minister wants to represent his department’s properly, he has to be able to come into this House, and actually tell us real outcomes and the things that they are actually doing.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, the minister’s statement highlights the fact that we need a full and wholesome debate about what is happening in local government. Anyone who knows what is going on at Bathurst and Melville Islands would know that the Tiwi Island councils have some major issues at the moment. As well as that, the government is also trying to regionalise councils in other parts of the Territory, such as Pine Creek and Daly River, Coomalie and Dundee. A lot of those councils are being squeezed into a situation because of lack of funding. Pine Creek’s funding has been slashed enormously, and I think Nauiyu Nambiyu has also.
Whilst I cannot comment exactly on what these community development officers will do, I believe they are part of what should be a major debate in this parliament which should report on where we are going with local government and what it has cost the Territory in the existing attempts to regionalise and combine councils, so that we can have a decent debate in this parliament, and people who are being affected can understand what is going on as well.
Mr AH KIT (Local Government): Madam Speaker, it seems to be a pet hobby for the member for Nelson to keep raving on about the concerns of the Tiwi Islands local government …
Members interjecting.
Mr AH KIT: I was there on Sunday at the grand final and I did not see too many of you others there. I walked around the ovals. I saw a couple, not too many …
Mr Dunham: Oh, consulting were you, Jack, consulting at the footie?
Mr AH KIT: Yes, I always consult because I get out there and I do my job for the people, and the people like that. I walked around the oval and it took me almost an hour. I talked to people, and they are not too bad off in how they accept the Tiwi Islands Local Government Council. They have had some teething problems and are working their way through it. We will continue with the local member to work through that with them. However, the member for Nelson should get away from his patronising platitudes towards where we are heading with local government. The member for Macdonnell is just so negative. He has not sought any briefings; he will always find the negative points of view and he should come out and support people as they move forward in regional governance.
Mr VATSKALIS (Ethnic Affairs): Madam Speaker, today I inform the House about the multicultural awards and seek support from all members of this House. On 18 March, it gave me great pleasure to launch the Northern Territory government’s inaugural Multicultural Awards during the official function in Parliament House to celebrate Harmony Day 2004.
Harmony Day is a time when all Australians come together to celebrate community harmony and its cultural and linguistic diversity. Harmony Day has special significance in the Northern Territory, with its long and rich history of a multicultural community. One of the most positive outcomes of Harmony Day is the level of community involvement. Since the establishment of 21 March as Harmony Day in 1999, each year ethnic and other broader community organisations have responded with great enthusiasm to participate in this annual event.
This year saw Harmony Day celebrated across the Territory with 23 schools and 28 community groups and other organisations being funded by the Northern Territory government to the sum of $40 000, to host activities and events throughout March. Local government councils, community-based agencies, social groups and schools organised celebrations, workshops and other activities that promote harmonious community relations and mutual understanding of cultural diversity. Harmony Day is not just a celebration; it is a reminder of the responsibility of all Australians, whether they were born here or overseas, to recognise and respect the rights of all members of the community to maintain their cultural identity while accepting their responsibilities as citizens of Australia.
These Multicultural Awards will be a recognition and celebration of these shared cultural values and community involvement. The awards will recognise and celebrate people, organisations and initiatives that have made an outstanding contribution in the Northern Territory towards advancing and promoting multiculturalism and counteracting racism. There are three categories for the awards: individual, organisation and initiative project. The criteria for the individual and organisation awards include: providing leadership in developing and implementing initiatives that advance our multicultural and harmonious society; consistently counteracting racism and discrimination and protecting human rights; bringing together the community as a whole; increasing cultural awareness in the community and promoting tolerance of other cultures and religions; advancing the rights of all people regardless of cultural or linguistic background; contributing towards capacity building in the community to counteract racism and advance multiculturalism; and providing and continuously improving services and working relationships with culturally and linguistically diverse communities.
The criteria for the project/initiative award includes: making a real contribution to promoting multiculturalism and creating harmonious behaviour in the society; bringing together the community; counteracting racism and protecting human rights; promoting tolerance of other cultures and religions; and advancing the rights of all people regardless of cultural or linguistic background.
The awards will be assessed by a judging panel. The members of the inaugural panel are John Anictomatis, Raymond Chin, Mohammad Nurul Huq, Jenny Medwell, Joan Mullins and Maria Scaturchio. These six people represent a broad cross-section of the Territory’s community, including senior Territorians, young people, indigenous Territorians, and representatives of the Greek, Italian, Islamic, Chinese and Filipino communities. They have a raft of personal and professional experience to bring to the panel.
The inaugural awards also offer a unique opportunity for the wider community to participate in the naming of the awards. Territorians are invited to nominate those individuals who they believe have made a valuable contribution in promoting multiculturalism and counteracting racism in the Northern Territory or nationally.
Nominations for the awards close on 16 April 2004 and winners will be announced on 27 May. Nomination forms are available by contacting the Office of Ethnic Affairs or the office’s web site. I look forward to receiving a broad range of nominations from across the Territory. I have already written to all members informing them of the awards, and I ask members to promote the awards in your local communities.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I welcome the minister’s statement on Harmony Day and perhaps start with a slogan: You + Me = Us. I could individualise that to: ‘You, the minister, and me, the shadow minister …’. Where else in Australia would you find a parliament where you have two members of different ethnic origins participating in debate? The minister said this is the first time we have had a minister who speaks with an accent that is not ocker. That is an indication of what the Territory is all about.
I took part in Harmony Day in Alice Springs, representing the federal Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. We also celebrated the day with a citizenship ceremony. It is a great indication of what the Northern Territory is about, where we have many groups from different ethnic backgrounds all coming together celebrating the difference as a unified country, a unified Territory called Australia.
It is important for us, as members of parliament, to recognise that we need to embrace all ethnic groups as Territorians. Do not make them special. The moment you make them special, you diminish them. They are Territorians equally amongst all of us, and that is what we are first and foremost. The moment you say: ‘You are a special ethnic group, I must support you,’ you are saying they are not as good as we are. That is not the right thing to do. We should say: ‘We are Territorians, we celebrate our difference as a single community. We are sharing our resources, we support each and every one of us in our very multicultural, diverse community’.
We know about the various groups in the Territory - and I do not single out any particular group. They are all very keen to continue to promote their culture and their traditions in the Territory. I agree with the government that we must support them as strongly as we can and promote the cultural awards that the minister announced. I congratulate the minister for bringing presenting this report, and share his wish for success for the Territory.
Mr VATSKALIS (Ethnic Affairs): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his support and I absolutely agree with him. I have no intention to make any ethnic group special. As a matter of fact, despite the fact that I am the Minister for Ethnic Affairs, I have asked my office to approach people of Scottish, Anglo-Saxon and Irish backgrounds to submit applications for ethnic grants because a lot of people come from different places in the Territory and, irrespective of whence you come, you are part of the Territory. We are all Territorians.
I also agree with the member for Greatorex that we are the only parliament with ministers from different ethnic backgrounds. We are no different than anybody else, we are Australians - either born here or naturalised later in life. We are proud to be Territorians; we are proud to be Australians - Greek Australians, Greek Territorians or Chinese Territorians or Chinese Australians.
One thing that we need in the Territory is for the ethnic groups to not only maintain their cultural diversity, but that part of their culture becomes part of the Territory culture. Nowhere else in Australia will a state celebrate Chinese New Year the way we celebrate it. Nowhere else in Australia will celebrate Greek Easter the way we celebrate it here. These celebrations have been embraced by the general population, irrespective of where they come from. We are a very diverse society and we are very proud to be diverse and harmonious. To that end, we have not seen any of the difficulties or problems in other states in Australia or in other countries of the world following the terrorism attacks, or the problems they have now in other places in the world.
I thank the member very much for his support, and I urge members to promote these awards in your community.
Reports noted pursuant to Sessional Order.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I move the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of the bill is to align Northern Territory legislation with the agreed to national framework for the future establishment of higher education institutions in the Territory, as well as accrediting courses of instruction and academic awards they may provide.
Following agreement by the members of the Ministerial Council on Education, Training, Employment and Youth Affairs, which included the Territory Education minister as a member, higher education protocols were adopted in March 2000. The bill incorporates these national protocols to ensure uniform criteria and standards for the establishment of academic institutions, and the provision of higher education learning across Australia. The purpose of this is to ensure public confidence in Australian higher education, both in Australia and overseas, and that those looking to access Australian higher education – whether in the Territory or in the other Australian states - will be satisfied that the education they receive will be of a uniform high standard.
This bill is the Territory’s contribution to an Australia-wide process of ensuring quality higher education, as well as maintaining the operational standards of higher education institutions. The 2000 protocols adopted by education ministers are generally as follows:
These protocols will be enacted in the proposed legislation.
Part 2 of the proposed act provides that a higher education institution may apply for ministerial approval confirming that institution as suitable for recognition or establishment as a Territory university. The matters the minister must address as part of this process include referring to the national protocols and other related matters.
Part 3 allows overseas higher education institutions to apply for ministerial approval to operate in the Territory. The issues the minister must address when considering an application from an overseas institution also include a reference to the 2000 national protocols.
Part 4 provides for the ministerial approval to be granted allowing interstate universities to operate in the Territory under an agency agreement. The minister must ensure that the protocols are adhered to and other relevant issues are addressed in granting approval to an interstate university wishing to operate in the Northern Territory.
Part 5 provides for non-university providers, such as the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia, to seek accreditation of courses of instruction offered by those providers.
Part 6 requires higher education institutions to provide courses of instruction to overseas students to have ministerial approval for those courses of instruction. Approval may be granted by the minister only if the institution complies with the requirements of the Commonwealth’s national code made for this purpose.
Part 7 allows a person authorised by the minister to observe an institution’s operations, to collect information and require a person to provide him or her with information about the institution to ensure compliance with the national protocols or national code.
Part 8 allows for the cancellation of any approvals or accreditation under Parts 2 to 6. Appeals against a decision under Part 8 may be made in accordance with the provisions of Part 9.
Part 10 creates offences relating generally to the contravention of the requirements of the early parts of the act.
Part 11 deals with miscellaneous provisions ranging from ministerial power to delegate, ministerial power to issue guidelines for the administration of the act, and the making of regulations including regulations for the exemption of institutions from operations of the act in certain circumstances. This part also repeals the Education Act section 73A.
Madam Speaker, the bill provides consistent standards for higher education in the Territory and across Australia, and I commend it to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent bills entitled Uncollected Goods Bill 2004 (Serial 217) and Uncollected Goods (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2004 (Serial 218):
(a) being presented and read a first time together and one motion being put in regard to, respectively,
the second readings, the committee’s report stage, and the third readings of the bills together; and
Motion agreed to.
Bills presented and read a first time.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bills be now read a second time.
The purpose of these bills is to provide a simple and effective scheme for the management of uncollected goods. The current legislation has been criticised for being unnecessarily complex and difficult to utilise. In fact, when we started looking at the current Disposal of Uncollected Goods Act, we found areas of the disposal scheme that had never been used - not once since the act commenced in 1977. These bills repeal and replace the current act with a more user-friendly scheme.
The goods which the disposal scheme covers are those which have been left in the possession of another party - at common law referred to as the bailee - usually by the owner of the goods - the bailor - and have not been claimed. Examples of these situations vary greatly. They range from a family member delivering goods to another for safekeeping, to a delivery of goods to another by mistake, to the most common situation where goods are left for repair. These arrangements affect each of us in our daily lives. You may need to have your shoes repaired, your clothes dry cleaned, or your motor vehicle may be due for a service at the local garage. Difficulties, however, arise when goods have been left with the bailee for repair and the bailor does not collect them and pay for the service performed. Often the bailee is left out of pocket and with goods of little value.
At common law, there is no right of sale by the bailee. Unless an agreement has been reached between the parties as to the disposal of goods or a statutory power of sale exists, the bailee cannot lawfully dispose of the goods, yet he or she has a common law duty to take care of the goods. In 1977, the Northern Territory introduced legislation intended to give those persons with possession of goods a legal avenue for their disposal. That legislation has undergone little change since its commencement, and has been criticised as being unnecessarily complex, confusing and containing remedies which are time consuming and inappropriate.
Agitation from the community over a number of years, and a report by the Northern Territory Law Reform Committee in 2001, prompted the release of an issues paper by the Department of Justice in May 2003. The review was finalised in August 2003, and it is against the framework of the review recommendations that the new legislative scheme has been developed. Based on the review, this bill will make a significant difference by creating a simpler, more equitable regime for the disposal of uncollected goods.
I will now briefly outline the main aspects of the Uncollected Goods Bill. As a result of criticism by the Northern Territory Law Reform Committee that the legislation contains confusing and inadequately explained common law terms, ‘bailee’ and ‘bailor’ have been replaced with the plain English terms ‘receiver’ and ‘provider’. Both terms are explained in the definitions clause.
Clause 6 sets out the meaning of relevant charge: the amount that the receiver is able to claim in relation to repairs to, or cleaning of, the goods, as well as the storage, carriage and maintenance costs.
Clause 9 preserves the application of the existing Northern Territory legislation dealing with the disposal of the uncollected goods, in some industry-specific situations. For example, the Warehousemen’s Liens Act, the Accommodation Providers Act, the Residential Tenancies Act, the Retirement Villages Act, the Consumer Affairs and Fair Trading Act, and the Traffic Act. The proposed legislation will apply in circumstances where it is not otherwise dealt with by specific legislation.
At common law, parties have the right to contract and negotiate their own agreement as to the manner of disposal of goods. Clause 11 of the bill preserves that right, and provides that only where agreement as to the manner of disposal of goods has not been, or cannot be, reached will the legislation apply.
Parts 2 and 3 of the bill sets out the procedures for the disposal of uncollected goods, both with and without a court order. If a dispute exists between the provider and the receiver regarding the relevant charge for uncollected goods, either party may apply to the court for an order determining the amount of the relevant charge. Once an application to the court is made, the receiver cannot dispose of the uncollected goods. To prevent matters being delayed in the event of a dispute occurring, a mechanism has been placed into the bill that allows the receiver to give notice to the provider of his or her intention to dispose of the uncollected goods. Notice is intended to prompt the provider to take action by either applying to a court to resolve the dispute, or to leave matters as they are and, therefore, risking the goods being disposed of under the act.
Division 2 of Part 2 sets out a new regime for the disposal of uncollected goods without a court order. This replaces the lengthy onerous notice requirements of the current legislation. The new regime breaks the notice requirements into three categories according to the value of the goods:
for high value goods - those valued at $1000 or more, but less than $7000 - notice is required to be given to the
provider, the owner of the goods, any other person having or claiming an interest, and the Commissioner of Police.
A period of three months must elapse before the disposal can take place. Twenty eight days prior to the disposal an advertisement must be placed in a daily Northern Territory newspaper advising of the proposed sale. The goods can
then be auctioned or sold by private sale at a fair price.
In addition, where the receiver is dealing with a motor vehicle of high value or above, a certificate must be obtained from the Commissioner of Police to certify the vehicle is not stolen. Further, to protect a person with a publicly registered interest such as a bank or a finance company, a REVS search must be obtained for motor vehicles that are of medium value or greater.
A court order must be obtained to dispose of goods valued of over $7000, the high value amount. However, a receiver who wishes to have the security of a court order can apply for a disposal order for goods of any value. As may be expected, the notice requirements increase as the value of goods increase. However, the notice provisions are a great improvement on the current act. For example, the current act provides that, for goods valued at less than $200, two separate notices have to be given with a total waiting period of four months before disposal. In conjunction with the second notice to the bailor, notice must also given to the Commissioner of Police and every other person known to the bailee to have an interest in the goods, and published in the government Gazette. Further, under the current scheme, disposal is by way of public auction in separate lots. It is only when the sale by auction is unsuccessful that goods can be sold privately or otherwise disposed of.
This bill will do away with the onerous notice provisions and unnecessarily expensive disposal scheme, and allow a receiver to dispose of goods in an efficient and equitable manner whilst protecting the interests of the provider. Special provisions will also apply for the disposal of perishable goods.
The question may be raised: what constitutes a fair price? A fair price is, in effect, what the market will pay for the goods. Factors that influence market price can include, but are not limited to, the age and condition of the goods, and the market supply and demand for those goods. There are a number of tools available to help a receiver determine a fair price. For second-hand goods, a receiver may wish to obtain a valuation from a second-hand dealer or, if the goods are specific to an industry, they may wish to obtain a valuation from that industry. For a motor vehicle, a receiver might decide to refer to the Red Book value when determining a fair price, or may wish to obtain a valuation from a car yard. On the other hand, a receiver may have specific industry knowledge of motor vehicles and may determine that the vehicle is of little value and the only suitable way of disposing of the vehicle is by selling it for parts.
However, these are only examples of the tools that a receiver can use to determine a fair price. Generally, people working in industry-specific areas have some expertise on what goods are worth because they deal with them on a day-to-day basis and, as a result, can ascertain a fair price by using their own knowledge and expertise.
Part 3 of the bill sets out the regime for applications to the court for various orders. ‘The court’ is defined as the Local Court. The application must be served upon the provider, the owner, the Commissioner of Police, any person with a publicly registered interest in the goods, and any other person known by the receiver having or claiming an interest in the goods. There is flexibility in the new regime in that it allows for, at any time prior to the goods being disposed of, either by way of a court order or notice provisions, the provider to claim the goods after paying the relevant charges due to the receiver. The interests of the receiver are protected in that, so long as the receiver complies with the provisions in the bill relating to the disposal of uncollected goods, he or she will not be liable to any other person who may claim an interest in the goods.
Part 3 also provides for the effect of other proceedings upon a court order made under this part. The provision can be used where an owner wishes to recover their goods because they have been stolen, or the person who delivered the goods for repair has done so without authority. The interests of both the receiver and the owner would be determined by a court, but the provision allows an order that has been made for the disposal of the goods to be suspended and an order made for recovery.
Part 4 of the bill sets out the record keeping requirements. The current legislation requires that records of disposal must be kept for six years and for all goods, regardless of their value. The proposed legislation has reduced the time frame from six years to three years but, as with the current act, records must be kept for all goods.
Part 4 also provides for a method of distributing the proceeds of sale. After uncollected goods are sold, the receiver is entitled to retain the relevant charge and disposal costs. If the proceeds of sale are insufficient to pay the relevant charge and disposal costs, the receiver may recover it as a debt in a court of competent jurisdiction. If, however, there is an excess of funds, the receiver must, within 28 days after the sale of the uncollected goods, pay the excess amount of the proceeds of sale to the accountable officer for payment into an accountable officer’s trust account. The receiver must also supply to the accountable officer a copy of the records under clause 28.
The penalties are severe for those who do not comply with these requirements. A maximum of six months imprisonment or $11 000 for a natural person, and a maximum of $55 000 for a body corporate. Stringent penalties are necessary to act as an effective deterrent for those who may decide to keep for themselves excess money from the proceeds of sale.
It should also be remembered, while the legislative proposals are designed to facilitate effective disposal of goods by people who might otherwise be burdened by the cost of repairs, storage and maintenance, the goods are those in which other parties, including banks or finance companies, might also have an interest.
Part 7 of the bill deals with transitional provisions which have been drafted with the criticisms of the current act in mind. The current act is not being utilised and industry members, particularly those in the motor trades, are waiting for this bill to commence to be able to dispose of uncollected goods in their possession. As such, the transitional provisions provide for the disposal of goods under bailment prior to the commencement of the new scheme. There are some conditions on the operation of the transitional provisions. If a receiver has, under the current act, given notice of his or her intention to sell the goods or to dispose of them by way of a court order, then the current act will apply to those transactions.
I now turn to the Uncollected Goods (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2004. An amendment to the Motor Vehicles Act was required to facilitate the transfer of an uncollected registered motor vehicle disposed of under the new scheme, from the owner of the vehicle to the new purchaser. The amendment provides that, upon the sale of the vehicle, the receiver must give the purchaser a receipt of sale and, within 14 days, provide the Registrar of Motor Vehicles with a notice of disposal. The purchaser must then apply to the registrar in the form of a statutory declaration to transfer the vehicle from the owner’s name to the purchaser’s name.
As the law currently stands, property which is subject to a security is first available to the security holder. With respect to bailed goods, this may result in a detriment to the receiver. For example, a receiver who repairs and, therefore, improves bailed goods, may lose those goods to a person with a registrable interest who gets the benefit of the repairs without payment to the receiver. Consequently, as a result of the recommendations from the National Vehicles Security Project report, which were approved by the Ministerial Council of Consumer Affairs, the Registration of Interest in Motor Vehicles and Other Goods Act will be amended to provide that a receiver who has repaired goods and, therefore, has a lien over the goods, will have priority for payment of their services over any registrable interest in the goods.
Finally, in the event that a security holder has not removed their security interest over a motor vehicle sold under this act, a purchaser who obtains good title to the vehicle may apply to the registrar of the Registration of Interest in Motor Vehicles and Other Goods Act to have that interest removed. If the registrar is satisfied that the interest is to be removed, the registrar must do so, but must inform the security holder that their interest has been cancelled. The security holder may make a monetary claim by application to the accountable officer.
This bill provides a clear, simple and effective regime for the care and disposal of uncollected goods. This bill provides for a scheme which will be a significant improvement on that which currently exists, and which I am sure will be welcomed by all Territorians.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bills to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
Continued from 25 February 2004.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, the opposition supports the First Home Owner Grant Amendment Bill and the Stamp Duty Amendment Bill, understanding that these bills unify the operation of the scheme across borders. I have personal knowledge that, in this alignment across borders, there have been some difficulties in those who have qualified for a scheme in one jurisdiction and found it is quite a different regime in another state. It is good to have that unity for transportability with regard to the administration of the First Home Owner’s Grant. The purpose of it, as explained during the briefing and in the second reading speech, is to improve the integrity and administration of the first home buyers scheme.
Reference was made in the second reading speech to this grant being brought in at the same time as the GST to compensate first home buyers for the initial cost burden of buying their home because of the GST. History, as I recall it, is this was a decision of a former government to institute this scheme and the mechanisms that are in place in legislation to preserve the integrity of administration of the scheme. Notwithstanding where it came from, this appears in here to be the initiative perhaps of the Commonwealth government, but my understanding is it was the former government.
That aside, always when looking at legislative change, I like to know whether it is actually addressing an existing problem. Is there a real problem with the administration of the first home buyers scheme in the Northern Territory? I was encouraged to learn from officers who briefed me that this has not been effected due to a rorting of the system in the Northern Territory. There had been talk. A lot of people do have discussion from time to time, thinking: ‘We will get our youngster involved in this scheme and they might be able to get a $7000 bonus kick start into the ownership of a home’. However, I must say it was encouraging to hear that the Northern Territory community, at this point, has not gone that way to rort the system, and what we have here is an alignment of the schemes across the country.
I was pleased to also learn that it requires the issue of the minimum age of 18 to be adhered to, but with the provision of some flexibility. It was good to learn that, knowing that in other states you cannot apply for a first home owners scheme until you are 18, with the exception, I understand, of New South Wales, where it is 16. I am assured - and I trust this will be practised - that if someone who is less than 18 seeks access to the First Home Owners Grant, then they would be genuinely considered, albeit the act defines it as 18. That flexibility is quite important, because there are a number of young people younger than 18 who have made a strong start in their apprenticeship, and have managed to save up a deposit. I know at 15 or 16 I certainly did not have a deposit for a home. However, there are, to their credit, a lot of young people out there who are very focussed, and are able to get their affairs in place so that they are qualified in every sense to make that first significant purchase - and it should be encouraged. Therefore, I would like to make sure that that flexibility is actually there, to reward those who do have that foresight to get themselves up and running and owning their first home before the age of 18.
I accept they need to reside there for at least 6 months, but I would like to make sure that it is not going to be restricted. As it was explained during the briefing, if a young person commits themselves to their first home, has qualified for the First Home Owners Scheme, and is then posted elsewhere, that would be listened to and accommodated, because that often does occur. Whether they are perhaps in the Army, or their trade will be further enhanced moving interstate or to distant reaches in the Territory, I trust that there is that flexibility. However, I do respect that there needs to be at least, generally, occupation at that residence for at least 6 months.
To move in within 12 months is reasonable. I have one concern. I guess it is the way that we treat our respect for the law and when a government or a community decides to encourage access to home ownership by the provision of a grant; $7000 in this case. I remember, as a young couple, it was a tremendous boost to know that we had access to a first home owners scheme in Western Australia many years ago, and it really was a genuine kick start. Not that we looked for it. In the way my wife and I, and people around us, were raised, it was not that you expected handouts from government - you expected to make your own way. Then, to find that there was that sensible provision, at a time when the building industry was stagnating, for that assistance, really got us started. With many of my peers and colleagues at the time, it got us started as we started out with our young families.
However, if someone treats that with contempt and rorts the system, defrauds the process and makes a false claim - and I appreciate that it has changed from ‘knowingly makes a false claim’, to making it clear that if you make a false claim, we do not care whether you knew about it or not. However, we are making a provision here for a member of our community to make their first significant purchase and, knowingly or not, if they make a false claim they are in trouble. I support that.
What I do have reservations about is that, if someone who is in receipt of the $7000 first home owners grant does rort the system and they are found out: ‘Oh look, we found out that you defrauded us, you told us lies and what not. We will take it back off you’. Granted it will be paid back with interest, but there is now the provision there that, at some later stage, that person could have another shot at it. The way I see these things is that, if you have had the opportunity to avail yourself of a generous grant and you knowingly or unknowingly defrauded it, it is an insult to all those good people who make a contribution to such schemes, and to all those good people who do the right thing continually. I guess, philosophically, I have a bit of a problem that, if someone has buggered it up, told the lie, been caught out - granted they have had to pay back - I reckon that is it, no more, do not have another shot at it. If you have had one shot at it and you were dishonest and defrauded the system, I reckon that should be the end of it. We should not open the door and say they can come back at another time, and that will be all right; this time they will not be dishonest. I reckon these are the provisions you put within an economy, within a decision of government, to stimulate home owner acquisition by young people and others with the home owners grant. However, do not leave the door open. If they bugger it up the first time, that is it; you take that privilege away completely.
I saw that as something that I just was not particularly supportive of. Notwithstanding that, I just hope the spirit of it will make sure that there is no encouragement for someone to come back and make another application after they have defrauded it the first time. Therefore, I am not too happy about that, as I understand that this is leaving the door open so that someone can actually come back. However, I would like to see that door closed.
With those comments, Madam Speaker, on behalf of the opposition, I offer support for these amendments and acknowledge also that this has a flow-on effect into a couple of other acts.
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his supportive comments in relation to these two bills. In terms of the context of the scheme, like many things emanating from the Commonwealth, this began with the Commonwealth around the time of the introduction of the GST. The primary purpose of it was to offset the GST accruing or being payable on housing - particularly on construction - because many of the items in the building industry had not been subject to that sort of taxation before, so it did bump up the cost of purchasing houses. Therefore, that was the offset there.
Like all good things emanating from the Commonwealth, it was initially funded by them. However, of course over time, it comes to the states and territories, and now they are responsible for the funding of it. That is a practice that the Commonwealth is very adept at, be it health, education or any other agency of government where they dream up what could be, in many cases, quite good schemes. They say they we will fund it and so states commence and run the scheme and, some years down the track - usually two or three - the Commonwealth says they are not going to fund that any more. Of course, you have built up an expectation in the community that the program will be ongoing, and it is left to the states and territories to pick it up.
I appreciate the Leader of the Opposition’s comments in relation to flexibility if a person, for genuine reasons, cannot meet the requirements and are allowed to continue. Certainly, there is flexibility below 18 for genuine cases. I would like to think that 16-year-old or 17-year-old apprentices might be out there doing well enough to buy a house. However, if you look at the wage rates for a first- and second-year apprentice, I do not believe there would be one first or second year apprentice who would be in a position to buy their own home without significant support from others, simply because the wage rates would not allow them to meet mortgage repayments.
In relation to whether a person ought have another crack, if the bill was, as proposed by the Leader of the Opposition, I would support him. I would agree with him that they ought not get another crack. However, I will go back to the second reading just to clarify this for the record:
This is a very different scenario from the unscrupulous person who sets out to defraud the scheme. That person does not get another crack; no way. This simply is the ability to come back for a second try where they did not meet the resident requirements under the terms of the act. Therefore, it is not a general second crack for those who were intentionally getting their fingers into something they ought not. The change is being adopted across Australia to varying degrees. The Commonwealth’s interest in this, and that of all of the states and territories, is the need to remain fairly consistent, or as consistent as possible, across the board. That is the intent of this bill: to move with the other states and territories who are all moving similar amendments. I thank the member for his contribution and the opposition for their support.
Motion agreed to; bills read a second time.
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bills be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bills read a third time.
Continued from 19 February 2004.
Ms CARTER (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, all jurisdictions in Australia are working to change their legislation and practices to reflect the outcomes of the National Directory for Radiation Protection.
This directory has not been completed yet, but states and territories have been given detailed instructions as to what it currently contains, and so this bill has been based on that. When the directory is completely finished later this year, regulations providing more direction will be developed and implemented. It is hoped that, within a short period of time throughout Australia, there will be consistency with regards to matters pertaining to radiation.
The Northern Territory is the first jurisdiction to implement legislative changes which are represented in this bill and that, generally speaking, the CLP opposition will support. The bill aims to do two things. It aims to improve safety with regards to radiation. This quest has been spurred on by the increasing incidence of terrorist activities in the world today. The second thing the bill aims to do is a result of the National Competition Policy. The aim is to remove unnecessary barriers which prevent more people gaining qualifications, skills and permission to take X-rays.
With regards to the first aim, improving safety for people and the environment, the new legislation covers both ionising and non-ionising radiation, whereas existing legislation only covers ionising radiation. Non-ionising radiation sources include things which require an external power source, such as X-ray machines, laser lights, welding equipment and solariums. Ionising radiation generally is emitted naturally by metals with half lives such as uranium and plutonium, as a result of the activities of their electrons. An example in the health setting includes radioactive implants. Part of the protective steps found in the bill include lowering the occupational and public health dose limits available. This is in line with national and international standards. All of this the opposition supports.
On the issue of radiographers, I am a little less fulsome in my support. This area is covered in this bill. I understand and support the need to reduce barriers which prevent skilled people from providing this service. However, this bill will be getting rid of the Radiographers Registration Board in the Northern Territory, and I believe this is something which must be considered with caution and dealt with carefully. I have been in contact with the board, and I am aware that, generally speaking, they support the changes. Therefore, given that endorsement, the CLP will also support this aspect of the bill.
However, we will watch with care how the transition occurs, and how well radiography services are provided in the Northern Territory during the time to come, in the hope that there will be no deterioration in care to patients and services to the public and health professionals because, what this legislation will do when it is assented to is transfer the current powers of the Radiographers Board to the Chief Health Officer. The Chief Health Officer will now have to decide who will be given a licence to take X-rays. He or she will set the standards. He or she will decide on matters pertaining to discipline and sanctions. The minister recommends the establishment of a learned committee to advise the Chief Health Officer, but this is not mandated by the legislation; it is an option. We do not know yet who will be on this advisory committee but, in the end, the buck will stop with the Chief Health Officer and, dare I say it, the minister.
One of my key concerns is that there is a shortage of radiographers in Australia. Therefore, radiographers can be hard to attract to the Territory, particularly to the less popular locations. However, the people still need health care, and if we can find doctors and nurses to staff a regional hospital, then I agree the hospital should not be shut down just because it does not have a radiographer. I do agree that someone else could have qualifications which would enable them to take quality X-rays if the radiographer cannot be employed.
However - and this is my point - every effort must be made to ensure that the standard of care provided by someone who is not a radiographer but is taking X-rays, and the quality of the X-ray, is acceptable by those needing to view it and that the care provided to the patient is good. It will be imperative for the Chief Health Officer to ensure that, when he or she provides a licence to a person who is not a radiographer to take X-rays, that that person has demonstrated competencies which are safe and useful. It will be up to the Chief Health Officer, hopefully with the help of the committee, to describe those competencies.
I am told that in Queensland they have a classification known as ‘X-ray operators’, and it was reported to me - admittedly by an interstate radiographer - that these X-ray operators have been known to take X-rays without the patient’s name on them, without indicators advising the direction the shot was taken in, or whether or not it was the left or right limb. For those of us who understand X-rays, these are vital, essential details which, without them, can lead to disasters.
Every effort must be taken to ensure that the passage of this legislation improves health care, which I believe it can. However, effective checks and balances must also be incorporated into the health system to make sure that what this bill proposes to do does not backfire on us.
I will be taking this bill to committee. Two areas, in particular, need to be discussed. The first is clause 10. This section allows the Chief Health Officer to exempt a person, a radiation source, or a place, from any provisions of the act. I do not understand why such a clause, which gives the Chief Health Officer such power, is necessary. I was told when I had a briefing on the matter from the minister’s staff, that exemption may be given to exempt someone from a fee, or to exempt a company when they are dealing with something of very low radiation levels, like a mineral sand. Both these examples may be considered reasonable, but I do not think they warrant the sort of power which is possible from this part of the bill. It is saying that, if an individual known as the Chief Health Officer considers that anyone or any source of radiation should not have to comply with the legislation, then it will be okay, provided they - meaning the Chief Health Officer - advertise their intention in the Gazette. Given our concerns about radiation, it is too risky to give a person this power. I am uncomfortable with this, and will be moving an amendment to have this section omitted from the act.
My other concern is clause 15 of the bill, which deals with the duty of a licensee to give notification of a dangerous event. A licensee, in this instance, is somebody who has a radiation source which may result in exposing a person, animal or thing to radiation. In this section, if the source of radiation is lost or stolen, or if there is a radiation incident - which is defined as a incident which adversely affects, or likely to adversely affect the health or safety of a person due to the emission of radiation - then the licensee must advise the Chief Health Officer of the dangerous event, unless the licensee has a ‘reasonable excuse’. Therefore, according to this, if somebody who is the licensee responsible for a source of radiation which has affected someone, or is likely to affect someone adversely due to exposure to radiation, they do not have to tell the Chief Health Officer if something goes wrong, if they figure they have a ‘reasonable excuse’. This seems a very sloppy system to me. Naturally, this section leaves open the possibility of someone not reporting something serious because - they could argue if later sprung - they thought they had a ‘reasonable excuse’. Therefore, I will also move in committee that this section be amended, so that the words ‘unless the licensee has a reasonable excuse’, be omitted. All dangerous events should be notified to the Chief Health Officer who can then, on consideration of the facts, decide if a reasonable excuse exists and that no further action need be taken.
Madam Speaker, before we go into committee on this bill, I would like to place on record my thanks to the minister and his staff for providing me with a very useful briefing.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, the first point I would like to make in my contribution to the passage of this bill is to reiterate its purpose. As the minister said at the time of the second reading, this bill will provide a consistent regulatory regime to protect people and the environment from the harmful effects of ionising and non-ionising radiation. The bill does not apply to mining activities in relation to uranium ores or uranium oxide which are regulated by the Mining Management Act, but also does not apply to possession, packaging, storage or transport of radioactive ores and concentrates, which is regulated by the Radioactive Ores and Concentrates (Packaging and Transport) Act.
Technology has developed in unprecedented leaps and bounds over the last 25 years or so, when the legislation this bills supersedes was introduced into this Assembly by the minister for Health in 1978. I have had cause to research that Health minister’s second reading speech, and noted the references to ionising radiation, but I could find no mention of non-ionising radiation. That is because the current Northern Territory radiation legislation has dealt exclusively with radiation from the so-called ionising radiation; that is, atomic radiation sources. Such radiation is emitted either from radioactive atoms, or from X-ray machines. It is called ionising as it is energetic enough to remove electrons from atoms, and irradiated objects; that is, it can ionise atoms. Examples of ionising radiation are atomic particles like alpha, beta and neutrons, and high energy electromagnetic radiation like X-rays and gamma radiation.
Non-ionising radiation is less energetic radiation than the ionising one, and cannot ionise atoms. It is low-energy electromagnetic radiation. This bill includes protection from certain classes of non-ionising radiation: initially ultraviolet radiation, laser light, radio frequency generating equipment and magnetic resonance imaging machines.
This bill will address this deficiency by defining ‘radiation’ and ‘radiation source’ in clauses 5 and 6 respectively. For those members who may not have the bill ready at hand, clause 5 defines ionising radiation as electromagnetic or particulate radiation capable of producing ions directly or indirectly, but does not include electromagnetic radiation of a wavelength greater than 100 nanometres; and describes non-ionising radiation as electromagnetic radiation of a wavelength greater than 100 nanometres. Clause 6 describes a radiation source as a thing that may emit ionising radiation or a thing prescribed by the regulations that may emit non-ionising radiation. A radiation source can be radioactive material or radioactive apparatus.
Just as I made mention, the changing technologies and the need to ensure that these new generation non-ionising radiation emitters which were unforeseen at the time of the drafting of the first Radiation and Safety Control Bill in 1978, are picked up in this new bill, the Radiation Protection Bill 2004. So too is our community’s awareness of the hazards of radiation and the expectation that government will ensure, through legislation, the health and safety of people by protecting them and their environment from the harmful effects of radiation.
In 1978, it was pleasing to note bipartisan support for the introduction of the Radiation Safety Control Bill - similarly in 2004, I might add. The member for Arnhem said in 1978 that he found the information on occupational exposure to radiation in Australia very interesting. He found it interesting to read that the mean annual body doses of radiation in Australia are very low compared with the maximum permissible body dose, which is 5000 mgs or 5 gms per year. This was a standard set by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council which, in turn, followed international standards that were set by the International Commission on Radiological Protection.
The International Commission on Radiological Protection was established in 1928 as a commission linked to the International Congress of Radiology. The commission issues recommendations on the principles of radiation protection, and its recommendations form the basis for more detailed codes and regulation issued by other international organisations and by regional and national authorities. The commission has been issuing reports since 1950. The report that the member for Arnhem was alluding to in 1978 in his contribution to the debate was publication 26 which appeared in 1977. This publication was subsequently amended and extended by a statement in 1978, and further clarified and extended by a succession of statements between 1980 and 1987. Their recommendations were completely revised and published in 1991 as ICRP publication 60. This is a publication which was adopted by the National Health and Medical Research Council in 1995.
The ICRP document, History, Policies and Procedures by Lindell, Dunster and Valentin, noted prior to the authoring of publication 60, the commission defined a mean quality factor Q for the spectra of mixed values of linear energy transfer. In addition, the commission stated that it was permissible to use approximate values for Q and provided tables of value. In publication 60, the commission replaced the dose equivalent defined at a point of Q by the equivalent dose derived by weighting the mean absorbed dose in organ or tissue by the radiation weight and factor. I merely make mention of this document as an example of the ongoing research in to the area of radiological protection.
Since early last century, the question within scientific circles has apparently been …
Mr Dunham: Good on you, it has been one of the deficiencies in this parliament.
Mr KIELY: You should listen to this, member for Drysdale. … are radioactive particles far more dangerous than current international models predict?
Dr Burns: You mob used to drink it!
Mr Ah Kit: Barry did.
Mr KIELY: I shall continue, Madam Speaker. Since the first ICRP publications, this debate has led to an increasingly rigorous set of standards. Just as in 1978, a set of radiation protection standards was introduced into the Territory on the basis of quality ICRP recommendations, we see the same thing happening in 2004 based on recommendations stemming from the 1991 ICRP report 60 adopted by the NHMRC in 1995.
The July 2003 edition of New Scientist carries a story titled ‘Experts can’t agree on internal radiation risk’. The article goes on to say that the debate centres on the risk estimate set by the International Commission on Radiological Protection and used by governments around the world. Risk estimates, the article claims, calculate what a safe dose is based on the impact radiation has on living tissue. Therefore, the dose depends both on the energy absorbed in the tissue and on the type of radiation that the atoms emit. Critics of the ICRP say the doses for internal emitters are not calculated correctly. The jury is still out on this point of view and the article claims there seems little hope of progress being made before the new ICRP report is due in 2005.
This bill brings the Territory into line with other jurisdictions by including protection of the environment as well as the individual; broadening the radiation protection field to include both ionising and, for the first time, non-ionising radiation; and the provision for the adoption of contemporary standards and notably lower occupational and public dose limits.
The bill has embedded in it the three components of the ICRP policy for biological radiation protection that leads to the basic system of protection. These are: the justification of a practice, which implies doing more good than harm; the optimisation of protection, which implies maximising the margin of good over harm; and the use of dose limits, which implies an adequate standard of protection even for the most highly exposed individuals.
The minister has advised the Assembly of the part that the NCP review of the Northern Territory’s Radiographers Act played in the formation of this bill. I see no need to go over the findings of the Centre for International Economics in its May 2000 report. The minister has quite succinctly brought to our collective attention the deficiencies of the Radiographers Act and the measures he is introducing to address those deficiencies.
All other jurisdictions are undertaking revisions of their radiation protection legislation based on the same principles and standards as contained in the National Directory for Radiation Protection. The Northern Territory had to embark early on this process owing to the deadline imposed on the repeal of the Radiographers Act and the resulting incorporation of its radiation safety and licensing provisions into the new radiation protection legislation.
Implementation of the NCP review of the Radiographers Act will not adversely affect the quality of assessment of the fitness of radiographers to perform their work, as such assessments will be based on the respective criteria contained in the national directory. The fact that radiographers will not be registered as a profession will not have any implication on that quality. Currently, in half of the jurisdictions around Australia, radiographers are not registered as a profession. This is not likely to radically change after all the jurisdictions review their respective radiation legislation.
Finally, Madam Speaker, I would like to make the observation that the review of radiation protection legislation has taken far too long in the Territory. Twenty-five years is an unacceptable interval when dealing with rapidly changing technologies. I am very pleased that the minister has decided to include the provision that this proposed legislation must be reviewed before its 10th anniversary and continue to be reviewed at intervals of not more than 10 years. Like the member for Port Darwin, I also take this opportunity to acknowledge the research, dedication and professionalism of the Department of Health staff and advisors, particularly Dr George Koperski and Mr Xavier Schobben, in the preparation of this bill.
Dr TOYNE (Health): Madam Speaker, from the outset, I thank members for their contributions and welcome the general support offered by the opposition. We will certainly deal with the areas of concern that they expressed earlier.
Perhaps we can just recap the general structure of this reform as a starting point to dealing with the issues that the member for Port Darwin raised. The bill itself is a framework that will be fleshed out by the outcomes of the National Directory on Radiation Protection, and that will give a lot of the detail. For example, in areas like the exemption categories, and determining the competency of operators of radiation sources. That will come in by way of regulation, which will inform the operation of this act once it becomes law. We are really only seeing the first part of a two-part process.
I can indicate that the drafting and implementation of regulations, that will provide the detail by which this legislation will operate, will be done between now and roughly the end of the year. We will certainly be fully informed by the National Directory on Radiation Protection to make sure that the Territory legislation not only has the detail in place for the protection that we are wanting for Territorians, but also that it is very much in compliance with the national standards that are being established at the moment. When we are looking at issues in this, I will have to refer to that which is still to arrive, which is the national competency criteria, the national definition of the automatic exemptions that will apply to some areas of radiation sources, allowing them not having to be registered.
I was pleased to hear the opposition acknowledge, as indeed the Radiographers Board has also acknowledged, that this is a big step forward. We have considerably lowered the safety thresholds for exposure to radiation, extended the scope of the legislation to cover a much wider range of radiation sources, and have introduced a regulation across people who were previously not regulated. The outcome for the Territory will be very positive in that we can be much more assured that people undergoing procedures - whether it is getting a sun tan under an ultraviolet light or having skin treatment through lasers, or a number of other areas - will now come under some regulatory scheme; and not only a regulatory scheme, but one that is common right around Australia. That is what we are very much aiming to do here. The legislation we have in the Territory currently is incomplete and overlapping; it is not a particularly good protection for Territorians. It is timely that we are bringing this reform forward.
I will now deal with the amendments that have been foreshadowed by the member for Port Darwin. I have to indicate, with respect, that we will not be picking them up. However, I would like to explain why and give undertakings that your worst fears will not be realised in those areas. You will probably have more luck tomorrow - I will just give you a little clue there.
Dealing with clause 10, this clause is actually very similar to one that is currently in the Radiation (Safety Control) Act, and has been in force since 1978 within the Northern Territory. The power of the Chief Health Officer to exempt a person, radiation source or place from the act is effectively limited by clause 10(2) which states that:
There are two arms to the way in which exemptions would operate under this new legislation. One is the automatic area of exemptions, which are going to be set down in the national scheme. As the member for Sanderson said, it defines a range of radiation sources which will automatically fall within the regulatory arrangements, so they have to be registered. Then there are areas outside those which, because of the lower dose rate or the type of emissions, would automatically fall outside the operation of the legislation. That will not be just here; it will be right around the country.
The other is the discretionary category, where the Chief Health Officer - as you quite rightly pointed out - will have to make decisions about a particular radiation source that comes to his or her notice. They can turn to two different sources for advice on that. In the absence of a Radiographer’s Board, which would have given advice at least on medical radiation sources, there is no problem under this legislation with calling together an expert committee if that is necessary. That could well be people who were on the Radiographer’s Board previously.
The other point is the inspectorate, which is the group that will be going around enforcing this legislation. You would expect that they would have – and I know many of them do have - good skills and knowledge in this area. They would be available to provide advice to the Chief Health Officer on where discretionary decision would be required. However, I certainly say that you would not expect this situation to arise very often. Most of the carriage of this regulation will be by way of fairly strongly defined criteria within the Directory of Radiation Protection at national level, which will import into the operation of this legislation by way of regulation. That will be spelt out and there will not be too much doubt, in most cases, whether a source should be registered or not.
Putting all that together, we feel that the exemptions are, first of all, necessary and, secondly, they will be uniform right around the country as other jurisdictions adopt the national code. The examples I have given I hope would convey that, if you do not have any exemption categories as you are proposing, then you are going to end up with some pretty unmanageable areas of the operation of the act.
Regarding clause 15, I take your point whether this means that someone could say: ‘Well, bugger that, I am not going to …’ – sorry, Madam Speaker - ‘… report the loss of a radiation source’. Again, there is a real world out there and the intent of clause 15 is that you may well be in the situation where, with the best of intentions, you cannot simply notify within the seven days. The first thing to be said about clause 15 is that it does not provide any exemption for any person on the responsibility of reporting a loss of a source. Everyone is obliged to report that. What it is dealing with is that some people may find that they cannot report it within the seven-day period that is allowed under the legislation.
You could take some extreme examples of natural disasters, such as if a cyclone hits Borroloola and there is an X-ray machine there, and it disappears out into the McArthur River and floats downstream. At the same time, the telecommunications infrastructure is completely knocked out, and access to the area is unavailable for what could be for an extended period. Therefore, there might be, within an extreme event like that, some rare occasions where someone cannot provide notification. They are still bound to do it as soon as it is possible to provide notification, and the difference between seven days and when someone can finally manage to provide that notification, is where you have to have a reasonable excuse.
Other examples would be where you are away on holidays from the workplace; someone has knocked off the radiation source and you are not aware of it until you get back and you are made aware of that - and that might be a couple of weeks later. It is just a clause to allow for the real world, basically, to say that the intent of this legislation is that everyone should notify within seven days. If there are occasions - and you would expect they would be pretty rare, given the kind of extremes that I have outlined – then there should be the ability to go to the Chief Health Officer and say ‘This is why I could not notify within seven days’. That is what that clause is actually spelling out.
The third amendment is consequential to the first one, so you can deem that we will not be accepting that because we are not accepting the first. That is all I want to say at this stage in reply. Madam Speaker, we will move forward.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Mr CHAIRMAN: The committee has before it the Radiation Protection Bill (Serial 203) together with a Schedule of Amendments No 78 circulated by the member for Port Darwin.
Clauses 1 to 9, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 10:
Ms CARTER: Mr Chairman, I invite defeat of clause 10. The reason I have done that is that I am concerned, given the minister’s second reading speech in which he outlined that one of the reasons that this bill has been brought on is the increased risk of terrorism in our community, that our controls need to be very tight in the area of radiation.
The minister has explained to the House that there will be regulations which are developed pursuant to the passage of this bill which will provide greater detail and will outline categories into which items such as illuminating watches and ceiling fire alarms will, no doubt, be placed. I believe that is a good thing. However, by having this section in the act as a general section, in extreme circumstances - and I concede that they would be extreme - there is a possibility that, for one reason or another, a Chief Health Officer may do something in the future and give exemptions in a case which does get us into trouble with regards to radiation. That is why this amendment is being requested.
Dr TOYNE: I have indicated, Mr Chairman, that we will not be accepting this amendment. I want to say again with respect, because it is a perfectly valid issue to be raised, and I place on the public record that I will undertake at this stage, ti keep you fully informed of the development and promulgation of the regulations. We are certainly happy to look at any monitoring processes as this act comes into force. I am acknowledging that we all have to be careful about these things, and protection from radiation is a very important part of our community protection arrangements. I acknowledge all that, but we do not believe that we should be removing that exemption capacity for the reasons I have already given.
Amendment negatived.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clauses 11 to 14, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 15:
Ms CARTER: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 78.1. With regards to clause 15 and, with respect, the minister’s explanation before, I am not convinced in this instance that this clause should stand as it is. The reason I say that is that clause 15(2) still says:
And I now emphasise:
The minister described how there are circumstances where it might take more than seven days to get that information through to the Chief Health Officer. Frankly, yes, that might happen in extreme circumstances, but I do not think that is a reasonable excuse not to advise the Chief Health Officer. The legislation does not concentrate on that seven-day issue; it just says ‘unless there is a reasonable excuse’.
I cannot see why the minister’s reason has to just be that seven days. It could be anything that a person thinks is a reasonable excuse, not just the seven days. The bill does not actually specify that the reasonable excuse pertains specifically to the seven days.
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, perhaps I could provide some further framework around that term. ‘Reasonable excuse’ is not as would be commonly understood in the community. It has a legal meaning. I have already indicated that the person who would potentially be charged with contravening clause 15 of this bill is facing some pretty severe penalties.
If that case is then heard, they have to provide a reasonable excuse for why they did not comply. First of all, no one is exempt from the provision to notify. However, if they feel that they have a reasonable excuse as to why they did not comply with clause 15, it is not simply that any excuse will do; there is a legal framework that would be heard within a hearing. Therefore, it is a much tighter provision than simply: ‘My granny had a sore foot’ or something. There has to be a very clear justification given to the court within the legal meaning of that term, so we feel that there is adequate protection there.
Ms CARTER: My concern, though, is that if you took out ‘… unless the licensee has a reasonable excuse’, which is my proposed amendment and, given that incidences with radiation would be relatively infrequent in the Northern Territory - and they do describe the incident in the definitions of clause 15(5) as being:
So it has actually affected someone adversely:
For instance, the watch being smashed or something happening with your fire alarm, most people would assume that it is not going to adversely affect a person. However, this applies when it has actually affected someone because they might have a rash or feel sick or something like that, or is likely to affect them, so they might be cognisant of the fact that they have had a substantial dose of radiation because something happened to them. The definition goes on to say:
That is a description of a radiation incident in the bill which infers that it is a very serious nature, a radiation incident. It infers seriousness in that definition; it is not something relatively minor.
My view is that, given that we are talking now about a radiation incident, I do not see why everybody who is aware that there has been a radiation incident should not have to advise the Chief Health Officer. It would not be something that happens frequently. It is serious because of the definition there, and I cannot see the harm in having this amendment put in to get rid of that clause that lets people off the hook.
As a safety step, and given the serious nature of radiation and the concerns that we have brought here with regard to health and safety, I do not think that it is going to create such an onerous task for when it is a serious event that the Chief Health Officer should be made aware of the incident, and then they have the discretion to make a decision as to whether or not it is serious enough to pursue.
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I can only say that clause 15 stands as a package - a whole set of provisions regarding notification. As you can see, there are penalties of $11 000 for a person and $55 000 for a corporate body. This is serious stuff. Look at clause 15(4):
We have actually put a very tight time frame on this notification package. You do not want to be catching up people who are not trying to subvert the system. They are trying to do the right thing if they get their written advice in within 7 days and 4 hours after they became aware that there was a loss of a source, or a destruction of a source and potential irradiation of people or environment.
I am sorry, I have just been corrected about the penalties - $110 000 and $550 000, so it is even more serious. Sorry about that, my arithmetic is rusty at the moment.
To return to the point, I am very aware of the fact that, when you legislate - and I have seen a fair bit of it now - you cannot afford to have absolute cast iron inflexibility in it, because the real world is out there. It might look neat and tidy in here but, when you are at Borroloola it can get a bit untidy on a bad day, or somewhere around the Territory where it is not an ideal world to the operation of the legislation. We feel that there needs to be some room to move. If someone has deliberately set out to subvert this legislation, they are facing a tough penalty, and they have to face a hearing to explain why they did not notify the Chief Health Officer when they became aware of a potentially serious event: either a loss or damage to a radiation source. That is pretty serious stuff. However, you do have to have some minor flexibility with it where you get extreme events happening.
I have been pretty clear on why we are not supporting this amendment. Again, I will be more than happy to work with you and keep you informed on how this falls out, particularly with the regulations, which will exemplify a lot more the actual context this is going to operate in.
Ms CARTER: Before I make final comment on that area, could I request from the minister that when the National Directory for Radiation Protection is finalised, could I get a copy of that.
Dr TOYNE: Absolutely.
Ms CARTER: That would be great.
My final comment with regard to this amendment is that I can foresee a circumstance where you might, for instance, have an employer and employees, and an incident occurs which is serious, based on this definition. A decision is made amongst them not to dob themselves in to the authorities, the Chief Health Officer, and they are going to hope for the best. My concern is that there is a chance that that incident will never be picked up. Whereas, because of the employer/employee power differentiation, if it was legislated that you had to report that incident to the Chief Health Officer, an employee would have the backing of legislation to be able to say to the employer: ‘Boss, we must report this’. I am concerned that, for various reasons - for example, an employer might not report an incident because they do not really have to and there is probably a good chance nothing will get picked up and they will not get into trouble. Whereas, if you did allow for this amendment to go through, then we take away the opportunity for certain people to not do the right thing and place pressure onto, for example, employees, to concur with that behaviour. If we had legislation that said: ‘We have to do it, mate, that is all there is to it’, then it strengthens the ability of some other people to be able to report things.
Dr TOYNE: The scenario you describe would not be a reasonable excuse under the legal meaning of that term. My personal wish is that, when you put a regulatory piece of law out into the community, people who are trying to subvert it should get caught, punished, and dealt with. I am confident that, within this structure, we can do that. However, there is always that balancing point with legislation; that you cannot make it so inflexible that it causes the people who were well-intentioned and were not trying to subvert the law, being picked up by the technicalities of the legislation and punished unjustly. Therefore, we have to find that balance. I believe we have. I will give you some further information on the National Directory. That is on a web site. We will get you the address and you can have a look at it.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chairman, my question is very quickly to the minister. I presume that the offence you are creating - especially considering the gravity of the penalty - that they are to be treated not as regulatory offences.
Dr TOYNE: Sorry, I could not hear that.
Mr ELFERINK: I take it that, especially considering the gravity of the penalty, they are not going to be treated as regulatory offences but are going to be treated either as simple offences or crimes?
Dr TOYNE: Correct.
Mr ELFERINK: The reason I raise this particular issue is because, if I remember correctly when the issue of sexual slavery was introduced into this parliament some time ago, I drew the parliament’s and the government’s attention to the very expression that the shadow minister is now drawing parliament’s attention to; that is, the issue of raising reasonable excuse as a possible defence. As the minister would be fully aware, if something in the Northern Territory is to be treated as a simple offence or as a crime, it would be subject to the provisions under the Northern Territory Criminal Code which deal with authorisation, justification and excuse.
Authorisation and excuse provisions are important in this case; justification provisions are not. However, all of the examples that the minister gave in relation to this already have excuse provisions available to them under the code. It has been accepted in the past by the minister that the addition of the words ‘reasonable excuse’ may provide another excuse outside of the provisions of the Criminal Code. The excuse provisions of the Criminal Code - for example, provisions such as duress, immature age which is probably unlikely in this instance, mistake of fact, and unwilled act or accident - are well established common law principles - or based on well established common law principles - as to why people should not be prosecuted for offences. What concerns me and members on this side of the House is that, by allowing for another reasonable excuse to be brought forward, you are actually undermining the effect of the operation of the Criminal Code and its excuse provision.
Minister, why are you accepting, in one instance, the argument of the sexual slavery amendments brought before this House - some two years ago if memory serves me correctly - and not accepting the same argument in relation to this piece of legislation?
Dr TOYNE: It is good to see your legal studies are coming along, member for Macdonnell. As I pointed out, there is a range of well-established components of the use of that term within legal hearings. This is just simply connecting it to the particular context of behaviour that is dealt with under this legislation. There is no additional component being established by this; it is a simply contextual one to the operation of that particular legal principle within the hearing. I said exactly the same with the last bill we debated around that point.
Mr ELFERINK: Well, that is a very good thing that you said that, because we debated on this point before, and you accepted it before. Why are you not accepting it in this case?. That was the question I just asked.
Dr TOYNE: I have nothing more to say. It has been dealt with.
Mr ELFERINK: In other words, ‘get stuffed’. Well, Mr Chairman, the minister says: ‘I am not interested, I am not going to talk about this issue’. He has accepted it before. It is not good practise, in my and this side of the House’s opinion. It has been raised before, he has accepted it. Now it all gets too hard, not going to talk about it, and ‘get nicked’. That is the attitude of this government towards the passage …
Mr KIELY: A point of order, Mr Chairman. Under Standing Order 61, the language that he is using is inappropriate in this place.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Which language are you referring to, member?
Mr KIELY: ‘Get nicked’, ‘get stuffed’. A couple of others probably chucked in.
Mr CHAIRMAN: I did not hear the first comment, but the second comment, ‘get nicked’, I would not regard as unparliamentary. Continue, member for Macdonnell.
Mr ELFERINK: I will withdraw it for the sake of not allowing the member opportunity to become annoying.
The fact is that principles of responsible government would hope that the minister would get off his behind, stand up in this House and explain the answer to a very simple question. Why do you accept an argument on one occasion, and refuse to accept the same argument on another occasion? And the answer is? The minister has an opportunity, but sits on his bum, says nothing.
Mr Kiely: Oh, fair go!
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order again, Mr Chairman. That is unparliamentary language, and I ask you to ask the member to withdraw.
Mr CHAIRMAN: I do not believe there is a point of order.
Amendment negatived.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clauses 16 to 85, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Dr TOYNE (Health): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, in the gallery we have the electorate officers who are participating in a seminar this week. On behalf of all members, I offer you a warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: I also want to advise members that over 250 students ranging from Years 4 to 7 from Wagaman, Woodroffe, Holy Spirit and Leanyer were welcomed to Parliament House by Mr Henderson, Dr Burns, Mr Mills, Mr Kiely and Ms Lawrie last week. The students participated in role plays conducted by Anna-Maria Socci, and toured the building with Catherine Turner and Liz McFarlane. I have had excellent feedback from schools that have been involved in these tours. I thank those members who are actively involved with those students.
It is now our policy to notify members when a school from their electorate comes to visit Parliament House, and I encourage all members to participate as much as they can. Thank you to those who already have.
Continued from 26 February 2004.
Mr BONSON (Millner): Madam Speaker, I support the report of the Standing Order Committee on the draft Members Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards and the draft amendments to the Legislative Assembly (Register of Members’ Interests) Act.
For history’s sake, we should outline how we came to this point we are now at. On 20 June 2002, Chief Minister, Hon Clare Martin MLA, tabled the two draft documents which were referred to the Standing Orders Committee for inquiry and to report back to the Assembly. These draft documents followed a letter written by the Speaker, Hon Loraine Braham MLA, to the Chief Minister and the Leader of the Opposition urging investigation and consideration of a code of conduct for members.
Madam Speaker, as you would know, the committee has met 11 times to discuss in detail issues surrounding a members’ code of conduct. I believe that all current and former members of the Standing Orders Committee should be congratulated for their bipartisan approach to this issue. They include the former chair, Syd Stirling, the member for Nhulunbuy; the retired member for Katherine, Mike Reed; and current members including the current chair, the member for Wanguri, Paul Henderson MLA; government members, the member for Johnson, Dr Chris Burns; myself, the member for Millner; opposition members the members for Greatorex, Richard Lim; and Macdonnell, John Elferink; and Independent member for Braitling, Loraine Braham.
I am proud to say I attended all 11 meetings and have attempted to make sound informed suggestions wherever possible. A wide range of consultation was undertaken. The committee’s terms of reference and objectives were advertised in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly web site. A call was made for written submissions to presiding Clerks of all Australian parliaments; the NT Auditor-General, the NT Anti-Discrimination Commissioner; and the Queensland Crime and Misconduct Commission.
Written submissions were received from the Independent member for Nelson, Gerry Wood MLA; the New South Wales Legislative Assembly Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics.; and Mr Mike Blake, the Northern Territory Auditor-General. An informal submission was received from the Queensland Legislative Assembly Ethics and Parliamentary and Privilege Committee.
During the consultative phase, I was very interested in issues of spouse and family reporting requirements; reporting on the value of real estate, shares and other holdings; and provisions in other Australian and overseas jurisdictions.
I make special note of recommendations contained in the Auditor-General’s submission relating to his belief that the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly retain the Register of Members’ Interests. He also recommended that the Auditor-General should only make inquiries about members’ interests, reach findings based on fact, and provide reports back to the Assembly based on providing procedural fairness to members in respect of any alleged breaches of the proposed new code and act.
We also had the pleasure and honour of meeting the New South Wales Legislative Assembly Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics. The Chairman, Mr John Price MP, was a fantastic character. His committee has recently completed a review of the Code of Conduct in New South Wales, which was introduced to the New South Wales Parliament in 1998. I found this meeting most interesting and I thank them for their contribution.
After consultation, I believe that members of the committee agree that the code should contain a statement or fundamental principles to provide guidance to all members in fulfilling their duties, obligations and functions as members of our great Assembly. A requirement that members shall not hold or continue to hold, in their own capacity or through a third party, a contract or business or arrange for provision of services to government for other bodies, should be taken into account.
Amendments by the committee to the draft code tabled by the Chief Minister include four major principles: integrity; accountability; responsibility and public interest. I believe this is of interest to all members of parliament and the wider community. Members of the public want all members of this House to act with integrity, accountability, responsibility and, of course, in the best interests of the public.
To assist the code achieve these principles and standards, we incorporated issues of honesty - in particular the honest exercise of duties and responsibilities as a member of this Assembly - to ensure that conflicts of interest were covered within the code so as members would not be placed in situations of conflict of interest that could lead to a breach of their duties to this House and the public. We also incorporated a declaration of personal interest and a positive responsibility to correct mistakes of recorded interests. It is important that members of this House realise that there is a positive responsibility to correct mistakes of recorded interests, and they should take steps to put their accounts and affairs into a proper framework under the code.
With regard to a restriction of employment of members for one year after ceasing to be a member, there are past examples in other parliaments where members, unfortunately, have put themselves into a position where there is a perception that they may have breached the code of conduct with their employment once they have left parliament. We needed to make quite clear that this was inappropriate behaviour within the code. There is also prohibition of taking advantage of a member’s political position either within government or, of course, as an opposition member, within parliament; and provisions relating to gifts one might receive as a representative of government.
In summary, the code requires members to contribute or add to good governance by pursuing the improvement of the public interest based on honest, reasonable and properly informed judgment about the common good of the people of the Northern Territory.
The new act also provides mechanisms to deal with claims of breaches. Breaches would be subject to an independent investigation by the Auditor-General; an investigation based on findings of facts, and reporting to the Assembly on those findings of facts in accordance with the requirements of procedural fairness.
I also bring to your attention that the new Legislative Assembly (Members Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards) Act will require legislative reporting. I understand the time frame for the debate will be later this year. I implore all members to take this time to familiarise and educate themselves in respect of the new code and act.
I thank all members of the committee for their tireless work over the 11 meetings when the code was discussed. I thank everyone, including the Clerk and people who have made submissions. We have really worked in a bipartisan manner to come up with a code and ethics guideline that, hopefully, will ensure that members act appropriately and within their responsibilities and duties as elected members.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I was surprised to hear from the minister that I was the only member of the Legislative Assembly who made a submission on the draft code of conduct.
It is not as if the Territory parliament has a clean bill of health as far as individual behaviour of its members goes. The number of situations in which politicians have abused their positions of trust in the past decades is legend. On the national scene, they include: the misuse of travel allowances; conflict of interest; misuse of credit and telephone cards; the abuse of political position and parliamentary privilege; and lying to public inquiries. We have also seen Labor and Democrat members leave their parties but refuse to vacate their seats in parliament, despite signed pledges and parliamentary convention.
Over the years in the Territory, of course, we have seen punch-ups and head-butting, and a microphone wrapped around a journalist, pawning of parliamentary white goods, misuse of government vehicles, misuse of office resources; misuse of ministerial discretionary allocation of funding, pork barrelling of public funds; and the use of public resources for party political purposes. Is it any wonder that politicians are sometimes on the nose - well not sometimes, always? In 1998, a Morgan poll revealed that Australians viewed the honesty and ethics of politicians as only slightly better than those of car salesmen. Only 7% of Australians believed that politicians had high standards of ethics or honesty, and car salesmen were the only profession with a lower ranking. Journalists, lawyers and real estate salesmen were higher on the scale. In 2001, politicians still rank at 22 out of 28 professions.
Members of parliament are in a position of trust bestowed on them by the community, and they have a great deal of discretionary power. They should act honestly, diligently and with propriety. In reaction to the public cynicism about politicians and the political process and, in an effort to address that cynicism, parliaments around Australia have adopted codes of conduct for members - and some government have also adopted codes of conduct for ministers.
I am on the record as saying that we do not really need a code of conduct. I went on record during an interview with the ABC Stateline, when the member for Millner was involved in a fight after a basketball game. I was asked to give my views on whether we needed a code of conduct, and I still believe that we really do not need one. The reason why is we are all over the age of 21. We all should know better and, if we do not know better, the people who will make the judgment will be the electors. Therefore, you have to ask: why we have to codify everything? However, obviously there are some issues - especially when it comes to financial issues - that need to be codified. Generally, if you are looking at the actual term, ‘code of conduct’, how does one conduct oneself as a parliamentarian? Surely, in the end, that is the job of the electorate.
Despite these views, once the draft code had been published, I decided I should have some say on it. It appears that the Standing Orders Committee has ignored most of my proposals. Therefore, for the benefit of members who have not seen my submission, I shall now share it with you.
In relation to the preamble, I suggested that the following purposes be added to the preamble based loosely on a Canadian code of conduct for politicians. In other words: why are we having a code of conduct? Well, the purpose of the code of conduct and ethical standards should be to: recognise that service in parliament is a public trust bestowed on them by the people of the Northern Territory; to maintain public trust and confidence in the integrity of members to the Legislative Assembly, and respect and confidence in parliament as an institution; and to provide guidance and set standards for members so that public trust is maintained as they discharge their duty to parliament, their constituents, and the wider public. The committee chose not to add any purposes to the preamble.
In relation to integrity, the draft code contained a clause requiring a member to make an oral declaration of personal interest, whenever he or she proposed to speak in a debate or vote on a matter before the Assembly to which his or her interest was relevant. I submitted this seemed to be a grey area, best highlighted with an example: if a member was a real estate agent with a still active licence, should he or she declare that interest before debating or voting on legislation that directly affected the real estate industry? Surely, there would be an apparent conflict of interest arising in such a case. Should a member make an oral declaration of personal interest when close members of his or her family held interest in businesses, companies, trusts or property that were directly affected by a piece of legislation, and the member had declared that family interest in the register? The committee, I believe, actually took that up, but moved it to a different section which comes under Declaration of interest, No 11 on page 8 of the report from the Standing Orders Committee.
In relation to conflict of interest, I suggested a new clause that members should avoid situations in which their private interests conflicted, had the potential to conflict, or appeared to conflict with their public duty, to remove any perceived conflict of interest. However, the final code here does not deal with perceived conflict of interest.
In relation to self-dealing, I suggested a new clause be added that members should avoid abuse and extravagance in the provision or use of public resources. I suggested this addition because the former Labor opposition, and several former CLP ministers, had apparently used large amounts of stationery for party political election purposes. All members and their staff - especially ministers - are provided with resources and facilities at public expense so they can do their jobs effectively. These resources should not be wasted or used extravagantly, misused by other people, or used for personal or party political purposes. However, the committee chose not to adopt this suggested clause.
I feel that my clause would be much stronger because it brings in the whole issue of the appearance of an attempt to corruptly influence the member in the exercise of his or her duties because, really, that is what the difficulty is when receiving gifts.
Finally, I suggested the application of a code specific to ministers:
(1) that ministerial staff should declare their interests to their ministers to prevent a conflict of interest.
This information would not be made public. That proposal was taken from the code in Western Australia.
It would prevent situations such as the following hypothetical: a minister is advised to make a certain
decision in relation to gaming laws or regulations in the Territory when the staff member has shares in the
company or companies that will benefit from the decision, and the minister is not aware of that interest.
The minister may well still take the advice, but at least will be aware of the self-interest involved;
I think it should be (ii) there:
I am not sure how far that would go. As I said before, it was raised.
In the Territory, of course, politicians are not allowed to hold two public offices as they are allowed in New South Wales. There have been a number of mayors, I think in New South Wales, who have held both a position on local government and a position in the state government. You wonder how they would get round some of these particular issues
In my own case, if my daughter works for an Aboriginal body and I speak on an Aboriginal issue, am I required to say that my daughter works for that particular institution? Is that too broad? Does it affect her privacy? If there is nothing of a pecuniary nature in my comments that could be gained, am I required under clause 7(o) to say that my daughter works for a particular body? What would happen if I did not do it? Do I come under this section of the act that says I would be in contempt of parliament? Would it come under that? It needs some clarification. How far do you take it? If I speak on the AFLNT and my daughter happens to be a goal umpire, is that a breach? I might tell you I am a field umpire, that is okay. How far do you take these issues? Where is the cut-off line between what is required to be disclosed and what is not required?
Minister, I understand that may be a far-fetched example, but what I am asking is: where do you draw the line between me disclosing to this House what my family does? Do I go down as far as my cousin or my second cousin twice removed? What are the limitations on the requirements for me, as a member, to let other members in this parliament know before I speak on a certain issue? I raise that because it is a fairly grey issue.
I welcome the document; it is here for discussion. I am not sure we need it. We already have to declare our interests within one month after we are elected and that document or register is for everyone to see. I believe it is a requirement before anyone rises to speak, where you have a pecuniary interest arising from a particular issue such as if you own shares or half a race horse or something similar, when you are discussing matters relating to that, that you need to make a disclosure to parliament before you make the speech.
Codes of conduct are things that I do not think are always necessary. We have codes of conduct in the advertising industry. You will see codes of conduct come up on the TV screen. They will tell you if you have some problem with some of the advertising, write to them. Why do I need to write to them? They should know better in the first place that some of the stuff they put on television is not up to standard. There is no one to enforce that except the industry itself, and I do not believe that always works. If you were to look at some of the ads on TV, you would ask how responsible they are. Last night and today, we have been talking about alcohol issues. You would ask how responsible some of the ads that are put on television promoting alcohol are. There is a self-regulation code for advertisers, but who enforces it?
Sometimes these are nice documents but, in the end, as I have said before, we are elected by the people. We are all over the age of 21. Hopefully, that means we are over the age of reason. The people elect us and it will be the people who get rid of us if we do not do our job properly. That is the way it should be.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I applaud the comments made by the member for Nelson. He draws the point very clearly that there is a level of ethical behaviour versus a code of conduct. We, as parliamentarians, should be talking about aspirational ideas about how we behave in this place and in pursuit of our elected positions.
When you have a code, you promote the lowest common denominator; the minimum standard that has to be achieved to observe the code of conduct whereas, if you have a level of ethics then you all aspire to do the right thing at all times. That is what all parliamentarians should aspire for, whether there is a code of conduct or not. That is what you should be doing: you aspire for the highest level of ethical conduct possible. Do the right thing and then you would not need a code of conduct.
However, the government, in its grandstanding that it achieved government, thinking they were going to introduce this, have been locked into an exorable course of action that has brought about by this Standing Orders Committee’s report and draft bill. I found it quite curious when we consulted with many different parties that, when we met with the New South Wales committee on ethics, the chairman, Mr John Price, advised the committee to hasten very slowly and cautiously, because these are the sort of things that, once you design, can turn around and bite you on the bum.
It is curious also, when you read through the papers - the speech, the tabled report and the draft bill - that it all turned around to becoming one document about pecuniary interests. Nothing else; not a single word about behaviour, apart from this catch-all phrase that the member for Nelson alluded to a short while ago when he talked about clause 7(o)(i) and (ii). It is just a catch-all phrase.
It is important that we talk about ethics, that we try to achieve what everybody knows is the right thing, and not have the minimum standards of behaviour for parliamentarians. It is no wonder we, as parliamentarians, get such a bad name in the public, and are seen as people just out to look after their own interests only, snouts in the trough, and all that negative comment that has been made about us from time immemorial. A code of conduct, by its definition, therefore becomes very prescriptive whereas, when you have ethical behaviour, then there is no prescription, we all know what is right and what is wrong, and we should all aspire to do the right thing.
I went through the draft bill fairly closely. It does not refer to anything about standards of behaviour of parliamentarians. That is probably more - if I can use the word - sinful, than the issues about pecuniary interests, because these pecuniary interest items can be reasonably easily traced and tracked. Even if you try to hide it, you will find that you will soon be discovered. However, behaviour amongst all of us, that is something that we should be upstanding about, setting an example for our community. If we were to behave well, I believe the public would start to respect parliamentarians for the good job they are doing from day to day.
I found it interesting, in the general principles that were put into the draft, on page 10, number 30
Mr Henderson: Give an example.
Dr LIM: Ethical behaviour, and you would not have a problem.
Mr Burke: Why did you get rid of the Health minister?
Mr Henderson: One.
Mr Burke: Why did you sack the Health minister?
Mr Henderson: One example.
Mr Burke: Yes, that is a good one.
Dr LIM: I see the minister is suddenly silenced by the interjections of my colleagues from this side of the House.
When you look at page 12 of the draft, again, we raised this at committee, and it was defeated by the numbers in the committee …
Mr Henderson: Where is your dissenting report? Too lazy.
Dr LIM: When we talked about the members of Assembly being required for a period of one year after ceasing to be a member, not to represent or take up employment or a directorship with, nor act as advisor or consultant etcetera, you said: ‘It is really not the member of parliament, so much as a minister. It really relates to a minister’. But no, the committee refused to take on that. It should be a minister that should be restricted from taking offers outside parliament that are related to their work prior to retirement from parliament. That is more relevant than what is contained in this draft. Really, the tragedy of this draft is that it provides a very proscriptive code where members have to observe the minimum standard, and then, that is it! That is where it stops.
Probably of most interest to anybody who wants to read this draft bill, is clause 7 and all its subsections from (a) through to (p). It talks about Disclosure of interest. There are so many things that need to be canvassed. We do not even know yet how this draft bill will contradict the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act, for instance. The federal Privacy Act is another one. This clause 7 with regards to Disclosure of interest, demands that I report financial interests of others who are related to me - my daughters, my sons, my wife. What right do I have to invade their privacy? And if I did, what happens? Am I subject to the punitive clauses within the Privacy Act?
I am glad I spoke to the Clerk this morning about this. I asked: how do we go about ascertaining this bill or the clauses contained therein, do not contradict all these other acts of federal government that have precedence over the Territory legislation? The Clerk advised me that, indeed, if the report and the draft bill are passed by parliament today, the clauses within it will then be tested by the office of the Clerk - obviously through seeking legal advice and other ways - to ensure that the clauses contained are legal and not contradictory to any other legislation that has precedence over Territory legislation.
I draw the minister’s attention to page 23 of the draft bill, regarding inspection of registers, clauses 13(1) and (2). In clause 13(2) it says:
Clauses 14(1), (2), and (3) cause me some concern, because any member could make a complaint, and may give rise to frivolous claims. Can you imagine somebody putting a claim against another member, and the second member, out of pique, then writes a letter of complaint to the Auditor-General about every other member of this parliament? Can you imagine, what the Auditor-General will have to do? He will have to audit all 25 members of this parliament. It makes no sense and that clause may need to be redrafted. I believe the current pecuniary interest document provides plenty of safeguards and we have done it now since self-government, I believe. It has worked well for us …
Mr Henderson: People have done very well under it as well.
Dr LIM: … and I do not see the need to change it. I cannot hear what the Leader of Government Business is interjecting about, but if he does interject, just think – I do not know what the Chief Minister has, owns or possesses, but I would assume that she would have her own and her family assets, that she would have some sort of association with her spouse or significant other, with his businesses and assets also. Where do you stop? Your pecuniary interest document today provides with adequate information. If it does not, you need to go up one extra level: I wonder if the Chief Minister has declared everything that she owns, item by item right across the list? I have not bothered to check it out. I do not believe that is really a matter for me to check it out. If we are all acting at the highest level of ethics we would declare what we consider is of potential conflict. Therein that is where it should lie. Then to say in clause 15(3):
You allow a member to make a frivolous claim and they make it with parliamentary privilege? What sort of ethical behaviour is that? I cannot understand that.
The Leader of Government Business said: ‘Why didn’t you object at the committee level?’ I believe there were many objections raised by the opposition. That is why it took almost two years for this to come to this stage of debate. There were many clauses that we were concerned about. We kept arguing but there were many times when the chairman of the committee would say: ‘Uh uh! That is it, whether you like it or not. This is what the government wants to do and it will go through’. If it was going to go through, it will go through. You were talking to a brick wall and were not going to get any further anyway. That is where I believe that the whole code of conduct has such an irrelevancy in this instance.
I said earlier we should be talking about aspirations to behave with the highest ethical standards possible. You just take this afternoon’s Question Time, for instance, when the Leader of Government Business stretched the truth so far it became almost unrecognisable. That is the sort of problem …
Mr Henderson: ‘Absolutely!’ said the Leader of the Opposition.
Dr LIM: … that is unethical behaviour. You quote people out of context when you read things ...
Mr Henderson: ‘Absolutely!’.
Dr LIM: The Leader of Government Business continues to interject and tries to deny it, but I am saying this is where …
Mr Dunham: He accepted it because he did it. He said ‘Absolutely that is what he did’.
Dr LIM: Absolutely, he accepts it. Well, there you go.
That is the problem where, with unethical behaviour, using the lowest common denominator of code of conduct, you do what you like and it does not matter. I say to you, it is about ethics and the highest aspirational level that one can achieve. If you do that, then your conscience is clear. At least you can sleep peacefully each night in bed without having to worry about where you have gone wrong. That is the way I see it. This code of conduct - well, the government has the numbers, it will go through anyway. It is a political commitment on their part, just like the swimming pool legislation was a political commitment. They are just going to bring it through, like it or not, and the best we can do is to provide words of caution, just like the member for Nelson has done – lots of words of caution that this is not the right way to go. There is enough legislation contained within our parliament to ensure that we all do the right thing; that we provide clear pecuniary declarations so that anyone who wants to have a look can find out for themselves. It is not hard to continue to do further searches if you so choose.
On that note, while the intention was good in the first instance, the motivation behind the intention was not. It was just a political stunt and they are now committed to a path from which they cannot back out. They are going to do it, come what may and it will come back one day and bite everybody on the bum.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): It is very interesting, Madam Speaker, the silence from the other side. One would have thought they would have leapt to this great statement that was made by the Chief Minister over two years ago, which was greeted with clamouring and applause from the other side. Now we have the product of the deliberations of the committee that took away what the Chief Minister proposed and has brought it back here.
I should reserve the majority of my comments for the bill that will appear before this parliament. Nonetheless, this is a step on the way to a bill, and there are a few things we should point out. There are some flaws in the proposed legislation, which I will point out. Like the two previous speakers, I believe there are deficiencies in this, in that what you are trying to do is govern how public officials, particularly members of this parliament, conduct themselves.
I am interested, for instance, that there are a number of issues relating to behaviour of members opposite and of their staff that will not be picked up in this. I did a quick little thing this morning and came up with a few of them. For instance, hanging banners off the Parliament House, which occurred during one of the protests at the front was something that only occurred, to my knowledge, with the previous opposition, now the government.
It is interesting that page 10, section 27, deals with staff. I quote from clause 27:
We could include in there fornicating on the Speaker’s chair, assaulting staff, fighting in a pub, abusing members of parliament - I am talking about staff here - burning effigies of the Prime Minister, and stealing government assets. There are number of things that have happened in the last couple of years with staff - some of whom been chastised some of whom have not - that should be issues in relation to a code of conduct.
It was interesting, for instance, that there was a member of parliament whose staff rang the Police Commissioner alleging something that did not occur. The Police Commissioner went off on a wild goose chase …
Mr Henderson: That was some of your staff. Head-butting people in pubs, strangling reporters.
Mr DUNHAM: … and it turned out that a member of parliament, the member for Fannie Bay, was complicit in a fabricated complaint to the police that cost them time and money. This is behaviour that I find offensive but is not picked up in this. There are other examples:
Certainly, the Leader of Government Business provided significantly misleading information to this parliament about Tracy Lodge, which was subsequently found to be totally untrue, and he is yet to apologise …
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member well knows that he cannot allege that I provided any misleading information unless he does so by a way of substantive motion. I ask him to withdraw.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, member for Drysdale, you do know that.
Mr DUNHAM: Okay. There was …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale!
Mr DUNHAM: I withdraw whatever offends him. What I am saying is there are a number of allegations that were put by the Leader of Government Business about Tracy Lodge. They were referred to appropriate authorities and found to be not true.
Mr Henderson: Wrong!
Members interjecting.
Mr DUNHAM: They were found to be not true.
Mr Henderson: Wrong.
Mr DUNHAM: In a case like that, I believe it is incumbent on members, particularly when it has caused offence to an instrumentality that is well known and well liked in the community. It is the home for many people. It certainly had a big impact on the person who was the subject of those various allegations. If he thinks they are not true, he should peruse Hansard, because I talked twice about this in debates and I have provided the information.
These are some of the things that are happening now. What we are saying is you should not get a gift or pinch people’s money. However, have a look at the behaviour that is happening in this parliament. We have had ministerial advisors come in and discuss things with members on the floor. I called attention to the House to a stranger in the House, because we had the absolute arrogance of a staffer from the 5th floor choosing to run a discussion on the floor of parliament. I have never seen that before. I have been associated with this House for a long time. Generally, there is a great deal of decorum and protocol attached to this place. Therefore, when we run through some of these little things, this thing will not prohibit the Labor Party from hanging banners from Parliament House like it has done. Many of their staff who thought it was quite funny about fornication on your desk, Madam Speaker. That will be one of those things that encourages emulating behaviours.
Assaulting staff and fighting in the pub is something that you should hang your head in shame about. I am talking about staffers abusing members of parliament at Christmas functions; burning effigies of the Prime Minister; stealing government assets which you have been unable to find the culprit for; and the abuse of illicit drugs.
I wrote to the committee, and I am not on their list of people who wrote to them, I note. However, that is all right …
Mr Henderson: We wrote back to you.
Mr DUNHAM: Written submissions were received from Gerry Wood, New South Wales, Mike Blake, and informal submissions. I wrote to the committee, and I have a letter from Paul Henderson, Chairman, Standing Orders Committee. I suggested they might pick up my suggestion that members who use illicit drugs should either desist from it or run the risk that there will be periodic tests to see if there are illicit drugs pumping through their veins. The letter, which I am happy to read into Hansard, says:
In other words, while they have happily gone around and picked up bits of stuff from anywhere else, my particular bill has to get the imprimatur from parliament that it is, in fact, a matter of code, conduct and ethical standards before it is referred there. I thought it was pretty much straight up and down that, if people consume illicit drugs, it would offend, certainly, the community mores among others. Therefore, it is probably something that should have found its way into this.
Matters of public referral could be problematic. I go to page 24 of the document, where anybody can make a claim alleging a member has failed to comply with the requirements of disclosure. All of us have disgruntled constituents and, sometimes for good grounds, they believe we should be doing something and we are not. These are matters of the member’s own guidance and choice. However, we will never, as politicians, ever have an entirely happy, satisfied constituency which agrees with everything we do - it is not going to happen. The reality is, you will get frivolous and vexatious claims by members of the public. If we look at clause 16, I believe there is a flaw there because, essentially, they can take it to the Auditor-General, the Auditor-General ‘may’ require the person to provide details etcetera. It could be anonymous, but he may require that. He may also refuse to action it if it is not provided. Therefore, he has the option of either proceeding with it as an anonymous submission, or he can refuse to take action if details are not provided.
Clause 16(6) reads:
My point is: what if he does not consider there are reasonable grounds? What if the Auditor-General, on receipt of this, considers it to be frivolous and vexatious? He is unable to deal with this in a way that brings it to a completion, because he actually must report to the Assembly. The Auditor-General must take this claim and report it to the Assembly. What you have here is the potential for various people who are not happy with us - for instance, the Socialist Alliance who were cosy with the Labor Party and then fell out of bed with them and invaded parliament and that sort of stuff. We saw the lengths they would go to, to achieve some sort of a podium to run the case. I believe you will find that this will be used for that purpose. It does not give the Auditor-General the capacity to make a judgment that this should not proceed to a report to parliament. That is the problem with it.
The oral declaration is a problem. If we have, for instance, people in this House who belong to secret societies, they should be saying that when they stand to speak. Members might find this funny, but I was at a council meeting where they were talking about codes of conduct and this was, in fact, something that was bought up. People said: ‘What happens if you are a member of a secret society, if you are a Mason? Do you have to declare this?’ Well, under here, I would suggest that you do have to make that declaration.
Mr Henderson: Wrong.
Mr DUNHAM: A bill such as this is okay for people like the member for Wanguri and others who really do not have many family members here. However, for those of us who have a lot, there are many areas of endeavour where they are engaged – many areas of endeavour. What we have is the potential for many of us standing up to make a declaration pretty much every time we speak on anything, because it is not mitigated – it is not a matter merely of pecuniary interest as the member of Nelson pointed out, it is a matter of any interest. I would have thought that most good members of this parliament would have a substantial number of interests. I would hope that members who hold ministerial portfolios have interests in those portfolios; that they may have patron roles, or membership of organisations, or family and friends who are connected, who serve on committees. We would have that great catalogue of assumptions about declaration made every time any of us stood up.
I have, for the interests of some members, the code of conduct that comes from the Westminster parliament. I note that, in the Chief Minister’s speech, she made a number of comments in context with our origins as a Westminster parliament and the things that all Westminster parliament’s do around the world. Well, here is the source document if you are of that belief. Look at what happens with the House of Commons. The code of conduct for members of parliament - and for the sake of Hansard I am indicating two-and-a-half pages – there is the code. The code of conduct for members of parliament is there. It is more fulsome in some of the guides to the code. For instance, when it comes to matters of gifts, members of parliament in the UK only have to declare a gift if it is from the same source and, in a calendar year, adds up to more than 1% of their salary. If members of parliament in the UK are on 100 000, if it does not add up to 1000, it is not declarable. Cumulatively, if they receive several gifts, it is.
The intent is probably right. The intent is that people out there are confident that the people in here are doing the right thing. I note that there is a small catalogue of some of the acts that impact on us in here. Before I had actually discovered that in this document, I had written my own out. Not only do all of the laws of the Northern Territory apply to us, but so too does the Criminal Code specifically. Talking about politicians, the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act does, the Electoral Act does, Legislative Assembly (Register Of Members' Interests) Act does, Legislative Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Act does, Standing Orders does and common law does - specifically to us. I would think that that is a fair body of legislation and guidance for members, which is a reasonable and proper thing that should be in place, particularly for those sections that deal only with members of parliament. I believe, like the member for Nelson, there is also the sanction that members can actually be turfed out of here. There is the sanction that, having put various things to our electorate, they may find them offensive and throw them out.
By interjection, the Leader of Government Business talked about various ministerial actions like strangling a person and having fights in pubs. Well, some of those things did have electoral consequences, and that is entirely right and fitting and proper. One of the members of the Labor Party pinched stuff. He went to an electorate which did not find that to be offensive; the electorate returned him …
Ms Lawrie: You are offensive.
Mr DUNHAM: Pardon? I am offensive? No, I am merely reciting the case. The case was that a member of the Labor Party government stole things, and was found guilty of it, and confessed up to it, and good on him. It was a matter of great bravery and courage. I am not actually criticising that. What I am saying is the people in his electorate judged that person and returned him to office, and I believe that is entirely appropriate. At the end of the day, the ballot box is what brought us in here, keeps us in here, and will expel us from here. Therefore, if we really are adherents to the principles of democracy, the people who should have the driving hand really should be the voters.
There are others who may claim that four years is too long and there has to be some intermediate thing that can bring contemporary actions to the attention of authorities. I would suggest that that body of law that is there is not too bad. I would suggest if we are going to have a code of conduct and registers of this type, I am in the fortunate or unfortunate position of not having too many assets. I do not have extensive share holdings. I do not have extensive property holdings or endowments. It is not something that I am complaining about because I have this terrible fear that people will find out about my great wealth that I have tucked away and hidden. That is certainly not the case in my circumstance. However, I believe that it is a matter of intrusion into families.
I can recall talking to Tom Burns, who was then the Labor Deputy Premier of Queensland, who talked about after Mulholland when some of these things came into place, including these declarations, and how difficult it was for their families. In their case, in their families - and I am sure he will not mind me quoting him because he was quite open when he was talking about it – it was difficult to talk to children and spouses and others and say: ‘Look, the law requires me to divulge everything you own’. There are some of our kids who do not like that. In fact, I would say it is 100% of them – 100% of the children who are dependent or substantially dependent - I think the words in here are - do not want people to know how much they have in the ANZ Bank. I would think that some of those things might need another look.
Perhaps there is a big loophole here where people can provide benefit to members merely by providing it to their immediate family or wife. That has to be balanced with the fact that we live in a very public situation of public life. I am not sure that that spot light should be put on our families. I am not sure it is in the best interest of members, having been elected, to make the assumption that that sort of public scrutiny applies also to your spouse. Again, in my case, my wife does not have massive shares and whatever either. I am making it as a general comment so that, before anybody thinks that somehow I have some terrible thing I want to hide - this massive amount of wealth - it is not the case.
I would argue, therefore, that we look first to what we are trying to achieve. The member for Nelson also said it. He said at the preface, you have not said what the purpose is. The very first item in this UK document talks about the purpose of the code:
I am quoting here:
Maybe that is the balance I am talking about. Maybe there are things here that happen outside of your public life that should not be a matter for this. If people are passionate authors and diligently working away on crime novels and making money out of that, I do not think that should be a problem. I do not think that should necessarily be a matter for this House.
I do not even have a problem with members who have left here who get a job somewhere in a public area. We have a significant number of ex-politicians who are working right through various systems - Commonwealth, state and territory - and many of them provide great public benefit. Bob Collins’s name came up this morning. Bob Collins works in a public capacity now, whereas once he was a minister. I do not have a problem with that. I have absolutely no problem with that. Whether 12 months is supposed to make some sort of a cooling off period, I do not know, but I would think that would be entirely the province of people who are making decisions on the basis of merit. If Bob Collins is the most meritorious, he should get the job.
With those few comments, I will close. However, I ask with some curiosity why the government members are not leaping to their feet to speak on this, and why they are leaving it to the opposition. In fact, it is a fairly quiet House here at the moment. If you have gone quiet on this, tell us, because those of us who have an interest in it really would like to know what your bona fides are.
Mr BALDWIN (Daly): Madam Speaker, in the interests of knowing that the government wants to get this debate over and done with, I will be very brief. I will just add to my colleagues’ comments and I agree wholeheartedly.
Let me say at the outset that I have no problem - nor does the CLP have a problem - with a code of conduct. However, if the Labor Party is so hell-bent on bringing into effect a code of conduct, I point out that they have had two-and-a-half years to do it and have not gone anywhere near it except that we have a committee’s report in front of us.
I will be very interested to see how quickly government implement the recommendations of this report, including the draft legislation. If the Labor Party is going to introduce legislation, it will bring about a new level of detail that has to be declared by members. That has been discussed already by members on this side, with nothing from the other side yet. Legislation will widen the net on all of those who have to declare an interest; not just members, but now extended family members and companies with which those members are associated - and on and on and on it goes.
The point I would like to put on the record for this debate is that, if you are so hell-bent on providing this level of detail for public scrutiny, why in the last two-and-a-half years haven’t you provided it in the declarations that we presently have to make? That is a good place to start. As I said, I have no problem with the code conduct. There is a whole raft of things in here, particularly when it comes to the assets and liabilities of members and the pecuniary interests of members. One place you could start right now - and you do not need legislation – is every member of the Labor Party on that side of the House, including the Chief Minister, could right now go up and fill out more detail in their pecuniary interests forms if they are so inclined for the public to have this information.
I took the time - as you will discover when you go and look at your pecuniary interests forms - to have a look at what sort of detail that you have provided - all of you, including myself and my members and Mr Wood and so on. There are some striking things in there. If you want the level of detail that you think this is going to provide and that Territorians are clamouring for, then let us take a couple of examples. Let us take minister Burns, for instance. It is interesting to note that he has put down on his pecuniary interests forms in the past all sorts of detail about the shares he holds. I would say that is good; he has AMP, Ansell and AGL shares. However, in the last pecuniary interest form that he filled out, which was updated on 3 October last year, minister Burns has now gone to putting on the record - and I guess he has sold his individual shares - all of these share funds in which he obviously has some interest: the Westpac Australia Tax Effective Share Fund, Barclays Australian Share Fund, BT Partner Australian Share Value 1 Fund, Barclays International Share Fund, Credit Suisse International Share Fund, Westpac Australia Properties Security Fund, Westpac Australia Bond, Sagota, and Rothchild Global Fixed Interest.
If you are really keen to ensure that members are fully declared and fully up-front about their pecuniary interest when coming to debate in this parliament, going into Cabinet, or making public statements, then start with yourselves.
How does the public know what all those share funds invest in? You do not, do you? That is fair enough, from my point of view. He has a range of shares; good on him. As far as pecuniary interests go and where you are trying to head with this level of detail, he could be sitting in Cabinet, as an industry-type minister, with industry portfolios. When do we know when he should declare an interest? There is going to be a level of trust involved if you just put that sort of detail in your pecuniary interests. I would say that is fair enough; that is good. What you are espousing is that you should put down every detail of pecuniary interests and, in this case, every share that is owned by that minister through those share companies. Is that not a bit ludicrous? However, I make the point that if you are fair dinkum about this, go and do it now. Go and get your pecuniary interests forms out now and write down all the detail.
Mr Henderson: Burnsie just has!
Ms Lawrie: Yes, I have.
Mr BALDWIN: Pardon? I did not hear that interjection, Madam Speaker. That is the point, that if you were really fair dinkum you could go and fix this up right now. The Chief Minister likewise, has actually put down her share interests in individual quantities - the quantities beside the shares she owns. However, once again, there is a portion of shares, or an investment portfolio that she has, that is just called the Westpac Personal Portfolio. The Chief Minister deals in a lot of things. How do we know she is not breaching the very code that is being proposed here? If you are fair dinkum about doing this, go and do it now. There is nothing to stop you from doing it now.
I am sure people would appreciate it if the government who, on one hand, are saying we need a more elaborative code of conduct, would appreciate you going and providing the detail. In this proposed code of conduct and the legislation, if you do not declare something, you are actually in breach and can be reported, as has been mentioned. Lo and behold, I am assuming the minister for Central Australia still has his house, or did you give it up because of the Larapinta matter, minister? If you still own your house at 44 Dixon Street, minister, you had better put it on your pecuniary interest form, because it ain’t there. It was there, but it has disappeared, so one would suggest or assume that it has been sold and he is living on the street, or maybe invested in a block at Larapinta - I do not know. That is the point I am making, that silly little breaches like that could certainly find members in hot water when there is probably no need. The same with the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries, who forgot to put his 400 Telstra shares on in his last pecuniary interests declaration, and then adjusted that once he realised - which is fair enough.
Little things like that, under the proposal that Labor is going on about, could get you into a lot of trouble. If you are intending that people have to be scrutinised under a magnifying glass for what they own, because it might give a conflict of interest, the best way to lead by example is to go now and declare on your pecuniary interests forms all those details, such as the members for Casuarina and Sanderson have about recent donations for their upcoming election from various parties and individuals. Good on you, that is great. But have others? I ask the question. You have some good friends, you two, but I do not think the others have any friends by the looks of it.
They could certainly lead by example. I would like to hear them make some comments in that regard. Why, in the last two-and-a-half years, have they not gone and put this level of detail in voluntarily when they are espousing a mandatory system that they can certainly do voluntarily - a system that has not shown to be inadequate in the past, but are hot to trot, even though it has taken them two-and-a-half years to get to this point? I will certainly be welcoming their comments in this regards, and an explanation as to why that level of detail does not currently appear in any of their pecuniary interest forms.
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, what an interesting debate it has been. The Standing Orders Committee has been working on this for two years – or nearly two years now. In committees that I have had the opportunity to serve on in this parliament, both in opposition and now as chair of the Standing Orders Committee, it has been a very thorough and bipartisan process. The committee, with members coming on and off the committee over that period, have worked well together. We have sought and received substantial submissions and we had representation from the New South Wales parliament. We worked very cooperatively in committee, clause by clause. The reason it has taken so long to get here, Madam Speaker, as you well know, is because we have worked through this code, clause by clause, to try and reach accommodation, from all members, testing many of the issues that have been raised here this evening.
The code, as it has evolved, has been bounced back – well, supposedly bounced back; it certainly was on this side of the House - to various party rooms for further consideration and input. When we concluded deliberation on the code some couple of months ago, I thought we had achieved consensus. I thought we had achieved agreement from all members on the committee that the code was now ready to come back from the Standing Orders Committee - a committee made up of Independent, opposition and government members - as a supported code to this parliament. Therefore, the allegations from the member for Greatorex that vast numbers of clauses in this code were crunched through by government members of the committee is an absolute falsehood. There were one or two where we said: ‘Well, this is the final position that we adopt’. There was certainly no - I do not see it in the report here to the parliament - dissenting report from the opposition. Therefore, I just wonder what has happened today. I wonder whether the members of the opposition who have sat on this particular committee in the last two years have referred their deliberations back to the party wing at all. I just wonder what has happened in the few weeks that this draft code has been on the Notice Paper, when members who have not sat on the committee picked it up, and what they are scared of.
None of the issues of absolute resistance to the implementation of this code were raised by opposition members on the committee. I find this a very strange development, particularly from the member for Greatorex who has served on the committee and spoke here tonight as though he opposed every single clause and every single word in a code that he has worked proactively on and argued for clarification of details of the wording. It was gone through word by word, clause by clause, punctuation mark by punctuation mark, and the member for Greatorex contributed fulsomely in those debates. I just wonder what has happened in the last month since we tabled this in this House so the member for Greatorex is now opposing all the work that he has put into this in the last two years. It really is a very strange turn of events in the debate this evening.
The reason we have had all of the members of the committee speak - we speak on behalf of our Caucus and we are all behind this code. Therefore, it is obvious that the members for Greatorex and Macdonnell have been rolled by their party wing regarding the work that they have been doing for the last …
Members interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON: Well, the member for Macdonnell has not been on this committee for the last couple of years. It has just shown they have not worked as a team at all, and referred any of these issues back to their party wing in the last two years.
What we have here is a draft bill. It will sit on the Notice Paper whilst the parliamentary draftspeople construct the bill and we bring this back later in the year as legislation and a defined code. We will have the legislation drafted in the principles of this act that was a bipartisan supported code that has come back to this parliament without a dissenting report. Given the mood from members opposite tonight, it is going to be an interesting debate when this legislation comes before the parliament. It sounds as though the opposition is going to vote against a code of conduct for this parliament.
Members talked about why we need this code, and what the intent was. Well,. the intent is to fulfil our election commitments in our good governance documents. We recognised in opposition that, essentially, a lot of the confidence in the institutions of government and parliament by the people of the Northern Territory were at a very low ebb, given the lack of openness, transparency and accountability provided around public issues over many years by the previous government. We put out a good governance document that said that, in government, we would introduce an independent Electoral Commission, freedom of information legislation, a code of conduct for members of parliament and whistleblowers legislation that we are currently working on. We have a mandate for this from the people as a result of this. The aspirations of this code, in combination with those other pieces of legislation that are being introduced, is to raise the confidence of Territorians in the institution of parliament in the Northern Territory, and the standing of members of parliament. I know members opposite would recognise this: one of the reasons that government changed hands in the Northern Territory is that a large number of people of the people of the Northern Territory recognised that openness, transparency and accountability were not being served on the people of the Northern Territory by the previous government.
An example of that lack of faith, of course, was the failure of all failures when the statehood referendum failed to get up when the people of the Northern Territory said: ‘We do not trust you’. The people of the Northern Territory said: ‘We do not trust this parliament with statehood’. If that was not a wake-up call that the people of the Northern Territory had lost confidence in the institutions of parliamentary democracy of the Northern Territory and we needed to fix things up – if the opposition are still in denial of that wake-up call, well it is on their heads.
The aspirations part of this code is to restore public confidence in the institution of parliament and the standing of members of parliament in our community. We are going to get some things right, we are going to get some things wrong, but the code of conduct is not a groundbreaking concept in parliamentary democracy. There are many Westminster parliaments around Australia and the world that have a members’ code of conduct. It is seeking to be an aspirational document. It is not seeking to impose enormous regulatory accountability and responsibility on members of parliament. It is supposed to be a document that, when people aspire to be a member of parliament and put their hand up for public office in the Northern Territory, they can, essentially, see what is expected of them. I am failing to understand why members opposite are so scared of such accountability. That is the intent of it; that is what we are trying to do. If members want to vote against it when it comes back to parliament later this year, well they stand on their record.
I will agree with the member for Nelson and other members that, at the end of the day, we are accountable to the people in our electorates who elect us. They pass judgment on us every three or four years and that is the ultimate accountability. In terms of aspirations as members of parliament and actually signing up to a code of conduct, members on this side of the House may get tripped up by it - who knows? - in the evolution of this code in this parliament. However, to have that there so that everybody knows and understands is a good move forward. Until tonight, I assumed, given the support that has been on the committee and the work that opposition members put into this code and the fact that it does not have a dissenting report attached to it, that it was supported by members opposite.
I am not going to go through all of the single issues that were raised by members. There were lot of red herrings that can be dealt with when the legislation comes back and put through clause by clause if members wish to oppose or amend a certain sections of the legislation when it comes through.
The members for Greatorex and Drysdale talked about the Auditor-General being snowed under with frivolous claims about breaches of codes and accountability. Why would any member with any sense of integrity in their electorate launch a frivolous claim that was bound to be investigated and reported back to this parliament? Why would anyone go to the Auditor-General, an independent statutory officer created by this parliament, who would come back and say: ‘This is a frivolous claim’? You would look a bit of a goose if you sent the Auditor-General off on a wild goose chase wasting his time and public money to have that reported back.
Mr Baldwin: What about a member of the public? Address that one.
Mr HENDERSON: Or a member of the public …
Mr Baldwin: You do not think they would do it?
Mr HENDERSON: If they want to expose themselves to public ridicule and are prepared to waste time and public money, that is really up to people. Ultimately, this is all about accountability, integrity, responsibility and the public interest. I do not think that those - and neither did the opposition until tonight - aspirations were something that we should be running away from.
There were a number of issues raised in debate. The member for Drysdale, in his usual way, was trying to bring serving, ex-members and staff into somehow falling foul of the code of conduct …
Mr Dunham: No, they will not; that is the point I am making. They will still get away with the same stuff.
Mr HENDERSON: There are many people. The member for Drysdale talked about ministers in our government supposedly heavying, influencing and coercing public servants and he went to a clause 30 in the draft code, and I quote:
And:
If the member for Drysdale wants to cast stones, he should look at this own performance against that aspiration in the code when he was serving as Health minister in the previous government and during the last budget leading up to the Territory election. We had a Public Accounts Committee inquiry into the false and misleading way that the budget papers were put together that year. Tabled in this House was a memo from the then CEO of Territory Health Services - the CEO who served under the member for Drysdale - that shows that the member for Drysdale was in total breach of that aspiration in the make-up of the budget in that financial year.
I will read again from the memo that was from the then CEO to the then Health minister. It goes exactly to show why this clause is important: to stop members of parliament and ministers monstering public servants in an attempt to achieve a political outcome. I quote:
Mr Dunham: Why don’t we refer it to PAC? Why don’t we do a censure motion?
Mr HENDERSON: Artificially be shown! This is from the Under Treasurer on request from the then Treasurer wanting to artificially show in the budget papers an increase at least equivalent to the CPI.
No wonder they are running scared.
Mr Dunham: We are not running scared. Bring it in.
Mr HENDERSON: No wonder they are running scared from this because, when members opposite talk about political interference in the public service, politicisation of the public service, and monstering public service, they have form. Have they got form!
The members who stood in this debate tonight talking against this code of conduct do it from a position of knowing that, if they were ever to get back to the Treasury benches, they would no longer be able to deceive Territorians in regard to the budget, and politically they want to be able to do so. So it is coming out now. It is coming out why the members opposite are going to oppose a code, which is an aspirational code that is seeking to restore public confidence in the institution of parliament and government in the Northern Territory, because they want to go back to their grubby tricks. They want to go back to the grubby way that they used to run the public service. Talking about politicising the public service, they had form and they had it in spades.
This memo from the then CEO of Health to the then minister will haunt the CLP for many years to come. The real reason that the CLP and the parliamentary wing do not want to see the passage of legislation in this parliament that improves openness, accountability and transparency of government, is because they have no idea of how to govern in the interests of Territorians and the Territory without resorting to their tried and trusted methods of the past.
Until tonight, I thought that this was an exercise in bipartisanship in trying to restore the faith of the people of the Northern Territory in the institution of parliament, another step along the road. I am very disappointed to see and hear that it sounds as though the opposition are going to oppose this. It is coming out now as to why they wish to do so.
We will bring this legislation back later this year. In the interim, the Clerk is advised and, on request from the Public Accounts Committee, will be putting together information kits and training and education sessions for members of parliament so when the code comes into place members understand their obligations. I urge all members to adhere to the code and, hopefully, this will be another step in terms of openness, transparency and accountability, in the same way that the establishment of an independent Electoral Commission, introduction of freedom of information legislation, whistleblowers legislation and this code of conduct will hopefully go some way toward restoring Territorians’ faith in government that was so vastly smeared by the previous government in the Northern Territory.
Motion agreed to; report adopted.
Continued from 25 February 2004.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Madam Speaker, this evening I congratulate the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General on his very comprehensive ministerial statement on crime prevention.
Crime prevention is an issue that goes to the core of us wanting to enjoy our lives here in the Territory and is the most effective tool in ensuring that we have a law-abiding society. It is not just a reaction to crimes and the activities of criminals, it is an attempt at heading it off at the pass. To do that, of course, there have to be many complex and varied approaches. Those approaches, as seen in the minister’s statement, change through each community to reflect the needs of that specific community.
I am obviously very interested in the crime prevention that has been occurring within my electorate of Karama and Malak ...
Mr Dunham: Oh, it is working well there.
Ms LAWRIE: ... and after winning the seat of Karama after a great deal of inactivity from the CLP, there was a lot of work to do. Crime was considered by the residents of that area to be out of control and at an unacceptable level. They were particularly concerned about the level of break-ins that were occurring, and about the number of itinerants hanging around the shopping centres at Malak and Karama ...
Dr Lim: And that was fixed too? You have fixed all that, have you?
Ms LAWRIE: They were also very worried about the number of youths hanging around and making a nuisance of themselves and committing petty crimes.
I note the interjections from the members for Greatorex and Drysdale, but they show their absolute ignorance of the areas of Karama and Malak. The CLP has had their hands off the steering wheel in that area for a very long time. That ignorance is reflected in their comments today.
Anyone who lives there - and I know the members who interjected do not - would know that there is a significant difference in the nature of that community now, as opposed to in 2001 when I took the seat.
Mr Dunham: Good, it has got better.
Ms LAWRIE: It is a lot better. I pick up the interjection by the member for Drysdale. No longer when you go to the shopping centre are you confronted with lawlessness, humbug behaviour and abuse and no longer do you see a tragic scene of young children being abused, or large numbers of youths hanging out and harassing people. That has not come about by chance or accident; it is come about through hard work and through the resources committed by the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General through the Crime Prevention Unit, and the support they have been able to provide to the local traders and myself through the Karama Crime Prevention Committee, and also through the significant increase in resources provided to police, and the work done by the minister for police in that regard.
Neighbourhood Watch has received incredible significant increases in funding under the Martin Labor government, and that really has been bearing fruit through the Neighbourhood Watch activities and committees.
It has been my pleasure to create and run the Karama Crime Prevention Committee, which consists of the traders of Karama Shopping Plaza, the owner of the shopping centre, and myself. Sitting on that committee are aldermen, from time to time, and the police. We have worked in a collaborative manner to identify issues and concerns, and to take a strategic approach to solving those issues. The first thing we did was put in place protocols amongst the traders in the shopping centre. If a trader saw something that concerned them - whether it was someone behaving in a noisy or rowdy manner or, indeed, they saw a possible offence - there were strict protocols put in place and agreed to by all traders, in how to respond to that.
Also, in discussions of the committee, we have had great deal of support from the owners of the Karama Shopping Plaza, Joondana Investments, particularly the La Pira family, who have responded by increasing security in and around the shopping centre, in security staff as well as putting in place security cameras and increasing lighting around the shopping centre. In the last couple of months, we have had new light towers go into various areas around the shopping centre. At night, that shopping centre is very well lit now.
Mr Dunham: And the service station? Well lit – the burglars came straight in; didn’t trip over anything.
Ms LAWRIE: Yes, there is a very big light tower that has gone into the back of the Karama Ampol Service Station. I pick up on the interjection from the member for Drysdale and explain what an active local member can actually do in assisting crime prevention. There was an incident that made the media just recently regarding taxi drivers and assaults at Ampol Karama and, I daresay, that is what the member for Drysdale was alluding to.
Mr Dunham: No, it was a break-in actually. Yes, the bloke with the balaclava who stole the money from the service station. It was that one.
Ms LAWRIE: The armed robbery of the service station?
Mr Dunham: Yes, the armed robbery. The bloke who pinched the money.
Ms LAWRIE: Of course, armed robbery has never occurred under the CLP ...
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Karama, I do not really mind robust interjections in a debate, but we have to try to confine our interjections to points that are pertinent and not engage in an ongoing debate. Member for Drysdale, I ask that you desist. Thank you, member for Karama.
Ms LAWRIE: Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. Regarding the Karama Ampol, it was interesting when incidents were occurring in and around Karama Ampol recently. I sought and facilitated a meeting with the Karama Ampol management, police, the owners of Karama shopping centre, which is immediately adjacent to the Karama Ampol, and me to, first of all, hear the concerns of the various parties about what was or was perceived to be happening around Karama Ampol. Interestingly enough, at no stage were there any clear protocols established in the past for how staff of the Ampol - which is a 24-hour service station therefore opens into the wee hours of the morning - respond to any activity that is occurring around there in the evening. Also, importantly and crucially, at that meeting were members of the Youth Beat.
It was agreed as a result of that meeting that they would change, if you like, the habit of the staff of the service station to become more proactive; that is, more preventative in crime prevention. If they saw large gatherings of people around the area they would contact the Youth Beat. They were given a mobile phone number for the Youth Beat, and Youth Beat made a commitment to respond to that contact as soon as practicable; if they could not, they would contact the police. A protocol was also agreed .to that if there was any suspicious or hostile behaviour, the service station staff were being instructed to contact the police. It later occurred to me that nothing like that had occurred previously, and it took facilitating the parties to come together to identify what responsible people can do to avoid situations being created or, indeed, escalating.
I certainly do not condone armed robberies that occur. We have had to suffer armed robbery at the Malak BP as well as the Karama Ampol within the last month. However, that is the first time there has been armed robberies in the last couple of years, so it is not a spate …
Mr Dunham: Oh, so it has got worse?
Ms LAWRIE: It has not got worse as such. Armed robberies, unfortunately, are not uncommon to service stations. They are open at night and are vulnerable. I urge service station owners to ensure the duty of care and safety of their staff. There are security measures that service stations could put in place to increase the protection of staff. I will be raising this further with both service stations in my electorate.
Nothing a government can do will ever completely eradicate crime. Clearly, what we are aiming to do is to reduce crime down to far lower levels than the community has had to endure in the past. Specifically, the minister’s statement shows us that in 2001 there were some 1059 break-ins to houses in the Territory. By the September quarter 2003, break-ins were down to 547, a fall of nearly 50%. Our strategies that target crime prevention clearly are starting to make inroads into reducing crime in the Territory, and that is a significant drop by anyone’s measure.
Mr Dunham: Significant drop? Does that mean it has been eradicated?
Ms LAWRIE: Significant reduction in break-ins is what residents are looking for. The member for Drysdale may be flippant about the subject but, for people who are the victims of a break-in, it is a very traumatic experience. I have spoken to families who have had to endure a break-in and it has been a very shattering experience. The children are very upset for a long time afterwards. Often the parents feel quite unsafe.
In that regard, I encourage people to avail themselves of the good work that has been done by the Victims of Crime Assistance League, otherwise known as VOCAL. VOCAL have received Territory government funding of some $88 000 per year to assist and support people who have experienced such a crime. An additional $55 000 a year is provided for real, practical assistance to victims of break-ins.
A victim of a break-in who avail themselves of the assistance of VOCAL is eligible for up to $250 to be spent immediately on securing their premises, whether that is cleaning up debris as a result of the break-in, or securing doors or windows that may have been broken where access may have occurred. These are very practical measures that can go a long way to alleviating some of the distress that residents experience arising from a break-in.
What we found in Karama and Malak is that one of the greatest tools to prevent crime is an increased police presence. For the first time in a long time - and I have said this before in the House – we now have proactive police patrols. We have the Mounted Police; we have had police out on bicycles, car patrols and on the rare occasion, we have police foot patrols. I must admit I am somewhat jealous of Casuarina where they now have daily police foot patrols through Casuarina Shopping Centre.
A police officer on a foot patrol through Karama shopping centre said to me that it had been the first time in some seven years that he had been out on a foot patrol, such was the dire situation that police resources had dwindled down to under the disgraceful reign of the CLP.
There is no doubt that resources were needed, and the government has responded with the commitment of $75m to rebuilding our police force over the next four years. We have seen quite a few recruit programs go through police, with graduates emerging. Casuarina area, from which we benefit in terms of patrols, had significant graduates come through and increase the police numbers there, so much so that they are now able to engage in proactive patrolling.
I have regular discussions with the bicycle police, each time they are out at the shopping centre or moving through the suburb, and they have had tremendous response from the public. They are an effective tool in community policing.
Again operating now after a significant recess are Blue Light Discos. Blue Light Discos provide a very positive interaction between local youth and the police. I commend police such as Jeff Mosel, who is a school-based constable, for the hard work that they put in to have these Blue Light Discos up and running at the schools. I have had tremendous feedback from the local schools participating in the program. The response from staff, parents and students is that they love them and they would like to see more of them. I commend the police for resurrecting the Blue Light Disco program. It is a very important program and it is good to see positive interaction between youth and police. It only serves to enhance understanding that our law officers are upstanding members of our community.
Also on schools, I congratulate the government on the initiative of $670 000 towards the employment of School Attendance Officers. This is a critically important initiative. We already have our School Attendance Officer working at Sanderson High and that officer is working with the local primary schools. I congratulate the Minister for Education for this initiative. I know that School Attendance Officers are linking in with other law and order workers such as the Juvenile Justice Diversionary Program that is operating from a Malak base. In addition, they liaise with Youth Beat, which has been a very effective Labor initiative that began in Darwin in December 2002.
Youth Beat, as the minister said in his statement, has a full-time coordinator, four full-time youth workers and they operate five nights a week. They patrol the northern suburbs of Darwin and are regularly in Karama and Malak. I have a close working relationship with the workers of Youth Beat and their coordinators. They tip me off as to the views, attitudes and issue of youth in the electorate, just as I tip them off about feedback I receive from residents about where youths are starting to gather and hang out and the patterns in which they move throughout the electorate.
One such exchange of information led us to understanding that there was going to be a gathering of kids in the area to have a bit of a bust up. There were some issues that had been going on between kids from various areas throughout the suburbs. We were able to alert police to that intention. Some 19 officers, over a variety of shifts, ended up working out of my electorate office as a base over a couple of nights, and averted what would otherwise have been a pretty nasty scene amongst kids who were looking to settle some scores. I have approached those kids directly - they refer to themselves in my electorate as the Karama Boys - and I am in discussions with them about how they can change their habits and their lives ...
Mr Dunham: Oh, youth gang.
Ms LAWRIE: I note the member for Drysdale is taking notes about this, and he will no doubt put his particular nasty little twisted spin on my comments. However, I prefer …
Mr Dunham: That is fixed. You talk about 19 officers coming to your office to set up to work on the Karama Boys. Sounds serious to me.
Ms LAWRIE: I prefer to deal in the realms of reality, and say that one of the roles the local member can take is to be a facilitator to assist for outcomes. There is no doubt that my office, being located at the Karama shopping centre, is a very practical place. If any public servant wants to avail themselves of the office they are welcome to, just as community groups avail themselves of my office. My view is the office is a community asset. I have anyone from the canoeing enthusiasts to cyclists etcetera, in and out of the office, and I am really pleased to be able to say: ‘I have a room there for you, there is a kitchen and a toilet facility out the back. If it suits your purposes go for it, use it. You are not going to be in my way because my office and the reception are in a separate area with a lock-in facility’.
What I have found over the couple of years of working intensively in trying to create improved crime prevention in the suburbs where I live and work, and where I feel responsible for the care of the residents, is that crime prevention is only as good as the people who are prepared to participate in it. I take my hat off to the traders, who have been working very collaboratively through the Crime Prevention Committee at Karama. I also wholeheartedly congratulate the residents, who are working very effectively together at Karama Neighbourhood Watch.
We are planning a community engraving day at the shopping centre soon, where we will be promoting to people the use of engraving their equipment to prevent theft. We are also planning another community picnic day where, last year, we saw quite a few hundred people attend and interact in a positive way, and learn about crime prevention tools. It is very heartening to see the response from residents to these measures. People want to participate. They want, more and more these days, to become the eyes and ears of the police. We are getting a lot of information being fed in, either directly to the police or through my office, about activities that are occurring around the place, and I know police are being very effective in following that up.
The basis of Neighbourhood Watch is very sound. All members should encourage it. I believe most members have all the Neighbourhood Watch information in their office as well as the engraving tools. I commend the police for the effort they put in assisting the community through Neighbourhood Watch.
I commend the officer in charge of Casuarina and his officers for the tremendous work that they are doing to provide a safer community in Darwin’s northern suburbs. I commend the Chief Minister for her passion to provide safer communities and the whole-of-government approach that she directs in this area, the minister for Education, the minister for Police, and the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General. I have listed some of their initiatives. However, I know the Minister for Health worked on setting up the Youth Beat, just as I know the minister for Community Services is now very involved in various initiatives and programs.
It shows that, with increased resources, willingness and a commitment to improve the safety of our communities, we can start to make inroads. We all know and accept that there is still a long way to go. We started off a very bad starting point in 2001. As a first-time Labor government in the Territory, I believe we inherited decades of social neglect. It is quite sad to see the generations of families who have been discarded by previous governments. I am proud to say that I am part of a government that is working with these people and, hopefully, giving their children a far brighter future. If we can do that, we will become a very good model for the rest of Australia in how we can work together as a community and have a much safer community.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I place my observations and some comments about the new ministerial statement on crime prevention that was handed down and read into transcript by the Attorney-General earlier this year.
The statement really reiterates a lot of what has been contained in previous statements on crime prevention and the crime prevention initiatives which we have seen paraded out by this particular government more frequently – it occurred as a …
Dr Burns: Not Chardonnay in there, is it?
Mr MALEY: That is right. There was a whole raft of crime prevention-type statements and initiatives trotted out shortly after the election in 2001 and, really, a lot of what is contained in this statement is really a re-hash of those so-called initiatives.
However, there is little or no doubt that there is no simple answer to the prevention of crime. There is no simple mechanism. There is no such thing as a coherent six-point plan which will definitively deal with the problem. We have heard the Labor government – and there were lots of glossy brochures and the Chief Minister’s picture was being paraded about as someone who cares, with this wonderful six-point plan. I know that some of the solicitors who had input into drafting the six-point plan think it is a joke, but they said: ‘Politically, it will fool the journalists. The government will trot it out and people will think they are doing something; that will keep the punters happy’.
Well, people are not fools, and they can see that if your - hang on, I will just read this out. The six-point plan is really nothing but motherhood statements by a political party that says, as ‘part of our importance: the cornerstone of our plan in our fight against crime is serious crime means serious time’. Well okay, that means that the Labor government seriously considered not imposing serious time for serious crime.
The second thing is ‘making you safe at home’. Okay, that is a lovely motherhood statement, but really does not contain any detail in terms of a policy initiative.
Third is ‘getting help from the police when you need it’. Well, in my view, the police have been doing a very good job in the Northern Territory for many years. Once again, this is a motherhood statement trotted out in the form of some sort of crime prevention initiative; one that is really aimed at the young journalist or the swinging voter who the government are trying to persuade that they are doing something about this.
‘Putting victims first’. Now, I am not sure what sort of – this is a six-point plan, remember. ‘Putting victims first’. What does that mean? Victims have always been very well catered for. We have a system which does its absolute best to strike a balance between looking after the victims, putting them first. They are the informant or complainant. If it is proved they become the victim, there is crime compensation. There are lots of avenues and ways to redress - sometimes financially – what has occurred to them.
‘Getting tough on the causes of crime’ and ‘establishing a central crime prevention agency’. These are not definitive points of a six-point plan; these are just ‘feel good’ motherhood statements which, at the end of the day, anyone with a scintilla of commonsense would realise is politician jargon for ‘We are trying to persuade the people in the northern suburbs and the seats which we think are a bit shaky, that we are doing something about crime’. At the end of the day, the Martin Labor government know that their Achilles heel is, of course, their very weak stance on crime-related matters.
Dr Burns: Then why are the gaols full? They are fuller than you ever had them.
Mr MALEY: Well, that is an interesting interjection. We have the learned member for Johnston, who has made a comment that the gaols are full, and somehow that speaks for itself. I assume he is implying that the government’s strategy is working; we are getting tough. Well, the gaols are full because, ultimately, this Labor government has failed to deliver on any economic initiatives. When people are down on their luck; when the economy is down and people are suffering, and they do not have a sense of self-worth and no jobs, there are more offences. That is demonstrated by the fact that violent crime is up and there are certain pockets in our community where they find themselves in a particularly bad economic situation where the level of property crime is also up; the end result being, of course, that people are trotted off to prison.
Therefore, skiting that there are more people in a particular prison certainly does not give any comfort to Mr and Mrs Malak who know that three or four people in their street have had their homes broken into, and crime is still a concern. It is a concern in the community. I suppose the crux of the first point that I make is that there is no six-point plan; that is a fable. If there was, it would be adopted by every western country in the world, by their brother Labor governments interstate and by, of course, the federal government. To trapeze in here and say: ‘We have our six-point plan, it is all go, it is working; and here is another rehashed crime prevention initiative statement,’ you are kidding yourself and Territorians, and it is a pathetic attempt to persuade the odd gullible journalist who wants to print something positive, that you guys are doing something serious about crime.
We have seen today on the front page of the paper a Supreme Court judge saying, effectively - I do not have the quote or the transcript but, certainly, he is making it clear that the drug courts simply are not working. ‘Send them home, Sally’. That is what he said or something like that. Anyway, I will not get into the details. He was criticising a magistrate but, ultimately, he was criticising, of course, the system which the learned magistrate was operating within. We also heard - and it is once again touched upon in this ministerial statement - the new offences of home and business invasion were created - remember that - after this government repealed mandatory sentencing. There was a raft of new offences installed into the Criminal Code and it was certainly made fairly obvious at the time that there was nothing new about the scope of these offences.
In fact, in one particular case of unlawful entry, the penalty for the particular conduct had been reduced. The old provisions of the Criminal Code really covered, fairly extensively, the scope of these new provisions. It would be interesting to see, if perhaps the learned Attorney-General can trapeze back into - I cannot comment on him being here - but perhaps when he responds in his closing submission, he can detail how many people have been charged and how many people have been convicted of these new offences which were brought into law, heading towards three years ago.
Of course, the ministerial statement is not particularly detailed, but touched upon a number of topics, and probably more time could be spent on dealing with a number of topics which were touched upon. One, of course, was Sue Lowry, the executive officer of the Victims of Crime NT. Sue Lowry does a fantastic job. Sue has worked for many years in the area of victims of crime in the Northern Territory and deserves an enormous amount of credit. More emphasis and support needs to be given to Sue Lowry and many other volunteers who are involved in that particular area. Certainly, from my time as a prosecutor and defence lawyer, you would see them endlessly and tirelessly helping people through the sometimes daunting judicial system.
If you are talking about prevention in law and order, the fundamental cornerstone is really the economic position of the particular person and his family. This is such nonsense. The one that stands out is the vision on the hill. This is the Labor government’s vision on the hill for the next year. It is reported at the last page of the ministerial statement, and I quote:
My God! That does not assist anyone. What a motherhood statement. There is nothing of substance in that. It comes back to this fundamental: you can make all the noises about trying hard and send out glossy brochures to the northern suburbs where you know a few of your members are in shaky seats. You will try to shore up their positions and make sure that your Achilles heel is covered: ‘We are strong on crime and we have a vision for the next year’. If your vision is that you will present a whole-of-government, whole-of-community crime prevention framework, that is a bit – I think the phrase is ‘how you going’ - very average.
You can afford to be truthful with Territory folk. The truth is that you are talking about crime prevention. You are talking about the economic position of the community and doing what you can to promote self-worth and responsibility so that people take responsibility for what they have done, and that their children come home to see that mum and dad have a job and have worked hard to obtain the assets that they have and that there is a sense of property and respect.
The difficulty created is that the Labor Party philosophy itself does not go down the path of responsibility. The Labor Party philosophy – and there is no nice way to put this – creates a scab mentality. It is a philosophy that creates: ‘I am a scab and I am going to put my hand out and I want things for …
Dr Burns: Just tell them we can pour Chardonnay all over it; we will be right.
Mr MALEY: It is not about taking responsibility, it is about the wealthy few at the top drinking Chardonnay encouraging this scab mentality in the community.
That is what the Labor Party does and, until they change that fundamental philosophy and start saying there is a group of people in our community who should have some self-determination and work hard. Until we stop creating this mentality, you will, of course, have this never-ending cycle of violence, unlawful entries, lack of respect and, of course, crime.
If you are serious about crime prevention and making sure that Territorians of all shapes and colour are not exposed to violence and unlawful entries, you have to be serious about the economy. We have seen the Economic Development Summit come and go, the recommendations uploaded onto the Internet and then disappear into the ether. Nothing occurred. We have formed another seven or eight committees on various subject matters, but nothing has come to the fore. The only thing that seems to be recurring in ministerial statements and comments is this endless tirade of motherhood statements like six-point plans and this wonderful vision – not – which the Attorney-General has put on the record:
That does not give any confidence to the thinking member of the community who does not have a job. We know that lots of people are leaving the Territory and have left because of the economic situation. We hope they return. We hope things get better, but the government has to take that job much more seriously.
In my electorate of Goyder, there was a promise to build a police station at Humpty Doo. We are towards the end of this term of government and there have been some steps in securing a site, but there is nothing on the ground as yet. Every time there is a disclosure of detail, it results in more bitter disappointment for local people. We are now told that the police station will not be a tri-service station; there will be no ambulance, but there will be police and fire brigade. Okay, that is a disappointment, but it is better than nothing. People have come to the conclusion that it is better than nothing. It is disappointing, but we will live with that.
The next disappointing fact which has surfaced seems that - and I hope the Attorney-General can correct me - the police station will only be staffed during the day, and there will be no night shift. So here we have a police station, a perfectly well built, a state-of-the-art facility, and there is no evening or night shift. It is merely a shopfront during the course of the day. I suspect because of the fact that there really are not enough police on the beat, the current government will place an auxiliary at that station, as opposed to an auxiliary with a constable and support - a mobile unit. These are the details that need to be fleshed out. The fact that it is a day shopfront only is clearly not enough.
In terms of electorate, there are regular complaints that, for offences that are reported in Mandorah and Dundee regions, there is still an unacceptably long delay in responding. The reason behind that - and I have spoken to a number of police officers who live in my electorate; in fact, I am socialise with them – is that the problem is sometimes only one unit is based at Palmerston, which services Palmerston, Humpty Doo, Howard Springs, Bees Creek, Noonamah, Acacia, Marrakai, Dundee and Mandorah. That is an enormous area for one mobile unit. There are a couple of very hard-working young policemen there. They said sometime it is quiet and there might be just a few jobs on but, sometimes, the job card is absolutely full. There are so many reports, they simply cannot attend all of these complainants in person. Often, I was told, they were at Palmerston dealing with an unlawful entry complaint, and then, when they are halfway through investigating this particular matter and taking statements and getting particulars, they receive a report of a very serious matter at Humpty Doo. They did not have anyone else to send to Humpty Doo; they had to go. So they stopped this investigation in mid-stride and had to leave to attend at another person’s home. Police need more resources in the rural area.
The member for Karama - not that I agree much with what she said – made some comment about police being on the beat and the fact that more police are on the beat does have an effect on crime. That sounds logical to me. However, in three years, there has not been an increase in police on the beat servicing the night shift section of the Palmerston Police Station. At some times, there is only one unit. There has not been a real change. There need to be more resources. That would alleviate a lot of the problems and concerns which rural people have of crime prevention.
In my electorate, there have been some very serious offences over the past year or so with, of course, recently - I am not going to dwell on it - two serious allegations of murder, and there was a very serious unlawful entry at the Humpty Doo pub, when a young man was shot. I understand that the allegations are that there are two alleged offenders. They have not been apprehended yet, and I do not think they are any further down the road of finding these people.
Crime is still a problem. I do not believe any amount of feel-good motherhood statements designed to persuade the odd gullible journalist can demonstrate that this government is trying to do something and is going to make a difference. This statement is devoid of substance. It contains no particulars and, quite frankly, is a bit of an embarrassment for a government which is trying to demonstrate that it is getting tough on crime.
Let us see the statistics. Let us have a look at how many convictions there have been of those new offences which were introduced. We need a real effort to make sure that there is not a better economic cornerstone for some quarters of the community which will have the effect of reducing crime. I am hamstrung by time, but this statement really does not do justice to such an important topic.
Mr AH KIT (Community Development): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, might I just comment what a woeful contribution from the member for Goyder. It seems to be that anything we do and any statement we bring forward in this House with genuine commitment, the members opposite want to just knock, knock, knock.
I wonder whether two things have happened with the member for Goyder: has he sought a briefing if he does not understand the statement that was brought forward on crime prevention from the Attorney-General and, secondly, has he gone back and studied policy from when his political party was in office? I doubt, on both of those occasions, that he has done any homework in research. I also add I will watch with keen interests the policies that will be put forward by the members opposite before we go into the next election, because that will really spell out what their real intentions are.
However, in giving my contribution to the crime prevention statement from the Attorney-General, there are few things that more starkly demonstrate the difference between the Martin Labor government and the previous CLP regime in our approach to crime and crime prevention. Indeed, while the previous government talked big about the crime, the phrase ‘crime prevention’ was not even in their vocabulary. Their only solution was to lock people up and throw away the key. Nowhere was this more apparent than in the field of the interaction of the ...
Mr Elferink: You have more people in custody, than what we ever had.
Mr AH KIT: Nowhere was this more apparent than in the field of the interaction of juveniles and young people with the criminal justice system.
If it was parliamentary to do so, all of you here in the Assembly would call me a liar if I did not admit to being a bit of tearaway and ratbag when I was a young bloke. I was at that age when I was out for a good time with my mates. I worked hard and I partied hard. I was the classic mug, a bit of a larrikin and bit of a liar - a bit of a lair …
Members interjecting.
Mr AH KIT: A bit of a lair. Unlike members opposite who had all perfect backgrounds when they were juveniles, I call it as I see it.
I have three things to thank for not going off the rails. The first was a supportive extended family. The second was a few firm words from some coppers, a number of whom in later years have given me the wink to let me know that, while I had run close to the wind, they were happy to see me do okay later on in life, and I thank them for that. The third was a long involvement with sport as a player and coach. It was through sport, along with my mates, that I learned something about the discipline of working together as a team, as well as the importance of leadership.
On top of that, there were more intangible benefits: I had something to do; a life that was structured around training and matches as well as my normal working day. Of course, this is something that applied to my life and perhaps to those around me, but there is increasing evidence that sporting and recreational activities can have a broad social benefit for many people, particularly in the area of diverting people away from crime and antisocial behaviour.
Much of this evidence has been summarised in a research document from 2003 titled, Sport, Physical Activity and Antisocial Behaviour in Youth. It was a study commissioned by the Australian Sports Commission in conjunction with the Australian Institute of Criminology Research and Public Policy Series. The study is, essentially, a literature review collating studies from Australia and overseas from much of the last century, but with an emphasis on the last 20 years. I will not go into great detail here today, but summarise the broad findings of the study.
First, sporting and recreational activities, while not the be all and end all, are linked to improvements in social behaviour and declines in contact with the criminal justice system. Second, such activities have demonstrated positive effects on mental health including a decline in the rates of depression, stress, anxiety and suicidal behaviour. They had been found to increase self-esteem, self-confidence and overall wellbeing. Third, sports and recreation programs, as forms of intervention with young people with risk, have shown decreases in juvenile crime rates, especially when held after hours and on weekends, by providing adolescents with alternative leisure pursuits. Fourth, sporting and recreation activities result in lower levels of substance misuse. Fifth, and of particular relevance, is that the introduction of sporting carnivals on indigenous communities have shown at least short-term reductions in violence and property offences. As well, sporting competitions and activities in such communities has been beneficial in reducing crime rates and drug abuse. Sixth, long-term programs based in the community rather than within institutions have the greater possibilities of success.
This government does not deal in knee-jerk reactions and prejudice which is why, in dealing with the issues of crime prevention, we deal with the kinds of evidence I have outlined in attempting to reduce the rate of crime in our communities. This is why I strongly commend the NT Crime Prevention Grants Scheme outlined by the Attorney-General. In the last round of grants, 32 projects were funded at a total of $408 000. Of these, a quarter of projects, $103 000, had strong sporting and recreational components and all had strong community-based approaches that have demonstrated such success in the general literature.
For example, the Tennant Creek Town Council has auspiced the Tennant Creek Sk8 Park - that is, the skate park at the local pool - which has a strong emphasis on diversion from antisocial behaviour. The Western Aranda Relekha Crime Prevention Committee aims to tackle the causes of crime rather than the symptoms, and are tackling youth boredom and substance abuse. In a similar way, projects at Mt Liebig and Mt Theo strongly target substance abuse; in particular petrol sniffing. At Palmerston, the city council, in consultation with participants and stakeholders, has developed the Onto the Grind program. This aims to deliver and expand out-of-hours youth-focussed sports and recreation options and activities in the Palmerston CBD. The Onto the Grind pilot program is designed to influence a reduction in youth related property crime, violence, substance abuse and antisocial behaviour through addressing youth boredom within the Palmerston CBD, with particular focus at the skate park. Also, there is one I like the sound of most, run by the famous Deadly Treadlies in Alice Springs. This is an extension of a bike rebuilding project that has been operating out of Alice Springs youth accommodation and support services since January 2003. In the process of bicycle rebuilding, Deadly Treadlies trains young people in a variety of skills, team work and planning, mechanical and retail, personal development and enterprise development.
I would also like to bring to the attention of members an article in the NT News on 30 January this year. It is a story of inspiration and one in which the local community alongside the local police and council have produced a great result. According to Sergeant Crispin Gargan of Elliott on the Stuart Highway, the last reported unlawful entry in that town was November 2002 and he was not even sure a local was responsible. The reason? Well, according to the policeman on the Elliott beat, the success of the local footy side. I would like to quote where he said:
Stories like this can give us hope and, for me at least, it is further evidence of the beneficial effects sport and recreation can have on our communities. It confirms, from my point of view as well as the government’s, that active intervention by the community through community organisations is worth more than rhetoric; it produces real results. The problems of crime belong to all of us, not just if we are directly affected through a robbery or assault, but in the kind of society we must all live in together.
We can live in a community in which crime goes unchecked, or one in which we do our utmost to prevent crime. The latter sort of community is what this government wants and, for that reason, I commend the statement from the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I join in the debate and wonder how serious this government is in crime prevention. The minister lauded how well his program is running and then you pick up a newspaper such as this, the Centralian Advocate of 23 March 2004, featuring the headline ‘Gangs run wild: kids hit 19 homes and shops in two days’. If you turn the page over, on one side there is a headline ‘Alice crime levels drop’. They were obviously reporting on the Northern Territory Quarterly Crime Statistics for the December quarter. Then you have: ‘Now it is a bouncer’, ‘Call for tighter library security’, ‘Kid gangs hit 19 shops, homes in two days’, ‘Child molester jailed for 7 months’, and the list goes on. On page 5: ‘Woman raped after a meeting in the park’.
People came up to me after this paper was published and said: ‘Limmy, look at this. The government has the audacity to say “Alice Crime Levels Drop”. Look at all the other articles surrounding it. It is ridiculous’. How bad does it have to be before the government will believe that crime is rife in our community? People are not safe. People leave their homes in the evenings to go out and they do not know what they are going to come back to. People close their shops for the evening, and they do not know what they are going to come back to the next morning, hoping they do not get a phone call form the security guard or the police that their shop has been broken into.
This is the indication in the community that crime is not under control, particularly violent crime, when people are being bashed regularly. Again, in the Centralian Advocate of 26 March 2004: ‘Man bashed at home’. Then there is: ‘Trail bike thefts’ and this one from yesterday’s Centralian Advocate: ‘Two boys, 13, on sex attack charge’. Two boys were caught attempting to rape a 12-year-old child. This is the level of crime in the community and it is time the government accepts that there is a problem and that their program to try and reduce it is not working. If they accept the truth, they might do something more constructive about it.
There is no doubt that crimes are getting worse and people in the Territory are getting really concerned. Did people read the NT News today? The headline was: ‘Bail granted by idiot says judge’. That was in today’s NT News and the article was written by Rebecca Hewett. I quote from the article:
This is a man who has committed 40-odd offences, and the judge said again:
He is quoted again:
I quote further:
It is reported in this article that Justice Mildren plans to take it up with the ‘Auditor-General’s Department’ - I wonder if the ‘Auditor-General’ is the Attorney-General’s Department - to speak with them about how this system has failed Territorians. Not only failed Territorians who are law-abiding, living their lives and not causing any problems, but failing this person, who has been given freedom to roam around the streets, creating havoc, causing property damage and violence to his victims. It is quoted in the article that he actually assaulted an owner of a Nightcliff flat who woke up during the burglary. That is the sort of thing that you get.
Then, on Monday, there was another article: ‘Teens trash unit for fun …’. Who was the victim? A person who suffers from Asperger Syndrome.
If the government was serious about working towards a safer community - and it is not safe, and I will tell you a little more shortly about what is happening outside my office - then it has to stop all this rhetoric and do some real work. It is time that this government started looking at zero tolerance. It is not good enough that we say: ‘Okay, you have done something wrong, you get a rap around the knuckles. Off you go, do not do it again’. It does not work. It has been proven it does not work. Talk to all the young teenagers around the place. When you talk to them about petty crimes and violent crimes that are committed by their peers, they are saying: ‘Zero tolerance, lock them up, get them off the streets’. That is the way to deal with the crimes that we are having to put up with in the Territory. I am sure people living in the Top End would know that it is no different whether you are here, in Katherine, Tennant Creek, Alice Springs or anywhere else across the Territory; it is getting worse, and many of the youth are behaving with impunity.
Take, for instance, outside my office. Over the last month, six weeks, things have really started to get more and more difficult. A group of youths congregate outside my office because it is cool, it is under cover most of the day, and there are a couple of steel benches there that were built a long time ago when my office was directly adjacent to the bus interchange. Because there is a bus interchange, people sat on the benches, appreciating the cool airconditioned glass they could lean against so that they could stay cool in the middle of summer in Alice Springs.
Now the youth, through the day - usually starting just before lunch and then it goes right through until late afternoon - will gather there. Their presence alone, and their behaviour at those two benches, intimidate the average user of the bus service, so that they then do not sit there. The elderly patrons of the buses now have to move further down the street to sit at another bank of benches which are not as comfortable as the ones outside my office. It has got to the stage where these kids – there can be up to 12 or 15 of them - are very rowdy. They run across the street playing chicken, to the applause of their peers sitting there. They do it in such a way that the drivers of vehicles who have the rightful passage along the carriageway of Hartley Street are intimidated. What would happen if they ran over one of these kids? Not only do they run across the street, they will get on bicycles and do the same thing – ride right across the street without looking whether there is any motor vehicle coming along. There will be a lot of cheers and carrying on amongst the group while they do that. I do not think Alice Springs people have to put up with that. There is no need for it. These kids throw rocks at people walking past along the footpath, minding their own business.
Unfortunately, there is one Italian man in Alice Springs who has a bit of a psychiatric history, and his behaviour sometimes, unfortunately, draws attention to him. These kids are throwing rocks at the poor fellow and he is on his own; a fairly elderly gentleman intimidated by a group of about 15 youths. Frequently, he ducks into my office to seek refuge. While the youths have not chased him through my front door, they have ridden their bicycles right into the door, banging into the glass door. Fortunately, the glass is strong enough to withstand the impact. However, it causes great concern to my electorate officer and, at times at the end of the day when she is ready to go home, she is terrified to leave the office because of the gathered youths. She waits until a group of people walk past before she goes out and joins them to walk down the street. It is as bad as that. I am not being racist about it, but this is an average citizen in Alice Springs who is working, doing their job, minding their own business, feeling intimidated because of that.
So what you do? When I am there, I go out myself and talk to the youths, and tell them what they are doing and perhaps they should try and desist from doing that. They relate to me reasonably well and we talk, we kid, we joke, and things settle down. I am able to diffuse the situation and, because I do not feel threatened, it is easily done. However, others are, so it is important for government to realise that their spin on crime and law and order is not all it is painted to be.
Petrol sniffing is getting worse and worse in Alice Springs itself, when you see kids openly inhaling petrol in broad daylight in full view of others. Something has to be done. This diversionary program that the government talks about - all these soft programs - are not dealing with the problem; they really are not. We ask the government to come through and do something about it. When you get 13-year-old boys attempting to sexually assault a younger child, society is breaking down. Parents do not know where their kids are, they do not take responsibility for what their children are spending their time on. They are 13-year-olds roaming the streets and creating havoc, and causing bodily harm to others. You can imagine why people in Alice Springs feels so outraged – absolutely outraged - by the activities that are being conducted against them.
When businesses have to have bouncers and security guards all the time, there is an added impost to a business. There is no need for that. In the days when I first came to Alice Springs in the early 1980s, it is true that people did not lock the doors, and it was a safe place. You could go to bed with the doors wide open - not wide open, unlocked - and be sure that nobody would come and break in. Well, it is not today. In the last two-and-a-half years, people will tell you the situation has become a lot worse; so much so that many people are leaving town. They say: ‘We have had enough. Not only is there poor economy downturn in the whole of the Territory, Alice Springs included, but definitely the law and order issues are such that we do not want to put up with it any more’. The older they get the less inclined they are to put up with the situation. There is no reason why people have to put up with that sort of thing. Alice Springs has been their home for 20 to 30 years, and they would gladly retire there. They have their connections, their networks, their friends, and some of them have their children living there. They say: ‘We are now in our 50s and 60s; we have had enough. We are not going to put up with it any more, and this is the last straw and we will move on’.
Therefore, it is important for the government to understand that, while there is a lot of rhetoric about how good they have been doing and all that, property crime has decreased. The fact is the community does not feel any safer. If you do not feel safe, then your whole lifestyle is impacted upon and you will never be happy. Alice Springs is a great town. Lots of people are working very constructively to the development of the town and, with the loss of jobs and population, there is a continuing downward spiral for the community. If law and order is not looked after properly and we allow this sort of pathetic exhibition to go, it will just make the whole situation worst. I say to the government: it is important for them to look seriously at this and stop saying platitudes and not paying attention to the issue.
I want to talk a little about the supposed decrease in property crime, and this applies particularly to Alice Springs. I have been approached by many constituents about this. They tell me that, when they go to the police to report property damage to their shops and to their homes, they have been told that if it is not worth $5000 or more not to bother, because the incident will not be investigated. Yes, you will you get a PROMIS number from the police so that you can put a claim in with the insurance company. But to be investigated? No, that is not going to happen. I have not had any briefing from the police department, so I do not know whether that is right or wrong. However, if that is the case, then there is a problem. Of course, your property crime statistics are going to look terrific because, in many cases, those $5000 property damage or loss are not recorded in the police system PROMIS and in your statistics.
$5000 buys you a lot. You think about it. It buys you a very reasonable television set; or a great sound system. A good sound system will cost you about $800 or $900, so when you add up $5000, that is a lot of money. A laptop costs you $3000. Therefore, a laptop, a television set and a sound system, is not insignificant for very many families. I say this to you that, even for all us here in this Chamber who earn a reasonable income, losing $5000 is very substantial.
I say again: watch out for those statistics. They can be made to look very pretty but, at the end of the day, they can tell you lots of lies too. The government needs to understand that if you really want to do this properly, they should divorce the Office of Crime Prevention - the people who put out the statistics - from government altogether, and make then an independent body, so that they can report this objectively, truthfully, without any government spin. Then, maybe, we can trust these figures.
Mr VATSKALIS (Ethnic Affairs): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I would like to speak in support for the crime prevention statement made in this House by my colleague, the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General, during the February sittings.
We were elected to government in 2001 and we had a well-defined plan in relation to protection of the community and prevention of crime. I have to admit, a long time before the election when the previous government put mandatory sentencing in place, I actually was wondering if that was the answer: if arresting some people who commit a crime and throwing them in for a certain period of time would become a good lesson for others.
After I was pre-selected and started doorknocking and talking to a lot of people in my electorate of Casuarina, I discovered that the reality was different. While it might be easy to find out who committed a crime and arrest them in a small community, in a large community like Darwin, people were not satisfied because first, the person who broke into their house and committed the crime would not be found or arrested and, if he or she was arrested, then probably with a good lawyer, might get off or would go to prison for 14 days, which means that the taxpayers have to pay for it. Because quite a few of them were habitual criminals, when they got out, they would commit the same crime again and the cycle would be repeated.
People did not want people to be arrested after they broke into their house, vandalised their house, and committed the crime; they wanted the crime to be prevented in the first place. The best way to do that was for the police to be out on the streets, visible on bicycles, motorcycles and on foot rather than in airconditioned cars or vans travelling around. It was coming back time after time, street after street, and the most disturbing was when …
Dr LIM: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. I draw your attention to the state of the House. The government is often ready to accuse the opposition of not being here. This is a ministerial statement and there is no one here ...
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, you have made your point. Ring the bells, please.
We have a quorum. Member for Greatorex, for the benefit of all members of the House, I remind you that, quite apart from the compulsion in respect of government members, it is equally incumbent upon members of the opposition to be present.
Dr Lim: I realise that. That is why I am here.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would you like to continue, Minister for Ethnic Affairs?
Mr VATSKALIS: Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker.
As I was saying, people were happy for offenders to be captured but they were not very comfortable with what was happening. They wanted the offence prevented in the first place and they wanted to see police in the streets. They wanted to see police on bicycles, bikes, or foot, rather than airconditioned vans or cars, driving around the main thoroughfares but never venturing onto the small streets in the neighbourhoods.
The most disturbing thing for me was when I was doorknocking in Casuarina and one of the residents identified himself as a policeman. He expressed concern about the lack of police numbers in Casuarina and, generally in Darwin, and their inability to actually address the crime situation. Of course, that became apparent when we had the ex-Police Commissioner from Queensland doing his review of police in Darwin. Quite rightly, one of the members earlier said that the police are always doing a very good job and have done for years. That is true. The reality is you to have the police on the streets to be able to address the crime situation.
One of our commitments was to address the situation but, also, we promised to build a safe and secure community for all Territorians, and we had a six-point plan. The member for Goyder said if it was so good then why has it not been adopted throughout the world? That is because we have a plan that is adapted to our own situation. It is not necessarily the case that the plan we have devised for the Territory would be suitable for Victoria, New South Wales or Western Australia or other countries.
Our plan promised serious crime means serious time, making people safe at home, getting help from the police when such help is needed, putting victims first, getting tough on the causes of crime, and the establishment of a central crime prevention agency. We have a plan. We went to the electorate with this plan, and people voted us in because they believed that this plan can address the issues of crime in the community.
Since we came to office in August 2001, the community is pleased to see that we have moved away from the reactive policies that were followed by the CLP government, to proactive strategies to prevent criminal behaviour. Of course, how do we prove we have actually done well in crime prevention? We have a series of statistics that will be issued at regular intervals so we can compare from quarter to quarter what is happening: if crime has gone down, or if crime is going up, if crime is actually static. These statistics analyse crime and provide accurate figures which are open for scrutiny. I believe the members of the opposition have criticised these statistics. It would be very difficult to say that these statistics are not accurate and prove that.
A few months ago, they were going on about property crime. All of a sudden, they are not worrying about property crime, but talking about violent crime. So, something has happened there. They realise that property crime has gone down and violent crime has become the new catchphrase. Again, I suggest that if they do the same analysis with the crime statistics, they would find out what violent crime means. Does it mean that I walk down the road and someone pulls a gun and robs me? Does it mean that people actually get into cars and break into houses of unknown persons and steal jewels, or the expensive stereo system the member for Greatorex mentioned before? All this violent crime is actually confined to certain areas of the community and has some different causes, like alcohol. Is this violent crime between strangers or between people who are related? Unfortunately, statistics show that we have a problem, a serious problem - and we acknowledge we have a problem, mainly in certain areas of the community. A lot of these problems are confined to domestic situations and domestic violence.
As for the property crime, we can now give you the 12 months that ended December 2003. There was a fall in house break-ins by 25% and in commercial premises by 29%. Motor vehicle theft and related offences fell by 27%. Yes, assaults rose by 1%, but sexual assaults fell by 2%. Crime is a complex situation. It is not an easy solution, and I agree with the member for Goyder, you cannot just find one model fits all, and we are going to do something and we will resolve the crime in the Northern Territory.
Anecdotal evidence and information I have from police is that, when Leanyer Park opened, vandalism and small break-in numbers collapsed. Obviously, some of the people who committed those crimes found something to do. Being occupied, being there all day and being tired at night, they could not go out and commit the crimes they committed before. That proves that part of the solution may be to give something else to some young people to do, keep young people occupied, then they actually find a way to keep out of crime. Quite regularly, I have spoken to young people, and some do it because they are bored, or because there are five of them together and they are dared to go and break into this car, to go and break into this house. It is peer pressure. This is something that I am not familiar with, because I have to admit, where I was growing up, the opportunity to commit crime was not there because social conditions were different. Neighbourhoods were more cohesive, neighbours knew each other. Certainly, if I had gone home with a bike that I could not have bought, my father would have kicked my butt and taken me straight to the police.
Things have changed; things are not the same. We have to acknowledge that. However, we have to work together as a community, because the reality is, the police cannot solve all the crimes. It is better to have prevention than solution and, in order to prevent, we must work together as a community, as neighbours. Neighbourhood Watch is a very good model and has worked effectively. We have seen in every neighbourhood where Neighbourhood Watch is very strong, the rate of crime is down.
At the same time, as parliamentarians, we have to stand up and be not only representing the people but, in some cases, leading the people. At the same time, we have to work together. It is very easy for the opposition to criticise government for this issue. However, it would be much better to work in a cooperative approach to try and find a solution, because crime will affect people who live in the electorates of opposition members and in government members’ electorates. I have to admit, I was very pleased that the member for Macdonnell, on 11 February 2004, was brave enough to go on 8KIN-FM Central Talkabout program and say:
This is actually a cooperative approach to address the issue of crime. We can sit here and argue about who is doing what and if we are doing good, and what was done wrong. However, the reality is, as parliamentarians, we are leaders of the community and we have to lead the community and take the community with us to work together with the community, the police, and the crime committees in our areas, to address the issue of crime. We have to be leaders to provide an alternative for young people. We have to be leaders to say no to drugs. We have to be leaders to say no to vandalism. We have to be leaders to be able to stand out there and provide alternatives to young people and other people and give them opportunities and choice of what to do. Give them something different. Bored kids are kids looking to do something and, most likely, are kids who are going to be involved in this antisocial behaviour.
Let us get involved in sports ourselves. Okay, we are not very young, but some of us do not have to actually run up and down the field. We can coach kids. We can take kids and provide an alternative way of life, if you want to put it like that, and give them something different to do. We have committees in our areas, but we should be able to have these committees not after the horse has bolted and when the crime rate has increased in our society, but before it happens.
To give you an example, we have had problems in the Casuarina area, especially at the shopping centre, for a number of months now. It started with antisocial behaviour and itinerants. We have got together many times and suggested some solutions. We found some solutions. We engaged the community, the police, the traders and the Darwin City Council and, working together, we solved the problem, to move them away from the areas which were of greater concern; for example, the parks close to schools and the shopping centres.
However, not only that, we had to find alternative ways of how to address this problem. I was very impressed. I was talking to one of the businessman in Casuarina who told me that he never had a problem with vandalism in his area. What he does every fortnight is go out - he knows the kids in the area – and takes them all to Hungry Jacks and buys hamburgers for everyone. He spends $50 and he never had a smashed window in his shop or in his car because the kids know him. They know that he looks after them and they would not go out of their way to smash it. It is not a perfect solution, but one way he found to address some of the problems.
However, I have a better solution. One of the people is the manager of Hungry Jacks. He came from down south, and is one of the people that the company uses to solve problems. There were some problems in the area in Casuarina. He walked in, had a look at the whole situation and changed the management system. He fired some of this management, and warned his employees that their friends were not to be waiting for them two hours before they finished their shifts. Within three months, the whole situation outside Hungry Jacks has changed. There are no problems. He also addressed the problem of itinerants. No small change is given to itinerant people. If itinerants concentrated in the area, and they used it for their ablutions, he changed the timer on his sprinklers. The sprinklers would turn on ...
Mr Dunham: Hose them down. Is that the way? Hose down itinerants. We will have to put that one around. That is a good idea, mate.
Mr VATSKALIS: … and people would not stay there. It is not just a practice used occasionally here. I was working for the city of Wanneroo in Western Australia. In order to address illegal camping by itinerants in the parks, the council had a random on and off of the sprinklers in the park. People would not camp in the parks illegally. That was a proactive measure to eliminate itinerants camping in parks. We have the same system in other areas. It is not hosing down the problem, it is actually finding a proactive way - a different way - to address some of the conditions, or the situation can later develop to a criminal situation.
Another issue with antisocial behaviour is that in Casuarina Shopping Square in Liquorland you cannot buy a five litre cask of wine. Why? That is the decision of Liquorland and the management of the centre. In Casuarina Shopping Village Liquorland you can buy a five litre cask of wine. We are working together with the shopping centre to write to the company, Coles, asking them to apply the same policy in both shopping centres and, in addition, a different design of outlets. Therefore, people are not going to concentrate there waiting for their outlets to open, they are not going to be there at all times, they are not going to be able to sleep on the footpath, thus avoiding the situation with antisocial behaviour and crime.
There are ways to address the issue of crime and antisocial behaviour. I went to Katherine in 1995, 1997 and 1999. I was employed with the Health Department and I used to travel down all the time. I know what Katherine was like at that time. I always questioned the need for so many liquor outlets in such a small town. I would question, not only in Katherine, but in other areas especially in the whole of the Territory. I knew a lot of itinerants and people used to sleep on the median strip in Katherine. They still do. I was there the other day and I saw people doing exactly the same. I have seen it in other parts of the Territory and it is alarming.
However, on the crime again, we have tried and we will continue to try. The fact that we have an increasing number of prisoners in prison is very sad, but that is because the police arrest people who commit a crime; the courts put people who commit a crime into prisons; and we are not afraid to say we are prepared to punish the people who break the law; and we will continue to do so. There is no one solution for crime. It is very difficult, but at least somebody has to give us credit for at least trying. We have not put our hands up and said: ‘Nothing can be done, the only thing we have is mandatory sentencing’. It was such a good policy that even your colleagues of the same political persuasion in Canberra were very unpopular with that, and pressured your government, the then government, to change. You had to change it, otherwise you could accept the same situation as euthanasia; it would have been reversed, and reversed by members of the same political persuasion as you. People in Canberra realised it was not working, it was a knee-jerk reaction; just something to show that you were doing something. The reality was you were not doing anything; not many people were in prisons. If you could catch somebody they would go to prison, but in Darwin I think your arrest rate was about 10%.
Therefore, it is for us as parliamentarians to work together. It is easy to criticise. Your government had to do what you were doing and it can happen if things change in the future. But it will be much, much better if we work together to find out the cause of crime, to address the issue of crime, and give us any constructive criticism and we will take it on board. The Minister for Justice and Attorney-General is a level-headed person. He accepts constructive criticism and suggestions. So let us work together.
We have seen a decline in crime, especially property crime. I am alarmed about the violence committed on people, and that it is really prominent in a particular section of the community. However, what is more alarming is what causes this increase in personal violence. Clearly, everywhere you look, alcohol is behind it and that is very alarming. We have to be able to address this issue. Once again, I reiterate I am very alarmed at the fact that we have so many liquor licences in such a small jurisdiction as the Territory. I have seen in my own electorate one particular outlet cause significant problems because of the sale of alcohol. I urge my colleagues in government to really look seriously at the situation of licences and why we give so many liquor licences to small establishments that otherwise would not be able to survive if it was not for alcohol.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, if I may, before we go on. I advise honourable members of the presence in the gallery of students from Charles Darwin University studying Certificate IV Business, accompanied by their lecturer, Ms Susan Bandias. On behalf of members, I extend a very warm welcome to you all. It is nice to have you here.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, in keeping with the new code of conduct, I suppose I should declare an interest, as I am of a family of publicans who dispensed the very product that is apparently the root of all evil. Several of my relations are still involved in the hospitality industry. I will agree that liquor is often one of the contributing factors to violence in our society and that is why, as a government, the Northern Territory government introduced a world first program, the Living with Alcohol Programs, and that is why there was a great attempt to address this.
I am pleased that the member for Casuarina finished his contribution with: ‘Give us constructive criticism, and we will take it on board’. Here is some constructive criticism: minister, this statement is twaddle dressed up as rubbish parading as policy. If you look at it …
Members interjecting
Mr DUNHAM: Let us start with the compulsory treatment of addicts. It is on page 1 of your statement. ‘Compulsory treatment of addicts arrested on drug-related crime’. This is one of the major planks of your business. We are going to compulsorily treat them no matter what they have done, no matter where they have been. Do you reckon that is a good policy? Let us hear what the Supreme Courts says. Let us hear what Dean Mildren says. He is ‘absolutely staggered’ at how stupid this policy is. He goes on to say:
Dancing around, according to your policy. I quote Justice Mildren:
Mr Stirling: Who bailed him the last time? Did you ask that question?
Mr DUNHAM: I do not care! The point is it is your policy to compulsorily direct people to a drug court, minister, and you know it is a failure because the very people sitting in judgment are telling you!
Mr Stirling: Find out who the idiot was who bailed him.
Mr DUNHAM: Now, let us stay with the NT News, minister, because you will learn something. This morning we had a disgusting display from the Minister for Housing where he used this parliament to blame the victim. I cannot believe this but, in this case here, back to the NT News, another front page. Gee, we are going well with our crime stuff: ‘Teens trash unit for fun; Autistic victim forced to flee’.
One of the things that the minister says is: ‘Put your hands up the other side if you believe every word the NT News prints. I cannot see hands going up’. Okay, maybe the story is wrong. Let us have a look at the picture. The picture tells a thousand words. How would you like to be living in a flat and come home - this bloke obviously has a computer, he has a bit of gear stored away in a unit, he has a study desk, shows a bit of industry, perhaps he goes to Charles Darwin University. Have a look at this. That tells a thousand words, minister. If you do not believe us, if you do not believe the bench, if you do not believe the NT News, what is the point of giving you constructive criticism?
This statement is based on ‘if we keep saying it, it is bound to happen’. It is a little bit like the Wizard of Oz: ‘I will just shut my eyes and click my heels together and I am back in Kansas and everything is okay’. We had the spectacle of the member for Karama telling us how wonderful things are in Karama. It was very educational because one of the things she talked about was her great interventions as a local member with a gang called the Karama Boys. Are they from Millner? Malak, perhaps? The Karama Boys are from Karama. They are a gang of youths and they are causing great mischief out there. Do not pretend it does not happen. If 19 coppers turn up in your office at Karama to stop a street fight with the Karama Boys and others, do you not think that is a problem? Do you not think that is a problem?
She says that we have to get a few things up and running like the Blue Light Discos. Now, there is a good idea. They used to run weekend after weekend after weekend under the CLP.
Mr Stirling: Until you gutted the police force and they had no resources to run them!
Mr DUNHAM: Oh, we could ask this in estimates, minister. We could ask this in estimates because they ran right up to the time you came into government, and then they ceased. I will lay you a bet right here; you are a betting man. I will lay you a bet right here: there were more Blue Light Discos run in the final two years …
Mr Stirling: You would not pay up! I would not trust you to pay!
Mr DUNHAM: Okay, I will put it on the table. I bet you that in the final two years of the CLP government, there were more Blue Light Discos run than in the last two years of this government.
Mr Henderson: I will bet you there are more coppers in the next two years of the Labor government than the last two years of yours.
Mr DUNHAM: Oh, the next two years! Future! At the moment there are fewer, minister! You have fewer coppers than we had!
Mr Henderson: No, there is not!
Members interjecting.
Mr DUNHAM: It is because your mathematics is to add the new recruits and conveniently forget that people retire. Some people do not like working under this government and they leave, so work that out. You have to do the take-offs if you want to do the add-ons.
This is an interesting statement because the Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services did not mention Blue Light Discos. The Minister for Justice and Attorney-General did not mention Blue Light Discos. However, we have had two people from electorates – oh, three, because we had the member for Arnhem saying when he was a young kid he was a lair, and that it was sport, some well intentioned advice from the coppers and activities that saved him. We then had the spectacle of the member for Casuarina standing up and saying: ‘We built Lake Leanyer’ - which you did not. Anyway, ‘We built it and graffiti and vandalism has all just disappeared in that area. It is all fixed up now’. So, we have Blue Light Discos, Lake Leanyer and sport, for the member for Arnhem.
What if we did something like, say, had a group come to Katherine and run a youth event over a couple of days – say, for instance, a Croc Fest. Wouldn’t that be a good idea? Wouldn’t that be a good idea to spend $100 00 and get other instrumentalities to put in another $300 000? Hey, there is a saving, for every $1 we put in, someone else will find $3 for the kids in Katherine. Have a look at your crime statistics, minister, and you will see Katherine is a hot spot. Katherine has some problems. Why would you cut back the Croc Festival in a town like that, that is crying out for activities for their youth? Why would you do it? It just flies in the face of any reason.
The member for Casuarina also told us about how various businesses are fixing up this crime problem. One bloke does not get his windows smashed in because he gives free burgers out. That is not a bad little - they used to work that in Boston, the Italian people; it is called extortion.
Members interjecting.
Mr DUNHAM: Well, it is interesting. Get him to stop giving out the burgers and see what happens to his windows, because what you are expecting here is businessmen to come up with things to thwart law and order problems that you should be thwarting. Hosing down itinerants - hmm, that is a good idea. So what we will do in the park is turn all the sprinklers on if there is a big mob of - dare we say - Aboriginal people sitting around drinking grog. Great idea! Do you not think that this is just a tad troublesome, minister? Do you not have a problem with this?
Mr Vatskalis: You used to lock them up, didn’t you?
Mr DUNHAM: No, we did not lock them up, actually. But possibly that is something we should consider. Possibly we should consider some of those issues where people might not be offending our laws, but they might be offending some of the social mores. For example, there is an expectation people will not drink in a public place, expectorate, fornicate, defecate and all those sort of things …
Mr Henderson: It never happened when you were in government?
Mr DUNHAM: Of course it happened. All I am saying to you is, we had a minister come out and say: ‘Well, we fixed that. Give us another problem; give us world peace. That is pretty easy after what we have just done’. You have not fixed it, and you certainly have not fixed it in my electorate. In my electorate, some of these issues are going up …
Mr Henderson: Do you know where it is? They have not seen you for a while.
Mr DUNHAM: You have not seen me for a while? Well, there is a good reason for that; you should be overseas.
In Palmerston, there is a 14% increase in property offences from the previous quarter. There is a 17% increase in house break-ins from the last quarter. There is an increase of 25% in other thefts from the previous quarter. There is an increase in 10% in property damage offences from the previous quarter. That is up; that is not down. If you want to run some of this data - particularly when you run data about break-ins and the wonderful things you have done to address that - you probably should also go back in history and look at the biggest intervention we have had to address: burglary and break-ins.
The member for Casuarina went doorknocking, and people said: ‘Look we do not like this because we cannot catch them. The people who broke into our house, they cannot be arrested because they do not know who they are’. Well, guess who brought in DNA testing? Guess who put a lot of money in the budget to build a lab for DNA? Guess what the biggest intervention with the break-ins has been? DNA! It has been the biggest breakthrough since fingerprinting. Therefore, these recidivists - these people who are out there doing it time and time again, starting with small crimes, ending up with bigger crimes - they have been taken out of the cycle. It has not been any great new interventions from you guys; it has been the advent of DNA. We stood out the front of this parliament when we passed the DNA act, and we said - pretty much like you – ‘Let us all get together and say this is the crime fighting tool that should be available and it has bipartisan support’. We got one of you out there - one of you. One of you was game enough to come out, take a Buccal swab - pretty simple procedure - put it in the thing and say: ‘There is my DNA. I support it’.
Let us have a look at some of these crime fighting tools. One of them is the community, and the community is doing it in spite of you. How do I know that? I know it because you told us. You told us that a lot of these small groups that are setting up are being set up because they are doing it of their own volition. The minister said in his statement that the government is not making them do it; they have decided to do it themselves. They decided to do it, a lot of them, because of frustration with the government. That is why they have decided to do it. That is why they are turning the sprinklers on out the front. That is why they are paying hamburgers to kids to not smash their windows. That is why they are organising themselves to do things.
Mr Kiely: You are against kids having a feed, are you?
Mr DUNHAM: Am I against kids having a feed? If you go through the stuff the member for Karama was telling you, she was saying there is a big problem when you see gangs of kids - big problem; gangs of kids, gangs of kids, gangs of kids. I would have thought it is a pretty significant issue that, if you get a group of young people together, that it is an indicator of crime. That is a problem in that suburb. It is a problem in Karama if you get a group of kids together and, all of a sudden, it is a precursor to the law being broken. That is something you should look at.
The other thing we should look at is the fact that you do need a suite of solutions to address a suite of problems. Some of them will be particular to that place, and some of them will not be portable to other places; they might work here and not work there. However, to hear people stand up and blame the victim – the lady whose house was trashed – you are hearing it from the courts and from the papers.
Last week, the member for Casuarina said: ‘Oh, these are only people who bash themselves up at home. She will be right. It is domestic violence, a little bit of biff. That is the usual stuff. When I walk down the street I am not going to get bashed on the head’. Well here is last Monday – the Monday before last – ‘Brawlers turn on police, officer kicked in head … it was the mother of all street fights’. This is not just something that is happening in the bedrooms of Katherine between a couple of people having a bit of a domestic stoush. This is a serious matter. It is a serious matter, and it is happening because there is a belief that people who flout the law can take the next step up.
Mr Bonson interjecting.
Mr DUNHAM: It might be a matter of great hilarity in Millner but, I tell you, it is not in Palmerston. It is one of those things where people will be dismissive of the law, dismissive of the things that the law does, and dismissive of the fact that they might get caught and go to gaol. They take the next step up, and the next step up. That is what we are seeing in this society.
It is important, minister, that you do not hide behind these words; that you do not hide behind the fact that people have told you that it is tickety-boo, that you had a six-point plan, that when you look at the statistics in various – there was a big yawn over there and it is indicative of this debate. We had to ring the bells in this debate.
A member interjecting.
Mr DUNHAM: It is a good thing these people were not here 20 minutes earlier, because they would have seen they outnumbered us in this parliament. There were four people in here. I agree with the Clerk; it is a matter for the opposition as well as the government to maintain the numbers in this House. This is a serious issue …
Mr Bonson: Exactly. They were all upstairs having a rest.
Mr DUNHAM: They were all upstairs. Having beer, are they mate? Well, there you go. That is the problem …
Members interjecting.
Mr DUNHAM: … because while this debate is on, it is incumbent on members to come in here and contribute to it. This is one of the most serious issues affecting our society at the moment. It is an issue that is reflected in stats, the newspaper, on the bench, anecdotally, and by people just going out and seeing it. For the government to be telling us you have it fixed – you are living in fairy land. You keep saying to us: ‘You guys have all these crazy ideas because …
Mr Bonson: It is a war zone here in the Territory, hey?
Mr DUNHAM: War zone. Yes, the war zone is the Alice Springs Hospital. Apparently, the member for Stuart called the Alice Springs Hospital, now he is the Health Minister. Let us hope he can fix that up.
Let us look at the Blue Light Disco – it is a good thing you brought it back up; the Croc Eisteddfod at Katherine; at getting more money into sport programs; and not assuming you have fixed something that is not fixed. Let us hear what the community is saying. We are not the only ones. When you say all you can do is knock – go and have a listen. Go back and knock on the door of the copper that you talked to - the policeman who said: ‘Look we have a problem here because we cannot do whatever it is we are doing’. Go back and talk to him again. Go and knock on his door again and see what he has to say to you.
Go and talk to some of the people who are victims and, instead of pillaring them in this House - the minister said ‘some mental health issues’. That is totally irrelevant to the fact that people broke into this house and trashed it. For the minister to stand up and divulge personal circumstances of that nature in an attempt to deflect some of the odium away from himself, does him no good. I condemn the minister’s feeble attempt. I thank him for bringing the statement forward, and I wish he would do it on a frequent basis, because these are times when we can educate the minister and the government. It is a pity he is not here to hear it, but the minister has to hear this …
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! The member well knows he can not reflect on the presence or otherwise of a member of this House. I ask him to withdraw it.
Mr DUNHAM: I will not reflect on his absence.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale!
Mr DUNHAM: I withdraw it.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.
Mr DUNHAM: However, they are matters of seriousness and they are matters that I hope he takes to his heart. I hope that he realises that behind these statistics are people - behind these statistics are human beings ...
Mr Henderson: And there are a lot less of them!
Mr DUNHAM: There are a lot less - and they are getting bashed and raped, punched around and stuff pinched off them. If you use the facts to say: ‘Oh, we only had 1500 last time’, that is 1500 people. That is 1500 human beings who are not that fussed on these things happening to them.
He talked about petrol sniffing. It is all very well saying any number is intolerable and we never accept this. He talked about petrol sniffers and he said: ‘We are down to five, and that is okay’.
Mr Henderson: No, he did not say that!
Mr DUNHAM: Here you go, I will give you the quote:
You are not going okay, mate. This is not okay. Five sniffers going around the flats is fairly problematic also, my friend. Just remember, these are humans at the end of these stats. Also, just remember that when you do this stuff, do not stand up here with little trite throwaway lines about people who are victims, because they also vote.
Ms CARTER (Port Darwin): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I welcome the opportunity that the minister has provided for us to debate this very important issue. It is one of the key issues here in the Northern Territory, and it is certainly of great concern to many of my constituents in the electorate of Port Darwin. One of the most concerning issues for them is that of antisocial behaviour. I know the minister recently begged a certain group in the community to stop committing crimes. Well, I am begging the minister to do more about antisocial behaviour in our community. It is the most common complaint that I get in my electorate office.
It is sad to see the range of people who are affected by antisocial behaviour. They range from people such as tourists who visit our mall in the CBD of Darwin, and sometimes those tourists - in fact, I would say often - are picked on because they are tourists. I know we have the Dry Season coming up and we will see an influx of tourists into the mall. I know that it is particularly women who are targeted by people who are drunk in the mall, and how distressing it can be for these women. I am lucky; I obviously have a certain demeanour that shows that I do not take much rubbish from certain people. They get pretty short shrift from me when I am approached for some money, etcetera. However, it is not infrequent that you see either older women or young women being humbugged and harassed in our mall. In the end, they fork over their money and look pretty stressed by the experience. I believe it was the member for Katherine who spoke recently in this House about the problem that creates for us with regards to our tourism industry, in that the message very quickly goes up and down the track and elsewhere of where you should avoid because of these problems. Therefore; it is a key concern of mine.
Last year, I went to Cairns and met with the Mayor, Kevin Byrnes, who is an inspirational fellow for many reasons. He has done a very good job of addressing what I will now call the itinerant problem. What he described to me was, essentially, a zero tolerance policy by council as to what they would tolerate on council land, which includes their mall and many of the parks in the area. It takes effort and perseverance. It is not going to go away during our time, and it will take resources.
The itinerants in the CBD of Darwin are street people. They choose, many of them, not to go into accommodation. I know this because I am on the substance abuse committee and we have met with itinerants in various circumstances. They have been people who have been trying get off the grog and have been good enough to talk to us about their lives as itinerants, and the problems that they faced. A few years ago before I was elected to parliament when I was working in the Department of Health and Community Services, I chaired a number of meetings with service providers with regard to the itinerant problem. From both those experiences I have learnt that there is a group of people who choose not to live in accommodation. For example, St Vincent de Paul and the Salvation Army had hostels near and in the CBD, but there are a group of people who will not spend the $5 or $10 a night that some of them require, or they will not conform to any rules. They do not want anyone telling them what they should be doing. They choose not to stay in this cheap accommodation. Instead, they choose to live on the streets.
Why do they do that? They do it to maximise their money, which they can spend on alcohol. They want to drink, they are here to drink and, of course, the end result is it creates misery for all. It creates misery for them, I am sure; for us; and for the people who visit Darwin.
On Friday night of last week, I went on the March for Peace, which was hosted by three of the churches here in Darwin. On the way back from the march, we had to move up the mall by which time it was 7.30 pm. It was very distressing for me to see the itinerants around Raintree Park hassling people and drinking. They were drinking, as usual, a yellow liquid from coke bottles. This is constantly seen in the CBD. I am not a member of the police force, but it is there constantly, and it is beyond me why people who should be out there looking for this type of behaviour seem to be ignoring it to some extent.
Needless to say, sitting around at Raintree Park was a very happy group who were settled in for the night drinking. What we need to have is a greater emphasis on tip-out. I beg the minister and the minister for police to do more with the police force regarding being on top of the issue of tipping out alcohol and enforcing our laws in this area.
Although those on the other side may not see this as a serious issue, I can assure you it is a serious issue now and it is going to be a particularly serious issue that the people who are going to vote in the next 18 eighteen months will be thinking of. If you ask the average person living in our urban centres what are their major problems, I can guarantee you that the hassle caused by public drinking by certain groups of people is way up there. I can assure you the CLP will have plenty to say about it when we get closer to the election. My emphasis to the Martin Labor government is to do more to address the drinking activities of the itinerants.
Why am I so passionate about this topic? For the mall, for tourism and the people who live in my electorate comfortably, it is an issue. However, the ones who break my heart are the people who live in Housing Commission accommodation. There is a large block of units on the corner of Smith and Daly Streets. There are approximately 60 to 70 units and a range of people who are socially disadvantaged live there. When I was first elected three years ago and would go doorknocking in that area, I was struck by the genuineness of these people. They were doing their best on limited means. They kept the place neat and tidy and it was a delight to doorknock there and to visit these people who, I guess, some people would describe as battlers.
It is now breaking my heart that, as of about two years ago, we have seen a slow but steady deterioration in this block of Housing Commission units. The reason we have seen this change is that there have been placed in these units people who do not behave. These are people who do not follow the rules. They bring along and invite their mates to come and stay with them, and their mates are related to street people, itinerants, people visiting from other communities. So, they all join in at the Tomaris block of units, and they have turned into a hell hole over the last couple of years.
When you go there and walk up the stairs, the place stinks of urine, and the stairwells are full of rubbish. The drinking goes on night and day in the grounds of Tomaris. I have been working with the Minister for Housing with this over the last couple of years, and I do genuinely thank him and his staff for the efforts that they have made in this area. We have been battling it now for two years with various strategies. The end result is not much change, and I guess it was brought home to me a few weeks ago when I had a drunk white man come and complain to me bitterly - and, I might say, pretty aggressively - in my office about the drunken black people who are camped out at Tomaris. It is so bad that they are getting desperate about each other. It was just pitiful. He is a tenant at Tomaris, and cannot afford the $150 that you need to give to try and get relocated to another set of units somewhere in Darwin. This is a problem faced by many people on low incomes; they cannot escape. He was basically saying to me: ‘You could go, couldn’t you?’. Of course, I could. I would not put up with it; I would definitely leave.
Another constituent of mine who lives in this block of units - another sad case – is a guy who is unemployed. He is about 50 years of age and we have developed a good friendship over the last few years. About a year or so ago, he finally enrolled at the then Northern Territory University, now Charles Darwin University, to do computer studies in the hope that he would one day be able to get a paying job. He has recently had to relinquish his studies at the university because he cannot get any sleep because of the endless shrieking, yelling and carry-on that goes on at this block of units.
I know we talk about high crime, serious crimes. However, I implore the minister for Justice and the minister for Police to do more about the itinerant problem. I highly recommend, based on my experience from the Mayor of Cairns, that the emphasis goes to tipping out alcohol and zero tolerance for this behaviour. In Northern Territory housing accommodation you should have a set of standards for tenants and everybody has to comply with that set of standards - not one set for Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islanders, and a different set of rules for non-Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. You have to have the rules that are enforced across the board.
The other thing that we must do is have a zero tolerance on drinking in public, and that includes enforcing. I am pleased that the Minister for Housing agreed with me on this and we have erected trespass signs at Tomaris Court. However, we must enforce the trespass situation, so that you can get these people out of the complex. What they are doing, of course, is saying: ‘Oh, I am a friend of so and so’s and we are just having a picnic, and so we are going to drink here’. For quite some time the police were somewhat hamstrung by that sort of excuse which allowed these people to keep drinking, trashing the cars in the car park, and driving everybody else to distraction having to listen to the blues that were going on, and the threats.
We have to do more with itinerants, and I believe that includes putting a real effort into tipping out alcohol. I do feel sorry for the police. They are highly trained people, who want to be solving crimes and doing those sorts of more intellectual jobs. However, unfortunately for them, they are also the people whose job it is to tip out alcohol and enforce, for example, the 2 km law. We need to put pressure on people who are behaving badly - and I definitely concede that these could be people who are white people; you definitely see that problem there as well – by saying we will not tolerate this behaviour in our urban centres, and we will put in the resources to tip out alcohol. This will go a long way in overcoming the problem that public drinking is causing.
The other issue that I am going to touch on briefly here with regard to crime - and I would encourage the minister for Justice to concentrate on it - is the issue of drink spiking. My electorate contains many people who go out to nightclubs and, unfortunately, there appears to be an increased incidence of drink spiking. It is hard to get the stats on a thing like drink spiking because the criminal puts a drug into the victims drink, the victim loses control, and the criminal assist them out into a place where, often, they are sexually assaulted. These criminals, to my mind, are disgusting cowards. I am very well aware of cases where women and men have been attacked in this manner. They are absolutely devastated to wake up in a room that they do not know and realise that something has occurred to their body while they have been unconscious. They are often loath to report it because of the embarrassment that entails for them. I do not think we have any idea as to the extent of drink spiking here in the Northern Territory.
It is an area that needs more work and, to that extent, I have prepared a flyer which I send out. It covers, for example, what drink spiking is, why a person should be concerned, what drugs are involved with drink spiking, how you would know if your drink has been spiked, how to reduce the risks, and how to avoid drink spiking. Those sorts of things have been put into this flyer which I distribute to certain people within my electorate who fit in a certain demographic and who I think might be going out to nightclubs and need to be further educated in this area. The Leader of Opposition also does the same. He also has distributed a flyer to people we think might find it of interest. That is what we are doing with regards to drink spiking. I would encourage the government to think about drink spiking as a serious issue. It certainly affects people in my electorate, and there is more that could be done.
Madam Speaker, those are just two issues specific to crime that affect my electorate. I welcome the minister’s statement and the efforts made by the government with regard to the reduction of crime, but I believe there needs to be more done. Of course, it is concerning to note that there are certain categories of crime which are actually increasing. I certainly hope that we will see improvements in the time to come.
Debate adjourned.
Continued from 25 February 2004.
Mr HENDERSON (Business and Industry): Madam Speaker, it is a coincidence, I suppose, in the order of the Notice Paper today, that this report comes on for debate after debate on crime prevention, when so much of the crime prevention debates this evening in the House was related to alcohol abuse or excessive alcohol consumption in the Northern Territory. It goes to show what a huge issue excessive alcohol consumption is in the Northern Territory, and an issue that really has had bipartisan support on a policy basis in trying to address this issues. We are always going to have acrimonious debates in this House on crime and law and order; it is one of the great political divides and battlefields. However, everybody in this parliament recognises and is committed to public policy that tries to reduce the amount of alcohol-related harm in our community. I urge all members, as we move through the current debate of a review of the Liquor Act in the Northern Territory, to really put our collective minds to this as a significant policy issue for this parliament, because we all understand the amount of grief and harm that excessive alcohol consumption causes in our community. I hope that we can have unanimous support for the recommendations which will come as a result of the current work being done and the public consultation being conducted at the moment, and the parliament can reach some consensus in policy and a way forward.
I commend the working group that has presented this interim report - a very extensive and detailed report that is out for public comment now. However, the most startling figures are the per capita consumption of alcohol in the Northern Territory compared to the Australian average. We can certainly see that, in the period of 1991-92 to 1995-96, the per capita consumption of alcohol in the Northern Territory was 14.63 litres of pure alcohol compared to the Australian average of 9.53. In 2000-01, it had reduced to 13.82 litres per person compared to the national average of 9.32 litres. So it is coming down. We do not appear to have any statistics post that period. However, it is still way in excess of the Australian average and, given so many in our community do not drink at all - particularly the majority of our 30% indigenous population - that really is still an extraordinary figure. From my time as shadow health minister, and comparing that 14 litres per person, if you look at that on an international scale, that really does put Territorians right up there in the largest consumers per capita of alcohol in the world. It looks as though we are making some inroads, but there is still a long way to go.
We are all mindful of trying to address this issue without putting policy together that is going to impact on the vast majority of Territorians who do enjoy a cold beer on a hot day. Many of us do. I certainly enjoy a glass or two or three of wine. Certainly, alcohol is the lubricant of a lot of what is good in society but, taken to excess, causes a lot of grief in our community. As policy makers and legislators, we are all going to be concerned to ensure that we do not, through any policy that we might put in place, really constrain a lot of the good that does come on the social side from moderate alcohol intake.
However, the abuse of alcohol is destroying parts of our community. It is a tragedy that impacts on the lives of almost every Territorian, directly or indirectly. We heard a lot of the indirect comment tonight, that we see the grief around our community. Certainly, that is further borne out by the statistical analysis that I, as Police minister, and my colleague, the Justice minister, organised as a result of reviewing the latest crime statistics, when we arranged for senior officers to actually look at the details of the PROMIS records of the 130-odd assaults in the Katherine region in the last quarter, and really go to the underlying causes of those assaults. The Minister for Justice and Attorney-General is on record, without the exact numbers there, that the vast majority of those assaults were alcohol related, contributing to domestic violence and absolute tragedy that is being played out in the community.
Speaking as Police minister, I get around and talk to many police officers around the Northern Territory to gain an understanding of their work. Certainly, much of their police work is alcohol related. Just picking up on the concerns for the member for Port Darwin about a zero tolerance approach of drinking in a public place, I can say that the police do adopt that approach. I do not have the figures with me, but they tip out hundreds of thousands of litres - probably millions of litres - of alcohol, per year, around the Northern Territory. They will tip out more as more police officers come into the police force, given our government’s commitment to boost police numbers by 200 people by 2006. An extra 200 police officers deployed in our community is going to have a more effective impact in zero tolerance and the policing of the 2 km law.
The men and women of our police force are out there in the front line every day and night, moving people on, tipping out grog, picking people up, taking them to the sobering-up shelters or into protective custody. Far too often, an awful part of policing is responding to fatal or serious motor vehicle accidents in which alcohol has been a major factor. Our police force really is in the front line of this problem and they see so much of the harm caused to society and individuals in our society. They have my highest level of esteem and compliments for the work that they do. Dealing with alcohol-related offences is a core part of policing duties and our officers do it well.
Anecdotally, particularly in Alice Springs - Katherine and Tennant Creek will probably be the same - talking to Gary Mannison, the Commander Southern Region who is doing a magnificent job with the police in Alice, he tells anybody that about 80% of police work in Alice Springs in one way or another is alcohol-related. That really is an extraordinary figure. It would be the same in Katherine and Tennant Creek. It is a bit less here in Darwin where property offences are far higher as a percentage of overall police workload than in some of our regional centres. Those figures are just extraordinary and it is part of the policy challenge for this parliament and government to bring that percentage of their workload down. As Police minister, I am appalled that so much of their work and resources are taken up with dealing with alcohol-related social order and violent offences in the Northern Territory.
As business minister, I hear the frustration of small business owners and operators when they return to work in the morning to find smashed windows, rubbish strewn around the place and property damage. I get it as I move around the Northern Territory talking to business owners. The member for Katherine mentioned the Katherine high street. It is astounding when you talk to the poor operators there who, almost on a weekly basis, have their windows smashed in. I have absolute admiration for their doggedness and fortitude in continuing to pursue those business operations at the front street of Katherine.
We are putting more police resources into Katherine; an additional five officers in the last 12 months or so, dedicated street patrols. However, we all know that policing is only part of the answer. The other part of the answer really does revolve around the supply and consumption of alcohol in our society, and we all recognise that it is much more complicated than just the policing issue. The impact on business and the broader community is frustrating, devastating and very costly, particularly for small business when they have to claim on their insurance, their insurance premiums go up as a result of the claims, and it is an ever increasing cycle.
Too much money is being spent by businesses on fixing vandalism caused by drunkenness. Business is saying enough is enough. As my colleague, the member for Casuarina, said, business owners are starting to work cooperatively together in the Casuarina region. Businesses are working together with the police and private security operators and, despite the colourful - for want of a better word - contribution to the crime prevention statement by the member for Drysdale tonight, as I get around the Northern Territory talking to business owners, business round tables, and holding community business discussions, people are telling me that things are getting better. They are still not great, but people do remember the problems we had 12 months and two years ago. The member for Drysdale continues to deny that, unlike the member for Port Darwin, who had a much more balanced contribution.
We are not saying things are fixed. Depending on your definition of ‘fixed’, we are always going to have crime in our community. However, things are getting better. The more police we put in place, the more crime prevention initiatives that a community base will work on. If we address the issue as best we can as a parliament regarding public policy on alcohol, we will start to make the Territory a better place to live regarding the problems we face with crime and alcohol abuse.
To deny that there has been any improvements at all, and that things are getting worse and are totally out of control, is really a slur, particularly on our police force, who have done such a huge job in the last 12 to 18 months, and will continue to do that as the extra resources go into the system under the stewardship of a very competent, capable commissioner. It is early days yet, but he is proving to be one of the best Police Commissioners the Territory has seen, given the results that our current commissioner has on the board in the first 18 months in his role. I believe that they are doing a great job. To deny that there has been any change, well, the member for Drysdale can do better than that.
Having an effective alcohol policy in action is vital for the future development of the Northern Territory. So much of our Territory lifestyle is celebrated with a beer or two, or three or maybe four, but we must work to address the problems alcohol abuse causes in our community.
I congratulate the dual chairs, Daryl Manzie and Donna Ah Chee on their important interim report. It really is a very detailed report, probably one of the seminal reports of its type produced to parliament in the Northern Territory. There is good promotion of the public forums that are discussing this report at the moment. I am hearing ads for them on the radio. I think the one in Casuarina might be tomorrow if my memory is correct. I urge all Territorians to really have a think about where we are going with grog in our community.
The member for Casuarina talked about the number of liquor outlets, and that it an issue in the Northern Territory. On the other side of that issue, as business minister - and particularly as small business minister - I am also very much aware that many of our small shopkeepers in the Northern Territory who have liquor licences and responsibly administer those liquor licences - well, they would not be in business, given the power and the dominance of the big shopping complexes and the 24-hour trading that those major chains can operate out of those shopping complexes. Competition is very tough and a lot of those businesses are hanging on by the skin of their teeth. They are providing a role in our community. The vast majority of them are responsible. The issue with alcohol policy is really finding that balance in the community between supply and demand. I believe that if we can work really strongly on the demand side, as well as looking at reducing the supply when the demand drops, then maybe that is the way to go.
Liquor licensees have to be responsible in regard to the licence that they hold. It is not a right. It is a licence that has conditions on it. Certainly, I would have to say that I sometimes look at some of the bigger operators and the products that they stock. The member for Araluen, in adjournment last night, was showing the type of advertising on high alcohol content wines. I sometimes look - and I am not passing the judgment of Solomon, I suppose – at some of these operators, and think where is their community conscience? Where is their moral commitment to our community when they are deliberately selling high alcohol content products to sections of our community that they know will not only damage themselves, but damage much of the social fabric of our community. They actually focus so much of their retail trading practice and targeting their market on that particular sector. Sometimes, I wonder how those people sleep at night with their consciences.
It is a complex issue in our society. There are no simple answers, but that is why we are elected. We are elected as members of parliament by our community to come to grips with some of these issues. In the law and order debates, where there will always be political friction and intense debate around, we are all politicians, we all know that law and order is always up there in the minds of voters at election time. We are certainly progressing our initiatives and seeing improving results for those policy initiatives. However, for this issue of the use and abuse of alcohol in our community, it would be good to see that this parliament brings its collective knowledge, understanding and community contacts to bear on this issue, to see if we can get a better alcohol framework in the Northern Territory that really starts moving on the demand and supply issues, and making a better Territory for all of us.
I commend the authors of this report and look forward, when they bring their final report back to the Assembly, to further contributing in the debate.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to say that the member for Arnhem and I have something in common. He stated this afternoon that he likes to call it as it is, and so do I. It was very refreshing to hear him say that.
The Minister for Justice and Attorney-General, in Question Time yesterday, stated that five more police officers and an Aboriginal community police officer have been stationed in Katherine, and that police operations are now being targeted with patrols going to hot spots. I made some inquiries with the police to ask how they determine the hot spots. I thought it would be fairly visible, but they determine them by the number of reports that are made to the police station by telephone by the public. In Katherine’s case, the businesses I spoke to in the Oasis Shopping Centre actually do not bother to ring the police on each instance because it would take too much time, and it is such a prevalent problem in the Oasis Shopping Centre, they found that they did not have the time and it was inconvenient. Therefore, several of the businesses in the shopping centre have employed a security firm to patrol the area, but they have no more powers in enforcing the law than you or I do. They just move people on.
I welcome the police foot patrols and the work of the Kalano Night Patrol in assisting the clean-up in Katherine, and especially the main street. However, I can assure the minister that the Kalano Night Patrol needs considerably more training to be able to carry out the duties that are required of them. I urge the minister to address the patrol training issue urgently to upskill its members which will, in turn, raise their credibility in the community.
The issue that public drunkenness in Katherine is supposedly being used by myself as political point scoring is garbage. Like the member for Arnhem …
Dr Toyne: Why do you sell the stuff then?
Mrs MILLER: … I like to call it how it is. I have been involved in the Katherine community for almost 15 years now, working voluntarily on various committees and through Katherine Town Council, with the issue of antisocial behaviour constantly being discussed, and the frustration as to what can be done. This issue was always discussed, argued, and ideas bandied around about what to do to address the issue that would be acceptable to everyone.
Restricted alcohol trials were implemented with the first six months of those trials being very successful. Unfortunately, after the 12-month trial was completed and the appeals had been heard, Katherine reverted to pretty much the same as before the trials. Back to square one, I thought, which was most unfortunate. However, it has been interesting to note that, since that time, there is considerably less alcohol being sold in Katherine. The minister would be very pleased to note that in the establishment that my husband runs, which sells alcohol, the sales are down 47% in three years. However, public drunkenness is not. We still have a problem with public drunkenness. The number of people involved is still the same, and the associated problems of antisocial behaviour have not lessened in that time.
Since that time of the trial, significant steps have been implemented with the Harmony Program, with a very hard-working management committee in Katherine, to address the whole range of issues that are required to address antisocial behaviour, and I welcome their efforts. My request to be able to attend those meetings when possible to assist in the community in any way that I could was rejected, as it was seen to be political. Amazing, isn’t it, Madam Speaker, that 12 months ago my involvement would have been seen as a caring community person? The committee did, however, agree to forward the minutes of those meetings, which keeps me in touch with what is happening in the community. Members of this House would be well aware that my electorate office is situated in the main street of Katherine and, therefore, I see first-hand what is happening in the street. I am very aware of what happens in front of my own eyes. The issue of public drunkenness is something so visible in the main street of Katherine and it does need addressing now. Everybody is just sick of waiting for a miracle, and there isn’t one.
The domestic violence statistics that the Attorney-General spoke of during his address implied that because they are domestic that they occur in homes. In Katherine, domestic violence occurs very visibly in our streets, and it is usually associated with alcohol. The police in Katherine do a fantastic job and I have the greatest respect for their tireless commitment to keeping law and order on our streets. However, I agree with the member for Barkly that we need legislative changes to assist the police with tidying up violence in our communities. There is no other way but to take a firm stand on this unacceptable behaviour. I believe that zero tolerance to public drunkenness and associated acts of violence, backed up with legislative support to assist the police to enforce the zero tolerance, is rightfully demanded by our community. For too long we have been soft shoe shuffling around the issue of public drunkenness and trying to deal with the complex issue without directing our energies to target the obvious offenders. Zero tolerance seems to me to be the only obvious way to clean up our streets .and our shopping centres.
The remarks by government ministers today, and in the media during the week, that my comments about drunkenness were driving away tourists is absolute rubbish and they know it. Tourists do not buy the paper to determine whether they will visit the Territory. They come to the Northern Territory following very expensive marketing and advertising campaigns by the Northern Territory Tourism Commission. The commission spends hundreds of thousands of dollars marketing the Territory to encourage people to come. All too often, they arrive in Katherine - and I have no doubt other Territory towns - to witness drunken behaviours by groups which includes very loud, explicit language and unruly behaviour. Tourists are intimidated by this and apprehensive, and many times I have had to reassure visitors witnessing these incidents in the main street that they are not under any threat. However, first impressions are very hard to alter.
I and members of the community are not always on the spot to reassure people of their safety, and I know that there have been numerous visitors who have changed their plans to stay in Katherine and moved on because of what they have experienced. It is what the visitors see that is so detrimental to Katherine and other towns. The domino effect is that negative experiences are transferred along the track at a fast rate and multiplied dramatically. As a result, we lose the tourist before they even arrive in our town.
One day last week, the House would be interested to know, I had a visit by a gentleman to my electorate office in Katherine who wished to talk to me. I will not name him here, but he had arrived in Katherine that day. He assured me that he was a friend of the Chief Minister and has known her for some years. He has a coffee with her regularly. He lives in her electorate. He has been out of the state for two months on holidays. When he arrived in Katherine on his way back, he was so mortified by what he saw on our street that he inquired where the local member’s office was. He took the time to walk to my office, during which time he had to step over some alcohol-related ‘incidents’ in the streets until he got to my door. He had to tell me that in Katherine it was quite the worse he had ever seen. He said that he was going to spend some time and talk to the Chief Minister about it. I asked this gentleman if he had read the paper because the report that I put in the paper would have been two days prior. He said he had not read any paper and he was unaware of any report that had been in it. His experience just reinforces what I was saying and it is just the cold, hard facts of what is happening.
I look forward to contributing towards addressing substance abuse in our communities through my involvement on the substance abuse select committee. I have only attended three meetings and I have probably about four feet high of paperwork to go through, as well as the excellent report that has been put together by Daryl Manzie and Donna Ah Chee. It is going to take me some time to go through.
I also look forward to supporting the community through the Harmony Group that is working so very hard in Katherine, and to working with the Katherine Police who do an excellent job. I support what the minister who spoke previously was saying in relation to the hard effort that they have to go to, and especially the difficulty they face in attempting to tip out all of the alcohol that they are required to tip out.
I support the Neighbourhood Watch program, which is being established in Katherine and, through different sectors of that program, I am sure we are going to see some improvements in our community.
I will continue to ensure that every avenue is addressed in ensuring that Katherine has a drunk-free Katherine Terrace and Oasis Shopping Centre, to ensure that all members of our community, and visitors alike, can go about their shopping without being subjected to antisocial behaviour.
Madam Speaker, I will not gloss over the facts of what happens in Katherine in the future. I have no intention of it. I will continue to call it how it is, because the people of Katherine would expect nothing less of me.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I have to say at the outset that I have had not as much time as I would like to prepare my contribution. I am standing in for the Minister for Family and Community Services who, unfortunately, has lost a family member and is absent from the Chamber.
The public process around the alcohol framework is coming at a critical point in the relationship of the NT community to alcohol and its use. There is obviously a very long history of the use of alcohol - often destructive use - within our part of Australia. It is fair to say that successive administrations have tried to grapple with some of the problems that it has created. What makes the current exercise through the framework, and the ability of the framework to promote a new round of public contemplation of these issues, is that we are really at a point in the Territory’s history, both as a community and government jurisdiction, where we really cannot ride the trends that alcohol use is creating in a number of critical areas.
Some of the areas where alcohol is absolutely a critical factor are our crime rates, particularly in violent crime - and we spoke a lot about that in these sittings - the health profiles of Territorians, the employability and economic health of our community, and the general strength of our cultural and family life throughout the community. All of those elements are being significantly impacted on by the ongoing abuse of alcohol.
If left unchecked, we are going to find the type of debate that we have been having on violent crime earlier today are not going to be tractable to any other measures if we do not deal with the contribution that alcohol abuse makes to these terrible offences.
The framework and the response to it are going to be very critical to any successful promulgation of crime prevention and community safety within the Northern Territory. The safety I am most concern about - and I do not think there would be a member in this House who would disagree - is the safety of women and children in our community. The people they have to fear most, unfortunately, are the people that they are often closest to Often, a husband or partner, who should be their greatest protection and support in the community, is the person who is offending against them. If we are going to talk about things like domestic violence and public violence, then we have to talk about alcohol and what we are going to do about it.
In health, we are finding all areas of chronic disease, particularly, and also trauma, are underlain again by alcohol abuse. We are seeing this avalanche of cases of diabetes, end-stage renal failure and pancreatitis that are overwhelming areas of our community, the very expensive facilities that you have to keep in place to deal with these terrible illnesses, and our ability to extend services to all the contexts in which people suffering these illnesses are found in the Northern Territory. That effort will not be sustainable on the current trends. If we see the same additions to the chronic disease cases that we have throughout the Territory, the health system simply will not be able to accommodate the level of care and treatment that would be required for these increasing numbers of very sick people. While it might be, in a very ironic way, the reason why some medical people would like to practice in the Territory, we are seeing levels of ill health here, as a result of these connections, that do not exist anywhere else in Australia. It is the thing that we do not want to be known for as a community, because sick people are not functional, happy or supportive people to others around them. They are simply incapacitated by the effect of the illness on them.
If we did not know these connections you could say it is terribly bad luck and the fates have visited this on our community. However, we know what is causing all this, and we have known for many years. What is different about the current era is that these problems have now reached a scale and an intensity that we can no longer take our time in addressing. These are critical matters that have to be addressed in a very powerful way across many areas of government.
Additional to the crime and health areas that I have talked about, a life of substance abuse is a life of unemployability and economic vulnerability. You cannot mix heavy use of alcohol with a successful career. You cannot mix heavy use of alcohol with the acquisition of employable skills and general life skills in the community. People become dysfunctional and dependent on the support of the community around them, and they drain the living energy out of the community. It is all used up in reactive support to people who are not functioning within our community. That is the ultimate cost of all this on our economy and of the general economic health of our individual communities.
Moving through to the cultural and family integrity, we are a community of broken families. We are a community of cultures - whether they be ethnic, Anglo-Saxon or indigenous cultures - that are under pressure, under stress, and a community of families that are not fully functional. That is a day-to-day reality for all of us in public life. We see it around us every single day. Those of us who are also responsible for bush electorates see it in the sense that life becomes a very regular attendance at funerals, hospital wards, and gaols and courts, if you are wanting to support those people for whom you have some affection and respect. To see the numbers of people who have found or got themselves into this sort of situation as a result of alcohol abuse, is nothing short of tragic. It is certainly a blight on the Northern Territory community as it stands right now, today.
This is why the framework and the other processes that are gathering around that - such as the itinerant strategy, the substance abuse initiatives, and the crime prevention initiatives - are all urgent and timely to this particular point in the Territory’s history. We are at the point where we are threatened to be overwhelmed by this. We have to deal with it in a bipartisan way, rather than by cheap political point scoring. That is the message we all have to take out of this very excellent report that was done by the consultants, Donna Ah Chee and Daryl Manzie. They have done a fantastic job in gathering together a picture of the reality that the Territory is in right now.
I would like to talk a little beyond that, about the measures that have been tried in our communities. The member for Katherine mentioned the grog restrictions in Katherine. We have had grog restrictions in Tennant Creek. Actually, the initial trials of restrictions of grog were in Tennant Creek, and it took a huge amount of courage. I know the member for Barkly would back me up on this: this was not an easy initiative to take through to your community. There were everything through to death threats in the early stages of the Tennant Creek trials. There was a lot of emotion and vested interests that were being dealt with there. The Alice Springs trials have come and gone in their first incarnation, if you like.
When you look at the turmoil, or the emotional level, that comes into these types of community reforms, it is very important to keep the actual factors that have been tested in these trials beyond individual interests of business, individual positions that various members of the community might take, or various organisations. This is a very polarised debate, and we need to look at what the tools are that can be worked with when you are looking at how to get these enormous consumption levels in our community down. It is a supply/demand. The supply of alcohol is governed by our licensing arrangements, and by commercial pressures of who might want to make some money selling alcohol products.
However, there is no doubt about the huge body of research that says that the number of outlets, the hours that they trade, and the nature of the way in which alcohol is purveyed in those outlets, are all very critical factors in the overall consumption levels and, therefore, the level of harm that accrues in the community. There have been extended studies done around Australia on the impact of outlet numbers. There is no doubt, equally, that on the history of regulation of alcohol access in the Territory, we have a very high number of outlets per capita within our population. We have pretty extended hours of trading, by and large.
Looking at the impact of the alcohol trials in Alice Springs, which I am probably most familiar with, obviously the trials did not alter the number of outlets. Certainly, the two areas that the Liquor Commissioner chose to work with were the hours of trading and bans on particular alcohol products. Having assessed the evaluation that went with that 12-month trial, I am pretty convinced that there were benefits accrued from looking at changing or shortening the hours of trading in takeaway outlets.
I am far from convinced that the product bans produced a beneficial effect. In fact, I believe it drove many of the drinkers to cask port as an alternative to cask wine. That is not a step forward. That is a step backwards because, of all the products that are on sale, for someone who is going to drink high volumes of alcohol, cask port would be just about the most damaging product that anyone could pick up and drink in large quantities. We have learnt from that. The product bans have had discernible benefits in Tennant Creek from what I have been told by the safe community group there. However, our experience in Alice Springs was that the product bans had the opposite effect to that which was hoped for. Most people were hoping - or certainly the commissioner was - that the shift would be down to products like beer rather than up to fortified products.
Regarding the nature of outlets, we have had a history in the rustic early parts of the Territory of having pretty bare bones bar facilities and takeaways. It is good to see around our major urban centres at least, that we are seeing more mixed food and drink outlets, and people associating drink with socialised activity and eating. That is probably the lesson that European countries have learnt over thousands of years of living with alcohol; that you can build it into a more normal relationship if it is treated as only one element in having a pleasant night out, rather than the only element that dominates the proceedings.
There is certainly ongoing debate about the effectiveness of dry communities and canteens. The example I was talking about earlier today about Ntaria where, because of a very strong action by the community, supported by a dry community declaration over that particular community, they have been able to get the level of grog runs right down into the community. A lot of cars have been confiscated because the police have been told who is coming in and when, and they grab the grog and the cars. It just means that a whole range of violence then does not happen as a follow-on to heavy drinking in the community. Canteens have often been mooted as an alternative to dry communities. The research is not good on that in general. Some detailed studies that were done in the Carpentaria area in far north Queensland showed that you would just add on another domain of drinking to the drinking that goes on, on visits into the local town - in that case to Mt Isa, Cairns or those areas.
On the other hand, we have other examples such as at Kalkarindji, where a very strong management regime maintained by the Daguragu Community Council has seen very controlled drinking patterns in the community. You do not drink if you are not working or if your kids are not going to school, and that has been a very good innovation there and one that shows that it is not always a disastrous thing to have alcohol in communities. However, the key in both of the examples I have given is that you have very strong commitment on the part of the community and the community leaders to a controlled relationship to alcohol within the community. You cannot do it if that strength is not there.
The framework could well look at serving practices and ways of refusing supply to people who are very heavy and chronic drinkers. I do not feel very precious about the human rights in this regard. If someone is, in effect, killing themselves by excessive drinking patterns, why would you not attempt to curtail the amount of alcohol they have access to, if you can at least at the point of sale? Our industry has shown responsibility in training their staff, and probably need to take further steps in that direction so that staff feel secure with both their right and ability to decide whether it is in a person’s interest - or even legal for that matter under the licensing conditions - to receive alcohol at a point of sale.
All of that has to be woven into legislation. However, going back to my opening comments, the absolute reality is that, unless we have a significant drop in the consumption of alcohol per capita in the Northern Territory, the harm will continue. Whether that is achieved through changes in public attitude or by having an act that accepts as one of its guiding principles that the purpose of regulation is to drop the levels of consumption in the community, I do not think we are going to get very far. We have to move forward in this current exercise; we cannot afford not to.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to address the House in regards to the Northern Territory Alcohol Framework Interim Report.
I congratulate the authors of this report, the co-chairs of the group tasked with developing alcohol framework: Mr Manzie, Ms Ah Chee and Gordon Renouf and his team who have pulled this all together.
The report reflects a widespread consultation process with members of the community, hospitality industry, health sector, law enforcement and regulatory agencies. I would also like at this point to offer my sincere congratulations to the incoming Chair of the Select Committee on Substance Abuse in the Community on her appointment, and offer the support of this side of the House to the member for Nightcliff in this role.
Abuse of alcohol in the Northern Territory is a serious problem and something that I was confronted with in a profound way at the Alice Springs Show some years ago. We hear time and again how much of a problem alcohol is in our community. We have tragic ads on television. We see the signs of social disintegration of families and violence, and it causes great concern. However, at the Alice Spring Show, I was presented with a very graphic display that showed the average consumption of alcohol per adult member of that community. It lined it up in how many cartons, casks and bottle of spirits. It was worked out by what was consumed in total in the community, divided by the number of adults living in that community. There was a display of how every adult in this community drinks that quantity.
In speaking to the people at the stand, I discovered this was an Alice Springs group that was there to present these issues to those that were attending the show. However, the figures were no different in Palmerston, Darwin or Tenant Creek and, perhaps, could well have been higher in some centres.
I could not believe that this amount of alcohol could be consumed by one individual in a year. Then, of course, you know of many people who do not drink at all. Therefore, knowing some basic statistics, you know that what was presented, which was a mountain of casks and cartons and even spirits, would be even higher for those who drink moderately. Of course, it is obviously exceptionally higher for those who are heavy drinkers. What I was seeing there was an average. Therefore, the heavy drinkers in our community were consuming extraordinary amounts of alcohol.
When you look at it again and think that you only have two kidneys and those two kidneys have one liver, having to process that quantity of alcohol per year, there is no wonder we place so much strain on our health system. It was – I almost dare not use the word - sobering to see that.
It takes some reflection to see that the effect of alcohol in our communities is so profound. As any local member here knows, 90% or more of the issues that we deal with are fueled by alcohol. It becomes, in a sense, disheartening to keep playing around with the same parameters. Whilst I am really pleased that this interim report has been produced and many directions, propositions and ideas suggested for investigation, discussion and consideration, the problem is becoming so profound and the pressure is building to such a degree, our attention is being directed now to the increasingly high incidence of violence in communities - and we know the reason behind that violence is alcohol. Nearly every case of distortion of our crime statistics, alcohol is a factor. We see it in a graphic way in the communities that we live in, but also in hidden ways that we do not acknowledge easily.
There is alcohol abuse in the politest circles, where it is not so graphic. Most of us, if we reflect quite honestly on our families - no, we may not sit in the parks and drink, but even in our own families there are examples, that I am sure all of us would acknowledge, of very serious alcohol abuse. We might point to the jolly family that gets together, and we may reminisce about Christmas day and how all the uncles got together and had a good old time. However, sometimes our memory blurs that other memory of some uncles getting legless and violent and carrying on. We sometimes forget that. We may reflect on, for example, with my wife having a European background, how European culture seems to really be able to live with it and, growing up there, it is no big issue. However, even there - and I grew up in a good Irish Catholic family, and racism, a few drinks - I knew there were alcoholics in my family, my extended family, and in my wife’s family also. We have a bit of a discussion about it, quite honestly - same issue.
Alcohol is a serious problem. However, I would have to say in the Northern Territory the pressure is building to such a degree that it is going to cause pressure on legislators to take some strong action. I can see the pressure building when I pay attention to what Noel Pearson is saying. I hear a man who is living in that environment and trying to find solutions, proposing directions that, really, are very challenging, and there is no end. There is no joy in looking at five-point plans or strategic plans, or an interim report and then another report. We know that, at the end of it, we are going to be faced with some very strong decisions.
I have had reported to me recently that the pressures are manifesting in ways that will cause communities to make strong decisions. We see small communities make big decisions and they need to be backed up. I do not know the name of the community, but there is one in Pine Creek where that small group have made a decision and have passed their express will on to the licence holder that, if any one of the members of their community present themselves at the licensed venue, the licence holder is not serve them full strength alcohol. It was good to hear the member for Stuart saying, ‘It goes beyond human rights’. That has been backed up by licence holders, to my understanding, in Pine Creek and it has resulted in a significant improvement. When small communities make big decisions, they have to be backed up.
I see that as an example of where we are headed. There is going to be pressure applied. I guess there is going to be a very pronounced and heated public debate when we realise that we are going to have to make a significant policy shift that is going to require action. I predict that that is coming because I have never had any comfort with the arguments and the philosophy of harm minimisation. The ideas of harm minimisation have permeated every one of our social policies for the last 20 or 30 years. The messages that comes through our decision-making, our policy frames, is of such a nature that they send confusing messages - ambiguous messages. There are enough studies to show that, if a government takes a particularly strong and decisive action with regards to a substance - whether it be legal or illegal – you are going to end up with all sorts of debates.
However, in the case of illegal substances, there are two approaches that have been taken by separate jurisdictions, both in Scandinavia. One has taken the harm minimisation road, and it can be dressed up in all sorts of ways. There will be proponents in this argument who will throw all sorts of facts, but I am convinced that the harm minimisation position that has been taken by Holland in regards to an illegal substance contrasts with Sweden which has taken, in the same instance, a completely different position. They have not talked about symptom, thinking, and harm minimisation but that it is wrong - seriously wrong. There are appropriate measures there to reinforce that through the legal system. If you look at the whole social account in how much the health system is costing in one or the other, such as the social disorder, the affect of a completely different approach to social policy is quite evident. I am convinced it is not down the harm minimisation road; it is a far clearer and more decisive action.
You can have so much chatting around the table when you are raising kids, and talk about what you should really be doing. If they go down the wrong way, you bring them back. You say: ‘I know what you should really be doing and you know it, don’t you?’ ‘Yes, I do’. Off they go and go back on the wrong track and you bring them back and have another chat with them. Well, no sensible person with good kids goes on that strategy forever. They tried in 1960s and 1970s and it does not work. There has to be a point where it is very clear: if it is wrong, it is wrong. We are going to have to come to the point where the community is going to say: ‘Do something, for goodness sake’.
I was in the northern suburbs the other day, and I was really quite surprised, to be honest with you. I was at the Alawa shops and saw the number of people who were just sitting around the middle of the day drinking. Maybe I believed the rubbish that is poured out about the community I live in, Palmerston, but what I was seeing was something that people are becoming increasing frustrated with. I predict it is going to be exacerbated and there is going to be the requirement for some strong actions such as – yes, I know the laws are there and the police can tip it out, but it has to be tipped out on every occasion. If you want to maintain control and a tone, it must be done on every single occasion. It must be zero tolerance, and it must be ‘move on’.
Taking the position like that on this side of the House, our political opponents will say: ‘Oh there you go, you do not care’. Not at all! Both work together, and I fear that the debate gets a bit out of hand when it gets too soft and kind people say: ‘It is not really your fault. Unfortunately, you have to some social disadvantage and we will see what we can do there because the causes of this are so consuming and, obviously, it is not really your fault’. That is the balance one way, and the other balance, obviously, is: ‘I do not care what your dramas are. Lock you up and you are in the clink’. That is the other extreme. However, the balance is you have to send a clear, concise and effective message very strongly and consistently. I believe the community is expecting that.
At the same time, there is the rehabilitative mechanisms that need to be made available, but do not over-balance it one way or another. I believe the balance is going to swing back to having far more decisive and strong action, which will be disputed by stakeholders – people who sell the grog. People who are civil libertarians will also join the fray. However, the community as a whole is demanding far more decisive action because it is becoming beyond the pail. We have a problem.
I am very attracted to the language that is coming out of Cape York, and I believe that is an encouragement for us all. The primary concern as a resident of the Northern Territory is our responsibility, one and all, for the issue that we see in indigenous communities. I urge indigenous leaders to have courage to step forward and speak up and lead their communities in ways that are creative, such as we have seen at Pine Creek. However, as I said, if small communities make big decisions we, as elected representatives and community leaders, must make sure that those people in those small communities who have made big decisions, must certainly be backed up, whatever the cost. We really must protect those strong but small moves, because they are the sparks of hope.
When we hear stories of indigenous ladies in the community becoming so concerned that they get together and demand strong action and they want this or that, they must be backed up. We must do everything that we can to back those people, because that is where it is going to happen. We can just open the floodgates of education and pour it across the Northern Territory and channel every bit of resource we have into education, but it will not really change the problem. We also have to have the strength to back up those indigenous leaders and those ladies in communities who stand up and say they want an end to this, and find creative and enthusiastic ways of supporting them.
I am grateful that we have this document to assist us in discussing a very important issue. However, I predict that the future belongs to those who have the courage to take a very strong and decisive role; a role that is going to require the ability to withstand strong criticism and abuse of those who would say that we are abusing human rights. It has entered the danger zone right across the community. Anyone with the sense to listen to what the community is saying and feel how they are feeling, will know they are going to require strong action. It is up to us who have that responsibility to provide that, and I am prepared to go there.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I support very much what the Leader of the Opposition just said. He covered many important issues that I believe most people in this Legislative Assembly would agree with. I do not believe we have any simple answers to these issues. They are going to be ongoing, but we have to try. In saying that, this particular document is certainly going a long way towards that.
I have said before, as a member of the substance abuse committee, I was a little disappointed when all of a sudden this was announced. Working on the substance abuse committee, we thought that this was our job. However, I should say to the minister, that what the group that you have brought together have put together, is an excellent document - an excellent starter. It is called an interim report but it certainly has not left a lot out. It is quite a thorough document, and it covers pretty well all the issues that we have been looking at on the substance abuse committee. They have been able to do it quickly and put it together logically, and it will certainly be the foundation, I believe, for the government to introduce policies which have to have an effect.
I do not think we have any other choice because things have not improved at all over the time that I have lived in the Territory. When I arrived at Daly River in 1970, the pub was well and truly going then, plus there was Robbie’s Sandbar. If you had just arrived from Melbourne and ended up in a place like Daly River, you ran into drunks all over the place, as happened late at night, especially on Friday nights. It was a bit of a rude shock. We even had cases where the owner of Robbie’s Sandbar - I can say it now - would pick up people from the mission, take them down, get them all plied up with grog and drop them back at the mission. You copped a fairly violent night in the community, especially on Friday nights. Of course, you had the Daly River Pub on top of that.
When I was there, they sold warm beer to Aboriginal people and they sold cold beer to others. If you were an Aboriginal, you were served out the back through a little side window. That is how you were treated. It was pretty bad then, but today, it is just as bad. The only difference is that, maybe, the houses look a bit better and the lawns are a bit greener, or well kept. However, there are still major problems with alcohol in those communities.
Travelling around the Territory and visiting the Aboriginal communities – I am not talking about Aboriginal communities only, but we on the substance abuse committee have put a fair bit of work into visiting Aboriginal communities - alcohol still has major effects. It has major effects on non-indigenous communities. My electorate may not have an itinerant problem as such – occasionally it has – but it does have issues of excessive drinking.
Sporting clubs, basically, use alcohol to increase the profits to help the club continue. Maybe that is an indictment of what I might call lack of government funding. I am not saying sporting clubs should rely only on government funding, but there are times when clubs use things like gambling and alcohol to make profits to provide the sporting facilities that they need. We need to invest more money in sport. The member for Arnhem spoke about the importance of sport in crime prevention and a lot of that has to do with the reduction of alcohol consumption.
I would like to comment on the make-up of the interim report. I have not read it thoroughly yet; it is a fairly detailed document. It is the sort of document you need to read a couple of times to have a proper understanding of it. It raises some really interesting issues, one of which is what will the goals, aims and principles of the framework be. Even when you have done that, the most important thing will be the monitoring, review and revision of the framework. It is all very well to set up programs but, if there is no way to monitor and evaluate them to see where they are going, they will be a waste of time.
The other thing which is very important, is the coordination of programs. You have so many programs with so many people doing differing aspects of either alcohol rehabilitation or study or whatever. How can we combine all of those together - not necessarily combine them as one, but that they all be heading towards the same goals so that we do not duplicate and waste government funds?
There are a couple of issues I will raise. I spoke on alcohol last night when we were talking about the interim report of the substance abuse committee. There was talk by the member for Stuart on consumption. It is an issue because, when you read the opening chapter of this report, it says:
A lot of that is combined with, I suppose, a lifestyle that we pretend is Territorian, plus a fair bit of what I would call corporate advertising that promotes the excessive consumption of alcohol. I have said before that a number of ads on television are not just to do with the sale of a particular product, they are to do with the sale of a large quantity of alcohol. They are basically saying to people that it is good to drink a lot of alcohol. You have all seen the ad where he opens up the back of the vehicle and it is full of XXXX. There is another one where he opens up the big fridge in the side of the garage and that is all full of XXXX. They might be quite funny ads, but they also have a subliminal message which says drink a lot of alcohol. We have to look at the issue of advertising and what part it plays in us having 1.5 times the Australian average.
Last night, the member for Araluen showed a flagon of wine where people could get cash back. Once again, you have a company which does not seem to have any qualms about promoting or encouraging people to drink alcohol. It will be important for these alcohol framework people to look at it, because the framework actually does not have much to say on the promotion - that is, the promotion via advertising - of alcohol. I believe that, when they bring out their final report, I would hope - and I will be putting that to them - that they will look at the possible effects that advertising does have on the increasing consumption in the Northern Territory.
I also wonder whether our government will really take the bull by the horns. The reason I say that is because I notice that Traeger Park now has light beer, and I have mentioned it before. There were some concerns - think in the first interstate football match this year - about problems with alcohol at Marrara Oval. Anyway, I went to the second interstate football match, the Wizard Cup, and I would say mid-strength and full-strength beers were the only things being sold there. People may say there was no problem, but I saw in front of me an indigenous girl about 15 years old who was drunk, drinking full-strength beer next to her mother, who did not seem to care two hoots. She was not the only one, and it was not just indigenous people. I am not saying there were many young people drinking. However, when I looked across the crowd there just seemed to be a lot of people over the limit by about half-time in the football. I do wonder whether the government would be brave enough to say to Marrara that they only serve light beer. After all, are we going to the footy or are we going to get drunk? That is the question we have to ask. There were certainly quite a few people who were well and truly over the limit at the football. Therefore, when the government says that it will have to take some hard decisions, they are some of the decisions that it will have to make.
The other issue that I would like the alcohol framework people to look at is what involvement can they have with the companies that produce alcohol? I still believe we cannot leave them out of the loop. If a company is selling wine casks in Alice Springs, with a promotion to try to get more people to drink that alcohol, why are we not making contact with the people who produce that product? Why are they not being brought into the loop to discuss the issues the Territory’s has? Why are they not being taken around to the Alawa supermarket to show people what problems we have with itinerants? Why do they not see the results of the violence in the Northern Territory that is alcohol related. as stated in the report? I believe they have to take some responsibility for the product they produce. I do not think they can just produce a product, put ads on television, promote the goods and wipe their hands of responsibility. I believe they should be asked to account, at least in some way, for the product they produce. Certainly, for most people it is a product of enjoyment and refreshment, but I also think they need to look at the downside.
A good section in the framework interim report, minister, is the section with all the questions in it, Part C. That certainly encourages community response. It puts quite good summaries before the questions so that it enables people to think about what the issues are. I do not think I would have thought of quite a few of these issues. I thank Gordon Renouf, Daryl Manzie, Donna Ah Chee and Jo Townsend and quite a few other people who put this document together. They have put together excellent, very relevant questions, that I hope more of the community can have a look at because, if we are to really get a community response, we want it more than just coming from politicians and a few people involved in the industry. Some of these questions would be good to ask consumers, people who use the licensed premises, and also people who do not use licensed premises. There are some excellent questions in here and the people who put this together should be congratulated for it.
I do not want to say any more than that. I believe that this document is a good start. It is called an interim report. It is a pretty good interim report. Whatever goes into becoming the final report will not be much more than this. I will certainly be looking forward to the final report. The proof in the pudding will be whether government - and I say government in the sense of parliament - is going to be brave enough to act.
As you would have known, trying to introduce alcohol restrictions in Tennant Creek was a fairly brave move. I was actually there when John Maley was the Chairman of the Liquor Commission and he was conducting the hearings. I was there for local government reasons, and I went into the court room where they held the hearings. There were certainly some very persuasive people involved in those discussions, like the AHA and the owners of some of the licensed premises. Their priority was profit, and they saw their profit reducing. They really did not have a concern about what effect their premises had on the community in the Tennant Creek area. There might still be some problems in Tennant Creek, but there are obviously winners. The liquor restrictions in Tennant Creek certainly have not solved all the problems, but have helped a lot. John Maley and his team got it right for that time and for that town.
Therefore, I do not think we can stop there. I certainly hope that we can do something. I have said here before - and I probably said it in my first speech - that I remember out of the 30 kids that I had in the dormitory at Daly River, 15 of those died under the age of 21, all because of alcohol. I used to be able to name them all, but my memory is starting to fade a bit. They all died violently and all because of grog. I owe it, and we owe it, to try and reverse that situation, to stop so much wasted talent in our community, and not only from alcohol. We know about petrol and marijuana, but alcohol is the main one. If the Territory is ever going to grow, then we have to use the talent that comes from our youth - both indigenous and non-indigenous. If we are losing that, we are losing generations of growth for the Territory. Therefore, I am hoping that this is a start and we will continue on in a very positive and brave way.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I know that so many members of this House this evening have spoken on this particular issue and it is no major surprise because it is such a profound problem in our community. Believe you me, my electorate is no exception. I see on a daily basis what happens in Alice Springs in relation to substance and, particularly alcohol abuse. I find the effects of alcohol in our community depressing. However, there is, of course, the nexus between the fact that there are those elements of our community who choose to abuse it, and those who choose to use it. There is liquor in my home and, although I am a teetotaller by habit myself, my wife certainly is not, but it does not cause her any problems. I know there are many homes in Alice Springs and throughout the Northern Territory like it, so you have to find the balance between both sides.
I do not particularly want to dwell on it a great deal. What I wish to remind the government of was the bill that I brought before this House which was defeated - politely defeated I have to say - by the government with a promise that what I said in the bill will not be forgotten in relation to using the prohibition elements of the Liquor Act and changing them to create a system by which a habitual drunk could be declared, that such habitual drunks could become subject to court orders, and to breach those court orders would be an offence. I thanked the minister at the time when he spoke to us about it, and I know this is just part of what the government …
Mr Stirling: I am still the minister.
Mr ELFERINK: … has to touch on. However, I would still urge the government to revisit the habitual drunks legislation that I brought before this House, when they finally get around to putting out an alcohol strategy.
I am disappointed this report did not touch on it. They do touch on section 122 of the Liquor Act and talk about the frustrating inability for it to effectively operate in the real world. What I suggested was an answer to that, and I had hoped to see some sort of comment in relation to what I brought before this House in the report. It is not there, sadly enough.
However, I know it is still first and foremost in the mind of the government. The Deputy Chief Minister is indicating to me that he still remembers the bill that I brought before this House. That is basically all I wanted to say in relation to this report this evening.
Ms CARTER (Port Darwin): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I would like to place on the record my gratitude for the Interim Report of the Alcohol Framework for the Northern Territory and the work that has been done by the small but very active group appointed by the minister to do this work.
I am a member of the substance abuse committee and I admit that it was a disappointment when we became aware that this particular group would be formed and, to some extent, take over the role that we were doing at that time, and that is frustrating. However, I am certainly convinced that all the work that we have done as a committee has been presented to the group which is developing this framework. I know that they are using the information that we had gathered over the last couple of years because it is reflected in the interim report.
As far as I am concerned, alcohol is the biggest problem that faces the Northern Territory, and we must continue to work as hard as we can to try to reduce the impact that harmful consumption of alcohol is having on the Territory. It is causing social disruption. I am sure all members would have seen today’s NT News, on page 7, where half a page or more is devoted to the problems caused by alcohol. One headlines is: ‘Car park drunks out of control’, and another headline is: ‘Residents’ anger at wall prank’. The resident in question, James Groombridge, is a constituent of mine. I know how hard James has worked over the last year or so to try to address the alcohol issues that he faces as resident living in Mitchell Street, and the problems those residents have from the behaviour of the people who get intoxicated at licensed premises in Mitchell Street and then come out of those premises and cause a degree of havoc for the people who live in Mitchell Street. Members need to remember that the CBD is a place where people live. They certainly go there to party, and we welcome that, but excessive drunken behaviour is a total pain for everybody. This is what does occur in Mitchell Street, for example, from time to time.
I applauded when the government introduced foot patrols into Mitchell Street, which has had an effect. I hope that the government is able to find the resources to continue those. There are times when we have trouble locating the foot patrols. Perhaps that night was one of them, when drunks knocked over the letterbox structure at the block of units at 79 Mitchell Street.
That is just today’s paper. The car park drunks referred to in the article pretty much reflect the issue that I talked about earlier this evening with regard to crime and the problems that we face with public drinking and groups that, basically, live on the streets, consume alcohol and then behave in a way that is very upsetting for law-abiding citizens.
That is one aspect of the social disruption: the vandalism and associated misdemeanours arising from drunken behaviour. The other social disruption, of course, is to families and the heartbreak that families suffer when a member of that family becomes addicted to alcohol.
Health, then, for the people who are affected by alcohol, either as substance abusers or as family members under stress, is a major problem in the NT. I know the statistics are pretty horrific in respect of the percentage of people who are injured as a result of alcohol intoxication, who suffer long-term health problems – for example, neuropathies to the feet. You often see these people in our urban centres. They have trouble walking because the nerve endings to their feet have been affected by years of alcohol abuse. There are brain injuries and so many things related to health aspects of alcohol abuse.
Another problem we face is the one of loss of work hours of Territorians who are employed but abuse alcohol. Statistics demonstrate this when you look at the rates of absenteeism and sick leave on Mondays compared to, say, Thursdays because someone has had a heavy weekend.
The affects of alcohol abuse are felt everywhere and, I would argue, by just about everyone in the Northern Territory. The reasons it is a particular problem in the NT include things such as our relatively young age. We are a young population with an average age of about 30 years. This is the age when people like to go out and socialise, the age at which people drink. Because of that statistic, we have a high per capita consumption of alcohol.
Another thing, of course, is the cultural acceptance and almost encouragement of drinking. A few years ago, we had the Living With Alcohol program, which did a fantastic job in starting to change our attitudes towards alcohol consumption. I do not drink very much at all, but 10 or 15 years ago when I went out socially in the Northern Territory, I was under some pressure, socially, to drink and to be like everyone else. When the Living With Alcohol program was introduced, the advertisements touched everyone; everyone could relate to them and they started to make people think that it is okay not to drink. Friends and colleagues understood that you did not have to drink to have a good time and it was okay for people not to drink.
That was a move in the right direction of changing people’s attitudes, just as all of us, I am sure, have had our attitudes change. If you are old enough - and some of us are not – you may remember the time before we had the anti-litter campaigns throughout Australia. Those media campaigns have had a massive impact on littering in Australia, and on our attitudes and behaviour. So it is possible - and we have seen it with the Living With Alcohol program - to have strategies that change community behaviour and attitudes to behaviour.
However, it remains a fact that, because of our young age group, it is cool to drink for many people. It is a fun thing to do and, to a degree, it is culturally encouraged here.
The other reason why we have a high alcohol consumption rate is the easy availability of alcohol in the Northern Territory. When I came here in 1979 from Queensland, and I was nursing at Royal Darwin Hospital, I was at the old hospital in town for the first year, but I lived at Casuarina. I went to the Tiwi shops, and I was absolutely stunned to see this great wall of alcohol for sale in the local supermarket. It was just amazing. At the stage, I was about 23 years of age, and I probably thought: ‘Hey, that is pretty neat isn’t it?’. No problem at all with that. Now it really dawns on me, when I go back home to my parents and go to the supermarkets there and it is not on display the way that it is here, and the accessibility of alcohol is nowhere near as much as it is here. We have many outlets and, in fact, there are less than 500 Territorians for every licence in the Northern Territory. Therefore, every 500 of us are supporting a licensed premises - be that a restaurant, a takeaway, or a hotel. It is interesting to know that 75% of all alcohol consumed in the Northern Territory is takeaway liquor. That is a huge amount, this takeaway. These are the sort of issues that we are going to have to grapple with - these tough issues - very soon.
Another reason why people drink in the Northern Territory - and it is the world over; there is not a society in the world that does not use some form of substance to change their appreciation of life - is that they like it. It creates a sensation of happiness, relaxes people, gives them something to do and is often used in a social setting to, basically, lubricate the conversations and make people feel like they are having a great time. So, it is an enjoyable thing for many people to do.
Over the past 10 years or so, both the Country Liberal Party and the Labor governments have worked to address this issue. This is necessary and needs to be applauded. The interim report touches on issues, provides some detail on issues, and gives us a basis to think about issues. It is now being circulated in the community and people are being asked to make comment on it and provide feedback on it so that, together as a community, we can work to continue to reduce the harm caused by alcohol in the Northern Territory.
With my involvement with the substance abuse committee over the last couple of years, I have certainly appreciated the travel that this committee has done throughout the Northern Territory. Major centres, small centres, and very distant places have been visited by the committee. We have gone out there to listen to what people have to say to us, and it has certainly been a pretty sad story. However, what I have found is an overwhelming desire for change in the community of the Northern Territory. Regardless of who is in government, you will find great support from this community for hard decisions. Some of those decisions will get lots of media, and the handful of loud people who complain about things, but I believe there is a grassroots, strong support for tough decisions to be made, and I hope that I will be here over the years to come to be part of that change.
It is frustrating though for Territorians. We have met with countless people involved in trying to address alcohol issues. Some of these people work for the Northern Territory government, others work for non-government organisations, and others just do it out of the goodness of their heart for their community. There is a frustration across the board with a feeling that nothing much is changing. I hope that this report provides an impetus to change, to make tough decisions.
There is no one answer to this problem. We did see, as I said earlier, in the mid-1990s, the success of the new Living with Alcohol program. It is my hope that this report will create an opportunity for whoever is in government to be able to implement and resource a program as successful as the Living with Alcohol program was, and maintain it for years to come as we slowly work to improve the problems.
We need a coordinated approach. The substance abuse committee met with the alcohol framework team today, and this was one of the main things we talked about: the need for the establishment of some body which can work to coordinate the provision of an alcohol strategy in the Northern Territory - a strategy which incorporates not just the government aspects but also the non-government aspects of the work that is going to be done to improve this problem.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I welcome the report; it is definitely a step in the right direction. I look forward to the recommendations of the final report, and the support that I hope we are able to give it, and to the government, as they move to implement some of the recommendations.
Mr STIRLING (Racing, Gaming and Licensing): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, there has been a lot said about alcohol and alcohol abuse over the last two days in this Chamber, so I will not take a long time in summing up debate. However, I want to thank all members who contributed to the debate, particularly those who doubled-up, I guess, in the sense they spoke to both the substance abuse committee report over the last 24 hours or so, and again tonight on the alcohol framework review. The debate leaves no member in any doubt as to that strong statistical link between alcohol abuse and crime, particularly those crimes of violence - and many members spoke to that point.
I guess each of us, as local members, see it in different perspectives, whilst still recognising the seriousness of it. Members like the members for Macdonnell, Stuart, Barkly, myself - any member, in fact, with a rural and strong indigenous face to their electorate - see it from the point of view of attending funerals. We see it in our local paper when a 34-year-old woman laid down on the road and was run over and killed a matter of four weeks ago, not far from my place in Nhulunbuy. We see it in the antisocial behaviour that other members have talked about, and in the number of funerals we go to. Again, just a matter of weeks ago, a well-known and highly-respected man died in his 40s. These are people I have known for 20 or more years, and many of them at 43, 44, 45 are gone and are no longer with us. Often, it is a result of alcohol abuse. I am not demeaning anybody’s perception in this, but different members come at it with different levels, I guess, at a personal perspective, as you would expect.
It is not a new problem in the Northern Territory, and many members have alluded to that. Certainly, the previous government addressed it. Under Marshal Perron, it recognised and addressed it with the Living with Alcohol program. The tragedy with the Living with Alcohol program - and I remember Marshal Perron on the night it was introduced, when someone asked the question: ‘What if it does not work?’ He said: ‘We are going to make it work. If these strategies do not work in the first instance, we are flexible enough; we will go back and change it’. Sadly, when the government was so strong about it in the first instance, it fell out of favour over time, rather than being updated and renewed as the energy and the options in there began to fail to take effect. However, we are, as a government, absolutely determined to make a difference in this area, and in some cases we already are.
The itinerants strategy has had a marked effect already in Darwin. However, the problem I have with that is sending people back to my home base of Nhulunbuy where we do not have the strategies yet in place to deal with that in intervention, rehabilitation, programs, training and so on. That is coming, but we have this little gap at the moment where people are heading home and, of course, adding to the antisocial behaviour mix and problems that we already have.
There was some commentary throughout the debate that the alcohol framework review was perceived to come over the top of the substance abuse committee. It certainly was not the intention of the government. I see the roles as quite different. In fact, the substance abuse has a much broader charter than the alcohol review team. Tonight I heard much more positive commentary about that, where members were picking up and appreciating the fact that they were, in fact, complementary and there was a lot of synergies here. Each member of the substance abuse committee spoke of the appreciation they had that the alcohol review work had picked up all of their findings and was working through them. There was no intention to subvert or take over, if you like, the work of the substance abuse committee, but to recognise this as a much more precise and distinctive role than the substance abuse committee. Therefore, it was a complementary exercise and, obviously, offering synergies as well.
The key issue though, is the need for government to set an overall direction on alcohol strategy. That really is what government is looking for once this report has been out and about and fully finalised. The content of the report is not final – it is an interim report. My hope is that the report at this stage of development will continue to generate debate and interest beyond the commentary of the last 24 hours or so of this Chamber. It will be tested. It will be revised against the views of the public and the ideas that the pubic have about this. I encourage all Territorians and members to continue to contribute views to the review. I look forward to the final report. I have no doubt that the final report will provide challenging recommendations to the government. I doubt that the recommendations would be worthwhile to government unless they contained a serious amount of challenge within them, because the situation is dire and it is going to take challenging problem solving to begin to overcome it.
The members for Nelson and Port Darwin, and the Leader of the Opposition, all pointed to the fact that government will probably have to make tough decisions in and around this report. Each of them expressed their support for government making those tough decisions. I welcome that support and I look forward to it at the time that we are in here discussing the way forward. I thank those members particularly for recognising that tough problems are going to require tough solutions which require, in ‘Yes Minister’ terminology, ‘brave decisions’. That is something that always sent Sir Humphrey – well, the minister actually - scurrying a bit. I do not intend to scurry away. I look forward to the support of members of this Chamber when we face the tough decisions later. Thank you to those members in particular, and thanks to all members who contributed, some of them twice.
A final thank you to Mr Daryl Manzie, Ms Donna Ah Chee, Mr Gordon Renouf and the others for their work so far. I thank them as well in anticipation of what I expect will be a very comprehensive and very valuable report to this Assembly and to this government.
Motion agreed to; paper noted.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
I would like to tell the House about a wonderful morning I enjoyed on Wednesday of last week when I was invited to visit Taminmin High School. I was greatly impressed by the energy and enthusiasm of the whole school community and some very impressive activities that are taking place there.
When I arrived at the school I was greeted by the principal, Kim Rowe. With him were Jennifer Pickering, the School Council Chairperson; Anjie Smith and Joanna Daby the Aboriginal Student Support Parental Awareness (ASSPA) Committee representatives; Dianne Wilcox, the School Council representative; and Sydney Robinson, the School Council Deputy Chairperson. This group officially welcomed me and began the tour of the school.
The first stop on the Cook’s tour of the facilities was the drama room, where the Taminmin Choristers were waiting to begin a performance. Some 35 girls from Years 8 to 10 were ready. I particularly enjoyed their choice of songs: California Dreaming from the Mamas and the Papas and Tears in Heaven from Eric Clapton. I love choral singing so it was a real pleasure to listen to them. I could hardly believe it when I was told that the choir had only been working together for six weeks. It is a tribute to the girls choir, but also to the commitment of Tanya Ham and Vicki Mannion, who work with the girls to achieve this great result. I wish them luck in their future singing.
Tanya came to Taminmin from Howard Springs Primary this year and has a great love of singing and music. She teaches English and Social Education and takes the choir in her spare time with Vicki Mannion. Vicki teaches English and is currently taking the Year 12 English Studies group.
I was then taken to the new Skillcentre, which is the centre for VET in Schools programs. On a Wednesday they have cluster engineering and automotive, and automotive and engineering and metal work during the week. I met with some of the young men and had a look at some of the projects they are working on. I spoke to Stewart Godwin, Dan Keogh, Tyson Yeo and Adam Foster, among others, who told me about the real value they saw in the VET in Schools programs and study and skills they developed. Kai Pedersen, a long-term Taminmin teacher, noted that Ross Hull from the 2003 group was to compete in the Worldskills VET in Schools metal and engineering competition in Brisbane in late May. He also said that Jim Frees had gained employment specifically because of his competencies acquired in the program. VET in Schools programs are fully integrated into senior secondary education and they are undertaken by students at all levels. Taminmin leads in the involvement in the VET in Schools program with approximately 100 students currently undertaking those programs.
We moved onto agriculture/horticulture and I met teacher David McCarrick. I saw the justly famous Drought Master cattle in the yards being put through the crush by Ed Pickering, a farm technician, and the students, and I talked with a number of students about their Ag courses. David outlined the range of areas covered in his area including the development of horticulture in the school. The school is looking to move increasingly into Asian vegetables as an area of study since it is such a growth area in the district.
We then hopped into four-wheel drives driven by Sue McLean and Sandy McCullough, two long--term staff members, and went to the Woodside Natural Reserve. On the way, the group travelled through the Taminmin farm itself. This is a managed agricultural asset next to a managed natural reserve. The farm, which is some 70 hectares, sits adjacent the Woodside Reserve, which is sponsored by Woodside Petroleum with $5000 per annum. Altogether, with the 129 hectares of the school plus Woodside itself, which is 51 hectares, and the solar village settlement of some 200 hectares, there is a haven of relatively untouched land in the Litchfield Shire which provides a shelter for animals and birds of all kinds in a natural bush ecosystem.
The Wet Season walk across the boardwalks and through the beautiful Litchfield bush was great. Frogwatch and Waterwatch are programs undertaken in the reserves by the students under the guidance of Anjela Flahive from the science faculty. The reserves are excellent teaching and learning environments, and are also the headwaters of the Elizabeth River. Kim Rowe explained to me how the reserve acts as a valuable protector of the riverine corridor down into the tidal zones further downstream.
I was fortunate to meet with a number of students studying Certificate I in Conservation and Land Management, who were clearing the interpretive pathways and identifying weeds and noxious pests. Peter Foster, the school caretaker, runs this successful course, which has already led to employment for graduates.
It was a quick drive back to the main school buildings, and then I was taken to Rose Christie’s English Communications class. Rose is acknowledged as one of the best teachers of this subject in the Territory. The principal said that her success rates are of the highest order. I spoke to students Kerry Durdin and Amber Fitchner about pressures on the students.
In Palmerston, at the high school the week before, when I had met with Year 12 students, they all told me how stressed they were about the workloads of Year 12, not surprisingly. When I told the Taminmin students this, Amber suggested that for her at least, the jump from Year 11 to Year 12 was in some ways less than the difference between Year 10 and 11 because of the demands of so much extra homework and independent study in the final years. Either way, I left a motivated and quietly hard-working class who are clearly putting their heads down in this challenging year.
I was then interviewed by the school’s cadet journalist, Carly Watt from Year 11. Carly asked a number of incisive and thoughtful questions about my background and the main influences on my professional life. VET in Schools multimedia students Ross Hull and Clancy Townsend filmed us under the watchful eye of instructor Mark Clemmens. The film was a learning and skills opportunity in the areas of interviewing, filming, sound recording, and, of course, digital editing.
After this, I had an opportunity to speak with the council and ASSPA representatives in more detail, and hear about their plans to integrate the school within the family and the community. I also listened while they discussed areas of general interest at the school.
I was then invited to attend a combination morning tea and lunch with the staff. Kim told me that it is the school’s policy to hold these morning teas regularly to acknowledge the quality service that all of the staff provide to the school. It is clearly an excellent group of professional people whose morale is high.
Finally, I had to go, but via a quick stop at the joint use Taminmin Community Library. There I met Adja Whelan, a young lady in Year 11. I was told that Adja battles severe vision impairment, but Kim told me that this does not stop her from performing very well in her studies. I met Josh and Beau from Year 9 and Sam from Year 10. I also chatted with Liz Short, the school Librarian. While I was there, I could not help but notice the enthusiastic usage of the library resources by a large number of students, and also members of the community. Often in the morning you can find a parent, or particularly a mother and baby group, having activities in part of the community library.
With an enrolment of 577, the school is functioning at capacity, and attendance is symptomatic of a full commitment by staff at all levels, and parents. The school genuinely represents the community, and is strongly supported by an enthusiastic school council and ASSPA committee, dedicated to seeing the very best for the students of the rural community.
I had a great morning. My congratulations to an inspirational principal in Kim Rowe, and to all the staff, students and community at Taminmin. They are doing some fantastic work there, and the energy and commitment at all levels clearly shows in the excellence of the product.
While talking predominantly about young people, I would like to share with the House an event I attended with the Minister for Family and Community Services, at the presentation of the Young Achiever Awards, held at the Holiday Inn on the Esplanade last Saturday. These awards are a way of promoting the positive contributions that young people make to the community and encouraging young people to become actively involved. The Young Achiever Awards presentation night recognised and celebrated the exceptional talents and achievements of all award nominees and finalists. There are eight categories in the awards, with three finalists nominated by the executive judging panel for each category.
First, the Woodside Energy Sports Award, and the finalists were Anthony Roberts and Matthew Devereaux, and the winner, Kelly Fong. Kelly is considered the most talented judo athlete in the Territory and is currently a member of the Australian judo team. Kelly is ranked No 2 in the women’s Under-52 kg division in the Oceania Region. Last year, she participated in a variety of athletic achievements, including finishing in 7th place in the US Open Championship, and was silver medallist in the Oceania Judo Championships. It is our hope that Kelly will achieve her goal this year of representing Australia in Athens.
Then there was the ConocoPhillips Environment Award. The finalists were Garth Forrester, Lawrence Fletcher, and the winner, Kate Wagner. Kate is an Honours degree student in Environmental Chemistry at the Charles Darwin University. This is a joint project between the university and the Environment Research Institute of the Supervising Scientist. Kate was recently awarded a scholarship for her project investigating the effects of the Ranger Uranium Mine on the surrounding environment, including the natural creek systems of Kakadu National Park - a very timely research project.
In the Parmalat Community Service Award this year the finalists were Jacinta Thorbjornsen and Joseph Aberdeen, with the winner Alice Hageman. Alice is the youngest medic to be accepted in 50 years by St John Ambulance, where she is committed to working around the clock with volunteer crews. Last year, she also volunteered her time as a camp counsellor in the USA, working with mentally and physically disabled people, aged seven to 70. Alice has volunteered her services to the Litchfield Recreation Reserve, the Territory Wildlife Park Veterinary Centre caring for injured and sick animals, and is also an accredited volunteer gymnastics coach.
The next award was the NT Office of Youth Affairs Minister for Young Territorians Excellence in Youth Leadership Award, not a title known for its brevity. The finalists were Deng Mador Koch and Jessica Mouthaan, and the winner, Maria Scaturchio. Maria is passionate about creating opportunity for regional youth. Despite being diagnosed with bipolar disorder, she works tirelessly supporting and encouraging young Territorians to follow and achieve their dreams in a variety of different pursuits. In 2001-02, Maria worked part-time as the Northern Territory Program Development Officer for the Duke of Edinburgh Awards. She implemented the award in a record number of schools and youth organisations throughout the state. In 2002, Maria was selected as Chairperson of the Chief Minister’s Round Table for Young Territorians.
The next award is the Power and Water Science and Technology Award. The finalists were Shane Dwyer and Kate Wagner, and the winner, Gurmeet Kaur. Gurmeet is completing a double degree, majoring in Electronic Engineering and Computer Science, aspiring for a career in the research and design sector of electronic engineering, and would like to be involved with the development of new technological inventions. Gurmeet was a member of the Northern Territory University - now Charles Darwin University - solar car team, which built a new solar electronic car for the World Solar Car Challenge.
In the Perkins Shipping Regional Initiative Award, the finalists were Jarrod Williams and Frances Elcoate, and the winner was Dean Williams. Last year, in 2003, Dean founded the first emergency services school cadet unit in Australia. The St Philip’s College Northern Territory emergency services cadet unit provide students with training in a range of skills including communication in the workplace, map reading, navigation, team work, and abseiling. The unit has attracted attention from other emergency services around the country, and recently won the National Category of the Australian Safer Community Awards. Last year, Dean was selected to attend the National Science Forum in Canberra and was chosen to become a convening staff member for national youth science forum.
In the Drake International Career Achievement Awards, the finalists were Matthew Kernick and Angela Bates, and the winner was Serina Tran. Since working part-time after school in the local seafood business 11 years ago, Serina has now become the General Manager of Sea King Seafood Supply She undertakes all aspects of the business operations, from packing and grading crabs to developing the long-term business plans for the company. She has played and integral role in expanding and developing export markets in the USA, Malaysia, Hong Kong, Taiwan and Singapore, and this has culminated in the company winning the prestigious Northern Territory Exporter of the Year Award. Sea King Seafood Supply is now also the largest supply in the Territory’s $15m mud crab industry.
Then there was the Charles Darwin University Arts Award. The finalists were Melanie Silva and Tashka Urban, and the winner Penny Cameron. For the past five years, Penny was tutti cellist with the Darwin Youth Orchestra and has now been the principle cellist for the past two. For the past two years she has also been a tutti member of the Darwin Symphony Orchestra. Last year, she was a member of the Darwin Sunset String Quartet, and was a former member of the University Chamber Orchestra. Penny is an accomplishment participant in many artistic fields and, as a budding writer she has won literary awards and, as an artist she has won prizes for her patchwork, quilting, jewellery, and art work.
In the Channel 9 Achiever of the Year, the winner overall was Maria Scaturchio. Maria certainly was delighted with that award. It is a very difficult one because there are eight talented young Territorians and you have to make a choice of one. It must have been very difficult for the judges, but Maria is a very deserving winner.
I would like to thank the talented young people who provided the entertainment for the night’s awards: the members of the Darwin Youth Choir, Jessica Mauboy, Karen Hurley, and the team of Drum Drum who are outstanding achievers in their own rights, and it was great to see them at this prestigious event. Jonathan Uptin from Channel 9 did a great job as master of ceremonies. The presentation night was a huge success and thoroughly enjoyed by everyone. I also thank the event organisers, particularly Jeffrey Hopp and Amber Somer, who were supported by Channel 9, Imparja Darwin and Palmerston Sun, TIO and the Holiday Inn The Esplanade. I thank my Office for Youth Affairs for their work in supporting this event and coordinating the Minister for Young Territorian’s Excellence in Youth Leadership Award.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, it is ironic that I should be listening to the Chief Minister talking about the wonderful achievements of the young people here in the Darwin region and metropolitan area. I congratulate all of them. It is absolutely fabulous that they have the opportunity. I want to continue on from last night when I was talking about the opportunity that we are trying to offer 2000 kids in Katherine, so that they have the same opportunities that the children here have.
A school teacher at Katherine High School contacted me last week to advise that she had attended the Croc Festival in Tennant Creek, Nhulunbuy and Kununurra, taking a total of 47 students with her. As a result of her experience, she has compiled a presentation which she has presented to as many schools as she has been able to attend, to demonstrate the benefits of schoolchildren’s participation at these festivals. She has been learning as much as she can from each of the festivals she has attended, with the intent of being able, in the future, to introduce some of the festival content to local school activities. She has stated quite clearly that there is nobody here in the Territory who has produced an equivalent alternative event as the Croc Festival and, until such time as there is, why would this government deprive students of the opportunity of the valuable experience of the Croc Festival?
In the climate of harmony and reconciliation, the Croc Festival, which is open to all students, is one way we can show reconciliation, celebrate what kids do, develop personal relationships, and bring together indigenous and non-indigenous communities across all aspects.
In the six years of the Croc Festivals, Moree has participated five times, Weipa four times, Kununurra and Port Augusta three times, Swan Hill and Kalgoorlie twice, and additional to Thursday Island, Nhulunbuy and Tennant Creek. The towns that have had repeat festivals have increased the numbers of schools and students participating each year, which highlights the benefit of community partnerships and the building of students’ self-esteem and self-confidence resulting in better education outcomes.
It is absolutely outrageous that this Martin Labor government has taken the decision not to support the funding of the Katherine Croc Festival for August this year. Their negativity towards the organising committee in Katherine which has worked tirelessly to make this festival a great success, and towards the school students, their teachers and the Katherine community, is absolutely insulting, and has confirmed the contempt that this government continues to show Katherine. I have received many phone calls, letters, representation from schools and petitions all urging the Martin Labor government to reconsider the Cabinet decision. I have also received numerous copies of letters that have been forwarded to the Chief Minister and the minister for Education. These include letters from Amanbidji School, Our Lady of the Sacred Heart at Wadeye, Jilkminggan School, Driver Primary School, the Mayor of Katherine, Jane Nankivell Arts Katherine, Burridj Aboriginal Group Training Katherine, Katherine Youth Group, Katherine Croc Festival Committee, Katherine South Primary School, and Delsey Tamiano of Moulden. It is quite clear that the Croc Festival has massive community support; a factor that this government should be taking very seriously.
I urge the Martin Labor government to reconsider their decision. It is not too late to recognise the benefits of this experience for over 2000 Territory students who are under-privileged, and the associated economic benefits to not only Katherine but to those students, and for this Katherine Croc Festival for 2004 to go ahead.
Mr VATSKALIS (Casuarina): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, this morning I mentioned Harmony Day and how we celebrate the contribution of ethnic communities in the Northern Territory. I also said that we not only celebrate the ethnic communities but we also some of their activities and religious events and, certainly, the days of importance to those communities. Last week, I took part in two celebrations of National Days: the Greek National Day and the Pakistan National Day.
The Greek National Day is 25 March, and I attended the reception held by the Honorary Consul of Greece in Darwin, Mr George Kapetas, at his house, together with my colleagues, the members for Sanderson and Wanguri. There were a number of other parliamentarians there amongst a large number of people.
On Saturday 27th, the Greek School of Darwin organised a celebration for the national day. I took part in that celebration with my colleagues, the members for Johnston and Nightcliff. This year was exceptional because the presentations were done in both English and Greek and some of our guests who do not speak Greek at least understood for the first time in their life what it was all about. It was not all Greek to them!
On Sunday 28th, we participated with the Greek community in a church and wreath laying ceremony. There was a large number of people and, I have to admit, that this is the important national day for the Greek people and is celebrated all over the world. As a matter of fact, on 25 March or on Sunday following that day, a big parade is held in New York where the Greek community in America participates to honour the Greek National Day.
Of course, the Greek National Day commemorates the Greek revolution that happened on 25 March 1821 when Greeks, after 400 years of occupation by the Ottoman Empire, rose and fought hard for five years in order to establish a free state. Greeks are very patriotic. Greece is pretty and very picturesque and a joy to visit. In reality it is not a very rich place; it does not have a lot of minerals or agricultural wealth. However, the Greeks have been living there for 3500 years. They have become accustomed to the place and they hold it dear to their hearts. They feel very strongly about it and, even after they migrate, the first, second, and third generations will always go back to see the land where they or their parents came from.
Therefore, Greek National Day for Greeks is a very significant event. It is also a significant event for other nations, especially in south-east Europe, because the Greek revolution in 1821 marked the beginning of the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the beginning of new nations in the Balkans. If it was not for the Greek revolution in 1821, nations like Bulgaria, Serbia, Croatia, Montenegro, Slovenia and Romania would not exist today because following the Greek revolution these states also revolted and gained independence from the Ottoman Empire. With the Greek revolution, the map of Europe changed because the Austro-Hungarian Empire also dissolved and two new nations, Austria and Hungary, appeared on the European map. It may appear that it was a small event that resulted in a creation of a small country in the Balkans, but the reality is that it was a bigger event than that.
The modern Greek state was established in 1826 after five years of bloody battles and fights. The first Greek parliament sat in the Pillars of Epidaurus in 1826. This small state was only 40% of today’s Greece. Following many wars and struggles, the last piece of Greek soil was united with the Greek motherland in 1948, nearly 100 years after the beginning of the revolution. Therefore, you understand why this day is important for Greek people all over the world.
I also attended another national day, the Pakistan National Day, on Sunday, 28 March. Pakistan National Day was celebrated by Pakistanis all over the world on 23 March 2004. That marks the adoption of the Lahore Resolution on 23 March 1940 by the Muslim League. The resolution expounded the idea of Pakistan as a separate homeland for the Muslims of British India after the British left.
This was the vision of the founder Pakistan, Quaid-i-Azam (which translates to The Great Leader), Muhammad Ali Jinnah. I recall watching the film Ghandi in which the separation between India and Pakistan occurs. I recall the troubles, war, slaughter, holocaust and how the two nations separated, and the pain and suffering of both nations.
How Pakistan was establish is interesting because we know about these communities. However, we have to look in depth at what makes these communities tick in order to understand their culture, language, and what makes them function. I found very interesting information about The Great Leader Muhammad Ali Jinnah.
Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah’s achievement as the founder of Pakistan dominates everything else he did in his long and crowded public life, spanning some 42 years. He was an ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity, a great constitutionalist, a distinguished parliamentarian, a top-notch politician, a freedom fighter, a dynamic Muslim leader, a political strategist and, above all, one of the great nation builders of modern times. What, however, made him so remarkable was the fact that, while other leaders assumed their leadership of traditionally well-defined nations and espoused their cause or led them to freedom, he created a nation that was not well defined, a downtrodden minority, and established a cultural and national home for it.
He was born on 25 December 1876 into a rich family in Karachi. He was educated in a Muslim school and a Christian school and, in 1893, he joined legal school and three years later he became the youngest Indian to be called to the Bar.
Once he was firmly established in the legal profession, Jinnah formally entered politics in 1905 from the platform of the Indian National Congress. He went to England in that year alongside Gopal Krishna Gokhale - who was the big Indian leader before Ghandi - as a member of the congress delegation to plead the cause of Indian self-government during the British elections.
For about three decades after his entry into politics in 1906, Jinnah passionately believed in and worked for Hindu-Muslim unity. Gokhale, the foremost Hindu leader before Ghandi, once said of him:
By 1917, Jinnah came to be recognised amongst both Hindus and Muslims as one of India’s most outstanding political leaders. Not only was he prominent in the Congress and the Imperial Legislative Council, he was also the President of the All-India Muslim and that of the Bombay Branch of the Home Rule League. More important, because of his key role in the Congress-League entente at Lucknow, he was hailed as the ambassador, as well as the embodiment, of Hindu-Muslim unity.
‘We are a nation’, they claimed in the ever eloquent words of the Quaid-i-Azam:
The formulation of the Muslim demand for Pakistan in 1940 had a tremendous impact on the nature and course of Indian politics. Equally hostile were the British to the Muslim demand, their hostility having stemmed from their belief that the unity of India was their main achievement and their foremost contribution. The irony was that both the Hindus and the British had not anticipated the astonishingly tremendous response that the Pakistan demand had elicited from the Muslim masses. Above all, they failed to realise how a hundred million people had suddenly become supremely conscious of their distinct nationhood and their high destiny. In channelling the course of Muslim politics towards Pakistan, no less than in directing it towards its consummation in the establishment of Pakistan in 1947, none played a more decisive role than did Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah.
In recognition of his singular contribution, Ali Jinnah was nominated by the Muslim League as the Governor-General of Pakistan, while the Indian Congress appointed Mountbatten as India’s first Governor-General. Pakistan, is has been truly said, was born in virtual chaos: no nation, no capital city, no statistics, no army, no governor. This, along with the en masse migration of the Hindu and Sikh business and managerial classes from Pakistan, left the economy of the country almost shattered. In his last message on 14 August 1948, Jinnah said:
In accomplishing the task he had taken upon himself on the morrow of Pakistan’s birth, Jinnah had worked himself to death, but he had, to quote Richard Symons: ‘… contributed more than any other man to Pakistan’s survival’. He died on 11 September 1948. How true was Lord Pethick Lawrence, the former Secretary of State for India, when he said: ‘Gandhi died by the hands of an assassin; Jinnah died by his devotion to Pakistan’.
Jinnah was the founder of Pakistan and I was very moved when, during the celebration, the Pakistani people not only spoke about Jinnah - and that raised my interest to find out more about the man - but also spoke about his devotion to Pakistan and the fact that he only lived one year after Pakistan became an independent state, and died because he really worked himself to the grave to establish Pakistan as a modern state.
I am also very proud, because the Pakistani people of Darwin want to keep their traditions and language alive. Recently, we granted them a $10 000 grant to establish a Pakistani language school. I negotiated with the principal of Nakara Primary School, and now they have a class every Sunday afternoon, where 40 Australian children of Pakistani background learn their language. They also approached the education department of Pakistan, and I am very pleased to see that the education department of Pakistan sent them material, CD-ROMs, videos, DVDs, books, and other education material to continue teaching the Urdu language.
I believe it is very important that we maintain traditions and cultural languages. These people not only will contribute to our culture, but will be our Australian ambassadors tomorrow; to improve relationships between our different countries and also - why not? - improve commercial and trade links with the country where they or their parents came from.
I was very pleased to be invited to these national days: the Greek National Day for which I did not need a special invitation as I participated of my own free will; and the Pakistani National Day, because I knew very little about Pakistan. After I attended, I looked it up, and learned quite a bit about, and am very impressed by Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I have the pleasure tonight to talk about a school in my electorate. I have spoken about it in parliament before, and happily I do so again. In particular, I refer to Bradshaw Primary School which is in the heart of Gillen, which most people would say is in the heart of my electorate. I was delighted to be able to attend, on 3 March at Bradshaw Primary School, a special assembly. It was the presentation, amongst other things, of the school captains’ badges, as well as those students who were fortunate enough to be elected onto the SRC. I always enjoy going to the Bradshaw Primary School assemblies and there are many reasons for that: they really are good fun and the school has a great feel. What stands out though, is that the students actually run the assembly so, instead of the adults standing up there with microphones, children do - and you do not get to see that too often in my experience, at least. The school students really do, it seems to me, have the running of the assembly. That is great; it is very empowering, and the students learn to stand up in front of lots of their peers and run the assembly. That is a great challenge and, on the occasions I have been there, a challenge that has been well met by the students involved.
I would like to mention, in particular, the school students who are now members of the student representative council for 2004. In Year 3, they are Shayne Talbot and Max Rycroft; in Year 3/4, they are Ben Hall and Aleesha O’Hanlon; Year 4 representatives are Jess Rayner and Ben Ellis; Year 5 are Sam Squires and Madilene Brereton, who is also the treasurer. Other representatives from Year 5 are Greg Eaton and Lily Andrews. Lily is the secretary of the SRC. There are four representatives from Year 6, and they are Jonathon Schmidt and Caitlyn Andresen, who is vice-president, and Ruby Patman and Sam Acres, who is the president of the SRC. I know Sam and his parents, and I am sure that Sam will very ably take on the presidency and be a fine leader, not only to members of his team, but to other students of the school. I do not know some of the other students as well, but meeting them on the day I was inspired and filled with confidence. I know that members of this House will share my enthusiasm, because it is always great to see enthusiastic kids at schools, especially when those schools are in your electorate. The kids I met on that day were just fantastic.
I have offered to meet with the SRC to share some ideas and help them with fundraising and so on. I look forward to doing that, perhaps over the next month or so. I receive and regularly read the newsletters that come from the Bradshaw Primary School. I know that the SRC are doing some fundraising at the moment, and I will happily assist them with that. Part of the confidence I have for those students I have mentioned arises from the fact that Bradshaw Primary School offers them a great education and great opportunities. The school is well positioned in its resources and its space. In fact, it is probably one of the best schools around for not being all crammed up. They have some spare classrooms which enables the teachers to have a bit of flexibility in how they run their days. It is noteworthy that more than a third of the student population are of Aboriginal descent. A lot of Aboriginal kids go to Bradshaw and I believe that there is a very active ASSPA committee working there, and that is always to be encouraged. I am also aware that Bradshaw continues its strong focus in the areas of literacy, numeracy and information technology. That is not a recent development; it has been there for some time.
The school, as I said earlier, has a great feel to it when you walk in. It is a school with a buzz and, as I said, I am always very happy to go there. It would be no surprise to members to know that a school with that sort of buzz is well supported by the local community of Alice Springs. I have been to a few events now at Bradshaw Primary School. The last one prior to this assembly on 3 March was the Christmas function and I helped out cooking and serving with the barbecue and I know that late that afternoon and evening was very pleasant for all involved.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, on behalf of all members I would like to formally, in the parliament of the Northern Territory, extend my heartfelt congratulations to the students I have mentioned for being elected to the SRC. I know that they will achieve well. As the Territory’s politicians, we are always delighted to see the future potential leaders in the Northern Territory. Student representative councils, generally, are great training grounds for young leaders, and the SRC, in particular at Bradshaw Primary School, is an especially good training ground. Children will learn skills of team work, negotiation, identifying problems and projects within the school community, and they can look to achieving some of the goals that they set for themselves on behalf of the approximately 380 students at the school. I know members will join with me in offering them my congratulations and wishing them and the teachers, the school council and the ASSPA committee the very best for 2004.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, this debate is often used to farewell people leaving jobs, the deceased and others. Tonight I would like to use it to welcome somebody. I would like to use it to welcome somebody to politics. His name is Anthony Reiter. Anthony Reiter, I believe, will take his seat in here as the member for Nightcliff. He has been preselected by the CLP and he is a formidable talent. I am very proud tonight to be able to stand up and say a little about this man.
I lived in Nightcliff prior to when I was able to vote. I moved to Nightcliff at 17 years of age from Katherine, and we lived in Hakea Street. I first voted in Nightcliff. My mother had a dress shop there called Tara Boutique in the Riteprice complex. My niece and nephews went to Nightcliff Primary School and I have a fair association with the suburb. I believe Anthony Reiter is the right sort of person to be the member for Nightcliff. I am happy to offer my assistance to him and to put some of his credentials on the Parliamentary Record.
Anthony is a born and bred Territorian. He grew up and lived in Nightcliff, in Sergison Circuit in fact, and was there for Cyclone Tracy in 1974, as I was in Hakea Street. He was five years old at the time and it was a pretty traumatic experience for most of us who were here, and for a young five-year-old it obviously left an impression on him. He saw the devastation and, after Cyclone Tracy, he went to Nightcliff High School because the primary schools were being rebuilt. He attended Nightcliff primary for a short time then went to Rapid Creek Primary School for the remainder of his school years. He was a member of the Green Ants Little Athletics Club, which is Rapid Creek; a member of the Nightcliff Swimming Club; and a member of the Nightcliff Baseball Club. He was an elite sportsman in his day and is still very keen with his connections with sport.
He is a most intelligent man who has worked hard to get where he is, and he has gone a long way and will go a long way in the future. His first job was with the Riteprice Supermarket in 1984 as a fridge boy and a packer. In those days, that was pretty much where you shopped in Nightcliff - that was before Woollies were there. It was a pretty hard job working for Tony Riteprice as we all knew him, and he did the hard yards alongside his boss, who was and still is one of those people who gets out with the broom and helps pack the shelves. He mowed lawns at the Beachfront Hotel when he was 12 years old and has a massive connection with the electorate.
He is the father of three and he currently is the Managing Director of Mobil Fast Food in Berrimah, which is my electorate. I have come across Tony a few times one way or another. I am very pleased that the talent pool that has been preselected for the CLP includes a man of this calibre. He has the potential not only to win this seat, but to go on in politics. I see him as a potential Cabinet member. He is not that old and he is entering politics at the right time. A man of his energy, intellect, connections with the electorate, and his genuine love and affection for the place he was born and bred, place him as a man well and truly capable of making a mark in politics.
That is my short contribution tonight. I am happy to parade his credentials to the House because we will hear a lot about Anthony Reiter as a contributor to debates to this parliament over the next few years, I would expect. I am happy to say that he has my full endorsement and I will be doing what I can to help he and other candidates.
We have a formidable pack of candidates standing and it is our way home. We will go back to our rightful inheritance of being the party that runs this place; being a Territory born and bred party. We have a disposition to only look to this and no other place. We are certainly not beholden to the policy whims and shenanigans that come out of Canberra. I see Tony as a formidable plank in the CLP’s march to its return to government, and someone who can make a massive contribution to this parliament.
Mr BONSON (Millner): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I wish to thank constituents and volunteers involved with the Clean Up Australia Day on 7 March. I was pleased to be a part of the event with my lovely wife, Mona-Lisa.
As people are aware, the idea of Clean Up Australia Day is to focus our great country, Australia, on the fact that, unfortunately, there is a lot of environmental damage arising from uncollected rubbish. The site that we chose as our focus was none other than Freshwater/Rapid Creek, which runs along the boundary of my electorate.
There was a group of volunteers who attended at the red footbridge at the Water Gardens. They included Ann Foster, Esther Egger, Raphael Lawler, Jessica and Tyrone Sariago, Peter and Tim O’Hagan, Lesley Alford and Ted Kilpatrick. Also included were Peter Robinson, Anne Stevens, Steve Brennan, and Al and Jacky Stanger. This group was able to collect between 30 and 40 bags of rubbish, unfortunately. It was fantastic that we did it, but it was unfortunate that the rubbish was there. I enjoyed myself so much that I got into the creek and started collecting rubbish up the length of the creek.
I also arranged some promotion for Clean Up Australia Day. We did a letter box drop throughout Millner and we telephone canvassed about 200 or 300 and invited them down. To get between 30 and 40 people during the day at such short notice was a fantastic effort from everyone. I look forward to arranging another such event in the not-too-distant future. It should be a regular event in our community upon which we should focus. A lot of young people swim, fish and play in that area and a lot of senior Territorians walk their pets or have fitness walks in the area. It is like a mini-bush walk, I suppose, along the banks of Freshwater/Rapid Creek. It is a special place for all people living in urban Darwin. I would like to see that future generations are able to access that resource as I did when I was a lot younger.
I thank all those who attended on the Clean Up Australia Day. I look forward, in the not-too-distant future, not necessarily under the banner of the Clean Up Australia Day, but under some other banner - maybe the protection of Freshwater/Rapid Creek - to organising a group of volunteers again to get down and get stuck into all the rubbish that we, unfortunately, were unable to pick up at the time.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, this evening I give accolades to the Karama School community, which is a terrific school. They were mentioned in the paper today. It is no surprise for members to hear that there has been an inquiry going on concerning the principal of Karama School, and we have had an acting principal for the first term. Ron Abbott, the Acting Principal, is no stranger to the Karama School community. He was the principal last year at Manunda Terrace Primary, a neighbouring school in the community, and is well known to a lot of families in the area. Ron has been able to come and caretake the school while the inquiry is conducted. Most of us in the community are still waiting for the outcome of that inquiry, and I urge the Department of Education to move as swiftly as possible. I know that staff and parents, and the broader school community, are quite keen to get some stability through this 2004 school year.
It is a terrific school. It has grown and it is a very diverse school in the kids who go there. They come from such a vast variety of backgrounds, as well as socio-economic circumstances, yet it is a very harmonious school and a real delight to be involved with. I am a previous chair of the school council. I have a very strong attachment to the school, and I get there as often as I can. I was there just the other week having a lunch with the teachers. It was a very heavy rainy day. We ended up having the wet weather policy, with the kids staying in the classroom, which is a challenge to the teachers. I congratulate the teachers for their dedication and commitment to the school.
The students there are very outgoing kids; they are so interested in everything that is going on. They are full of questions for me. They particularly love the Leanyer Recreation Park which is operating in the northern suburbs. They go there after school and have a huge time. They are full of ideas about how we can enhance the community for them. I congratulate the kids who put their hands up to show leadership in the school. There is a terrific student representative council, the members being: Drew Thomas, Peter Ah Sam, Anthony Gugliotta, Michael Harcla, Lachlan Vincent, Nikolas Nicolakis, Sam Thompson, Joshua Mariano, Brittoney Woodcock, Coby Weetra, Caitlin Evans, Charlene Garcia, Kelsey Anstee, Chelsea Gargan, Karli Clarke and Jerica Phoneyiem.
In addition, there are captains and vice captains. We have School Captains - Joseph Williams and Nomiki Mpilias; Vice Captains - Edward Mareko and Jasmine Miller. The Blue House Captains are Duncan Seden and Shyne Brenton, with Vice Captains Shaun Pollock and Jamie-Lee Farrow. Red House Captain are Desiree Weetra and Matthew Edwards, with Vice Captains Tessna Dwyer and Tyson Walker. Purple House Captains - and they were Green House last year with the change to Purple - Jordan Ah Sam and David Luta, and their Vice Captains are Apara Brewster-O’Brien and Jade Ponter. Gold House Captains are Con Kambouris and Jzarmazin Marchant, with Vice Captains Brenton Robertson and Minnie Marchant. I wish all these kids a really good, positive, happy year.
May they have a lot of successful fundraisers at the school. I know the big event at the school is the school concert. I look forward to being at that again this year, and helping and encouraging the kids throughout the year. I have the opportunity to get to the school and talk to classes about democracy and community workers in our society. It is always a really good experience to be at the school. I particularly enjoy going to assemblies and watching the kids perform. They have a great deal of pride in the effort they put into their school work, their sport prowess – they have a fantastic football team at the school - and their drama and singing. There is a really good ATSI dance group there, as well as a modern dance group.
Helen Gugliotta is back as the chairperson of the school council. She put in a big effort last year, and I congratulate Helen on her work for the school. The secretary is Andrew Devlin. He is coming on really well in his role on the school council. Treasurer again is Debbie Harrison, who has put in many years as treasurer of the school. She is a stable influence in the front office and someone we can all rely on for sound advice. Committee members are: Kerry Wetherall; Wendy McKay; Joanne McDonald; Vickianne Purcell, who does a wonderful job running the after school care at the school and vacation care - I put my kids in the vacation care there and Vickianne is a tremendous woman with a great heart and a great love for kids, and is a very popular vacation care programmer at Karama; along with Sheree Ah Sam; and Tracey Scofield. It is a very woman dominated committee with only one dad in there but, I guess, that reflects on the busyness of people’s lives and how mothers often have a little more time to put in at the school level.
I congratulate all the parents and staff for putting their hand up to work on the school council. They have a big job ahead of them this year in getting down some of the curriculum that is flowing out of the department. Certainly, there is a trial of the early entry for preschool that is occurring at the school. That has been a challenge that has been well met by the preschool staff.
I congratulate the school. It is looking 100%. There is a lot of work that has gone in by Jacko and Noel Long, to the grounds. The new fence has gone up in front of the preschool, which is something I remember a few years ago as chair of the school council, I was very much advocating decent fencing at the front. It is great to see that has happened. I look forward to participating with the school to have a really terrific 2004.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, on 13 March, I attended the Indian Holi Festival at Lake Alexander that was hosted by the Indian Society of Darwin and attracted many guests, new members, students, relatives and friends of the members. Apart from the member for Karama and her mother who were also there, there were many present from the Johnston electorate. These included Bharat and Priya Desai, Anita Ramnath, Siva and Jyoti Vemuri, together with Ratan and Kabita Ghosh; Shanthi Ramdoss; Jasminder and Amarjit Anand; Vinod and Shobana Anand; Priya Chakravarty; Prith and Jaya Chakravarty; Sumati Chakravarty; Ramakrishna and Vinutha Chondur; Emmanuel D’Souza; Noel and Christina D’Souza; Raj and Madju Dasgupta; Kamal and Bulbul Debnath; Sumesh and Manju Dhir; Ramkumar and Meeta Konesh; Daveen and Priti Patel; Jayant and Rup Prakash; Vikash and Roshini Prasad; Sameer and Megha Raut; Sitaram and Sarojini Raut; Chanrandas and Krishna Sharma; Randhir and Inderjit Singh; Ashobk and Niketa Sinorwala; and Bernard and Savita Valadian.
The Holi Festival commences about 10 days before the full moon of Phalgun in March and is usually observed for the last three or four days terminating with the full moon. It is a time when people from all castes and social strata come together, forgetting all past differences and grievances. Originally, the festival was primarily for the Shudras, who otherwise are not allowed to participate in festivals. Today, having lost its original significance, the festival is a favourite with most Indians for being the most colourful and joyous of all. Every year, it succeeds in bridging the social gap between employers and employees, men and women.
People visit homes, distribute sweets, and apply gulal to each other, signifying the colourful and happy spring times ahead. Gulal is a very colourful powder - orange and green and every coloured powder you could think of, plus a paste which people apply to each other in a fun-loving way. I was not really familiar with this aspect of the festival and I turned up on the Saturday morning and, being a busy minister, I had schedule meetings with members of a real estate industry that afternoon. I had to ring my wife to get a new pair of slacks and a shirt. However, I really loved it and got in the spirit of it, as did the member for Karama and her mother. It was a fun time and next year I will be wearing a pair of shorts and a T-shirt, and really entering into the festival. It is a lot of fun.
On 13 March, I also attended the Darwin Entertainment Centre to hear the renowned virtuoso bassoonist, Mr George Zukerman in concert with the Darwin Symphony Orchestra. Mr Zukerman came to Australia from Canada especially for this performance and starred in Weber’s Bassoon Concerto and Andante and Rondo. This was a fantastic evening’s entertainment which also include Tchaikovsky’s Fifth Symphony and Rossini’s extremely well-loved William Tell Overture. I congratulate Martin Jarvis and the Darwin Symphony Orchestra; they were just fantastic. I must comment on Mr Zukerman, who is a virtuoso and world-renowned. His spirit comes out in the instrument. It is very hard to describe, but it was a real treat for music lovers in Darwin to hear Mr Zukerman play.
On 19 March, it gave me great pleasure to attend Len Kiely’s quiz night at the Greek Orthodox School, which attracted 26 tables of quizzers. It was a great night with great food and great wine but only one table of winners. It was great to meet up with Jim Davidson and his wife, Robyn. The member for Drysdale is talking about winners at the next election. Well, I reckon Jim Davidson is a fantastic candidate and he is going to come very close to taking the seat of Solomon. So, I mentioned Robyn, Jim’s wife and Tom Kiely, who is no relative of the member of Sanderson. Tom is a great bloke, Irish to the bone and we had a lot of fun. Trish Crossin was also on the table.
The Filipino Australian Association of the NT on 20 March celebrated Harmony Day in great style with a youth concert at the Filipino Community Centre. It was fantastic to see so much young talent in one place. The Darwin Youth and Children’s Choir, under the superb direction of Mrs Emma Tantengco, performed brilliantly. Of course, Mrs Tantengco lives in the Johnston electorate, in Moil. She does a fantastic job with all these young people - schooling them up, teaching them discipline and grooming them for performance and stardom and, in some cases, beyond the Youth and Children’s Choir. All those children learn a skill for life. Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to have the names of the children in the choir incorporated in the Parliamentary Record.
Leave granted.
Dr BURNS: Also performing was Bernadine Crute who was also one of my electorate’s treasure, a young lady with so much talent, and a fantastic voice. Also at that event, the Casuarina Senior College Dance Group performed a terrific number with a great deal of enthusiasm from the dancers. I also seek leave to have their names incorporated in the Parliamentary Record.
Leave granted.
Dr BURNS: The Moil Primary School produced a German Choir. Imagine that! The little kids from the primary school were just great; it was a fantastic performance. The children who participated in the German Choir were under the tutelage of Janine Sutter. You could just tell the kids just loved Janine, they worked so well together. I also seek leave to have their names incorporated in the Parliamentary Record.
Leave granted.
Dr BURNS: Many other young people from a great variety of cultural groups performed, including the Holy Spirit Primary School Choir, the Filipino Maharlika Association Group, the Sudanese Community and they just caused such a storm in Darwin. They have a very interesting dance that the Sudanese ladies do. Basically, they have been performing at high schools and drawing a great deal of interest. So, that is the Sudanese community.
The Kiribati Cultural Group did a beautiful hula dance and that captured everyone’s imagination. The Darwin Youth for Christ, a great group of young people, who do so much work, are a beacon for young people and give so much support to young people in our community. There was also Darwin High School dance classes, the Casuarina Senior College music classes, and the Mediterranean Greek Dancers who performed so well, so energetic and coordinated. They are a great group of young people who perform at a lot of venues around Darwin. The Timorese-Chinese dance group also performed.
This is a great initiative of the Filipino Australian Association, and a truly marvellous showcase for such impressive talent. Of course, the MC for the night was Judith Ventic. Judith is well known to most members here, I believe. She works so hard for that Filipino community and she has such a great personality to be an MC. Of course, Mr John Rivas is the backbone and the cornerstone of that Filipino group. All credit to John and all the people who looked after the technical side of it.
I know the Northern Territory government was a major sponsor of this event and we should all be proud of Harmony Day. You + Me = Us is a great motto that we should have in Darwin. We are a great example around Australia and the world with the truly multicultural aspects of our Darwin society.
It has been great for me to be able to talk about the events in the Johnston electorate. It is a great electorate. I really enjoy being the local member. I try to get out and doorknock as much as I can. I try to serve the electorate of Johnston as much as I can, and I have so much fun being the member attending these functions, meeting all these people and seeing all the great talent that we have in Darwin.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, that is enough from me tonight.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
PETITION
Croc Festival Funding
Croc Festival Funding
Mrs MILLER (Katherine)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I present a petition not conforming with standing orders from 35 petitioners relating to funding arrangements for the Croc Festival. I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
- To the honourable Speaker and members of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory, we the
undersigned respectfully showeth our great dissatisfaction with the decision to not provide funding for
the annual Croc Fest that was to be held in Katherine. Your petitioners do humbly observe that, with
the present government, there is a lack of commitment to funding community events, particularly those
that are important to the indigenous people and the youth of the Territory. Your petitioners do humbly
pray the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory urgently take the necessary steps to rectify the
funding arrangements so that the festival can take place, and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
MINISTERIAL REPORTS
Proposed Abolition of ATSIC
Proposed Abolition of ATSIC
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, this morning I make a ministerial report on the current situation facing indigenous Territorians. As members will be aware, the federal Opposition Leader announced yesterday that a future federal Labor government would abolish ATSIC and ATSIS and create a new national indigenous body to advocate on behalf of indigenous interests.
There have been serious problems associated with ATSIC’s performance and the consequent shift in attention, particularly by the Australian government, away from focussing on the urgent needs facing remote Aboriginal communities. Those serious problems with ATSIC were identified in the report that went to the federal government last year - one that they initiated and that was done in great detail; it is a complex area - by Bob Collins, John Hannaford and Jackie Huggins. That report was presented to the indigenous affairs minister last year.
This government, and the minister assisting me on indigenous affairs in particular, have spoken about the continuing crisis that faces Aboriginal people. To do nothing about addressing the crisis in the living conditions, and the duplication of program and service delivery that exists now, is not an option for this government and the members on this side. These are matters that I have been consistently raising with the Prime Minister and the federal minister for indigenous affairs on behalf of the Territory government for some time now.
When the federal government came into power in 1996, it had a policy of practical reconciliation; in other words, raising the social and economic status of indigenous people. It has become apparent that there has been little progress or improvement since the Howard government came to office. Whilst there has been undoubted problems with ATSIC - and these should have been addressed well before now - responsibilities for government policies must rest with government and ministers. ATSIC has been embroiled in controversy for too long and new solutions are required. It is now time to move on and establish arrangements that will make a real difference. ATSIC should be abolished. Currently, we look at an ATSIC that, without its funding responsibilities is, in effect, a shadow of what it was actually created to do.
I first wrote to the Prime Minister about the need for all Australian governments to reassess the level and focus of our engagement with indigenous communities, in August last year. In particular, I strongly argued that there needs to be far greater engagement by Australian government and state and territory mainstream agencies along the lines we are encouraging at Wadeye. Of course, as this House knows, the community of Wadeye is the subject of a COAG pilot and is about how we better coordinate service delivery through all levels of government - federal, Territory and at local level – to get better results than we have seen in the past. From that initial trial, there are very positive results. I have also argued strongly against the recreation of a Department of Aboriginal Affairs which, I believe would be a retrograde step. This is particularly the case in the Territory, where 30% of our citizens are indigenous. They are the poorest and most disadvantaged sector in both the indigenous and wider Australian community. In these circumstances, their needs are core business for government and its programs.
It was for this reason that, when coming into power, I abolished the Office of Aboriginal Development and made sure all Territory agencies would deliver programs for all Territory citizens. There should be a national indigenous representative body with advisory and advocacy functions - and complementing that and very importantly - strong regional representation should also be supported. Furthermore, in the light of the federal government’s decision to remove funding responsibility from ATSIC to ATSIS, there should be direct bilateral agreements between the states and territories and the Australian government in program and service delivery. I do not consider that the approach taken to date is inconsistent with that articulated by the federal Opposition Leader in his statement yesterday. However, I have placed a greater emphasis on ensuring a greater engagement by mainstream agencies and programs in addressing indigenous disadvantage.
It is well past the time for rhetoric on the continuing crisis facing Aboriginal Territorians; we must get this right. It is time to get the proper processes and program delivery in place. I welcome the opportunity to talk to Aboriginal people about how these changes can best occur, and to continue discussions with the Australian government and federal opposition regarding future arrangements which will be most beneficial to the Territory’s unique circumstances.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I believe that this should be a matter for a ministerial statement, at the outset, because it is so important how it affects the Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory. Having said that, it is good to see that the government’s finally got its act together and decided on a position.
Yesterday, the Chief Minister was not sure, the member for Nhulunbuy was, and the much-lauded Minister Assisting the Chief Minister on Indigenous Affairs, was not to be seen or heard anywhere, and was saying, ‘Oh my god, I am not going to touch this’. So much for the front page of The Australian, saying the great leader ran for cover when it got a little tough.
I do not care how you arrange the deck chairs on the Titanic. At the end of the day, I have heard about improvements and improving outcomes now in this House and seen improving outcomes before I entered this House for well over two decades in the Territory. The fact is, when I travel around my electorate and other places in the Northern Territory, I do not see improved outcomes; I only see the continuing cycle of poverty which is entirely attributable to one single issue that underlines it all. The single thing that underlines Aboriginal helplessness in these remote communities in the Northern Territory is the provision of welfare services and the way that they come from Canberra at the moment.
Welfare has been identified as a major issue by Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal leaders alike. Whatever arrangement comes into place, under any future Labor or Liberal government, must address this one particular issue. At the moment, you have Northern Territory government departments combating the effects of welfare payments and the way that they come forward. We have had the Department of Aboriginal Affairs try to do it; Aboriginal Development Corporations, any number of other organisations that combat the affects of welfare - and what do we see? At the end of the day, not much at all.
Any process which is going to affect Aboriginal people is going to have to see a total, complete review on the way that welfare is delivered into the remote parts of this country.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, it is interesting. This is a very important issue for the Territory and we put a very considered submission to the ATSIC review. It is disappointing to see that the Opposition Leader does not think this is serious enough to get to his feet and respond. It is an issue across government, very importantly. It is an issue that affects many Territorians and one I would have thought the Opposition Leader might have had some interest in. It is very disappointing to have a report come into this House this morning and the Opposition Leader either does not know enough about it or does not have enough interest to make a response. That should be put on the record.
Business Delegation to Brunei International Trade Exhibition 2004
Mr HENDERSON (Asian Relations and Trade): Madam Speaker, today I report on my recent visit to Brunei Darussalam and the outcomes of the Northern Territory business delegation to the Brunei International Trade Exhibition 2004, BITE.
On 28 February 2004, I visited Brunei to attend the official opening of BITE and to meet with ministerial counterparts and senior government officials. My visit program included meetings with Pehin Zakaria, Minister for Communications, Aviation and Ports, Dato Idris Belaman, Permanent Secretary of the Ministry for Industry and Primary Resources, John Perry, the Chief Executive Officer for the Brunei Economic Development Board, and other senior representatives.
I also hosted a business networking function to support our Northern Territory business delegation at BITE. My meeting with Pehin Zakaria and Dato Idris were particularly useful. In these meetings, I provided briefings on current economic developments in the Territory, and exchanged views on the potential for trade for our mutual benefit.
The Brunei officials suggested that our business and industrial bases are not dissimilar, and that many potential synergies exist for greater cooperation. It was suggested that our respective business and industry departments consider and identify areas of mutual economic benefit in consultation with our respective business communities. My department and the International Business Council are following these issues up.
Minister Zakaria expressed the ongoing support of the Brunei government in maintaining the direct air link between Brunei and Darwin. This is a significant gesture and further demonstrates the commitment that the Brunei government has in strengthening its relationship with the Northern Territory. I also advised minister Zakaria that the Territory government had support Royal Brunei’s application for landing rights at Sydney Airport, and I am pleased that the Minister for Transport has allowed Royal Brunei access starting later this year.
I also met with John Perry, Chief Executive Officer of the Brunei Economic Development Board, as well as other senior business people representing Citibank and Asia Inc. In these meetings, I was briefed on potential new industrial developments in Brunei: Alcoa is currently undertaking a feasibility study into the establishment of an aluminium smelting plant in Brunei; and ACI Corporation has undertaken its due diligence process on the establishment of a tyre recycling plant using leading-edge technology. These projects may present the Northern Territory with potential business opportunities, and Mr Perry has been invited to Darwin to view Northern Territory business capability first-hand.
Whilst in Brunei, I hosted a business networking function in support of the Northern Territory business men and women who participated in the trade delegation to BITE. This function was supported by the Australian High Commission in Brunei and attracted more than 40 Brunei trade contacts to meet with our Territory representatives.
I now briefly report on the outcomes of the Northern Territory business delegation to BITE 2004. The delegation was organised and let by the International Business Council of the Chamber of Commerce, and supported by the Territory government through my department. Twenty-two business men and women participated in the delegation representing 12 companies and four industry associations, and included representatives from the Northern Territory government and local governments. Six of the 12 companies applied for trade support funding, and funding of over $20 000 was allocated to those companies. The businesses were from a variety of industry sectors including transport, manufacturing, health, communication services and construction.
The Northern Territory delegation was the largest delegation from Australia at BITE and our stand occupied 50% of the Australian pavilion. Several companies that participated in the delegation have already reported valuable business outcomes. Export orders have been received by two firms worth in excess of $25 000, and others have been asked to prepare quotes in excess of $100 000. My department will actively work with all businesses that participated in the delegation to assist them in achieving positive export outcomes.
Brunei is important to the Northern Territory, not only as a trading and foreign investment partner, but as a friendly Asian neighbour. The continued support of Royal Brunei Airlines is one example of our interdependence. Strategically, we can offer each other many advantages. The relatively small size of Brunei in population terms is an attracting factor for our business community, and the potential for ongoing engagement is high. I move that the Assembly take note of the report.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I put on the record that I do not believe that you will achieve very much from the strategies that you have in place with regard to Asian relations and trade. You can start by removing ‘Relations’ from your portfolio heading. You are talking about trade exclusively. You are talking about reporting on meetings that you had with people who are interested in trade in the region. What is the most important thing in doing trade in the region? If you understand your region, you have to build relationships first. You have to include education, sport and a bit of creative thinking.
I believe you have neglected the relationship part of your ministerial responsibilities. This is demonstrated quite clearly. When we had the railway that took off with a symbolic load of freight from Adelaide to Darwin, we dusted off our passports and decided to get some activity up in the region. That event was a very symbolic event where you could have demonstrated, quite clearly, your understanding and interest in the region. Why wasn’t the Indonesian Consul invited to that function? Why were there not delegations from the major hubs and ports of the region? Why were they not at that celebration? Why were they not at that symbolic event? That demonstrates that you have no understanding of how to build real bridges with the region. Why is it that the Indonesian Consul takes off on his own initiative to go to the expo in Alice Springs? I inquired and found he had no support or direction from the department. It was his own initiative and great credit to him.
I tell you, minister, that you have to get your act together, otherwise we are going to lose all the infrastructure, all the interest, and the real connections we have in the region.
Mr HENDERSON (Asian Relations and Trade): Madam Speaker, it really is like being lectured by a primary school teacher. The successful outcomes that are being achieved by these Territory businesses that did participate in BITE are an absolute contradiction to the honourable member’s response to the statement. Asian Relations and Trade is all about building relationships in the region, leading to trade outcomes. It is a bit chicken and the egg in some areas. However, what we are seeing through strategic partnerships between the business community in the Northern Territory and countries in the region who want to trade with us, is successful outcomes. That is demonstrated by the IT community’s successful focus on Singapore, which is leading to read trade outcomes, as opposed to the Leader of the Opposition’s sole policy in this area, which is more public servants, more shining examples of pieces of paper on ministerial walls, but no support backing those up and no trade outcomes for the Northern Territory.
They want to focus on thing, we are focussing on trade outcomes.
Madam SPEAKER: Your time has expired, minister.
Community Development Officers
Mr AH KIT (Community Development): Madam Speaker, in the budget for 2003-04, the government announced a new initiative in the planned appointment of a further 10 community development officers to be employed in the Department of Community Development, Sport and Cultural Affairs. This followed the launch of the Building Stronger Regions, Stronger Futures strategy which aims, in part, to pursue a strong community development approach as a foundation for community and regional development.
Two weeks ago, the new community development officers, together with all other CDOs employed by the department, participated in a workshop aimed at giving all officers a clear view of their role and responsibility, and of the tasks that lay before them. We have been able to employ a total of 13 new community development officers, utilising the combination of the new funds made available and vacant positions. The new officers bring a breadth of experience and capacity to the team, coming with a mix of long local experience, together with experience working with international aid agencies and non-government organisations.
With the 13 new CDOs, we now have a total compliment of 32 community development officers across a number of levels throughout the Northern Territory. This number has been achieved through reorganising the resources of the department to ensure that there is a clear focus on the priorities established by the Martin Labor government. The primary focus of the new officers will be in the capacity building development of communities and regions. Wherever possible, they will work in teams that comprise two community development officers working at a community level, backed by policy and management staff who will ensure that they have the necessary support to do the job.
Even with this significant reallocation of resources, it is recognised that there will not be enough to do the whole job. The department has carefully considered the overall task and is applying its resources to priority areas. Priority areas are places such as Wadeye, where the major indigenous community coordination project is under way in cooperation with the Commonwealth government and Thamarrurr; Nyirranggulung-Mardrulk-Ngadberre in the Katherine East area, where a new regional local government body is now in place; on the Tiwi Islands, where there are a range of Tiwi organisations; Anindilyakwa on Groote Eylandt, where there is a strong need for the effective government structures and a whole-of-island approach to issues of concern; Jabiru and Kakadu, where long-running issues need to be dealt with by the communities in the region with government; the Barkly, where the Barkly Blueprint provides direction; and Anmatjere, the West MacDonnell and Alyawarra regions in Central Australia, where work has been under way for some time. We will also be working to develop other regions.
The workshop that has been held aimed to bring together the whole team to ensure that they are able to start to deal with the issues and opportunities that are important to regions and communities. The department has a comprehensive strategy in place to gives its CDOs the opportunity to continue to develop. It has organised, in partnership with the Charles Darwin University, for the delivery of a graduate certificate program that all CDOs will progressively undertake. It has also arranged a series of seminars that give the CDOs the opportunity to hear from, and talk to, key academics and practitioners in the field. As the process continues, CDOs will facilitate the negotiations of community and regional partnership agreements that will focus on achieving outcomes on issues and opportunities jointly agreed by communities, regions and the government. They will also play an important role, feeding into the regional process and supporting the work of regional development boards. Along with this new focus, CDOs will continue to liaise closely with councils and community organisations.
The regulation and compliance roles previously carried out by CDOs, will now be carried out by a separate compliance group. This group will conduct regular audits of financial and service delivery accountability of councils. Their role is to ensure that there is a foundation of effective service delivery and financial accountability on which the development functions can be built.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his comments, although I am not entirely sure where he is going with this. This is obviously based partly on the changes that we made recently to the Local Government Act of the Northern Territory, which now allows for greater ministerial involvement and interference in local government community councils. The first step the minister has taken is to create a police force quite separate from another group of people which is going to deal compliance issues for local councils and the like.
However, that came at four-and-a-half minutes into a five minute statement. He spent the first four-and-a-half minutes, talking about community development officers and the workshop that they had attended, and outlining priority areas and key strategies, and those sorts of things. This is what happens when you have bureaucrats writing speeches for you. Listening to what he had to say and, without in any way doubting the hard work of these public servants, the minister actually did not inform us of one actual thing that these CDOs are going to do. They have attended a workshop and they are going to go through an education process - a graduate certificate. However, what are they actually going to do on the ground - what physical thing? I am sure they are working quite hard, but the whole thing has been wrapped up in bureau-speak. I did not hear one story of any deal that has been organised, or one institution that has been laid down, or anything else like that. It is just this ethereal muck that we have to walk or wade knee-deep through. It is like wading knee-deep in treacle sometimes.
What I urge the minister to do is to actually tell us what the CDOs are doing in the community, because I believe they actually might be doing some useful things. But, gee whiz! I am not hearing from the minister. If the minister wants to represent his department’s properly, he has to be able to come into this House, and actually tell us real outcomes and the things that they are actually doing.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, the minister’s statement highlights the fact that we need a full and wholesome debate about what is happening in local government. Anyone who knows what is going on at Bathurst and Melville Islands would know that the Tiwi Island councils have some major issues at the moment. As well as that, the government is also trying to regionalise councils in other parts of the Territory, such as Pine Creek and Daly River, Coomalie and Dundee. A lot of those councils are being squeezed into a situation because of lack of funding. Pine Creek’s funding has been slashed enormously, and I think Nauiyu Nambiyu has also.
Whilst I cannot comment exactly on what these community development officers will do, I believe they are part of what should be a major debate in this parliament which should report on where we are going with local government and what it has cost the Territory in the existing attempts to regionalise and combine councils, so that we can have a decent debate in this parliament, and people who are being affected can understand what is going on as well.
Mr AH KIT (Local Government): Madam Speaker, it seems to be a pet hobby for the member for Nelson to keep raving on about the concerns of the Tiwi Islands local government …
Members interjecting.
Mr AH KIT: I was there on Sunday at the grand final and I did not see too many of you others there. I walked around the ovals. I saw a couple, not too many …
Mr Dunham: Oh, consulting were you, Jack, consulting at the footie?
Mr AH KIT: Yes, I always consult because I get out there and I do my job for the people, and the people like that. I walked around the oval and it took me almost an hour. I talked to people, and they are not too bad off in how they accept the Tiwi Islands Local Government Council. They have had some teething problems and are working their way through it. We will continue with the local member to work through that with them. However, the member for Nelson should get away from his patronising platitudes towards where we are heading with local government. The member for Macdonnell is just so negative. He has not sought any briefings; he will always find the negative points of view and he should come out and support people as they move forward in regional governance.
Multicultural Awards 2004
Mr VATSKALIS (Ethnic Affairs): Madam Speaker, today I inform the House about the multicultural awards and seek support from all members of this House. On 18 March, it gave me great pleasure to launch the Northern Territory government’s inaugural Multicultural Awards during the official function in Parliament House to celebrate Harmony Day 2004.
Harmony Day is a time when all Australians come together to celebrate community harmony and its cultural and linguistic diversity. Harmony Day has special significance in the Northern Territory, with its long and rich history of a multicultural community. One of the most positive outcomes of Harmony Day is the level of community involvement. Since the establishment of 21 March as Harmony Day in 1999, each year ethnic and other broader community organisations have responded with great enthusiasm to participate in this annual event.
This year saw Harmony Day celebrated across the Territory with 23 schools and 28 community groups and other organisations being funded by the Northern Territory government to the sum of $40 000, to host activities and events throughout March. Local government councils, community-based agencies, social groups and schools organised celebrations, workshops and other activities that promote harmonious community relations and mutual understanding of cultural diversity. Harmony Day is not just a celebration; it is a reminder of the responsibility of all Australians, whether they were born here or overseas, to recognise and respect the rights of all members of the community to maintain their cultural identity while accepting their responsibilities as citizens of Australia.
These Multicultural Awards will be a recognition and celebration of these shared cultural values and community involvement. The awards will recognise and celebrate people, organisations and initiatives that have made an outstanding contribution in the Northern Territory towards advancing and promoting multiculturalism and counteracting racism. There are three categories for the awards: individual, organisation and initiative project. The criteria for the individual and organisation awards include: providing leadership in developing and implementing initiatives that advance our multicultural and harmonious society; consistently counteracting racism and discrimination and protecting human rights; bringing together the community as a whole; increasing cultural awareness in the community and promoting tolerance of other cultures and religions; advancing the rights of all people regardless of cultural or linguistic background; contributing towards capacity building in the community to counteract racism and advance multiculturalism; and providing and continuously improving services and working relationships with culturally and linguistically diverse communities.
The criteria for the project/initiative award includes: making a real contribution to promoting multiculturalism and creating harmonious behaviour in the society; bringing together the community; counteracting racism and protecting human rights; promoting tolerance of other cultures and religions; and advancing the rights of all people regardless of cultural or linguistic background.
The awards will be assessed by a judging panel. The members of the inaugural panel are John Anictomatis, Raymond Chin, Mohammad Nurul Huq, Jenny Medwell, Joan Mullins and Maria Scaturchio. These six people represent a broad cross-section of the Territory’s community, including senior Territorians, young people, indigenous Territorians, and representatives of the Greek, Italian, Islamic, Chinese and Filipino communities. They have a raft of personal and professional experience to bring to the panel.
The inaugural awards also offer a unique opportunity for the wider community to participate in the naming of the awards. Territorians are invited to nominate those individuals who they believe have made a valuable contribution in promoting multiculturalism and counteracting racism in the Northern Territory or nationally.
Nominations for the awards close on 16 April 2004 and winners will be announced on 27 May. Nomination forms are available by contacting the Office of Ethnic Affairs or the office’s web site. I look forward to receiving a broad range of nominations from across the Territory. I have already written to all members informing them of the awards, and I ask members to promote the awards in your local communities.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I welcome the minister’s statement on Harmony Day and perhaps start with a slogan: You + Me = Us. I could individualise that to: ‘You, the minister, and me, the shadow minister …’. Where else in Australia would you find a parliament where you have two members of different ethnic origins participating in debate? The minister said this is the first time we have had a minister who speaks with an accent that is not ocker. That is an indication of what the Territory is all about.
I took part in Harmony Day in Alice Springs, representing the federal Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. We also celebrated the day with a citizenship ceremony. It is a great indication of what the Northern Territory is about, where we have many groups from different ethnic backgrounds all coming together celebrating the difference as a unified country, a unified Territory called Australia.
It is important for us, as members of parliament, to recognise that we need to embrace all ethnic groups as Territorians. Do not make them special. The moment you make them special, you diminish them. They are Territorians equally amongst all of us, and that is what we are first and foremost. The moment you say: ‘You are a special ethnic group, I must support you,’ you are saying they are not as good as we are. That is not the right thing to do. We should say: ‘We are Territorians, we celebrate our difference as a single community. We are sharing our resources, we support each and every one of us in our very multicultural, diverse community’.
We know about the various groups in the Territory - and I do not single out any particular group. They are all very keen to continue to promote their culture and their traditions in the Territory. I agree with the government that we must support them as strongly as we can and promote the cultural awards that the minister announced. I congratulate the minister for bringing presenting this report, and share his wish for success for the Territory.
Mr VATSKALIS (Ethnic Affairs): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his support and I absolutely agree with him. I have no intention to make any ethnic group special. As a matter of fact, despite the fact that I am the Minister for Ethnic Affairs, I have asked my office to approach people of Scottish, Anglo-Saxon and Irish backgrounds to submit applications for ethnic grants because a lot of people come from different places in the Territory and, irrespective of whence you come, you are part of the Territory. We are all Territorians.
I also agree with the member for Greatorex that we are the only parliament with ministers from different ethnic backgrounds. We are no different than anybody else, we are Australians - either born here or naturalised later in life. We are proud to be Territorians; we are proud to be Australians - Greek Australians, Greek Territorians or Chinese Territorians or Chinese Australians.
One thing that we need in the Territory is for the ethnic groups to not only maintain their cultural diversity, but that part of their culture becomes part of the Territory culture. Nowhere else in Australia will a state celebrate Chinese New Year the way we celebrate it. Nowhere else in Australia will celebrate Greek Easter the way we celebrate it here. These celebrations have been embraced by the general population, irrespective of where they come from. We are a very diverse society and we are very proud to be diverse and harmonious. To that end, we have not seen any of the difficulties or problems in other states in Australia or in other countries of the world following the terrorism attacks, or the problems they have now in other places in the world.
I thank the member very much for his support, and I urge members to promote these awards in your community.
Reports noted pursuant to Sessional Order.
HIGHER EDUCATION BILL
(Serial 215)
(Serial 215)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I move the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of the bill is to align Northern Territory legislation with the agreed to national framework for the future establishment of higher education institutions in the Territory, as well as accrediting courses of instruction and academic awards they may provide.
Following agreement by the members of the Ministerial Council on Education, Training, Employment and Youth Affairs, which included the Territory Education minister as a member, higher education protocols were adopted in March 2000. The bill incorporates these national protocols to ensure uniform criteria and standards for the establishment of academic institutions, and the provision of higher education learning across Australia. The purpose of this is to ensure public confidence in Australian higher education, both in Australia and overseas, and that those looking to access Australian higher education – whether in the Territory or in the other Australian states - will be satisfied that the education they receive will be of a uniform high standard.
This bill is the Territory’s contribution to an Australia-wide process of ensuring quality higher education, as well as maintaining the operational standards of higher education institutions. The 2000 protocols adopted by education ministers are generally as follows:
- ∙ Protocol 1 determines the criteria and processes for recognition of existing or proposed Australian institutions as
‘universities’ and criminalising the unauthorised use of the title ‘university’. The bill also requires the establishment
and maintenance of a current register of bodies with authority to issue qualifications in the Territory, as well as an
accessible public register for approvals issued under the proposed act.
∙ Protocol 2 lists the processes and criteria for the operation in Australia of overseas higher education institutions,
including confirmation of those institutions’ credentials in their home jurisdictions, as well as the vetting of any
local agents who foreign institutions may wish to engage in Australia.
∙ Protocol 3 lists the criteria and processes for the accreditation of higher education courses of instruction leading to
academic awards, degrees, diplomas and other awards offered by non-self-accrediting foreign and local institutions,
and approval for those institutions to offer nominated courses. The criteria and processes include the evaluation of
proposed courses of instruction against comparable existing Australian courses provided in accredited Australian
higher education.
∙ Protocol 4 provides for delivery arrangements for higher education institutions involving other organisations, and
covering universities operating in their own name and through related organisations;
∙ Protocol 5 provides for the endorsement of courses of instruction for overseas students.
These protocols will be enacted in the proposed legislation.
Part 2 of the proposed act provides that a higher education institution may apply for ministerial approval confirming that institution as suitable for recognition or establishment as a Territory university. The matters the minister must address as part of this process include referring to the national protocols and other related matters.
Part 3 allows overseas higher education institutions to apply for ministerial approval to operate in the Territory. The issues the minister must address when considering an application from an overseas institution also include a reference to the 2000 national protocols.
Part 4 provides for the ministerial approval to be granted allowing interstate universities to operate in the Territory under an agency agreement. The minister must ensure that the protocols are adhered to and other relevant issues are addressed in granting approval to an interstate university wishing to operate in the Northern Territory.
Part 5 provides for non-university providers, such as the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia, to seek accreditation of courses of instruction offered by those providers.
Part 6 requires higher education institutions to provide courses of instruction to overseas students to have ministerial approval for those courses of instruction. Approval may be granted by the minister only if the institution complies with the requirements of the Commonwealth’s national code made for this purpose.
Part 7 allows a person authorised by the minister to observe an institution’s operations, to collect information and require a person to provide him or her with information about the institution to ensure compliance with the national protocols or national code.
Part 8 allows for the cancellation of any approvals or accreditation under Parts 2 to 6. Appeals against a decision under Part 8 may be made in accordance with the provisions of Part 9.
Part 10 creates offences relating generally to the contravention of the requirements of the early parts of the act.
Part 11 deals with miscellaneous provisions ranging from ministerial power to delegate, ministerial power to issue guidelines for the administration of the act, and the making of regulations including regulations for the exemption of institutions from operations of the act in certain circumstances. This part also repeals the Education Act section 73A.
Madam Speaker, the bill provides consistent standards for higher education in the Territory and across Australia, and I commend it to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
Take Two Bills Together
Take Two Bills Together
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent bills entitled Uncollected Goods Bill 2004 (Serial 217) and Uncollected Goods (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2004 (Serial 218):
(a) being presented and read a first time together and one motion being put in regard to, respectively,
the second readings, the committee’s report stage, and the third readings of the bills together; and
Motion agreed to.
UNCOLLECTED GOODS BILL
(Serial 217)
UNCOLLECTED GOODS (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL
(Serial 218)
(Serial 217)
UNCOLLECTED GOODS (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL
(Serial 218)
Bills presented and read a first time.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bills be now read a second time.
The purpose of these bills is to provide a simple and effective scheme for the management of uncollected goods. The current legislation has been criticised for being unnecessarily complex and difficult to utilise. In fact, when we started looking at the current Disposal of Uncollected Goods Act, we found areas of the disposal scheme that had never been used - not once since the act commenced in 1977. These bills repeal and replace the current act with a more user-friendly scheme.
The goods which the disposal scheme covers are those which have been left in the possession of another party - at common law referred to as the bailee - usually by the owner of the goods - the bailor - and have not been claimed. Examples of these situations vary greatly. They range from a family member delivering goods to another for safekeeping, to a delivery of goods to another by mistake, to the most common situation where goods are left for repair. These arrangements affect each of us in our daily lives. You may need to have your shoes repaired, your clothes dry cleaned, or your motor vehicle may be due for a service at the local garage. Difficulties, however, arise when goods have been left with the bailee for repair and the bailor does not collect them and pay for the service performed. Often the bailee is left out of pocket and with goods of little value.
At common law, there is no right of sale by the bailee. Unless an agreement has been reached between the parties as to the disposal of goods or a statutory power of sale exists, the bailee cannot lawfully dispose of the goods, yet he or she has a common law duty to take care of the goods. In 1977, the Northern Territory introduced legislation intended to give those persons with possession of goods a legal avenue for their disposal. That legislation has undergone little change since its commencement, and has been criticised as being unnecessarily complex, confusing and containing remedies which are time consuming and inappropriate.
Agitation from the community over a number of years, and a report by the Northern Territory Law Reform Committee in 2001, prompted the release of an issues paper by the Department of Justice in May 2003. The review was finalised in August 2003, and it is against the framework of the review recommendations that the new legislative scheme has been developed. Based on the review, this bill will make a significant difference by creating a simpler, more equitable regime for the disposal of uncollected goods.
I will now briefly outline the main aspects of the Uncollected Goods Bill. As a result of criticism by the Northern Territory Law Reform Committee that the legislation contains confusing and inadequately explained common law terms, ‘bailee’ and ‘bailor’ have been replaced with the plain English terms ‘receiver’ and ‘provider’. Both terms are explained in the definitions clause.
Clause 6 sets out the meaning of relevant charge: the amount that the receiver is able to claim in relation to repairs to, or cleaning of, the goods, as well as the storage, carriage and maintenance costs.
Clause 9 preserves the application of the existing Northern Territory legislation dealing with the disposal of the uncollected goods, in some industry-specific situations. For example, the Warehousemen’s Liens Act, the Accommodation Providers Act, the Residential Tenancies Act, the Retirement Villages Act, the Consumer Affairs and Fair Trading Act, and the Traffic Act. The proposed legislation will apply in circumstances where it is not otherwise dealt with by specific legislation.
At common law, parties have the right to contract and negotiate their own agreement as to the manner of disposal of goods. Clause 11 of the bill preserves that right, and provides that only where agreement as to the manner of disposal of goods has not been, or cannot be, reached will the legislation apply.
Parts 2 and 3 of the bill sets out the procedures for the disposal of uncollected goods, both with and without a court order. If a dispute exists between the provider and the receiver regarding the relevant charge for uncollected goods, either party may apply to the court for an order determining the amount of the relevant charge. Once an application to the court is made, the receiver cannot dispose of the uncollected goods. To prevent matters being delayed in the event of a dispute occurring, a mechanism has been placed into the bill that allows the receiver to give notice to the provider of his or her intention to dispose of the uncollected goods. Notice is intended to prompt the provider to take action by either applying to a court to resolve the dispute, or to leave matters as they are and, therefore, risking the goods being disposed of under the act.
Division 2 of Part 2 sets out a new regime for the disposal of uncollected goods without a court order. This replaces the lengthy onerous notice requirements of the current legislation. The new regime breaks the notice requirements into three categories according to the value of the goods:
- for low value goods - those valued at less than $200 - the receiver may dispose of the goods if, after 28 days since
the giving of oral or written notice to the provider of the intention to dispose of the goods, the provider has not
claimed them nor given direction as to their delivery. The goods may be disposed of by sale, destruction,
appropriation or by any other means;
- for medium value of goods - those valued at $200 or more, but less than $1000 - notice is required to be given to
the provider, the owner of the goods, and any other person having or claiming an interest. After a period of two
months, if the provider has not claimed the goods or given direction as to their delivery, disposal can take place
by auction or private sale at a fair price; and
for high value goods - those valued at $1000 or more, but less than $7000 - notice is required to be given to the
provider, the owner of the goods, any other person having or claiming an interest, and the Commissioner of Police.
A period of three months must elapse before the disposal can take place. Twenty eight days prior to the disposal an advertisement must be placed in a daily Northern Territory newspaper advising of the proposed sale. The goods can
then be auctioned or sold by private sale at a fair price.
In addition, where the receiver is dealing with a motor vehicle of high value or above, a certificate must be obtained from the Commissioner of Police to certify the vehicle is not stolen. Further, to protect a person with a publicly registered interest such as a bank or a finance company, a REVS search must be obtained for motor vehicles that are of medium value or greater.
A court order must be obtained to dispose of goods valued of over $7000, the high value amount. However, a receiver who wishes to have the security of a court order can apply for a disposal order for goods of any value. As may be expected, the notice requirements increase as the value of goods increase. However, the notice provisions are a great improvement on the current act. For example, the current act provides that, for goods valued at less than $200, two separate notices have to be given with a total waiting period of four months before disposal. In conjunction with the second notice to the bailor, notice must also given to the Commissioner of Police and every other person known to the bailee to have an interest in the goods, and published in the government Gazette. Further, under the current scheme, disposal is by way of public auction in separate lots. It is only when the sale by auction is unsuccessful that goods can be sold privately or otherwise disposed of.
This bill will do away with the onerous notice provisions and unnecessarily expensive disposal scheme, and allow a receiver to dispose of goods in an efficient and equitable manner whilst protecting the interests of the provider. Special provisions will also apply for the disposal of perishable goods.
The question may be raised: what constitutes a fair price? A fair price is, in effect, what the market will pay for the goods. Factors that influence market price can include, but are not limited to, the age and condition of the goods, and the market supply and demand for those goods. There are a number of tools available to help a receiver determine a fair price. For second-hand goods, a receiver may wish to obtain a valuation from a second-hand dealer or, if the goods are specific to an industry, they may wish to obtain a valuation from that industry. For a motor vehicle, a receiver might decide to refer to the Red Book value when determining a fair price, or may wish to obtain a valuation from a car yard. On the other hand, a receiver may have specific industry knowledge of motor vehicles and may determine that the vehicle is of little value and the only suitable way of disposing of the vehicle is by selling it for parts.
However, these are only examples of the tools that a receiver can use to determine a fair price. Generally, people working in industry-specific areas have some expertise on what goods are worth because they deal with them on a day-to-day basis and, as a result, can ascertain a fair price by using their own knowledge and expertise.
Part 3 of the bill sets out the regime for applications to the court for various orders. ‘The court’ is defined as the Local Court. The application must be served upon the provider, the owner, the Commissioner of Police, any person with a publicly registered interest in the goods, and any other person known by the receiver having or claiming an interest in the goods. There is flexibility in the new regime in that it allows for, at any time prior to the goods being disposed of, either by way of a court order or notice provisions, the provider to claim the goods after paying the relevant charges due to the receiver. The interests of the receiver are protected in that, so long as the receiver complies with the provisions in the bill relating to the disposal of uncollected goods, he or she will not be liable to any other person who may claim an interest in the goods.
Part 3 also provides for the effect of other proceedings upon a court order made under this part. The provision can be used where an owner wishes to recover their goods because they have been stolen, or the person who delivered the goods for repair has done so without authority. The interests of both the receiver and the owner would be determined by a court, but the provision allows an order that has been made for the disposal of the goods to be suspended and an order made for recovery.
Part 4 of the bill sets out the record keeping requirements. The current legislation requires that records of disposal must be kept for six years and for all goods, regardless of their value. The proposed legislation has reduced the time frame from six years to three years but, as with the current act, records must be kept for all goods.
Part 4 also provides for a method of distributing the proceeds of sale. After uncollected goods are sold, the receiver is entitled to retain the relevant charge and disposal costs. If the proceeds of sale are insufficient to pay the relevant charge and disposal costs, the receiver may recover it as a debt in a court of competent jurisdiction. If, however, there is an excess of funds, the receiver must, within 28 days after the sale of the uncollected goods, pay the excess amount of the proceeds of sale to the accountable officer for payment into an accountable officer’s trust account. The receiver must also supply to the accountable officer a copy of the records under clause 28.
The penalties are severe for those who do not comply with these requirements. A maximum of six months imprisonment or $11 000 for a natural person, and a maximum of $55 000 for a body corporate. Stringent penalties are necessary to act as an effective deterrent for those who may decide to keep for themselves excess money from the proceeds of sale.
It should also be remembered, while the legislative proposals are designed to facilitate effective disposal of goods by people who might otherwise be burdened by the cost of repairs, storage and maintenance, the goods are those in which other parties, including banks or finance companies, might also have an interest.
Part 7 of the bill deals with transitional provisions which have been drafted with the criticisms of the current act in mind. The current act is not being utilised and industry members, particularly those in the motor trades, are waiting for this bill to commence to be able to dispose of uncollected goods in their possession. As such, the transitional provisions provide for the disposal of goods under bailment prior to the commencement of the new scheme. There are some conditions on the operation of the transitional provisions. If a receiver has, under the current act, given notice of his or her intention to sell the goods or to dispose of them by way of a court order, then the current act will apply to those transactions.
I now turn to the Uncollected Goods (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2004. An amendment to the Motor Vehicles Act was required to facilitate the transfer of an uncollected registered motor vehicle disposed of under the new scheme, from the owner of the vehicle to the new purchaser. The amendment provides that, upon the sale of the vehicle, the receiver must give the purchaser a receipt of sale and, within 14 days, provide the Registrar of Motor Vehicles with a notice of disposal. The purchaser must then apply to the registrar in the form of a statutory declaration to transfer the vehicle from the owner’s name to the purchaser’s name.
As the law currently stands, property which is subject to a security is first available to the security holder. With respect to bailed goods, this may result in a detriment to the receiver. For example, a receiver who repairs and, therefore, improves bailed goods, may lose those goods to a person with a registrable interest who gets the benefit of the repairs without payment to the receiver. Consequently, as a result of the recommendations from the National Vehicles Security Project report, which were approved by the Ministerial Council of Consumer Affairs, the Registration of Interest in Motor Vehicles and Other Goods Act will be amended to provide that a receiver who has repaired goods and, therefore, has a lien over the goods, will have priority for payment of their services over any registrable interest in the goods.
Finally, in the event that a security holder has not removed their security interest over a motor vehicle sold under this act, a purchaser who obtains good title to the vehicle may apply to the registrar of the Registration of Interest in Motor Vehicles and Other Goods Act to have that interest removed. If the registrar is satisfied that the interest is to be removed, the registrar must do so, but must inform the security holder that their interest has been cancelled. The security holder may make a monetary claim by application to the accountable officer.
This bill provides a clear, simple and effective regime for the care and disposal of uncollected goods. This bill provides for a scheme which will be a significant improvement on that which currently exists, and which I am sure will be welcomed by all Territorians.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bills to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
FIRST HOME OWNER GRANT AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 210)
STAMP DUTY AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 211)
(Serial 210)
STAMP DUTY AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 211)
Continued from 25 February 2004.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, the opposition supports the First Home Owner Grant Amendment Bill and the Stamp Duty Amendment Bill, understanding that these bills unify the operation of the scheme across borders. I have personal knowledge that, in this alignment across borders, there have been some difficulties in those who have qualified for a scheme in one jurisdiction and found it is quite a different regime in another state. It is good to have that unity for transportability with regard to the administration of the First Home Owner’s Grant. The purpose of it, as explained during the briefing and in the second reading speech, is to improve the integrity and administration of the first home buyers scheme.
Reference was made in the second reading speech to this grant being brought in at the same time as the GST to compensate first home buyers for the initial cost burden of buying their home because of the GST. History, as I recall it, is this was a decision of a former government to institute this scheme and the mechanisms that are in place in legislation to preserve the integrity of administration of the scheme. Notwithstanding where it came from, this appears in here to be the initiative perhaps of the Commonwealth government, but my understanding is it was the former government.
That aside, always when looking at legislative change, I like to know whether it is actually addressing an existing problem. Is there a real problem with the administration of the first home buyers scheme in the Northern Territory? I was encouraged to learn from officers who briefed me that this has not been effected due to a rorting of the system in the Northern Territory. There had been talk. A lot of people do have discussion from time to time, thinking: ‘We will get our youngster involved in this scheme and they might be able to get a $7000 bonus kick start into the ownership of a home’. However, I must say it was encouraging to hear that the Northern Territory community, at this point, has not gone that way to rort the system, and what we have here is an alignment of the schemes across the country.
I was pleased to also learn that it requires the issue of the minimum age of 18 to be adhered to, but with the provision of some flexibility. It was good to learn that, knowing that in other states you cannot apply for a first home owners scheme until you are 18, with the exception, I understand, of New South Wales, where it is 16. I am assured - and I trust this will be practised - that if someone who is less than 18 seeks access to the First Home Owners Grant, then they would be genuinely considered, albeit the act defines it as 18. That flexibility is quite important, because there are a number of young people younger than 18 who have made a strong start in their apprenticeship, and have managed to save up a deposit. I know at 15 or 16 I certainly did not have a deposit for a home. However, there are, to their credit, a lot of young people out there who are very focussed, and are able to get their affairs in place so that they are qualified in every sense to make that first significant purchase - and it should be encouraged. Therefore, I would like to make sure that that flexibility is actually there, to reward those who do have that foresight to get themselves up and running and owning their first home before the age of 18.
I accept they need to reside there for at least 6 months, but I would like to make sure that it is not going to be restricted. As it was explained during the briefing, if a young person commits themselves to their first home, has qualified for the First Home Owners Scheme, and is then posted elsewhere, that would be listened to and accommodated, because that often does occur. Whether they are perhaps in the Army, or their trade will be further enhanced moving interstate or to distant reaches in the Territory, I trust that there is that flexibility. However, I do respect that there needs to be at least, generally, occupation at that residence for at least 6 months.
To move in within 12 months is reasonable. I have one concern. I guess it is the way that we treat our respect for the law and when a government or a community decides to encourage access to home ownership by the provision of a grant; $7000 in this case. I remember, as a young couple, it was a tremendous boost to know that we had access to a first home owners scheme in Western Australia many years ago, and it really was a genuine kick start. Not that we looked for it. In the way my wife and I, and people around us, were raised, it was not that you expected handouts from government - you expected to make your own way. Then, to find that there was that sensible provision, at a time when the building industry was stagnating, for that assistance, really got us started. With many of my peers and colleagues at the time, it got us started as we started out with our young families.
However, if someone treats that with contempt and rorts the system, defrauds the process and makes a false claim - and I appreciate that it has changed from ‘knowingly makes a false claim’, to making it clear that if you make a false claim, we do not care whether you knew about it or not. However, we are making a provision here for a member of our community to make their first significant purchase and, knowingly or not, if they make a false claim they are in trouble. I support that.
What I do have reservations about is that, if someone who is in receipt of the $7000 first home owners grant does rort the system and they are found out: ‘Oh look, we found out that you defrauded us, you told us lies and what not. We will take it back off you’. Granted it will be paid back with interest, but there is now the provision there that, at some later stage, that person could have another shot at it. The way I see these things is that, if you have had the opportunity to avail yourself of a generous grant and you knowingly or unknowingly defrauded it, it is an insult to all those good people who make a contribution to such schemes, and to all those good people who do the right thing continually. I guess, philosophically, I have a bit of a problem that, if someone has buggered it up, told the lie, been caught out - granted they have had to pay back - I reckon that is it, no more, do not have another shot at it. If you have had one shot at it and you were dishonest and defrauded the system, I reckon that should be the end of it. We should not open the door and say they can come back at another time, and that will be all right; this time they will not be dishonest. I reckon these are the provisions you put within an economy, within a decision of government, to stimulate home owner acquisition by young people and others with the home owners grant. However, do not leave the door open. If they bugger it up the first time, that is it; you take that privilege away completely.
I saw that as something that I just was not particularly supportive of. Notwithstanding that, I just hope the spirit of it will make sure that there is no encouragement for someone to come back and make another application after they have defrauded it the first time. Therefore, I am not too happy about that, as I understand that this is leaving the door open so that someone can actually come back. However, I would like to see that door closed.
With those comments, Madam Speaker, on behalf of the opposition, I offer support for these amendments and acknowledge also that this has a flow-on effect into a couple of other acts.
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his supportive comments in relation to these two bills. In terms of the context of the scheme, like many things emanating from the Commonwealth, this began with the Commonwealth around the time of the introduction of the GST. The primary purpose of it was to offset the GST accruing or being payable on housing - particularly on construction - because many of the items in the building industry had not been subject to that sort of taxation before, so it did bump up the cost of purchasing houses. Therefore, that was the offset there.
Like all good things emanating from the Commonwealth, it was initially funded by them. However, of course over time, it comes to the states and territories, and now they are responsible for the funding of it. That is a practice that the Commonwealth is very adept at, be it health, education or any other agency of government where they dream up what could be, in many cases, quite good schemes. They say they we will fund it and so states commence and run the scheme and, some years down the track - usually two or three - the Commonwealth says they are not going to fund that any more. Of course, you have built up an expectation in the community that the program will be ongoing, and it is left to the states and territories to pick it up.
I appreciate the Leader of the Opposition’s comments in relation to flexibility if a person, for genuine reasons, cannot meet the requirements and are allowed to continue. Certainly, there is flexibility below 18 for genuine cases. I would like to think that 16-year-old or 17-year-old apprentices might be out there doing well enough to buy a house. However, if you look at the wage rates for a first- and second-year apprentice, I do not believe there would be one first or second year apprentice who would be in a position to buy their own home without significant support from others, simply because the wage rates would not allow them to meet mortgage repayments.
In relation to whether a person ought have another crack, if the bill was, as proposed by the Leader of the Opposition, I would support him. I would agree with him that they ought not get another crack. However, I will go back to the second reading just to clarify this for the record:
- The third proposed change relates to circumstances in which a person has been required to repay the grant because
they did not meet the resident requirements under the First Home Owner Grant Act. Currently, such a person is
disqualified from obtaining the grant for a subsequent home that they buy, even though they have repaid the
previous grant that they were not entitled to. This is a harsh penalty in many circumstances, and it is proposed
to remedy this by allowing a person to qualify for a subsequent grant, as long as they have repaid the previous
grant and any penalties and interest owing on that amount.
This is a very different scenario from the unscrupulous person who sets out to defraud the scheme. That person does not get another crack; no way. This simply is the ability to come back for a second try where they did not meet the resident requirements under the terms of the act. Therefore, it is not a general second crack for those who were intentionally getting their fingers into something they ought not. The change is being adopted across Australia to varying degrees. The Commonwealth’s interest in this, and that of all of the states and territories, is the need to remain fairly consistent, or as consistent as possible, across the board. That is the intent of this bill: to move with the other states and territories who are all moving similar amendments. I thank the member for his contribution and the opposition for their support.
Motion agreed to; bills read a second time.
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bills be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bills read a third time.
RADIATION PROTECTION BILL
(Serial 203)
(Serial 203)
Continued from 19 February 2004.
Ms CARTER (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, all jurisdictions in Australia are working to change their legislation and practices to reflect the outcomes of the National Directory for Radiation Protection.
This directory has not been completed yet, but states and territories have been given detailed instructions as to what it currently contains, and so this bill has been based on that. When the directory is completely finished later this year, regulations providing more direction will be developed and implemented. It is hoped that, within a short period of time throughout Australia, there will be consistency with regards to matters pertaining to radiation.
The Northern Territory is the first jurisdiction to implement legislative changes which are represented in this bill and that, generally speaking, the CLP opposition will support. The bill aims to do two things. It aims to improve safety with regards to radiation. This quest has been spurred on by the increasing incidence of terrorist activities in the world today. The second thing the bill aims to do is a result of the National Competition Policy. The aim is to remove unnecessary barriers which prevent more people gaining qualifications, skills and permission to take X-rays.
With regards to the first aim, improving safety for people and the environment, the new legislation covers both ionising and non-ionising radiation, whereas existing legislation only covers ionising radiation. Non-ionising radiation sources include things which require an external power source, such as X-ray machines, laser lights, welding equipment and solariums. Ionising radiation generally is emitted naturally by metals with half lives such as uranium and plutonium, as a result of the activities of their electrons. An example in the health setting includes radioactive implants. Part of the protective steps found in the bill include lowering the occupational and public health dose limits available. This is in line with national and international standards. All of this the opposition supports.
On the issue of radiographers, I am a little less fulsome in my support. This area is covered in this bill. I understand and support the need to reduce barriers which prevent skilled people from providing this service. However, this bill will be getting rid of the Radiographers Registration Board in the Northern Territory, and I believe this is something which must be considered with caution and dealt with carefully. I have been in contact with the board, and I am aware that, generally speaking, they support the changes. Therefore, given that endorsement, the CLP will also support this aspect of the bill.
However, we will watch with care how the transition occurs, and how well radiography services are provided in the Northern Territory during the time to come, in the hope that there will be no deterioration in care to patients and services to the public and health professionals because, what this legislation will do when it is assented to is transfer the current powers of the Radiographers Board to the Chief Health Officer. The Chief Health Officer will now have to decide who will be given a licence to take X-rays. He or she will set the standards. He or she will decide on matters pertaining to discipline and sanctions. The minister recommends the establishment of a learned committee to advise the Chief Health Officer, but this is not mandated by the legislation; it is an option. We do not know yet who will be on this advisory committee but, in the end, the buck will stop with the Chief Health Officer and, dare I say it, the minister.
One of my key concerns is that there is a shortage of radiographers in Australia. Therefore, radiographers can be hard to attract to the Territory, particularly to the less popular locations. However, the people still need health care, and if we can find doctors and nurses to staff a regional hospital, then I agree the hospital should not be shut down just because it does not have a radiographer. I do agree that someone else could have qualifications which would enable them to take quality X-rays if the radiographer cannot be employed.
However - and this is my point - every effort must be made to ensure that the standard of care provided by someone who is not a radiographer but is taking X-rays, and the quality of the X-ray, is acceptable by those needing to view it and that the care provided to the patient is good. It will be imperative for the Chief Health Officer to ensure that, when he or she provides a licence to a person who is not a radiographer to take X-rays, that that person has demonstrated competencies which are safe and useful. It will be up to the Chief Health Officer, hopefully with the help of the committee, to describe those competencies.
I am told that in Queensland they have a classification known as ‘X-ray operators’, and it was reported to me - admittedly by an interstate radiographer - that these X-ray operators have been known to take X-rays without the patient’s name on them, without indicators advising the direction the shot was taken in, or whether or not it was the left or right limb. For those of us who understand X-rays, these are vital, essential details which, without them, can lead to disasters.
Every effort must be taken to ensure that the passage of this legislation improves health care, which I believe it can. However, effective checks and balances must also be incorporated into the health system to make sure that what this bill proposes to do does not backfire on us.
I will be taking this bill to committee. Two areas, in particular, need to be discussed. The first is clause 10. This section allows the Chief Health Officer to exempt a person, a radiation source, or a place, from any provisions of the act. I do not understand why such a clause, which gives the Chief Health Officer such power, is necessary. I was told when I had a briefing on the matter from the minister’s staff, that exemption may be given to exempt someone from a fee, or to exempt a company when they are dealing with something of very low radiation levels, like a mineral sand. Both these examples may be considered reasonable, but I do not think they warrant the sort of power which is possible from this part of the bill. It is saying that, if an individual known as the Chief Health Officer considers that anyone or any source of radiation should not have to comply with the legislation, then it will be okay, provided they - meaning the Chief Health Officer - advertise their intention in the Gazette. Given our concerns about radiation, it is too risky to give a person this power. I am uncomfortable with this, and will be moving an amendment to have this section omitted from the act.
My other concern is clause 15 of the bill, which deals with the duty of a licensee to give notification of a dangerous event. A licensee, in this instance, is somebody who has a radiation source which may result in exposing a person, animal or thing to radiation. In this section, if the source of radiation is lost or stolen, or if there is a radiation incident - which is defined as a incident which adversely affects, or likely to adversely affect the health or safety of a person due to the emission of radiation - then the licensee must advise the Chief Health Officer of the dangerous event, unless the licensee has a ‘reasonable excuse’. Therefore, according to this, if somebody who is the licensee responsible for a source of radiation which has affected someone, or is likely to affect someone adversely due to exposure to radiation, they do not have to tell the Chief Health Officer if something goes wrong, if they figure they have a ‘reasonable excuse’. This seems a very sloppy system to me. Naturally, this section leaves open the possibility of someone not reporting something serious because - they could argue if later sprung - they thought they had a ‘reasonable excuse’. Therefore, I will also move in committee that this section be amended, so that the words ‘unless the licensee has a reasonable excuse’, be omitted. All dangerous events should be notified to the Chief Health Officer who can then, on consideration of the facts, decide if a reasonable excuse exists and that no further action need be taken.
Madam Speaker, before we go into committee on this bill, I would like to place on record my thanks to the minister and his staff for providing me with a very useful briefing.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, the first point I would like to make in my contribution to the passage of this bill is to reiterate its purpose. As the minister said at the time of the second reading, this bill will provide a consistent regulatory regime to protect people and the environment from the harmful effects of ionising and non-ionising radiation. The bill does not apply to mining activities in relation to uranium ores or uranium oxide which are regulated by the Mining Management Act, but also does not apply to possession, packaging, storage or transport of radioactive ores and concentrates, which is regulated by the Radioactive Ores and Concentrates (Packaging and Transport) Act.
Technology has developed in unprecedented leaps and bounds over the last 25 years or so, when the legislation this bills supersedes was introduced into this Assembly by the minister for Health in 1978. I have had cause to research that Health minister’s second reading speech, and noted the references to ionising radiation, but I could find no mention of non-ionising radiation. That is because the current Northern Territory radiation legislation has dealt exclusively with radiation from the so-called ionising radiation; that is, atomic radiation sources. Such radiation is emitted either from radioactive atoms, or from X-ray machines. It is called ionising as it is energetic enough to remove electrons from atoms, and irradiated objects; that is, it can ionise atoms. Examples of ionising radiation are atomic particles like alpha, beta and neutrons, and high energy electromagnetic radiation like X-rays and gamma radiation.
Non-ionising radiation is less energetic radiation than the ionising one, and cannot ionise atoms. It is low-energy electromagnetic radiation. This bill includes protection from certain classes of non-ionising radiation: initially ultraviolet radiation, laser light, radio frequency generating equipment and magnetic resonance imaging machines.
This bill will address this deficiency by defining ‘radiation’ and ‘radiation source’ in clauses 5 and 6 respectively. For those members who may not have the bill ready at hand, clause 5 defines ionising radiation as electromagnetic or particulate radiation capable of producing ions directly or indirectly, but does not include electromagnetic radiation of a wavelength greater than 100 nanometres; and describes non-ionising radiation as electromagnetic radiation of a wavelength greater than 100 nanometres. Clause 6 describes a radiation source as a thing that may emit ionising radiation or a thing prescribed by the regulations that may emit non-ionising radiation. A radiation source can be radioactive material or radioactive apparatus.
Just as I made mention, the changing technologies and the need to ensure that these new generation non-ionising radiation emitters which were unforeseen at the time of the drafting of the first Radiation and Safety Control Bill in 1978, are picked up in this new bill, the Radiation Protection Bill 2004. So too is our community’s awareness of the hazards of radiation and the expectation that government will ensure, through legislation, the health and safety of people by protecting them and their environment from the harmful effects of radiation.
In 1978, it was pleasing to note bipartisan support for the introduction of the Radiation Safety Control Bill - similarly in 2004, I might add. The member for Arnhem said in 1978 that he found the information on occupational exposure to radiation in Australia very interesting. He found it interesting to read that the mean annual body doses of radiation in Australia are very low compared with the maximum permissible body dose, which is 5000 mgs or 5 gms per year. This was a standard set by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council which, in turn, followed international standards that were set by the International Commission on Radiological Protection.
The International Commission on Radiological Protection was established in 1928 as a commission linked to the International Congress of Radiology. The commission issues recommendations on the principles of radiation protection, and its recommendations form the basis for more detailed codes and regulation issued by other international organisations and by regional and national authorities. The commission has been issuing reports since 1950. The report that the member for Arnhem was alluding to in 1978 in his contribution to the debate was publication 26 which appeared in 1977. This publication was subsequently amended and extended by a statement in 1978, and further clarified and extended by a succession of statements between 1980 and 1987. Their recommendations were completely revised and published in 1991 as ICRP publication 60. This is a publication which was adopted by the National Health and Medical Research Council in 1995.
The ICRP document, History, Policies and Procedures by Lindell, Dunster and Valentin, noted prior to the authoring of publication 60, the commission defined a mean quality factor Q for the spectra of mixed values of linear energy transfer. In addition, the commission stated that it was permissible to use approximate values for Q and provided tables of value. In publication 60, the commission replaced the dose equivalent defined at a point of Q by the equivalent dose derived by weighting the mean absorbed dose in organ or tissue by the radiation weight and factor. I merely make mention of this document as an example of the ongoing research in to the area of radiological protection.
Since early last century, the question within scientific circles has apparently been …
Mr Dunham: Good on you, it has been one of the deficiencies in this parliament.
Mr KIELY: You should listen to this, member for Drysdale. … are radioactive particles far more dangerous than current international models predict?
Dr Burns: You mob used to drink it!
Mr Ah Kit: Barry did.
Mr KIELY: I shall continue, Madam Speaker. Since the first ICRP publications, this debate has led to an increasingly rigorous set of standards. Just as in 1978, a set of radiation protection standards was introduced into the Territory on the basis of quality ICRP recommendations, we see the same thing happening in 2004 based on recommendations stemming from the 1991 ICRP report 60 adopted by the NHMRC in 1995.
The July 2003 edition of New Scientist carries a story titled ‘Experts can’t agree on internal radiation risk’. The article goes on to say that the debate centres on the risk estimate set by the International Commission on Radiological Protection and used by governments around the world. Risk estimates, the article claims, calculate what a safe dose is based on the impact radiation has on living tissue. Therefore, the dose depends both on the energy absorbed in the tissue and on the type of radiation that the atoms emit. Critics of the ICRP say the doses for internal emitters are not calculated correctly. The jury is still out on this point of view and the article claims there seems little hope of progress being made before the new ICRP report is due in 2005.
This bill brings the Territory into line with other jurisdictions by including protection of the environment as well as the individual; broadening the radiation protection field to include both ionising and, for the first time, non-ionising radiation; and the provision for the adoption of contemporary standards and notably lower occupational and public dose limits.
The bill has embedded in it the three components of the ICRP policy for biological radiation protection that leads to the basic system of protection. These are: the justification of a practice, which implies doing more good than harm; the optimisation of protection, which implies maximising the margin of good over harm; and the use of dose limits, which implies an adequate standard of protection even for the most highly exposed individuals.
The minister has advised the Assembly of the part that the NCP review of the Northern Territory’s Radiographers Act played in the formation of this bill. I see no need to go over the findings of the Centre for International Economics in its May 2000 report. The minister has quite succinctly brought to our collective attention the deficiencies of the Radiographers Act and the measures he is introducing to address those deficiencies.
All other jurisdictions are undertaking revisions of their radiation protection legislation based on the same principles and standards as contained in the National Directory for Radiation Protection. The Northern Territory had to embark early on this process owing to the deadline imposed on the repeal of the Radiographers Act and the resulting incorporation of its radiation safety and licensing provisions into the new radiation protection legislation.
Implementation of the NCP review of the Radiographers Act will not adversely affect the quality of assessment of the fitness of radiographers to perform their work, as such assessments will be based on the respective criteria contained in the national directory. The fact that radiographers will not be registered as a profession will not have any implication on that quality. Currently, in half of the jurisdictions around Australia, radiographers are not registered as a profession. This is not likely to radically change after all the jurisdictions review their respective radiation legislation.
Finally, Madam Speaker, I would like to make the observation that the review of radiation protection legislation has taken far too long in the Territory. Twenty-five years is an unacceptable interval when dealing with rapidly changing technologies. I am very pleased that the minister has decided to include the provision that this proposed legislation must be reviewed before its 10th anniversary and continue to be reviewed at intervals of not more than 10 years. Like the member for Port Darwin, I also take this opportunity to acknowledge the research, dedication and professionalism of the Department of Health staff and advisors, particularly Dr George Koperski and Mr Xavier Schobben, in the preparation of this bill.
Dr TOYNE (Health): Madam Speaker, from the outset, I thank members for their contributions and welcome the general support offered by the opposition. We will certainly deal with the areas of concern that they expressed earlier.
Perhaps we can just recap the general structure of this reform as a starting point to dealing with the issues that the member for Port Darwin raised. The bill itself is a framework that will be fleshed out by the outcomes of the National Directory on Radiation Protection, and that will give a lot of the detail. For example, in areas like the exemption categories, and determining the competency of operators of radiation sources. That will come in by way of regulation, which will inform the operation of this act once it becomes law. We are really only seeing the first part of a two-part process.
I can indicate that the drafting and implementation of regulations, that will provide the detail by which this legislation will operate, will be done between now and roughly the end of the year. We will certainly be fully informed by the National Directory on Radiation Protection to make sure that the Territory legislation not only has the detail in place for the protection that we are wanting for Territorians, but also that it is very much in compliance with the national standards that are being established at the moment. When we are looking at issues in this, I will have to refer to that which is still to arrive, which is the national competency criteria, the national definition of the automatic exemptions that will apply to some areas of radiation sources, allowing them not having to be registered.
I was pleased to hear the opposition acknowledge, as indeed the Radiographers Board has also acknowledged, that this is a big step forward. We have considerably lowered the safety thresholds for exposure to radiation, extended the scope of the legislation to cover a much wider range of radiation sources, and have introduced a regulation across people who were previously not regulated. The outcome for the Territory will be very positive in that we can be much more assured that people undergoing procedures - whether it is getting a sun tan under an ultraviolet light or having skin treatment through lasers, or a number of other areas - will now come under some regulatory scheme; and not only a regulatory scheme, but one that is common right around Australia. That is what we are very much aiming to do here. The legislation we have in the Territory currently is incomplete and overlapping; it is not a particularly good protection for Territorians. It is timely that we are bringing this reform forward.
I will now deal with the amendments that have been foreshadowed by the member for Port Darwin. I have to indicate, with respect, that we will not be picking them up. However, I would like to explain why and give undertakings that your worst fears will not be realised in those areas. You will probably have more luck tomorrow - I will just give you a little clue there.
Dealing with clause 10, this clause is actually very similar to one that is currently in the Radiation (Safety Control) Act, and has been in force since 1978 within the Northern Territory. The power of the Chief Health Officer to exempt a person, radiation source or place from the act is effectively limited by clause 10(2) which states that:
The exemption must not be one that could reasonably be expected to pose any, or a more than negligible, threat
to the health or safety of persons or threat of harm to the environment.
There are two arms to the way in which exemptions would operate under this new legislation. One is the automatic area of exemptions, which are going to be set down in the national scheme. As the member for Sanderson said, it defines a range of radiation sources which will automatically fall within the regulatory arrangements, so they have to be registered. Then there are areas outside those which, because of the lower dose rate or the type of emissions, would automatically fall outside the operation of the legislation. That will not be just here; it will be right around the country.
The other is the discretionary category, where the Chief Health Officer - as you quite rightly pointed out - will have to make decisions about a particular radiation source that comes to his or her notice. They can turn to two different sources for advice on that. In the absence of a Radiographer’s Board, which would have given advice at least on medical radiation sources, there is no problem under this legislation with calling together an expert committee if that is necessary. That could well be people who were on the Radiographer’s Board previously.
The other point is the inspectorate, which is the group that will be going around enforcing this legislation. You would expect that they would have – and I know many of them do have - good skills and knowledge in this area. They would be available to provide advice to the Chief Health Officer on where discretionary decision would be required. However, I certainly say that you would not expect this situation to arise very often. Most of the carriage of this regulation will be by way of fairly strongly defined criteria within the Directory of Radiation Protection at national level, which will import into the operation of this legislation by way of regulation. That will be spelt out and there will not be too much doubt, in most cases, whether a source should be registered or not.
Putting all that together, we feel that the exemptions are, first of all, necessary and, secondly, they will be uniform right around the country as other jurisdictions adopt the national code. The examples I have given I hope would convey that, if you do not have any exemption categories as you are proposing, then you are going to end up with some pretty unmanageable areas of the operation of the act.
Regarding clause 15, I take your point whether this means that someone could say: ‘Well, bugger that, I am not going to …’ – sorry, Madam Speaker - ‘… report the loss of a radiation source’. Again, there is a real world out there and the intent of clause 15 is that you may well be in the situation where, with the best of intentions, you cannot simply notify within the seven days. The first thing to be said about clause 15 is that it does not provide any exemption for any person on the responsibility of reporting a loss of a source. Everyone is obliged to report that. What it is dealing with is that some people may find that they cannot report it within the seven-day period that is allowed under the legislation.
You could take some extreme examples of natural disasters, such as if a cyclone hits Borroloola and there is an X-ray machine there, and it disappears out into the McArthur River and floats downstream. At the same time, the telecommunications infrastructure is completely knocked out, and access to the area is unavailable for what could be for an extended period. Therefore, there might be, within an extreme event like that, some rare occasions where someone cannot provide notification. They are still bound to do it as soon as it is possible to provide notification, and the difference between seven days and when someone can finally manage to provide that notification, is where you have to have a reasonable excuse.
Other examples would be where you are away on holidays from the workplace; someone has knocked off the radiation source and you are not aware of it until you get back and you are made aware of that - and that might be a couple of weeks later. It is just a clause to allow for the real world, basically, to say that the intent of this legislation is that everyone should notify within seven days. If there are occasions - and you would expect they would be pretty rare, given the kind of extremes that I have outlined – then there should be the ability to go to the Chief Health Officer and say ‘This is why I could not notify within seven days’. That is what that clause is actually spelling out.
The third amendment is consequential to the first one, so you can deem that we will not be accepting that because we are not accepting the first. That is all I want to say at this stage in reply. Madam Speaker, we will move forward.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Mr CHAIRMAN: The committee has before it the Radiation Protection Bill (Serial 203) together with a Schedule of Amendments No 78 circulated by the member for Port Darwin.
Clauses 1 to 9, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 10:
Ms CARTER: Mr Chairman, I invite defeat of clause 10. The reason I have done that is that I am concerned, given the minister’s second reading speech in which he outlined that one of the reasons that this bill has been brought on is the increased risk of terrorism in our community, that our controls need to be very tight in the area of radiation.
The minister has explained to the House that there will be regulations which are developed pursuant to the passage of this bill which will provide greater detail and will outline categories into which items such as illuminating watches and ceiling fire alarms will, no doubt, be placed. I believe that is a good thing. However, by having this section in the act as a general section, in extreme circumstances - and I concede that they would be extreme - there is a possibility that, for one reason or another, a Chief Health Officer may do something in the future and give exemptions in a case which does get us into trouble with regards to radiation. That is why this amendment is being requested.
Dr TOYNE: I have indicated, Mr Chairman, that we will not be accepting this amendment. I want to say again with respect, because it is a perfectly valid issue to be raised, and I place on the public record that I will undertake at this stage, ti keep you fully informed of the development and promulgation of the regulations. We are certainly happy to look at any monitoring processes as this act comes into force. I am acknowledging that we all have to be careful about these things, and protection from radiation is a very important part of our community protection arrangements. I acknowledge all that, but we do not believe that we should be removing that exemption capacity for the reasons I have already given.
Amendment negatived.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clauses 11 to 14, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 15:
Ms CARTER: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 78.1. With regards to clause 15 and, with respect, the minister’s explanation before, I am not convinced in this instance that this clause should stand as it is. The reason I say that is that clause 15(2) still says:
- The licensee must give the Chief Health Officer notice, as required under subsections (3) and (4), of the
dangerous event …
And I now emphasise:
- … unless the licensee has a reasonable excuse.
The minister described how there are circumstances where it might take more than seven days to get that information through to the Chief Health Officer. Frankly, yes, that might happen in extreme circumstances, but I do not think that is a reasonable excuse not to advise the Chief Health Officer. The legislation does not concentrate on that seven-day issue; it just says ‘unless there is a reasonable excuse’.
I cannot see why the minister’s reason has to just be that seven days. It could be anything that a person thinks is a reasonable excuse, not just the seven days. The bill does not actually specify that the reasonable excuse pertains specifically to the seven days.
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, perhaps I could provide some further framework around that term. ‘Reasonable excuse’ is not as would be commonly understood in the community. It has a legal meaning. I have already indicated that the person who would potentially be charged with contravening clause 15 of this bill is facing some pretty severe penalties.
If that case is then heard, they have to provide a reasonable excuse for why they did not comply. First of all, no one is exempt from the provision to notify. However, if they feel that they have a reasonable excuse as to why they did not comply with clause 15, it is not simply that any excuse will do; there is a legal framework that would be heard within a hearing. Therefore, it is a much tighter provision than simply: ‘My granny had a sore foot’ or something. There has to be a very clear justification given to the court within the legal meaning of that term, so we feel that there is adequate protection there.
Ms CARTER: My concern, though, is that if you took out ‘… unless the licensee has a reasonable excuse’, which is my proposed amendment and, given that incidences with radiation would be relatively infrequent in the Northern Territory - and they do describe the incident in the definitions of clause 15(5) as being:
- … an incident adversely affecting …
So it has actually affected someone adversely:
- … or is like to adversely affect.
For instance, the watch being smashed or something happening with your fire alarm, most people would assume that it is not going to adversely affect a person. However, this applies when it has actually affected someone because they might have a rash or feel sick or something like that, or is likely to affect them, so they might be cognisant of the fact that they have had a substantial dose of radiation because something happened to them. The definition goes on to say:
- … the health or safety of any person because of the emission of radiation.
That is a description of a radiation incident in the bill which infers that it is a very serious nature, a radiation incident. It infers seriousness in that definition; it is not something relatively minor.
My view is that, given that we are talking now about a radiation incident, I do not see why everybody who is aware that there has been a radiation incident should not have to advise the Chief Health Officer. It would not be something that happens frequently. It is serious because of the definition there, and I cannot see the harm in having this amendment put in to get rid of that clause that lets people off the hook.
As a safety step, and given the serious nature of radiation and the concerns that we have brought here with regard to health and safety, I do not think that it is going to create such an onerous task for when it is a serious event that the Chief Health Officer should be made aware of the incident, and then they have the discretion to make a decision as to whether or not it is serious enough to pursue.
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I can only say that clause 15 stands as a package - a whole set of provisions regarding notification. As you can see, there are penalties of $11 000 for a person and $55 000 for a corporate body. This is serious stuff. Look at clause 15(4):
- If notice is given orally, the licensee must give the Chief Health Officer a written notice confirming the oral notice
within seven days …
We have actually put a very tight time frame on this notification package. You do not want to be catching up people who are not trying to subvert the system. They are trying to do the right thing if they get their written advice in within 7 days and 4 hours after they became aware that there was a loss of a source, or a destruction of a source and potential irradiation of people or environment.
I am sorry, I have just been corrected about the penalties - $110 000 and $550 000, so it is even more serious. Sorry about that, my arithmetic is rusty at the moment.
To return to the point, I am very aware of the fact that, when you legislate - and I have seen a fair bit of it now - you cannot afford to have absolute cast iron inflexibility in it, because the real world is out there. It might look neat and tidy in here but, when you are at Borroloola it can get a bit untidy on a bad day, or somewhere around the Territory where it is not an ideal world to the operation of the legislation. We feel that there needs to be some room to move. If someone has deliberately set out to subvert this legislation, they are facing a tough penalty, and they have to face a hearing to explain why they did not notify the Chief Health Officer when they became aware of a potentially serious event: either a loss or damage to a radiation source. That is pretty serious stuff. However, you do have to have some minor flexibility with it where you get extreme events happening.
I have been pretty clear on why we are not supporting this amendment. Again, I will be more than happy to work with you and keep you informed on how this falls out, particularly with the regulations, which will exemplify a lot more the actual context this is going to operate in.
Ms CARTER: Before I make final comment on that area, could I request from the minister that when the National Directory for Radiation Protection is finalised, could I get a copy of that.
Dr TOYNE: Absolutely.
Ms CARTER: That would be great.
My final comment with regard to this amendment is that I can foresee a circumstance where you might, for instance, have an employer and employees, and an incident occurs which is serious, based on this definition. A decision is made amongst them not to dob themselves in to the authorities, the Chief Health Officer, and they are going to hope for the best. My concern is that there is a chance that that incident will never be picked up. Whereas, because of the employer/employee power differentiation, if it was legislated that you had to report that incident to the Chief Health Officer, an employee would have the backing of legislation to be able to say to the employer: ‘Boss, we must report this’. I am concerned that, for various reasons - for example, an employer might not report an incident because they do not really have to and there is probably a good chance nothing will get picked up and they will not get into trouble. Whereas, if you did allow for this amendment to go through, then we take away the opportunity for certain people to not do the right thing and place pressure onto, for example, employees, to concur with that behaviour. If we had legislation that said: ‘We have to do it, mate, that is all there is to it’, then it strengthens the ability of some other people to be able to report things.
Dr TOYNE: The scenario you describe would not be a reasonable excuse under the legal meaning of that term. My personal wish is that, when you put a regulatory piece of law out into the community, people who are trying to subvert it should get caught, punished, and dealt with. I am confident that, within this structure, we can do that. However, there is always that balancing point with legislation; that you cannot make it so inflexible that it causes the people who were well-intentioned and were not trying to subvert the law, being picked up by the technicalities of the legislation and punished unjustly. Therefore, we have to find that balance. I believe we have. I will give you some further information on the National Directory. That is on a web site. We will get you the address and you can have a look at it.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chairman, my question is very quickly to the minister. I presume that the offence you are creating - especially considering the gravity of the penalty - that they are to be treated not as regulatory offences.
Dr TOYNE: Sorry, I could not hear that.
Mr ELFERINK: I take it that, especially considering the gravity of the penalty, they are not going to be treated as regulatory offences but are going to be treated either as simple offences or crimes?
Dr TOYNE: Correct.
Mr ELFERINK: The reason I raise this particular issue is because, if I remember correctly when the issue of sexual slavery was introduced into this parliament some time ago, I drew the parliament’s and the government’s attention to the very expression that the shadow minister is now drawing parliament’s attention to; that is, the issue of raising reasonable excuse as a possible defence. As the minister would be fully aware, if something in the Northern Territory is to be treated as a simple offence or as a crime, it would be subject to the provisions under the Northern Territory Criminal Code which deal with authorisation, justification and excuse.
Authorisation and excuse provisions are important in this case; justification provisions are not. However, all of the examples that the minister gave in relation to this already have excuse provisions available to them under the code. It has been accepted in the past by the minister that the addition of the words ‘reasonable excuse’ may provide another excuse outside of the provisions of the Criminal Code. The excuse provisions of the Criminal Code - for example, provisions such as duress, immature age which is probably unlikely in this instance, mistake of fact, and unwilled act or accident - are well established common law principles - or based on well established common law principles - as to why people should not be prosecuted for offences. What concerns me and members on this side of the House is that, by allowing for another reasonable excuse to be brought forward, you are actually undermining the effect of the operation of the Criminal Code and its excuse provision.
Minister, why are you accepting, in one instance, the argument of the sexual slavery amendments brought before this House - some two years ago if memory serves me correctly - and not accepting the same argument in relation to this piece of legislation?
Dr TOYNE: It is good to see your legal studies are coming along, member for Macdonnell. As I pointed out, there is a range of well-established components of the use of that term within legal hearings. This is just simply connecting it to the particular context of behaviour that is dealt with under this legislation. There is no additional component being established by this; it is a simply contextual one to the operation of that particular legal principle within the hearing. I said exactly the same with the last bill we debated around that point.
Mr ELFERINK: Well, that is a very good thing that you said that, because we debated on this point before, and you accepted it before. Why are you not accepting it in this case?. That was the question I just asked.
Dr TOYNE: I have nothing more to say. It has been dealt with.
Mr ELFERINK: In other words, ‘get stuffed’. Well, Mr Chairman, the minister says: ‘I am not interested, I am not going to talk about this issue’. He has accepted it before. It is not good practise, in my and this side of the House’s opinion. It has been raised before, he has accepted it. Now it all gets too hard, not going to talk about it, and ‘get nicked’. That is the attitude of this government towards the passage …
Mr KIELY: A point of order, Mr Chairman. Under Standing Order 61, the language that he is using is inappropriate in this place.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Which language are you referring to, member?
Mr KIELY: ‘Get nicked’, ‘get stuffed’. A couple of others probably chucked in.
Mr CHAIRMAN: I did not hear the first comment, but the second comment, ‘get nicked’, I would not regard as unparliamentary. Continue, member for Macdonnell.
Mr ELFERINK: I will withdraw it for the sake of not allowing the member opportunity to become annoying.
The fact is that principles of responsible government would hope that the minister would get off his behind, stand up in this House and explain the answer to a very simple question. Why do you accept an argument on one occasion, and refuse to accept the same argument on another occasion? And the answer is? The minister has an opportunity, but sits on his bum, says nothing.
Mr Kiely: Oh, fair go!
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order again, Mr Chairman. That is unparliamentary language, and I ask you to ask the member to withdraw.
Mr CHAIRMAN: I do not believe there is a point of order.
Amendment negatived.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clauses 16 to 85, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Dr TOYNE (Health): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, in the gallery we have the electorate officers who are participating in a seminar this week. On behalf of all members, I offer you a warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
STATEMENT BY SPEAKER
Schools Participation
Schools Participation
Madam SPEAKER: I also want to advise members that over 250 students ranging from Years 4 to 7 from Wagaman, Woodroffe, Holy Spirit and Leanyer were welcomed to Parliament House by Mr Henderson, Dr Burns, Mr Mills, Mr Kiely and Ms Lawrie last week. The students participated in role plays conducted by Anna-Maria Socci, and toured the building with Catherine Turner and Liz McFarlane. I have had excellent feedback from schools that have been involved in these tours. I thank those members who are actively involved with those students.
It is now our policy to notify members when a school from their electorate comes to visit Parliament House, and I encourage all members to participate as much as they can. Thank you to those who already have.
MOTION
Adopt paper - Standing Orders Committee
Third Report of the 9th Assembly – Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards and
Amendments to the Legislative Assembly (Register of Members’ Interests) Act
Adopt paper - Standing Orders Committee
Third Report of the 9th Assembly – Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards and
Amendments to the Legislative Assembly (Register of Members’ Interests) Act
Continued from 26 February 2004.
Mr BONSON (Millner): Madam Speaker, I support the report of the Standing Order Committee on the draft Members Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards and the draft amendments to the Legislative Assembly (Register of Members’ Interests) Act.
For history’s sake, we should outline how we came to this point we are now at. On 20 June 2002, Chief Minister, Hon Clare Martin MLA, tabled the two draft documents which were referred to the Standing Orders Committee for inquiry and to report back to the Assembly. These draft documents followed a letter written by the Speaker, Hon Loraine Braham MLA, to the Chief Minister and the Leader of the Opposition urging investigation and consideration of a code of conduct for members.
Madam Speaker, as you would know, the committee has met 11 times to discuss in detail issues surrounding a members’ code of conduct. I believe that all current and former members of the Standing Orders Committee should be congratulated for their bipartisan approach to this issue. They include the former chair, Syd Stirling, the member for Nhulunbuy; the retired member for Katherine, Mike Reed; and current members including the current chair, the member for Wanguri, Paul Henderson MLA; government members, the member for Johnson, Dr Chris Burns; myself, the member for Millner; opposition members the members for Greatorex, Richard Lim; and Macdonnell, John Elferink; and Independent member for Braitling, Loraine Braham.
I am proud to say I attended all 11 meetings and have attempted to make sound informed suggestions wherever possible. A wide range of consultation was undertaken. The committee’s terms of reference and objectives were advertised in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly web site. A call was made for written submissions to presiding Clerks of all Australian parliaments; the NT Auditor-General, the NT Anti-Discrimination Commissioner; and the Queensland Crime and Misconduct Commission.
Written submissions were received from the Independent member for Nelson, Gerry Wood MLA; the New South Wales Legislative Assembly Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics.; and Mr Mike Blake, the Northern Territory Auditor-General. An informal submission was received from the Queensland Legislative Assembly Ethics and Parliamentary and Privilege Committee.
During the consultative phase, I was very interested in issues of spouse and family reporting requirements; reporting on the value of real estate, shares and other holdings; and provisions in other Australian and overseas jurisdictions.
I make special note of recommendations contained in the Auditor-General’s submission relating to his belief that the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly retain the Register of Members’ Interests. He also recommended that the Auditor-General should only make inquiries about members’ interests, reach findings based on fact, and provide reports back to the Assembly based on providing procedural fairness to members in respect of any alleged breaches of the proposed new code and act.
We also had the pleasure and honour of meeting the New South Wales Legislative Assembly Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics. The Chairman, Mr John Price MP, was a fantastic character. His committee has recently completed a review of the Code of Conduct in New South Wales, which was introduced to the New South Wales Parliament in 1998. I found this meeting most interesting and I thank them for their contribution.
After consultation, I believe that members of the committee agree that the code should contain a statement or fundamental principles to provide guidance to all members in fulfilling their duties, obligations and functions as members of our great Assembly. A requirement that members shall not hold or continue to hold, in their own capacity or through a third party, a contract or business or arrange for provision of services to government for other bodies, should be taken into account.
Amendments by the committee to the draft code tabled by the Chief Minister include four major principles: integrity; accountability; responsibility and public interest. I believe this is of interest to all members of parliament and the wider community. Members of the public want all members of this House to act with integrity, accountability, responsibility and, of course, in the best interests of the public.
To assist the code achieve these principles and standards, we incorporated issues of honesty - in particular the honest exercise of duties and responsibilities as a member of this Assembly - to ensure that conflicts of interest were covered within the code so as members would not be placed in situations of conflict of interest that could lead to a breach of their duties to this House and the public. We also incorporated a declaration of personal interest and a positive responsibility to correct mistakes of recorded interests. It is important that members of this House realise that there is a positive responsibility to correct mistakes of recorded interests, and they should take steps to put their accounts and affairs into a proper framework under the code.
With regard to a restriction of employment of members for one year after ceasing to be a member, there are past examples in other parliaments where members, unfortunately, have put themselves into a position where there is a perception that they may have breached the code of conduct with their employment once they have left parliament. We needed to make quite clear that this was inappropriate behaviour within the code. There is also prohibition of taking advantage of a member’s political position either within government or, of course, as an opposition member, within parliament; and provisions relating to gifts one might receive as a representative of government.
In summary, the code requires members to contribute or add to good governance by pursuing the improvement of the public interest based on honest, reasonable and properly informed judgment about the common good of the people of the Northern Territory.
The new act also provides mechanisms to deal with claims of breaches. Breaches would be subject to an independent investigation by the Auditor-General; an investigation based on findings of facts, and reporting to the Assembly on those findings of facts in accordance with the requirements of procedural fairness.
I also bring to your attention that the new Legislative Assembly (Members Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards) Act will require legislative reporting. I understand the time frame for the debate will be later this year. I implore all members to take this time to familiarise and educate themselves in respect of the new code and act.
I thank all members of the committee for their tireless work over the 11 meetings when the code was discussed. I thank everyone, including the Clerk and people who have made submissions. We have really worked in a bipartisan manner to come up with a code and ethics guideline that, hopefully, will ensure that members act appropriately and within their responsibilities and duties as elected members.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I was surprised to hear from the minister that I was the only member of the Legislative Assembly who made a submission on the draft code of conduct.
It is not as if the Territory parliament has a clean bill of health as far as individual behaviour of its members goes. The number of situations in which politicians have abused their positions of trust in the past decades is legend. On the national scene, they include: the misuse of travel allowances; conflict of interest; misuse of credit and telephone cards; the abuse of political position and parliamentary privilege; and lying to public inquiries. We have also seen Labor and Democrat members leave their parties but refuse to vacate their seats in parliament, despite signed pledges and parliamentary convention.
Over the years in the Territory, of course, we have seen punch-ups and head-butting, and a microphone wrapped around a journalist, pawning of parliamentary white goods, misuse of government vehicles, misuse of office resources; misuse of ministerial discretionary allocation of funding, pork barrelling of public funds; and the use of public resources for party political purposes. Is it any wonder that politicians are sometimes on the nose - well not sometimes, always? In 1998, a Morgan poll revealed that Australians viewed the honesty and ethics of politicians as only slightly better than those of car salesmen. Only 7% of Australians believed that politicians had high standards of ethics or honesty, and car salesmen were the only profession with a lower ranking. Journalists, lawyers and real estate salesmen were higher on the scale. In 2001, politicians still rank at 22 out of 28 professions.
Members of parliament are in a position of trust bestowed on them by the community, and they have a great deal of discretionary power. They should act honestly, diligently and with propriety. In reaction to the public cynicism about politicians and the political process and, in an effort to address that cynicism, parliaments around Australia have adopted codes of conduct for members - and some government have also adopted codes of conduct for ministers.
I am on the record as saying that we do not really need a code of conduct. I went on record during an interview with the ABC Stateline, when the member for Millner was involved in a fight after a basketball game. I was asked to give my views on whether we needed a code of conduct, and I still believe that we really do not need one. The reason why is we are all over the age of 21. We all should know better and, if we do not know better, the people who will make the judgment will be the electors. Therefore, you have to ask: why we have to codify everything? However, obviously there are some issues - especially when it comes to financial issues - that need to be codified. Generally, if you are looking at the actual term, ‘code of conduct’, how does one conduct oneself as a parliamentarian? Surely, in the end, that is the job of the electorate.
Despite these views, once the draft code had been published, I decided I should have some say on it. It appears that the Standing Orders Committee has ignored most of my proposals. Therefore, for the benefit of members who have not seen my submission, I shall now share it with you.
In relation to the preamble, I suggested that the following purposes be added to the preamble based loosely on a Canadian code of conduct for politicians. In other words: why are we having a code of conduct? Well, the purpose of the code of conduct and ethical standards should be to: recognise that service in parliament is a public trust bestowed on them by the people of the Northern Territory; to maintain public trust and confidence in the integrity of members to the Legislative Assembly, and respect and confidence in parliament as an institution; and to provide guidance and set standards for members so that public trust is maintained as they discharge their duty to parliament, their constituents, and the wider public. The committee chose not to add any purposes to the preamble.
In relation to integrity, the draft code contained a clause requiring a member to make an oral declaration of personal interest, whenever he or she proposed to speak in a debate or vote on a matter before the Assembly to which his or her interest was relevant. I submitted this seemed to be a grey area, best highlighted with an example: if a member was a real estate agent with a still active licence, should he or she declare that interest before debating or voting on legislation that directly affected the real estate industry? Surely, there would be an apparent conflict of interest arising in such a case. Should a member make an oral declaration of personal interest when close members of his or her family held interest in businesses, companies, trusts or property that were directly affected by a piece of legislation, and the member had declared that family interest in the register? The committee, I believe, actually took that up, but moved it to a different section which comes under Declaration of interest, No 11 on page 8 of the report from the Standing Orders Committee.
In relation to conflict of interest, I suggested a new clause that members should avoid situations in which their private interests conflicted, had the potential to conflict, or appeared to conflict with their public duty, to remove any perceived conflict of interest. However, the final code here does not deal with perceived conflict of interest.
In relation to self-dealing, I suggested a new clause be added that members should avoid abuse and extravagance in the provision or use of public resources. I suggested this addition because the former Labor opposition, and several former CLP ministers, had apparently used large amounts of stationery for party political election purposes. All members and their staff - especially ministers - are provided with resources and facilities at public expense so they can do their jobs effectively. These resources should not be wasted or used extravagantly, misused by other people, or used for personal or party political purposes. However, the committee chose not to adopt this suggested clause.
Also in relation to self-dealing, I proposed for a period of 12 months after ceasing to be a member of the Legislative Assembly, a member be prevented from taking up a job or directorship with a public sector agency or government member. My purpose in proposing this was to prevent there being any perception of jobs for the boys or girls. In the past, we have seen a bit of this - and I am not making any judgment on those people I mention here - with former ministers going straight to the Port Corporation and the Planning Authority. I say now that both people did a great job. However, I just think a year’s break from being in the Assembly to taking on a public sector agency job would ensure greater propriety. The committee chose not to adopt this suggestion.
In relation to gifts, I proposed that a new clause be added that members must not accept gifts that may pose a conflict of interest, or which might give the appearance of an attempt to corruptly influence the member in the exercise of his or her duties. This was not adopted in the final code, but my concerns are almost addressed under the conflict of interest provisions. Although, when I read the section on gifts - if I can find it - it says under section 18:
- Members, in their official capacity, may accept customary official gifts, hospitality, tokens of appreciation, and
similar formal gestures in accordance with normal social custom, but are required not to seek or encourage any
form of gift or benefit in their personal capacity.
I feel that my clause would be much stronger because it brings in the whole issue of the appearance of an attempt to corruptly influence the member in the exercise of his or her duties because, really, that is what the difficulty is when receiving gifts.
Finally, I suggested the application of a code specific to ministers:
(1) that ministerial staff should declare their interests to their ministers to prevent a conflict of interest.
This information would not be made public. That proposal was taken from the code in Western Australia.
It would prevent situations such as the following hypothetical: a minister is advised to make a certain
decision in relation to gaming laws or regulations in the Territory when the staff member has shares in the
company or companies that will benefit from the decision, and the minister is not aware of that interest.
The minister may well still take the advice, but at least will be aware of the self-interest involved;
(2) in the discharge of his or her public duties, a minister shall not dishonestly, wantonly or recklessly attack the
reputation of another person. I refer to the case of Senator Heffernan’s attack on Justice Kirby;
(3) minister’s must provide information to the parliament when they are requested to do so. I refer here to Question
Time. This was also taken from the code in South Australia. Ministers, their departments and public sector
agencies carry out work on behalf of the public. It is important for information about portfolios to be made
available to the public and to parliament. A minister has an obligation to be open and transparent; and
(4) ministers will not acquire or trade in shareholdings or acquire other financial interests in companies during their
terms of office. Ministers can only retain those shares which do not conflict with their portfolio responsibilities.
If there is a conflict they must divest the shares. There are several hypothetical situations where a conflict could
arise: minsters holding shares in particular construction, telecommunication, health provision or gaming companies
who make final decisions on tenders and legislation that would advantage those companies.
The Standing Orders Committee decided not to add a section to the final code relating to ministers only, and it is interesting to note that the committee had a close look at the codes of conduct from Queensland and New South Wales, but not at the two codes which had sections relating to ministers in Western and South Australia.
On another note, there is a section which was brought to my attention, and I think it is clause 7(o) in the proposed bill on page 22:
- any other interest (whether or not of a pecuniary nature) of the member or a related person –
- (i) of which the member is aware; and …
I think it should be (ii) there:
- (iii) that raises, appears to raise, or could foreseeably raise, a conflict between the member’s private
interest and his or her duty as a member.
I am not sure how far that would go. As I said before, it was raised.
In the Territory, of course, politicians are not allowed to hold two public offices as they are allowed in New South Wales. There have been a number of mayors, I think in New South Wales, who have held both a position on local government and a position in the state government. You wonder how they would get round some of these particular issues
In my own case, if my daughter works for an Aboriginal body and I speak on an Aboriginal issue, am I required to say that my daughter works for that particular institution? Is that too broad? Does it affect her privacy? If there is nothing of a pecuniary nature in my comments that could be gained, am I required under clause 7(o) to say that my daughter works for a particular body? What would happen if I did not do it? Do I come under this section of the act that says I would be in contempt of parliament? Would it come under that? It needs some clarification. How far do you take it? If I speak on the AFLNT and my daughter happens to be a goal umpire, is that a breach? I might tell you I am a field umpire, that is okay. How far do you take these issues? Where is the cut-off line between what is required to be disclosed and what is not required?
Minister, I understand that may be a far-fetched example, but what I am asking is: where do you draw the line between me disclosing to this House what my family does? Do I go down as far as my cousin or my second cousin twice removed? What are the limitations on the requirements for me, as a member, to let other members in this parliament know before I speak on a certain issue? I raise that because it is a fairly grey issue.
I welcome the document; it is here for discussion. I am not sure we need it. We already have to declare our interests within one month after we are elected and that document or register is for everyone to see. I believe it is a requirement before anyone rises to speak, where you have a pecuniary interest arising from a particular issue such as if you own shares or half a race horse or something similar, when you are discussing matters relating to that, that you need to make a disclosure to parliament before you make the speech.
Codes of conduct are things that I do not think are always necessary. We have codes of conduct in the advertising industry. You will see codes of conduct come up on the TV screen. They will tell you if you have some problem with some of the advertising, write to them. Why do I need to write to them? They should know better in the first place that some of the stuff they put on television is not up to standard. There is no one to enforce that except the industry itself, and I do not believe that always works. If you were to look at some of the ads on TV, you would ask how responsible they are. Last night and today, we have been talking about alcohol issues. You would ask how responsible some of the ads that are put on television promoting alcohol are. There is a self-regulation code for advertisers, but who enforces it?
Sometimes these are nice documents but, in the end, as I have said before, we are elected by the people. We are all over the age of 21. Hopefully, that means we are over the age of reason. The people elect us and it will be the people who get rid of us if we do not do our job properly. That is the way it should be.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I applaud the comments made by the member for Nelson. He draws the point very clearly that there is a level of ethical behaviour versus a code of conduct. We, as parliamentarians, should be talking about aspirational ideas about how we behave in this place and in pursuit of our elected positions.
When you have a code, you promote the lowest common denominator; the minimum standard that has to be achieved to observe the code of conduct whereas, if you have a level of ethics then you all aspire to do the right thing at all times. That is what all parliamentarians should aspire for, whether there is a code of conduct or not. That is what you should be doing: you aspire for the highest level of ethical conduct possible. Do the right thing and then you would not need a code of conduct.
However, the government, in its grandstanding that it achieved government, thinking they were going to introduce this, have been locked into an exorable course of action that has brought about by this Standing Orders Committee’s report and draft bill. I found it quite curious when we consulted with many different parties that, when we met with the New South Wales committee on ethics, the chairman, Mr John Price, advised the committee to hasten very slowly and cautiously, because these are the sort of things that, once you design, can turn around and bite you on the bum.
It is curious also, when you read through the papers - the speech, the tabled report and the draft bill - that it all turned around to becoming one document about pecuniary interests. Nothing else; not a single word about behaviour, apart from this catch-all phrase that the member for Nelson alluded to a short while ago when he talked about clause 7(o)(i) and (ii). It is just a catch-all phrase.
It is important that we talk about ethics, that we try to achieve what everybody knows is the right thing, and not have the minimum standards of behaviour for parliamentarians. It is no wonder we, as parliamentarians, get such a bad name in the public, and are seen as people just out to look after their own interests only, snouts in the trough, and all that negative comment that has been made about us from time immemorial. A code of conduct, by its definition, therefore becomes very prescriptive whereas, when you have ethical behaviour, then there is no prescription, we all know what is right and what is wrong, and we should all aspire to do the right thing.
I went through the draft bill fairly closely. It does not refer to anything about standards of behaviour of parliamentarians. That is probably more - if I can use the word - sinful, than the issues about pecuniary interests, because these pecuniary interest items can be reasonably easily traced and tracked. Even if you try to hide it, you will find that you will soon be discovered. However, behaviour amongst all of us, that is something that we should be upstanding about, setting an example for our community. If we were to behave well, I believe the public would start to respect parliamentarians for the good job they are doing from day to day.
I found it interesting, in the general principles that were put into the draft, on page 10, number 30
- Members are required to recognise that the Public Service is expected to function as a non-partisan public
resource, and treat public servants in accordance with the established conventions of Public Service neutrality ...
Mr Henderson: Give an example.
Dr LIM: Ethical behaviour, and you would not have a problem.
Mr Burke: Why did you get rid of the Health minister?
Mr Henderson: One.
Mr Burke: Why did you sack the Health minister?
Mr Henderson: One example.
Mr Burke: Yes, that is a good one.
Dr LIM: I see the minister is suddenly silenced by the interjections of my colleagues from this side of the House.
When you look at page 12 of the draft, again, we raised this at committee, and it was defeated by the numbers in the committee …
Mr Henderson: Where is your dissenting report? Too lazy.
Dr LIM: When we talked about the members of Assembly being required for a period of one year after ceasing to be a member, not to represent or take up employment or a directorship with, nor act as advisor or consultant etcetera, you said: ‘It is really not the member of parliament, so much as a minister. It really relates to a minister’. But no, the committee refused to take on that. It should be a minister that should be restricted from taking offers outside parliament that are related to their work prior to retirement from parliament. That is more relevant than what is contained in this draft. Really, the tragedy of this draft is that it provides a very proscriptive code where members have to observe the minimum standard, and then, that is it! That is where it stops.
Probably of most interest to anybody who wants to read this draft bill, is clause 7 and all its subsections from (a) through to (p). It talks about Disclosure of interest. There are so many things that need to be canvassed. We do not even know yet how this draft bill will contradict the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act, for instance. The federal Privacy Act is another one. This clause 7 with regards to Disclosure of interest, demands that I report financial interests of others who are related to me - my daughters, my sons, my wife. What right do I have to invade their privacy? And if I did, what happens? Am I subject to the punitive clauses within the Privacy Act?
I am glad I spoke to the Clerk this morning about this. I asked: how do we go about ascertaining this bill or the clauses contained therein, do not contradict all these other acts of federal government that have precedence over the Territory legislation? The Clerk advised me that, indeed, if the report and the draft bill are passed by parliament today, the clauses within it will then be tested by the office of the Clerk - obviously through seeking legal advice and other ways - to ensure that the clauses contained are legal and not contradictory to any other legislation that has precedence over Territory legislation.
I draw the minister’s attention to page 23 of the draft bill, regarding inspection of registers, clauses 13(1) and (2). In clause 13(2) it says:
- The Clerk must, on request, make the Register of Related Persons’ Interest available to -
- (a) the Speaker;
(b) the Chief Minister,
(c) any other leader in the Legislative Assembly of a political party,
(d) any independent member of the Legislative Assembly, and
(e) the Auditor-General.
Clauses 14(1), (2), and (3) cause me some concern, because any member could make a complaint, and may give rise to frivolous claims. Can you imagine somebody putting a claim against another member, and the second member, out of pique, then writes a letter of complaint to the Auditor-General about every other member of this parliament? Can you imagine, what the Auditor-General will have to do? He will have to audit all 25 members of this parliament. It makes no sense and that clause may need to be redrafted. I believe the current pecuniary interest document provides plenty of safeguards and we have done it now since self-government, I believe. It has worked well for us …
Mr Henderson: People have done very well under it as well.
Dr LIM: … and I do not see the need to change it. I cannot hear what the Leader of Government Business is interjecting about, but if he does interject, just think – I do not know what the Chief Minister has, owns or possesses, but I would assume that she would have her own and her family assets, that she would have some sort of association with her spouse or significant other, with his businesses and assets also. Where do you stop? Your pecuniary interest document today provides with adequate information. If it does not, you need to go up one extra level: I wonder if the Chief Minister has declared everything that she owns, item by item right across the list? I have not bothered to check it out. I do not believe that is really a matter for me to check it out. If we are all acting at the highest level of ethics we would declare what we consider is of potential conflict. Therein that is where it should lie. Then to say in clause 15(3):
- Parliamentary privilege applies to the making of the claim to the Auditor-General ...
You allow a member to make a frivolous claim and they make it with parliamentary privilege? What sort of ethical behaviour is that? I cannot understand that.
The Leader of Government Business said: ‘Why didn’t you object at the committee level?’ I believe there were many objections raised by the opposition. That is why it took almost two years for this to come to this stage of debate. There were many clauses that we were concerned about. We kept arguing but there were many times when the chairman of the committee would say: ‘Uh uh! That is it, whether you like it or not. This is what the government wants to do and it will go through’. If it was going to go through, it will go through. You were talking to a brick wall and were not going to get any further anyway. That is where I believe that the whole code of conduct has such an irrelevancy in this instance.
I said earlier we should be talking about aspirations to behave with the highest ethical standards possible. You just take this afternoon’s Question Time, for instance, when the Leader of Government Business stretched the truth so far it became almost unrecognisable. That is the sort of problem …
Mr Henderson: ‘Absolutely!’ said the Leader of the Opposition.
Dr LIM: … that is unethical behaviour. You quote people out of context when you read things ...
Mr Henderson: ‘Absolutely!’.
Dr LIM: The Leader of Government Business continues to interject and tries to deny it, but I am saying this is where …
Mr Dunham: He accepted it because he did it. He said ‘Absolutely that is what he did’.
Dr LIM: Absolutely, he accepts it. Well, there you go.
That is the problem where, with unethical behaviour, using the lowest common denominator of code of conduct, you do what you like and it does not matter. I say to you, it is about ethics and the highest aspirational level that one can achieve. If you do that, then your conscience is clear. At least you can sleep peacefully each night in bed without having to worry about where you have gone wrong. That is the way I see it. This code of conduct - well, the government has the numbers, it will go through anyway. It is a political commitment on their part, just like the swimming pool legislation was a political commitment. They are just going to bring it through, like it or not, and the best we can do is to provide words of caution, just like the member for Nelson has done – lots of words of caution that this is not the right way to go. There is enough legislation contained within our parliament to ensure that we all do the right thing; that we provide clear pecuniary declarations so that anyone who wants to have a look can find out for themselves. It is not hard to continue to do further searches if you so choose.
On that note, while the intention was good in the first instance, the motivation behind the intention was not. It was just a political stunt and they are now committed to a path from which they cannot back out. They are going to do it, come what may and it will come back one day and bite everybody on the bum.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): It is very interesting, Madam Speaker, the silence from the other side. One would have thought they would have leapt to this great statement that was made by the Chief Minister over two years ago, which was greeted with clamouring and applause from the other side. Now we have the product of the deliberations of the committee that took away what the Chief Minister proposed and has brought it back here.
I should reserve the majority of my comments for the bill that will appear before this parliament. Nonetheless, this is a step on the way to a bill, and there are a few things we should point out. There are some flaws in the proposed legislation, which I will point out. Like the two previous speakers, I believe there are deficiencies in this, in that what you are trying to do is govern how public officials, particularly members of this parliament, conduct themselves.
I am interested, for instance, that there are a number of issues relating to behaviour of members opposite and of their staff that will not be picked up in this. I did a quick little thing this morning and came up with a few of them. For instance, hanging banners off the Parliament House, which occurred during one of the protests at the front was something that only occurred, to my knowledge, with the previous opposition, now the government.
It is interesting that page 10, section 27, deals with staff. I quote from clause 27:
- A member’s decisions, directions, work expectations or personal conduct in office should not be such as to induce
other public officials, including public servants, to breach the law or to fail to comply with the relevant code of
ethical conduct applicable to them in their official capacity.
We could include in there fornicating on the Speaker’s chair, assaulting staff, fighting in a pub, abusing members of parliament - I am talking about staff here - burning effigies of the Prime Minister, and stealing government assets. There are number of things that have happened in the last couple of years with staff - some of whom been chastised some of whom have not - that should be issues in relation to a code of conduct.
It was interesting, for instance, that there was a member of parliament whose staff rang the Police Commissioner alleging something that did not occur. The Police Commissioner went off on a wild goose chase …
Mr Henderson: That was some of your staff. Head-butting people in pubs, strangling reporters.
Mr DUNHAM: … and it turned out that a member of parliament, the member for Fannie Bay, was complicit in a fabricated complaint to the police that cost them time and money. This is behaviour that I find offensive but is not picked up in this. There are other examples:
- members fighting and causing injury to the public, as one of your members did;
members exposing their genitalia in public, as one of your members did;
members encouraging racial disharmony, which some of your members have done;
members plagiarising others’ work, which you have done;
members abusing their position to pressure the police in the performance of their duties, which I have talked about;
members providing false information to the police;
members not acting in the best interests of the wider community and pandering to minority sectional interests;
members not correcting significantly misleading information given by them, and there are a couple of cases there.
Certainly, the Leader of Government Business provided significantly misleading information to this parliament about Tracy Lodge, which was subsequently found to be totally untrue, and he is yet to apologise …
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member well knows that he cannot allege that I provided any misleading information unless he does so by a way of substantive motion. I ask him to withdraw.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, member for Drysdale, you do know that.
Mr DUNHAM: Okay. There was …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale!
Mr DUNHAM: I withdraw whatever offends him. What I am saying is there are a number of allegations that were put by the Leader of Government Business about Tracy Lodge. They were referred to appropriate authorities and found to be not true.
Mr Henderson: Wrong!
Members interjecting.
Mr DUNHAM: They were found to be not true.
Mr Henderson: Wrong.
Mr DUNHAM: In a case like that, I believe it is incumbent on members, particularly when it has caused offence to an instrumentality that is well known and well liked in the community. It is the home for many people. It certainly had a big impact on the person who was the subject of those various allegations. If he thinks they are not true, he should peruse Hansard, because I talked twice about this in debates and I have provided the information.
These are some of the things that are happening now. What we are saying is you should not get a gift or pinch people’s money. However, have a look at the behaviour that is happening in this parliament. We have had ministerial advisors come in and discuss things with members on the floor. I called attention to the House to a stranger in the House, because we had the absolute arrogance of a staffer from the 5th floor choosing to run a discussion on the floor of parliament. I have never seen that before. I have been associated with this House for a long time. Generally, there is a great deal of decorum and protocol attached to this place. Therefore, when we run through some of these little things, this thing will not prohibit the Labor Party from hanging banners from Parliament House like it has done. Many of their staff who thought it was quite funny about fornication on your desk, Madam Speaker. That will be one of those things that encourages emulating behaviours.
Assaulting staff and fighting in the pub is something that you should hang your head in shame about. I am talking about staffers abusing members of parliament at Christmas functions; burning effigies of the Prime Minister; stealing government assets which you have been unable to find the culprit for; and the abuse of illicit drugs.
I wrote to the committee, and I am not on their list of people who wrote to them, I note. However, that is all right …
Mr Henderson: We wrote back to you.
Mr DUNHAM: Written submissions were received from Gerry Wood, New South Wales, Mike Blake, and informal submissions. I wrote to the committee, and I have a letter from Paul Henderson, Chairman, Standing Orders Committee. I suggested they might pick up my suggestion that members who use illicit drugs should either desist from it or run the risk that there will be periodic tests to see if there are illicit drugs pumping through their veins. The letter, which I am happy to read into Hansard, says:
- Standing Orders Committee
Dear Mr Dunham
Further to your letter of 11 February 2004, I advise the Standing Orders Committee met on 24 February
and your correspondence was an item on the agenda. It is advised that the committee considered your
request and was unanimous in agreeing that, as the bill is on the Notice Paper for a second reading debate,
the appropriate mechanism for the committee to consider the bill would be for the matter to be considered by
the Assembly as a whole and for the Assembly to vote to refer the matter to the committee.
In other words, while they have happily gone around and picked up bits of stuff from anywhere else, my particular bill has to get the imprimatur from parliament that it is, in fact, a matter of code, conduct and ethical standards before it is referred there. I thought it was pretty much straight up and down that, if people consume illicit drugs, it would offend, certainly, the community mores among others. Therefore, it is probably something that should have found its way into this.
Matters of public referral could be problematic. I go to page 24 of the document, where anybody can make a claim alleging a member has failed to comply with the requirements of disclosure. All of us have disgruntled constituents and, sometimes for good grounds, they believe we should be doing something and we are not. These are matters of the member’s own guidance and choice. However, we will never, as politicians, ever have an entirely happy, satisfied constituency which agrees with everything we do - it is not going to happen. The reality is, you will get frivolous and vexatious claims by members of the public. If we look at clause 16, I believe there is a flaw there because, essentially, they can take it to the Auditor-General, the Auditor-General ‘may’ require the person to provide details etcetera. It could be anonymous, but he may require that. He may also refuse to action it if it is not provided. Therefore, he has the option of either proceeding with it as an anonymous submission, or he can refuse to take action if details are not provided.
Clause 16(6) reads:
- If the Auditor-General considers on reasonable grounds that there is evidence to support a claim, the Auditor-General
must give the details of the claim to the member concerned.
My point is: what if he does not consider there are reasonable grounds? What if the Auditor-General, on receipt of this, considers it to be frivolous and vexatious? He is unable to deal with this in a way that brings it to a completion, because he actually must report to the Assembly. The Auditor-General must take this claim and report it to the Assembly. What you have here is the potential for various people who are not happy with us - for instance, the Socialist Alliance who were cosy with the Labor Party and then fell out of bed with them and invaded parliament and that sort of stuff. We saw the lengths they would go to, to achieve some sort of a podium to run the case. I believe you will find that this will be used for that purpose. It does not give the Auditor-General the capacity to make a judgment that this should not proceed to a report to parliament. That is the problem with it.
The oral declaration is a problem. If we have, for instance, people in this House who belong to secret societies, they should be saying that when they stand to speak. Members might find this funny, but I was at a council meeting where they were talking about codes of conduct and this was, in fact, something that was bought up. People said: ‘What happens if you are a member of a secret society, if you are a Mason? Do you have to declare this?’ Well, under here, I would suggest that you do have to make that declaration.
Mr Henderson: Wrong.
Mr DUNHAM: A bill such as this is okay for people like the member for Wanguri and others who really do not have many family members here. However, for those of us who have a lot, there are many areas of endeavour where they are engaged – many areas of endeavour. What we have is the potential for many of us standing up to make a declaration pretty much every time we speak on anything, because it is not mitigated – it is not a matter merely of pecuniary interest as the member of Nelson pointed out, it is a matter of any interest. I would have thought that most good members of this parliament would have a substantial number of interests. I would hope that members who hold ministerial portfolios have interests in those portfolios; that they may have patron roles, or membership of organisations, or family and friends who are connected, who serve on committees. We would have that great catalogue of assumptions about declaration made every time any of us stood up.
I have, for the interests of some members, the code of conduct that comes from the Westminster parliament. I note that, in the Chief Minister’s speech, she made a number of comments in context with our origins as a Westminster parliament and the things that all Westminster parliament’s do around the world. Well, here is the source document if you are of that belief. Look at what happens with the House of Commons. The code of conduct for members of parliament - and for the sake of Hansard I am indicating two-and-a-half pages – there is the code. The code of conduct for members of parliament is there. It is more fulsome in some of the guides to the code. For instance, when it comes to matters of gifts, members of parliament in the UK only have to declare a gift if it is from the same source and, in a calendar year, adds up to more than 1% of their salary. If members of parliament in the UK are on 100 000, if it does not add up to 1000, it is not declarable. Cumulatively, if they receive several gifts, it is.
The intent is probably right. The intent is that people out there are confident that the people in here are doing the right thing. I note that there is a small catalogue of some of the acts that impact on us in here. Before I had actually discovered that in this document, I had written my own out. Not only do all of the laws of the Northern Territory apply to us, but so too does the Criminal Code specifically. Talking about politicians, the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act does, the Electoral Act does, Legislative Assembly (Register Of Members' Interests) Act does, Legislative Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Act does, Standing Orders does and common law does - specifically to us. I would think that that is a fair body of legislation and guidance for members, which is a reasonable and proper thing that should be in place, particularly for those sections that deal only with members of parliament. I believe, like the member for Nelson, there is also the sanction that members can actually be turfed out of here. There is the sanction that, having put various things to our electorate, they may find them offensive and throw them out.
By interjection, the Leader of Government Business talked about various ministerial actions like strangling a person and having fights in pubs. Well, some of those things did have electoral consequences, and that is entirely right and fitting and proper. One of the members of the Labor Party pinched stuff. He went to an electorate which did not find that to be offensive; the electorate returned him …
Ms Lawrie: You are offensive.
Mr DUNHAM: Pardon? I am offensive? No, I am merely reciting the case. The case was that a member of the Labor Party government stole things, and was found guilty of it, and confessed up to it, and good on him. It was a matter of great bravery and courage. I am not actually criticising that. What I am saying is the people in his electorate judged that person and returned him to office, and I believe that is entirely appropriate. At the end of the day, the ballot box is what brought us in here, keeps us in here, and will expel us from here. Therefore, if we really are adherents to the principles of democracy, the people who should have the driving hand really should be the voters.
There are others who may claim that four years is too long and there has to be some intermediate thing that can bring contemporary actions to the attention of authorities. I would suggest that that body of law that is there is not too bad. I would suggest if we are going to have a code of conduct and registers of this type, I am in the fortunate or unfortunate position of not having too many assets. I do not have extensive share holdings. I do not have extensive property holdings or endowments. It is not something that I am complaining about because I have this terrible fear that people will find out about my great wealth that I have tucked away and hidden. That is certainly not the case in my circumstance. However, I believe that it is a matter of intrusion into families.
I can recall talking to Tom Burns, who was then the Labor Deputy Premier of Queensland, who talked about after Mulholland when some of these things came into place, including these declarations, and how difficult it was for their families. In their case, in their families - and I am sure he will not mind me quoting him because he was quite open when he was talking about it – it was difficult to talk to children and spouses and others and say: ‘Look, the law requires me to divulge everything you own’. There are some of our kids who do not like that. In fact, I would say it is 100% of them – 100% of the children who are dependent or substantially dependent - I think the words in here are - do not want people to know how much they have in the ANZ Bank. I would think that some of those things might need another look.
Perhaps there is a big loophole here where people can provide benefit to members merely by providing it to their immediate family or wife. That has to be balanced with the fact that we live in a very public situation of public life. I am not sure that that spot light should be put on our families. I am not sure it is in the best interest of members, having been elected, to make the assumption that that sort of public scrutiny applies also to your spouse. Again, in my case, my wife does not have massive shares and whatever either. I am making it as a general comment so that, before anybody thinks that somehow I have some terrible thing I want to hide - this massive amount of wealth - it is not the case.
I would argue, therefore, that we look first to what we are trying to achieve. The member for Nelson also said it. He said at the preface, you have not said what the purpose is. The very first item in this UK document talks about the purpose of the code:
- The purpose of the code is to assist members in the discharge of their obligations to the House, their constituents
and the public at large …
I am quoting here:
- The code applies to members in all aspects of their public life. It does not seek to regulate what members do in
their purely private and personal lives.
Maybe that is the balance I am talking about. Maybe there are things here that happen outside of your public life that should not be a matter for this. If people are passionate authors and diligently working away on crime novels and making money out of that, I do not think that should be a problem. I do not think that should necessarily be a matter for this House.
I do not even have a problem with members who have left here who get a job somewhere in a public area. We have a significant number of ex-politicians who are working right through various systems - Commonwealth, state and territory - and many of them provide great public benefit. Bob Collins’s name came up this morning. Bob Collins works in a public capacity now, whereas once he was a minister. I do not have a problem with that. I have absolutely no problem with that. Whether 12 months is supposed to make some sort of a cooling off period, I do not know, but I would think that would be entirely the province of people who are making decisions on the basis of merit. If Bob Collins is the most meritorious, he should get the job.
With those few comments, I will close. However, I ask with some curiosity why the government members are not leaping to their feet to speak on this, and why they are leaving it to the opposition. In fact, it is a fairly quiet House here at the moment. If you have gone quiet on this, tell us, because those of us who have an interest in it really would like to know what your bona fides are.
Mr BALDWIN (Daly): Madam Speaker, in the interests of knowing that the government wants to get this debate over and done with, I will be very brief. I will just add to my colleagues’ comments and I agree wholeheartedly.
Let me say at the outset that I have no problem - nor does the CLP have a problem - with a code of conduct. However, if the Labor Party is so hell-bent on bringing into effect a code of conduct, I point out that they have had two-and-a-half years to do it and have not gone anywhere near it except that we have a committee’s report in front of us.
I will be very interested to see how quickly government implement the recommendations of this report, including the draft legislation. If the Labor Party is going to introduce legislation, it will bring about a new level of detail that has to be declared by members. That has been discussed already by members on this side, with nothing from the other side yet. Legislation will widen the net on all of those who have to declare an interest; not just members, but now extended family members and companies with which those members are associated - and on and on and on it goes.
The point I would like to put on the record for this debate is that, if you are so hell-bent on providing this level of detail for public scrutiny, why in the last two-and-a-half years haven’t you provided it in the declarations that we presently have to make? That is a good place to start. As I said, I have no problem with the code conduct. There is a whole raft of things in here, particularly when it comes to the assets and liabilities of members and the pecuniary interests of members. One place you could start right now - and you do not need legislation – is every member of the Labor Party on that side of the House, including the Chief Minister, could right now go up and fill out more detail in their pecuniary interests forms if they are so inclined for the public to have this information.
I took the time - as you will discover when you go and look at your pecuniary interests forms - to have a look at what sort of detail that you have provided - all of you, including myself and my members and Mr Wood and so on. There are some striking things in there. If you want the level of detail that you think this is going to provide and that Territorians are clamouring for, then let us take a couple of examples. Let us take minister Burns, for instance. It is interesting to note that he has put down on his pecuniary interests forms in the past all sorts of detail about the shares he holds. I would say that is good; he has AMP, Ansell and AGL shares. However, in the last pecuniary interest form that he filled out, which was updated on 3 October last year, minister Burns has now gone to putting on the record - and I guess he has sold his individual shares - all of these share funds in which he obviously has some interest: the Westpac Australia Tax Effective Share Fund, Barclays Australian Share Fund, BT Partner Australian Share Value 1 Fund, Barclays International Share Fund, Credit Suisse International Share Fund, Westpac Australia Properties Security Fund, Westpac Australia Bond, Sagota, and Rothchild Global Fixed Interest.
If you are really keen to ensure that members are fully declared and fully up-front about their pecuniary interest when coming to debate in this parliament, going into Cabinet, or making public statements, then start with yourselves.
How does the public know what all those share funds invest in? You do not, do you? That is fair enough, from my point of view. He has a range of shares; good on him. As far as pecuniary interests go and where you are trying to head with this level of detail, he could be sitting in Cabinet, as an industry-type minister, with industry portfolios. When do we know when he should declare an interest? There is going to be a level of trust involved if you just put that sort of detail in your pecuniary interests. I would say that is fair enough; that is good. What you are espousing is that you should put down every detail of pecuniary interests and, in this case, every share that is owned by that minister through those share companies. Is that not a bit ludicrous? However, I make the point that if you are fair dinkum about this, go and do it now. Go and get your pecuniary interests forms out now and write down all the detail.
Mr Henderson: Burnsie just has!
Ms Lawrie: Yes, I have.
Mr BALDWIN: Pardon? I did not hear that interjection, Madam Speaker. That is the point, that if you were really fair dinkum you could go and fix this up right now. The Chief Minister likewise, has actually put down her share interests in individual quantities - the quantities beside the shares she owns. However, once again, there is a portion of shares, or an investment portfolio that she has, that is just called the Westpac Personal Portfolio. The Chief Minister deals in a lot of things. How do we know she is not breaching the very code that is being proposed here? If you are fair dinkum about doing this, go and do it now. There is nothing to stop you from doing it now.
I am sure people would appreciate it if the government who, on one hand, are saying we need a more elaborative code of conduct, would appreciate you going and providing the detail. In this proposed code of conduct and the legislation, if you do not declare something, you are actually in breach and can be reported, as has been mentioned. Lo and behold, I am assuming the minister for Central Australia still has his house, or did you give it up because of the Larapinta matter, minister? If you still own your house at 44 Dixon Street, minister, you had better put it on your pecuniary interest form, because it ain’t there. It was there, but it has disappeared, so one would suggest or assume that it has been sold and he is living on the street, or maybe invested in a block at Larapinta - I do not know. That is the point I am making, that silly little breaches like that could certainly find members in hot water when there is probably no need. The same with the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries, who forgot to put his 400 Telstra shares on in his last pecuniary interests declaration, and then adjusted that once he realised - which is fair enough.
Little things like that, under the proposal that Labor is going on about, could get you into a lot of trouble. If you are intending that people have to be scrutinised under a magnifying glass for what they own, because it might give a conflict of interest, the best way to lead by example is to go now and declare on your pecuniary interests forms all those details, such as the members for Casuarina and Sanderson have about recent donations for their upcoming election from various parties and individuals. Good on you, that is great. But have others? I ask the question. You have some good friends, you two, but I do not think the others have any friends by the looks of it.
They could certainly lead by example. I would like to hear them make some comments in that regard. Why, in the last two-and-a-half years, have they not gone and put this level of detail in voluntarily when they are espousing a mandatory system that they can certainly do voluntarily - a system that has not shown to be inadequate in the past, but are hot to trot, even though it has taken them two-and-a-half years to get to this point? I will certainly be welcoming their comments in this regards, and an explanation as to why that level of detail does not currently appear in any of their pecuniary interest forms.
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, what an interesting debate it has been. The Standing Orders Committee has been working on this for two years – or nearly two years now. In committees that I have had the opportunity to serve on in this parliament, both in opposition and now as chair of the Standing Orders Committee, it has been a very thorough and bipartisan process. The committee, with members coming on and off the committee over that period, have worked well together. We have sought and received substantial submissions and we had representation from the New South Wales parliament. We worked very cooperatively in committee, clause by clause. The reason it has taken so long to get here, Madam Speaker, as you well know, is because we have worked through this code, clause by clause, to try and reach accommodation, from all members, testing many of the issues that have been raised here this evening.
The code, as it has evolved, has been bounced back – well, supposedly bounced back; it certainly was on this side of the House - to various party rooms for further consideration and input. When we concluded deliberation on the code some couple of months ago, I thought we had achieved consensus. I thought we had achieved agreement from all members on the committee that the code was now ready to come back from the Standing Orders Committee - a committee made up of Independent, opposition and government members - as a supported code to this parliament. Therefore, the allegations from the member for Greatorex that vast numbers of clauses in this code were crunched through by government members of the committee is an absolute falsehood. There were one or two where we said: ‘Well, this is the final position that we adopt’. There was certainly no - I do not see it in the report here to the parliament - dissenting report from the opposition. Therefore, I just wonder what has happened today. I wonder whether the members of the opposition who have sat on this particular committee in the last two years have referred their deliberations back to the party wing at all. I just wonder what has happened in the few weeks that this draft code has been on the Notice Paper, when members who have not sat on the committee picked it up, and what they are scared of.
None of the issues of absolute resistance to the implementation of this code were raised by opposition members on the committee. I find this a very strange development, particularly from the member for Greatorex who has served on the committee and spoke here tonight as though he opposed every single clause and every single word in a code that he has worked proactively on and argued for clarification of details of the wording. It was gone through word by word, clause by clause, punctuation mark by punctuation mark, and the member for Greatorex contributed fulsomely in those debates. I just wonder what has happened in the last month since we tabled this in this House so the member for Greatorex is now opposing all the work that he has put into this in the last two years. It really is a very strange turn of events in the debate this evening.
The reason we have had all of the members of the committee speak - we speak on behalf of our Caucus and we are all behind this code. Therefore, it is obvious that the members for Greatorex and Macdonnell have been rolled by their party wing regarding the work that they have been doing for the last …
Members interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON: Well, the member for Macdonnell has not been on this committee for the last couple of years. It has just shown they have not worked as a team at all, and referred any of these issues back to their party wing in the last two years.
What we have here is a draft bill. It will sit on the Notice Paper whilst the parliamentary draftspeople construct the bill and we bring this back later in the year as legislation and a defined code. We will have the legislation drafted in the principles of this act that was a bipartisan supported code that has come back to this parliament without a dissenting report. Given the mood from members opposite tonight, it is going to be an interesting debate when this legislation comes before the parliament. It sounds as though the opposition is going to vote against a code of conduct for this parliament.
Members talked about why we need this code, and what the intent was. Well,. the intent is to fulfil our election commitments in our good governance documents. We recognised in opposition that, essentially, a lot of the confidence in the institutions of government and parliament by the people of the Northern Territory were at a very low ebb, given the lack of openness, transparency and accountability provided around public issues over many years by the previous government. We put out a good governance document that said that, in government, we would introduce an independent Electoral Commission, freedom of information legislation, a code of conduct for members of parliament and whistleblowers legislation that we are currently working on. We have a mandate for this from the people as a result of this. The aspirations of this code, in combination with those other pieces of legislation that are being introduced, is to raise the confidence of Territorians in the institution of parliament in the Northern Territory, and the standing of members of parliament. I know members opposite would recognise this: one of the reasons that government changed hands in the Northern Territory is that a large number of people of the people of the Northern Territory recognised that openness, transparency and accountability were not being served on the people of the Northern Territory by the previous government.
An example of that lack of faith, of course, was the failure of all failures when the statehood referendum failed to get up when the people of the Northern Territory said: ‘We do not trust you’. The people of the Northern Territory said: ‘We do not trust this parliament with statehood’. If that was not a wake-up call that the people of the Northern Territory had lost confidence in the institutions of parliamentary democracy of the Northern Territory and we needed to fix things up – if the opposition are still in denial of that wake-up call, well it is on their heads.
The aspirations part of this code is to restore public confidence in the institution of parliament and the standing of members of parliament in our community. We are going to get some things right, we are going to get some things wrong, but the code of conduct is not a groundbreaking concept in parliamentary democracy. There are many Westminster parliaments around Australia and the world that have a members’ code of conduct. It is seeking to be an aspirational document. It is not seeking to impose enormous regulatory accountability and responsibility on members of parliament. It is supposed to be a document that, when people aspire to be a member of parliament and put their hand up for public office in the Northern Territory, they can, essentially, see what is expected of them. I am failing to understand why members opposite are so scared of such accountability. That is the intent of it; that is what we are trying to do. If members want to vote against it when it comes back to parliament later this year, well they stand on their record.
I will agree with the member for Nelson and other members that, at the end of the day, we are accountable to the people in our electorates who elect us. They pass judgment on us every three or four years and that is the ultimate accountability. In terms of aspirations as members of parliament and actually signing up to a code of conduct, members on this side of the House may get tripped up by it - who knows? - in the evolution of this code in this parliament. However, to have that there so that everybody knows and understands is a good move forward. Until tonight, I assumed, given the support that has been on the committee and the work that opposition members put into this code and the fact that it does not have a dissenting report attached to it, that it was supported by members opposite.
I am not going to go through all of the single issues that were raised by members. There were lot of red herrings that can be dealt with when the legislation comes back and put through clause by clause if members wish to oppose or amend a certain sections of the legislation when it comes through.
The members for Greatorex and Drysdale talked about the Auditor-General being snowed under with frivolous claims about breaches of codes and accountability. Why would any member with any sense of integrity in their electorate launch a frivolous claim that was bound to be investigated and reported back to this parliament? Why would anyone go to the Auditor-General, an independent statutory officer created by this parliament, who would come back and say: ‘This is a frivolous claim’? You would look a bit of a goose if you sent the Auditor-General off on a wild goose chase wasting his time and public money to have that reported back.
Mr Baldwin: What about a member of the public? Address that one.
Mr HENDERSON: Or a member of the public …
Mr Baldwin: You do not think they would do it?
Mr HENDERSON: If they want to expose themselves to public ridicule and are prepared to waste time and public money, that is really up to people. Ultimately, this is all about accountability, integrity, responsibility and the public interest. I do not think that those - and neither did the opposition until tonight - aspirations were something that we should be running away from.
There were a number of issues raised in debate. The member for Drysdale, in his usual way, was trying to bring serving, ex-members and staff into somehow falling foul of the code of conduct …
Mr Dunham: No, they will not; that is the point I am making. They will still get away with the same stuff.
Mr HENDERSON: There are many people. The member for Drysdale talked about ministers in our government supposedly heavying, influencing and coercing public servants and he went to a clause 30 in the draft code, and I quote:
- Members are required to recognise that the Public Service is expected to function as a non-partisan public
resource and treat public servants in accordance with established conventions of Public Service neutrality …
And:
- A member’s conduct in office should not be such as to induce other public officials, including public servants,
to fail to comply with the relevant professional standards or code of ethical conduct applicable to them in their
official capacity.
If the member for Drysdale wants to cast stones, he should look at this own performance against that aspiration in the code when he was serving as Health minister in the previous government and during the last budget leading up to the Territory election. We had a Public Accounts Committee inquiry into the false and misleading way that the budget papers were put together that year. Tabled in this House was a memo from the then CEO of Territory Health Services - the CEO who served under the member for Drysdale - that shows that the member for Drysdale was in total breach of that aspiration in the make-up of the budget in that financial year.
I will read again from the memo that was from the then CEO to the then Health minister. It goes exactly to show why this clause is important: to stop members of parliament and ministers monstering public servants in an attempt to achieve a political outcome. I quote:
- Attached as requested is an explanation of THS budget situation for 2000-01 and 2001-02 as compared to that
presented in the last budget papers.
In summary, there was an artificial reduction of $8m in THS’ 2000-01 budget in order that the 2001-02 budget
figure could be represented falsely as a 2.5% increase.
In reality, THS’ 2001-02 budget represents a reduction on the final 2000-01 approved budget.
The attached papers also demonstrate that in reality, THS’ final actual expenditure for 2000-01 was contained
within the approved budget.
My first knowledge of this situation was when I was in Sydney on official business on 9 May 2001. I received a
phone call from the Under Treasurer, Ken Clarke, who informed me the Treasurer intended to adjust THS’
final budget figure for 2000-01 so that the following year’s budget could artificially be shown …
Mr Dunham: Why don’t we refer it to PAC? Why don’t we do a censure motion?
Mr HENDERSON: Artificially be shown! This is from the Under Treasurer on request from the then Treasurer wanting to artificially show in the budget papers an increase at least equivalent to the CPI.
- Mr Clarke informed me that this should be kept confidential within THS and it was agreed. I would liaise with the
designated Treasury staff on the necessary adjustments to the budget figures.
On receipt of this message, I expressed considerable concern to Mr Clarke and informed him that I would need to
discuss this with my minister. I rang minister Dunham and expressed my alarm at this proposed deception, a
deception that was requested on behalf of the then Treasurer of the Country Liberal Party.
- I advised him that, in my view, this arrangement would undoubtedly be discovered in due course by the Auditor-General
and will reflect poorly on THS and the minister. In addition, I expressed concern that, as a consequence of these
artificial adjustments, THS would be seen to be exceeding its approved budget by $8m when this demonstrably was
not the case.
- Mr Dunham expressed serious alarm at the information I conveyed to him and indicated he wished to be kept informed
of all developments. The minister was continually kept informed as the budget process continued, but there was no
change in the decision to artificially reduce by $8m the 2000-01 budget.
No wonder they are running scared.
Mr Dunham: We are not running scared. Bring it in.
Mr HENDERSON: No wonder they are running scared from this because, when members opposite talk about political interference in the public service, politicisation of the public service, and monstering public service, they have form. Have they got form!
The members who stood in this debate tonight talking against this code of conduct do it from a position of knowing that, if they were ever to get back to the Treasury benches, they would no longer be able to deceive Territorians in regard to the budget, and politically they want to be able to do so. So it is coming out now. It is coming out why the members opposite are going to oppose a code, which is an aspirational code that is seeking to restore public confidence in the institution of parliament and government in the Northern Territory, because they want to go back to their grubby tricks. They want to go back to the grubby way that they used to run the public service. Talking about politicising the public service, they had form and they had it in spades.
This memo from the then CEO of Health to the then minister will haunt the CLP for many years to come. The real reason that the CLP and the parliamentary wing do not want to see the passage of legislation in this parliament that improves openness, accountability and transparency of government, is because they have no idea of how to govern in the interests of Territorians and the Territory without resorting to their tried and trusted methods of the past.
Until tonight, I thought that this was an exercise in bipartisanship in trying to restore the faith of the people of the Northern Territory in the institution of parliament, another step along the road. I am very disappointed to see and hear that it sounds as though the opposition are going to oppose this. It is coming out now as to why they wish to do so.
We will bring this legislation back later this year. In the interim, the Clerk is advised and, on request from the Public Accounts Committee, will be putting together information kits and training and education sessions for members of parliament so when the code comes into place members understand their obligations. I urge all members to adhere to the code and, hopefully, this will be another step in terms of openness, transparency and accountability, in the same way that the establishment of an independent Electoral Commission, introduction of freedom of information legislation, whistleblowers legislation and this code of conduct will hopefully go some way toward restoring Territorians’ faith in government that was so vastly smeared by the previous government in the Northern Territory.
Motion agreed to; report adopted.
MOTION
Note statement – Crime Prevention
Note statement – Crime Prevention
Continued from 25 February 2004.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Madam Speaker, this evening I congratulate the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General on his very comprehensive ministerial statement on crime prevention.
Crime prevention is an issue that goes to the core of us wanting to enjoy our lives here in the Territory and is the most effective tool in ensuring that we have a law-abiding society. It is not just a reaction to crimes and the activities of criminals, it is an attempt at heading it off at the pass. To do that, of course, there have to be many complex and varied approaches. Those approaches, as seen in the minister’s statement, change through each community to reflect the needs of that specific community.
I am obviously very interested in the crime prevention that has been occurring within my electorate of Karama and Malak ...
Mr Dunham: Oh, it is working well there.
Ms LAWRIE: ... and after winning the seat of Karama after a great deal of inactivity from the CLP, there was a lot of work to do. Crime was considered by the residents of that area to be out of control and at an unacceptable level. They were particularly concerned about the level of break-ins that were occurring, and about the number of itinerants hanging around the shopping centres at Malak and Karama ...
Dr Lim: And that was fixed too? You have fixed all that, have you?
Ms LAWRIE: They were also very worried about the number of youths hanging around and making a nuisance of themselves and committing petty crimes.
I note the interjections from the members for Greatorex and Drysdale, but they show their absolute ignorance of the areas of Karama and Malak. The CLP has had their hands off the steering wheel in that area for a very long time. That ignorance is reflected in their comments today.
Anyone who lives there - and I know the members who interjected do not - would know that there is a significant difference in the nature of that community now, as opposed to in 2001 when I took the seat.
Mr Dunham: Good, it has got better.
Ms LAWRIE: It is a lot better. I pick up the interjection by the member for Drysdale. No longer when you go to the shopping centre are you confronted with lawlessness, humbug behaviour and abuse and no longer do you see a tragic scene of young children being abused, or large numbers of youths hanging out and harassing people. That has not come about by chance or accident; it is come about through hard work and through the resources committed by the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General through the Crime Prevention Unit, and the support they have been able to provide to the local traders and myself through the Karama Crime Prevention Committee, and also through the significant increase in resources provided to police, and the work done by the minister for police in that regard.
Neighbourhood Watch has received incredible significant increases in funding under the Martin Labor government, and that really has been bearing fruit through the Neighbourhood Watch activities and committees.
It has been my pleasure to create and run the Karama Crime Prevention Committee, which consists of the traders of Karama Shopping Plaza, the owner of the shopping centre, and myself. Sitting on that committee are aldermen, from time to time, and the police. We have worked in a collaborative manner to identify issues and concerns, and to take a strategic approach to solving those issues. The first thing we did was put in place protocols amongst the traders in the shopping centre. If a trader saw something that concerned them - whether it was someone behaving in a noisy or rowdy manner or, indeed, they saw a possible offence - there were strict protocols put in place and agreed to by all traders, in how to respond to that.
Also, in discussions of the committee, we have had great deal of support from the owners of the Karama Shopping Plaza, Joondana Investments, particularly the La Pira family, who have responded by increasing security in and around the shopping centre, in security staff as well as putting in place security cameras and increasing lighting around the shopping centre. In the last couple of months, we have had new light towers go into various areas around the shopping centre. At night, that shopping centre is very well lit now.
Mr Dunham: And the service station? Well lit – the burglars came straight in; didn’t trip over anything.
Ms LAWRIE: Yes, there is a very big light tower that has gone into the back of the Karama Ampol Service Station. I pick up on the interjection from the member for Drysdale and explain what an active local member can actually do in assisting crime prevention. There was an incident that made the media just recently regarding taxi drivers and assaults at Ampol Karama and, I daresay, that is what the member for Drysdale was alluding to.
Mr Dunham: No, it was a break-in actually. Yes, the bloke with the balaclava who stole the money from the service station. It was that one.
Ms LAWRIE: The armed robbery of the service station?
Mr Dunham: Yes, the armed robbery. The bloke who pinched the money.
Ms LAWRIE: Of course, armed robbery has never occurred under the CLP ...
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Karama, I do not really mind robust interjections in a debate, but we have to try to confine our interjections to points that are pertinent and not engage in an ongoing debate. Member for Drysdale, I ask that you desist. Thank you, member for Karama.
Ms LAWRIE: Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. Regarding the Karama Ampol, it was interesting when incidents were occurring in and around Karama Ampol recently. I sought and facilitated a meeting with the Karama Ampol management, police, the owners of Karama shopping centre, which is immediately adjacent to the Karama Ampol, and me to, first of all, hear the concerns of the various parties about what was or was perceived to be happening around Karama Ampol. Interestingly enough, at no stage were there any clear protocols established in the past for how staff of the Ampol - which is a 24-hour service station therefore opens into the wee hours of the morning - respond to any activity that is occurring around there in the evening. Also, importantly and crucially, at that meeting were members of the Youth Beat.
It was agreed as a result of that meeting that they would change, if you like, the habit of the staff of the service station to become more proactive; that is, more preventative in crime prevention. If they saw large gatherings of people around the area they would contact the Youth Beat. They were given a mobile phone number for the Youth Beat, and Youth Beat made a commitment to respond to that contact as soon as practicable; if they could not, they would contact the police. A protocol was also agreed .to that if there was any suspicious or hostile behaviour, the service station staff were being instructed to contact the police. It later occurred to me that nothing like that had occurred previously, and it took facilitating the parties to come together to identify what responsible people can do to avoid situations being created or, indeed, escalating.
I certainly do not condone armed robberies that occur. We have had to suffer armed robbery at the Malak BP as well as the Karama Ampol within the last month. However, that is the first time there has been armed robberies in the last couple of years, so it is not a spate …
Mr Dunham: Oh, so it has got worse?
Ms LAWRIE: It has not got worse as such. Armed robberies, unfortunately, are not uncommon to service stations. They are open at night and are vulnerable. I urge service station owners to ensure the duty of care and safety of their staff. There are security measures that service stations could put in place to increase the protection of staff. I will be raising this further with both service stations in my electorate.
Nothing a government can do will ever completely eradicate crime. Clearly, what we are aiming to do is to reduce crime down to far lower levels than the community has had to endure in the past. Specifically, the minister’s statement shows us that in 2001 there were some 1059 break-ins to houses in the Territory. By the September quarter 2003, break-ins were down to 547, a fall of nearly 50%. Our strategies that target crime prevention clearly are starting to make inroads into reducing crime in the Territory, and that is a significant drop by anyone’s measure.
Mr Dunham: Significant drop? Does that mean it has been eradicated?
Ms LAWRIE: Significant reduction in break-ins is what residents are looking for. The member for Drysdale may be flippant about the subject but, for people who are the victims of a break-in, it is a very traumatic experience. I have spoken to families who have had to endure a break-in and it has been a very shattering experience. The children are very upset for a long time afterwards. Often the parents feel quite unsafe.
In that regard, I encourage people to avail themselves of the good work that has been done by the Victims of Crime Assistance League, otherwise known as VOCAL. VOCAL have received Territory government funding of some $88 000 per year to assist and support people who have experienced such a crime. An additional $55 000 a year is provided for real, practical assistance to victims of break-ins.
A victim of a break-in who avail themselves of the assistance of VOCAL is eligible for up to $250 to be spent immediately on securing their premises, whether that is cleaning up debris as a result of the break-in, or securing doors or windows that may have been broken where access may have occurred. These are very practical measures that can go a long way to alleviating some of the distress that residents experience arising from a break-in.
What we found in Karama and Malak is that one of the greatest tools to prevent crime is an increased police presence. For the first time in a long time - and I have said this before in the House – we now have proactive police patrols. We have the Mounted Police; we have had police out on bicycles, car patrols and on the rare occasion, we have police foot patrols. I must admit I am somewhat jealous of Casuarina where they now have daily police foot patrols through Casuarina Shopping Centre.
A police officer on a foot patrol through Karama shopping centre said to me that it had been the first time in some seven years that he had been out on a foot patrol, such was the dire situation that police resources had dwindled down to under the disgraceful reign of the CLP.
There is no doubt that resources were needed, and the government has responded with the commitment of $75m to rebuilding our police force over the next four years. We have seen quite a few recruit programs go through police, with graduates emerging. Casuarina area, from which we benefit in terms of patrols, had significant graduates come through and increase the police numbers there, so much so that they are now able to engage in proactive patrolling.
I have regular discussions with the bicycle police, each time they are out at the shopping centre or moving through the suburb, and they have had tremendous response from the public. They are an effective tool in community policing.
Again operating now after a significant recess are Blue Light Discos. Blue Light Discos provide a very positive interaction between local youth and the police. I commend police such as Jeff Mosel, who is a school-based constable, for the hard work that they put in to have these Blue Light Discos up and running at the schools. I have had tremendous feedback from the local schools participating in the program. The response from staff, parents and students is that they love them and they would like to see more of them. I commend the police for resurrecting the Blue Light Disco program. It is a very important program and it is good to see positive interaction between youth and police. It only serves to enhance understanding that our law officers are upstanding members of our community.
Also on schools, I congratulate the government on the initiative of $670 000 towards the employment of School Attendance Officers. This is a critically important initiative. We already have our School Attendance Officer working at Sanderson High and that officer is working with the local primary schools. I congratulate the Minister for Education for this initiative. I know that School Attendance Officers are linking in with other law and order workers such as the Juvenile Justice Diversionary Program that is operating from a Malak base. In addition, they liaise with Youth Beat, which has been a very effective Labor initiative that began in Darwin in December 2002.
Youth Beat, as the minister said in his statement, has a full-time coordinator, four full-time youth workers and they operate five nights a week. They patrol the northern suburbs of Darwin and are regularly in Karama and Malak. I have a close working relationship with the workers of Youth Beat and their coordinators. They tip me off as to the views, attitudes and issue of youth in the electorate, just as I tip them off about feedback I receive from residents about where youths are starting to gather and hang out and the patterns in which they move throughout the electorate.
One such exchange of information led us to understanding that there was going to be a gathering of kids in the area to have a bit of a bust up. There were some issues that had been going on between kids from various areas throughout the suburbs. We were able to alert police to that intention. Some 19 officers, over a variety of shifts, ended up working out of my electorate office as a base over a couple of nights, and averted what would otherwise have been a pretty nasty scene amongst kids who were looking to settle some scores. I have approached those kids directly - they refer to themselves in my electorate as the Karama Boys - and I am in discussions with them about how they can change their habits and their lives ...
Mr Dunham: Oh, youth gang.
Ms LAWRIE: I note the member for Drysdale is taking notes about this, and he will no doubt put his particular nasty little twisted spin on my comments. However, I prefer …
Mr Dunham: That is fixed. You talk about 19 officers coming to your office to set up to work on the Karama Boys. Sounds serious to me.
Ms LAWRIE: I prefer to deal in the realms of reality, and say that one of the roles the local member can take is to be a facilitator to assist for outcomes. There is no doubt that my office, being located at the Karama shopping centre, is a very practical place. If any public servant wants to avail themselves of the office they are welcome to, just as community groups avail themselves of my office. My view is the office is a community asset. I have anyone from the canoeing enthusiasts to cyclists etcetera, in and out of the office, and I am really pleased to be able to say: ‘I have a room there for you, there is a kitchen and a toilet facility out the back. If it suits your purposes go for it, use it. You are not going to be in my way because my office and the reception are in a separate area with a lock-in facility’.
What I have found over the couple of years of working intensively in trying to create improved crime prevention in the suburbs where I live and work, and where I feel responsible for the care of the residents, is that crime prevention is only as good as the people who are prepared to participate in it. I take my hat off to the traders, who have been working very collaboratively through the Crime Prevention Committee at Karama. I also wholeheartedly congratulate the residents, who are working very effectively together at Karama Neighbourhood Watch.
We are planning a community engraving day at the shopping centre soon, where we will be promoting to people the use of engraving their equipment to prevent theft. We are also planning another community picnic day where, last year, we saw quite a few hundred people attend and interact in a positive way, and learn about crime prevention tools. It is very heartening to see the response from residents to these measures. People want to participate. They want, more and more these days, to become the eyes and ears of the police. We are getting a lot of information being fed in, either directly to the police or through my office, about activities that are occurring around the place, and I know police are being very effective in following that up.
The basis of Neighbourhood Watch is very sound. All members should encourage it. I believe most members have all the Neighbourhood Watch information in their office as well as the engraving tools. I commend the police for the effort they put in assisting the community through Neighbourhood Watch.
I commend the officer in charge of Casuarina and his officers for the tremendous work that they are doing to provide a safer community in Darwin’s northern suburbs. I commend the Chief Minister for her passion to provide safer communities and the whole-of-government approach that she directs in this area, the minister for Education, the minister for Police, and the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General. I have listed some of their initiatives. However, I know the Minister for Health worked on setting up the Youth Beat, just as I know the minister for Community Services is now very involved in various initiatives and programs.
It shows that, with increased resources, willingness and a commitment to improve the safety of our communities, we can start to make inroads. We all know and accept that there is still a long way to go. We started off a very bad starting point in 2001. As a first-time Labor government in the Territory, I believe we inherited decades of social neglect. It is quite sad to see the generations of families who have been discarded by previous governments. I am proud to say that I am part of a government that is working with these people and, hopefully, giving their children a far brighter future. If we can do that, we will become a very good model for the rest of Australia in how we can work together as a community and have a much safer community.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I place my observations and some comments about the new ministerial statement on crime prevention that was handed down and read into transcript by the Attorney-General earlier this year.
The statement really reiterates a lot of what has been contained in previous statements on crime prevention and the crime prevention initiatives which we have seen paraded out by this particular government more frequently – it occurred as a …
Dr Burns: Not Chardonnay in there, is it?
Mr MALEY: That is right. There was a whole raft of crime prevention-type statements and initiatives trotted out shortly after the election in 2001 and, really, a lot of what is contained in this statement is really a re-hash of those so-called initiatives.
However, there is little or no doubt that there is no simple answer to the prevention of crime. There is no simple mechanism. There is no such thing as a coherent six-point plan which will definitively deal with the problem. We have heard the Labor government – and there were lots of glossy brochures and the Chief Minister’s picture was being paraded about as someone who cares, with this wonderful six-point plan. I know that some of the solicitors who had input into drafting the six-point plan think it is a joke, but they said: ‘Politically, it will fool the journalists. The government will trot it out and people will think they are doing something; that will keep the punters happy’.
Well, people are not fools, and they can see that if your - hang on, I will just read this out. The six-point plan is really nothing but motherhood statements by a political party that says, as ‘part of our importance: the cornerstone of our plan in our fight against crime is serious crime means serious time’. Well okay, that means that the Labor government seriously considered not imposing serious time for serious crime.
The second thing is ‘making you safe at home’. Okay, that is a lovely motherhood statement, but really does not contain any detail in terms of a policy initiative.
Third is ‘getting help from the police when you need it’. Well, in my view, the police have been doing a very good job in the Northern Territory for many years. Once again, this is a motherhood statement trotted out in the form of some sort of crime prevention initiative; one that is really aimed at the young journalist or the swinging voter who the government are trying to persuade that they are doing something about this.
‘Putting victims first’. Now, I am not sure what sort of – this is a six-point plan, remember. ‘Putting victims first’. What does that mean? Victims have always been very well catered for. We have a system which does its absolute best to strike a balance between looking after the victims, putting them first. They are the informant or complainant. If it is proved they become the victim, there is crime compensation. There are lots of avenues and ways to redress - sometimes financially – what has occurred to them.
‘Getting tough on the causes of crime’ and ‘establishing a central crime prevention agency’. These are not definitive points of a six-point plan; these are just ‘feel good’ motherhood statements which, at the end of the day, anyone with a scintilla of commonsense would realise is politician jargon for ‘We are trying to persuade the people in the northern suburbs and the seats which we think are a bit shaky, that we are doing something about crime’. At the end of the day, the Martin Labor government know that their Achilles heel is, of course, their very weak stance on crime-related matters.
Dr Burns: Then why are the gaols full? They are fuller than you ever had them.
Mr MALEY: Well, that is an interesting interjection. We have the learned member for Johnston, who has made a comment that the gaols are full, and somehow that speaks for itself. I assume he is implying that the government’s strategy is working; we are getting tough. Well, the gaols are full because, ultimately, this Labor government has failed to deliver on any economic initiatives. When people are down on their luck; when the economy is down and people are suffering, and they do not have a sense of self-worth and no jobs, there are more offences. That is demonstrated by the fact that violent crime is up and there are certain pockets in our community where they find themselves in a particularly bad economic situation where the level of property crime is also up; the end result being, of course, that people are trotted off to prison.
Therefore, skiting that there are more people in a particular prison certainly does not give any comfort to Mr and Mrs Malak who know that three or four people in their street have had their homes broken into, and crime is still a concern. It is a concern in the community. I suppose the crux of the first point that I make is that there is no six-point plan; that is a fable. If there was, it would be adopted by every western country in the world, by their brother Labor governments interstate and by, of course, the federal government. To trapeze in here and say: ‘We have our six-point plan, it is all go, it is working; and here is another rehashed crime prevention initiative statement,’ you are kidding yourself and Territorians, and it is a pathetic attempt to persuade the odd gullible journalist who wants to print something positive, that you guys are doing something serious about crime.
We have seen today on the front page of the paper a Supreme Court judge saying, effectively - I do not have the quote or the transcript but, certainly, he is making it clear that the drug courts simply are not working. ‘Send them home, Sally’. That is what he said or something like that. Anyway, I will not get into the details. He was criticising a magistrate but, ultimately, he was criticising, of course, the system which the learned magistrate was operating within. We also heard - and it is once again touched upon in this ministerial statement - the new offences of home and business invasion were created - remember that - after this government repealed mandatory sentencing. There was a raft of new offences installed into the Criminal Code and it was certainly made fairly obvious at the time that there was nothing new about the scope of these offences.
In fact, in one particular case of unlawful entry, the penalty for the particular conduct had been reduced. The old provisions of the Criminal Code really covered, fairly extensively, the scope of these new provisions. It would be interesting to see, if perhaps the learned Attorney-General can trapeze back into - I cannot comment on him being here - but perhaps when he responds in his closing submission, he can detail how many people have been charged and how many people have been convicted of these new offences which were brought into law, heading towards three years ago.
Of course, the ministerial statement is not particularly detailed, but touched upon a number of topics, and probably more time could be spent on dealing with a number of topics which were touched upon. One, of course, was Sue Lowry, the executive officer of the Victims of Crime NT. Sue Lowry does a fantastic job. Sue has worked for many years in the area of victims of crime in the Northern Territory and deserves an enormous amount of credit. More emphasis and support needs to be given to Sue Lowry and many other volunteers who are involved in that particular area. Certainly, from my time as a prosecutor and defence lawyer, you would see them endlessly and tirelessly helping people through the sometimes daunting judicial system.
If you are talking about prevention in law and order, the fundamental cornerstone is really the economic position of the particular person and his family. This is such nonsense. The one that stands out is the vision on the hill. This is the Labor government’s vision on the hill for the next year. It is reported at the last page of the ministerial statement, and I quote:
- Over the next year, we will be presenting a whole-of-government, whole-of-community crime prevention framework.
My God! That does not assist anyone. What a motherhood statement. There is nothing of substance in that. It comes back to this fundamental: you can make all the noises about trying hard and send out glossy brochures to the northern suburbs where you know a few of your members are in shaky seats. You will try to shore up their positions and make sure that your Achilles heel is covered: ‘We are strong on crime and we have a vision for the next year’. If your vision is that you will present a whole-of-government, whole-of-community crime prevention framework, that is a bit – I think the phrase is ‘how you going’ - very average.
You can afford to be truthful with Territory folk. The truth is that you are talking about crime prevention. You are talking about the economic position of the community and doing what you can to promote self-worth and responsibility so that people take responsibility for what they have done, and that their children come home to see that mum and dad have a job and have worked hard to obtain the assets that they have and that there is a sense of property and respect.
The difficulty created is that the Labor Party philosophy itself does not go down the path of responsibility. The Labor Party philosophy – and there is no nice way to put this – creates a scab mentality. It is a philosophy that creates: ‘I am a scab and I am going to put my hand out and I want things for …
Dr Burns: Just tell them we can pour Chardonnay all over it; we will be right.
Mr MALEY: It is not about taking responsibility, it is about the wealthy few at the top drinking Chardonnay encouraging this scab mentality in the community.
That is what the Labor Party does and, until they change that fundamental philosophy and start saying there is a group of people in our community who should have some self-determination and work hard. Until we stop creating this mentality, you will, of course, have this never-ending cycle of violence, unlawful entries, lack of respect and, of course, crime.
If you are serious about crime prevention and making sure that Territorians of all shapes and colour are not exposed to violence and unlawful entries, you have to be serious about the economy. We have seen the Economic Development Summit come and go, the recommendations uploaded onto the Internet and then disappear into the ether. Nothing occurred. We have formed another seven or eight committees on various subject matters, but nothing has come to the fore. The only thing that seems to be recurring in ministerial statements and comments is this endless tirade of motherhood statements like six-point plans and this wonderful vision – not – which the Attorney-General has put on the record:
- Over the next year, we will be presenting a whole-of-government, whole-of-community crime prevention framework.
That does not give any confidence to the thinking member of the community who does not have a job. We know that lots of people are leaving the Territory and have left because of the economic situation. We hope they return. We hope things get better, but the government has to take that job much more seriously.
In my electorate of Goyder, there was a promise to build a police station at Humpty Doo. We are towards the end of this term of government and there have been some steps in securing a site, but there is nothing on the ground as yet. Every time there is a disclosure of detail, it results in more bitter disappointment for local people. We are now told that the police station will not be a tri-service station; there will be no ambulance, but there will be police and fire brigade. Okay, that is a disappointment, but it is better than nothing. People have come to the conclusion that it is better than nothing. It is disappointing, but we will live with that.
The next disappointing fact which has surfaced seems that - and I hope the Attorney-General can correct me - the police station will only be staffed during the day, and there will be no night shift. So here we have a police station, a perfectly well built, a state-of-the-art facility, and there is no evening or night shift. It is merely a shopfront during the course of the day. I suspect because of the fact that there really are not enough police on the beat, the current government will place an auxiliary at that station, as opposed to an auxiliary with a constable and support - a mobile unit. These are the details that need to be fleshed out. The fact that it is a day shopfront only is clearly not enough.
In terms of electorate, there are regular complaints that, for offences that are reported in Mandorah and Dundee regions, there is still an unacceptably long delay in responding. The reason behind that - and I have spoken to a number of police officers who live in my electorate; in fact, I am socialise with them – is that the problem is sometimes only one unit is based at Palmerston, which services Palmerston, Humpty Doo, Howard Springs, Bees Creek, Noonamah, Acacia, Marrakai, Dundee and Mandorah. That is an enormous area for one mobile unit. There are a couple of very hard-working young policemen there. They said sometime it is quiet and there might be just a few jobs on but, sometimes, the job card is absolutely full. There are so many reports, they simply cannot attend all of these complainants in person. Often, I was told, they were at Palmerston dealing with an unlawful entry complaint, and then, when they are halfway through investigating this particular matter and taking statements and getting particulars, they receive a report of a very serious matter at Humpty Doo. They did not have anyone else to send to Humpty Doo; they had to go. So they stopped this investigation in mid-stride and had to leave to attend at another person’s home. Police need more resources in the rural area.
The member for Karama - not that I agree much with what she said – made some comment about police being on the beat and the fact that more police are on the beat does have an effect on crime. That sounds logical to me. However, in three years, there has not been an increase in police on the beat servicing the night shift section of the Palmerston Police Station. At some times, there is only one unit. There has not been a real change. There need to be more resources. That would alleviate a lot of the problems and concerns which rural people have of crime prevention.
In my electorate, there have been some very serious offences over the past year or so with, of course, recently - I am not going to dwell on it - two serious allegations of murder, and there was a very serious unlawful entry at the Humpty Doo pub, when a young man was shot. I understand that the allegations are that there are two alleged offenders. They have not been apprehended yet, and I do not think they are any further down the road of finding these people.
Crime is still a problem. I do not believe any amount of feel-good motherhood statements designed to persuade the odd gullible journalist can demonstrate that this government is trying to do something and is going to make a difference. This statement is devoid of substance. It contains no particulars and, quite frankly, is a bit of an embarrassment for a government which is trying to demonstrate that it is getting tough on crime.
Let us see the statistics. Let us have a look at how many convictions there have been of those new offences which were introduced. We need a real effort to make sure that there is not a better economic cornerstone for some quarters of the community which will have the effect of reducing crime. I am hamstrung by time, but this statement really does not do justice to such an important topic.
Mr AH KIT (Community Development): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, might I just comment what a woeful contribution from the member for Goyder. It seems to be that anything we do and any statement we bring forward in this House with genuine commitment, the members opposite want to just knock, knock, knock.
I wonder whether two things have happened with the member for Goyder: has he sought a briefing if he does not understand the statement that was brought forward on crime prevention from the Attorney-General and, secondly, has he gone back and studied policy from when his political party was in office? I doubt, on both of those occasions, that he has done any homework in research. I also add I will watch with keen interests the policies that will be put forward by the members opposite before we go into the next election, because that will really spell out what their real intentions are.
However, in giving my contribution to the crime prevention statement from the Attorney-General, there are few things that more starkly demonstrate the difference between the Martin Labor government and the previous CLP regime in our approach to crime and crime prevention. Indeed, while the previous government talked big about the crime, the phrase ‘crime prevention’ was not even in their vocabulary. Their only solution was to lock people up and throw away the key. Nowhere was this more apparent than in the field of the interaction of the ...
Mr Elferink: You have more people in custody, than what we ever had.
Mr AH KIT: Nowhere was this more apparent than in the field of the interaction of juveniles and young people with the criminal justice system.
If it was parliamentary to do so, all of you here in the Assembly would call me a liar if I did not admit to being a bit of tearaway and ratbag when I was a young bloke. I was at that age when I was out for a good time with my mates. I worked hard and I partied hard. I was the classic mug, a bit of a larrikin and bit of a liar - a bit of a lair …
Members interjecting.
Mr AH KIT: A bit of a lair. Unlike members opposite who had all perfect backgrounds when they were juveniles, I call it as I see it.
I have three things to thank for not going off the rails. The first was a supportive extended family. The second was a few firm words from some coppers, a number of whom in later years have given me the wink to let me know that, while I had run close to the wind, they were happy to see me do okay later on in life, and I thank them for that. The third was a long involvement with sport as a player and coach. It was through sport, along with my mates, that I learned something about the discipline of working together as a team, as well as the importance of leadership.
On top of that, there were more intangible benefits: I had something to do; a life that was structured around training and matches as well as my normal working day. Of course, this is something that applied to my life and perhaps to those around me, but there is increasing evidence that sporting and recreational activities can have a broad social benefit for many people, particularly in the area of diverting people away from crime and antisocial behaviour.
Much of this evidence has been summarised in a research document from 2003 titled, Sport, Physical Activity and Antisocial Behaviour in Youth. It was a study commissioned by the Australian Sports Commission in conjunction with the Australian Institute of Criminology Research and Public Policy Series. The study is, essentially, a literature review collating studies from Australia and overseas from much of the last century, but with an emphasis on the last 20 years. I will not go into great detail here today, but summarise the broad findings of the study.
First, sporting and recreational activities, while not the be all and end all, are linked to improvements in social behaviour and declines in contact with the criminal justice system. Second, such activities have demonstrated positive effects on mental health including a decline in the rates of depression, stress, anxiety and suicidal behaviour. They had been found to increase self-esteem, self-confidence and overall wellbeing. Third, sports and recreation programs, as forms of intervention with young people with risk, have shown decreases in juvenile crime rates, especially when held after hours and on weekends, by providing adolescents with alternative leisure pursuits. Fourth, sporting and recreation activities result in lower levels of substance misuse. Fifth, and of particular relevance, is that the introduction of sporting carnivals on indigenous communities have shown at least short-term reductions in violence and property offences. As well, sporting competitions and activities in such communities has been beneficial in reducing crime rates and drug abuse. Sixth, long-term programs based in the community rather than within institutions have the greater possibilities of success.
This government does not deal in knee-jerk reactions and prejudice which is why, in dealing with the issues of crime prevention, we deal with the kinds of evidence I have outlined in attempting to reduce the rate of crime in our communities. This is why I strongly commend the NT Crime Prevention Grants Scheme outlined by the Attorney-General. In the last round of grants, 32 projects were funded at a total of $408 000. Of these, a quarter of projects, $103 000, had strong sporting and recreational components and all had strong community-based approaches that have demonstrated such success in the general literature.
For example, the Tennant Creek Town Council has auspiced the Tennant Creek Sk8 Park - that is, the skate park at the local pool - which has a strong emphasis on diversion from antisocial behaviour. The Western Aranda Relekha Crime Prevention Committee aims to tackle the causes of crime rather than the symptoms, and are tackling youth boredom and substance abuse. In a similar way, projects at Mt Liebig and Mt Theo strongly target substance abuse; in particular petrol sniffing. At Palmerston, the city council, in consultation with participants and stakeholders, has developed the Onto the Grind program. This aims to deliver and expand out-of-hours youth-focussed sports and recreation options and activities in the Palmerston CBD. The Onto the Grind pilot program is designed to influence a reduction in youth related property crime, violence, substance abuse and antisocial behaviour through addressing youth boredom within the Palmerston CBD, with particular focus at the skate park. Also, there is one I like the sound of most, run by the famous Deadly Treadlies in Alice Springs. This is an extension of a bike rebuilding project that has been operating out of Alice Springs youth accommodation and support services since January 2003. In the process of bicycle rebuilding, Deadly Treadlies trains young people in a variety of skills, team work and planning, mechanical and retail, personal development and enterprise development.
I would also like to bring to the attention of members an article in the NT News on 30 January this year. It is a story of inspiration and one in which the local community alongside the local police and council have produced a great result. According to Sergeant Crispin Gargan of Elliott on the Stuart Highway, the last reported unlawful entry in that town was November 2002 and he was not even sure a local was responsible. The reason? Well, according to the policeman on the Elliott beat, the success of the local footy side. I would like to quote where he said:
- ‘Last year, we had a very successful football season. The local Elliott Hawks won every match and the grand final ...
On the weeks during the football campaign, on nights where we have problems, I noticed a dramatic decrease
in alcohol-related disturbances.
That really relates to how the whole football team was being viewed within the town. The players took a lot of
responsibility on themselves to stay off the suds and stay fit and focussed’.
- He said other Centralian communities were seeing similar changes.
Stories like this can give us hope and, for me at least, it is further evidence of the beneficial effects sport and recreation can have on our communities. It confirms, from my point of view as well as the government’s, that active intervention by the community through community organisations is worth more than rhetoric; it produces real results. The problems of crime belong to all of us, not just if we are directly affected through a robbery or assault, but in the kind of society we must all live in together.
We can live in a community in which crime goes unchecked, or one in which we do our utmost to prevent crime. The latter sort of community is what this government wants and, for that reason, I commend the statement from the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I join in the debate and wonder how serious this government is in crime prevention. The minister lauded how well his program is running and then you pick up a newspaper such as this, the Centralian Advocate of 23 March 2004, featuring the headline ‘Gangs run wild: kids hit 19 homes and shops in two days’. If you turn the page over, on one side there is a headline ‘Alice crime levels drop’. They were obviously reporting on the Northern Territory Quarterly Crime Statistics for the December quarter. Then you have: ‘Now it is a bouncer’, ‘Call for tighter library security’, ‘Kid gangs hit 19 shops, homes in two days’, ‘Child molester jailed for 7 months’, and the list goes on. On page 5: ‘Woman raped after a meeting in the park’.
People came up to me after this paper was published and said: ‘Limmy, look at this. The government has the audacity to say “Alice Crime Levels Drop”. Look at all the other articles surrounding it. It is ridiculous’. How bad does it have to be before the government will believe that crime is rife in our community? People are not safe. People leave their homes in the evenings to go out and they do not know what they are going to come back to. People close their shops for the evening, and they do not know what they are going to come back to the next morning, hoping they do not get a phone call form the security guard or the police that their shop has been broken into.
This is the indication in the community that crime is not under control, particularly violent crime, when people are being bashed regularly. Again, in the Centralian Advocate of 26 March 2004: ‘Man bashed at home’. Then there is: ‘Trail bike thefts’ and this one from yesterday’s Centralian Advocate: ‘Two boys, 13, on sex attack charge’. Two boys were caught attempting to rape a 12-year-old child. This is the level of crime in the community and it is time the government accepts that there is a problem and that their program to try and reduce it is not working. If they accept the truth, they might do something more constructive about it.
There is no doubt that crimes are getting worse and people in the Territory are getting really concerned. Did people read the NT News today? The headline was: ‘Bail granted by idiot says judge’. That was in today’s NT News and the article was written by Rebecca Hewett. I quote from the article:
- Supreme Court Justice Dean Mildren said he was ‘absolutely staggered’ the thief had been given bail when he was
arrested last year because he was in breach of a suspended sentence.
- ‘Who is the idiot who did that?’, the judge said.
- ‘No wonder the people of Darwin are tired of their houses being broken into’.
This is a man who has committed 40-odd offences, and the judge said again:
- ‘He is back before this court with 40-odd offences, and everyone’s been dancing around saying he has to go to
drug court’, Justice Mildren said on Monday.
He is quoted again:
- ‘What absolute rubbish. This court should have been dealing with him, not a drug court’.
I quote further:
- ‘The first time he was arrested he should have been breached and brought before this court’.
It is reported in this article that Justice Mildren plans to take it up with the ‘Auditor-General’s Department’ - I wonder if the ‘Auditor-General’ is the Attorney-General’s Department - to speak with them about how this system has failed Territorians. Not only failed Territorians who are law-abiding, living their lives and not causing any problems, but failing this person, who has been given freedom to roam around the streets, creating havoc, causing property damage and violence to his victims. It is quoted in the article that he actually assaulted an owner of a Nightcliff flat who woke up during the burglary. That is the sort of thing that you get.
Then, on Monday, there was another article: ‘Teens trash unit for fun …’. Who was the victim? A person who suffers from Asperger Syndrome.
If the government was serious about working towards a safer community - and it is not safe, and I will tell you a little more shortly about what is happening outside my office - then it has to stop all this rhetoric and do some real work. It is time that this government started looking at zero tolerance. It is not good enough that we say: ‘Okay, you have done something wrong, you get a rap around the knuckles. Off you go, do not do it again’. It does not work. It has been proven it does not work. Talk to all the young teenagers around the place. When you talk to them about petty crimes and violent crimes that are committed by their peers, they are saying: ‘Zero tolerance, lock them up, get them off the streets’. That is the way to deal with the crimes that we are having to put up with in the Territory. I am sure people living in the Top End would know that it is no different whether you are here, in Katherine, Tennant Creek, Alice Springs or anywhere else across the Territory; it is getting worse, and many of the youth are behaving with impunity.
Take, for instance, outside my office. Over the last month, six weeks, things have really started to get more and more difficult. A group of youths congregate outside my office because it is cool, it is under cover most of the day, and there are a couple of steel benches there that were built a long time ago when my office was directly adjacent to the bus interchange. Because there is a bus interchange, people sat on the benches, appreciating the cool airconditioned glass they could lean against so that they could stay cool in the middle of summer in Alice Springs.
Now the youth, through the day - usually starting just before lunch and then it goes right through until late afternoon - will gather there. Their presence alone, and their behaviour at those two benches, intimidate the average user of the bus service, so that they then do not sit there. The elderly patrons of the buses now have to move further down the street to sit at another bank of benches which are not as comfortable as the ones outside my office. It has got to the stage where these kids – there can be up to 12 or 15 of them - are very rowdy. They run across the street playing chicken, to the applause of their peers sitting there. They do it in such a way that the drivers of vehicles who have the rightful passage along the carriageway of Hartley Street are intimidated. What would happen if they ran over one of these kids? Not only do they run across the street, they will get on bicycles and do the same thing – ride right across the street without looking whether there is any motor vehicle coming along. There will be a lot of cheers and carrying on amongst the group while they do that. I do not think Alice Springs people have to put up with that. There is no need for it. These kids throw rocks at people walking past along the footpath, minding their own business.
Unfortunately, there is one Italian man in Alice Springs who has a bit of a psychiatric history, and his behaviour sometimes, unfortunately, draws attention to him. These kids are throwing rocks at the poor fellow and he is on his own; a fairly elderly gentleman intimidated by a group of about 15 youths. Frequently, he ducks into my office to seek refuge. While the youths have not chased him through my front door, they have ridden their bicycles right into the door, banging into the glass door. Fortunately, the glass is strong enough to withstand the impact. However, it causes great concern to my electorate officer and, at times at the end of the day when she is ready to go home, she is terrified to leave the office because of the gathered youths. She waits until a group of people walk past before she goes out and joins them to walk down the street. It is as bad as that. I am not being racist about it, but this is an average citizen in Alice Springs who is working, doing their job, minding their own business, feeling intimidated because of that.
So what you do? When I am there, I go out myself and talk to the youths, and tell them what they are doing and perhaps they should try and desist from doing that. They relate to me reasonably well and we talk, we kid, we joke, and things settle down. I am able to diffuse the situation and, because I do not feel threatened, it is easily done. However, others are, so it is important for government to realise that their spin on crime and law and order is not all it is painted to be.
Petrol sniffing is getting worse and worse in Alice Springs itself, when you see kids openly inhaling petrol in broad daylight in full view of others. Something has to be done. This diversionary program that the government talks about - all these soft programs - are not dealing with the problem; they really are not. We ask the government to come through and do something about it. When you get 13-year-old boys attempting to sexually assault a younger child, society is breaking down. Parents do not know where their kids are, they do not take responsibility for what their children are spending their time on. They are 13-year-olds roaming the streets and creating havoc, and causing bodily harm to others. You can imagine why people in Alice Springs feels so outraged – absolutely outraged - by the activities that are being conducted against them.
When businesses have to have bouncers and security guards all the time, there is an added impost to a business. There is no need for that. In the days when I first came to Alice Springs in the early 1980s, it is true that people did not lock the doors, and it was a safe place. You could go to bed with the doors wide open - not wide open, unlocked - and be sure that nobody would come and break in. Well, it is not today. In the last two-and-a-half years, people will tell you the situation has become a lot worse; so much so that many people are leaving town. They say: ‘We have had enough. Not only is there poor economy downturn in the whole of the Territory, Alice Springs included, but definitely the law and order issues are such that we do not want to put up with it any more’. The older they get the less inclined they are to put up with the situation. There is no reason why people have to put up with that sort of thing. Alice Springs has been their home for 20 to 30 years, and they would gladly retire there. They have their connections, their networks, their friends, and some of them have their children living there. They say: ‘We are now in our 50s and 60s; we have had enough. We are not going to put up with it any more, and this is the last straw and we will move on’.
Therefore, it is important for the government to understand that, while there is a lot of rhetoric about how good they have been doing and all that, property crime has decreased. The fact is the community does not feel any safer. If you do not feel safe, then your whole lifestyle is impacted upon and you will never be happy. Alice Springs is a great town. Lots of people are working very constructively to the development of the town and, with the loss of jobs and population, there is a continuing downward spiral for the community. If law and order is not looked after properly and we allow this sort of pathetic exhibition to go, it will just make the whole situation worst. I say to the government: it is important for them to look seriously at this and stop saying platitudes and not paying attention to the issue.
I want to talk a little about the supposed decrease in property crime, and this applies particularly to Alice Springs. I have been approached by many constituents about this. They tell me that, when they go to the police to report property damage to their shops and to their homes, they have been told that if it is not worth $5000 or more not to bother, because the incident will not be investigated. Yes, you will you get a PROMIS number from the police so that you can put a claim in with the insurance company. But to be investigated? No, that is not going to happen. I have not had any briefing from the police department, so I do not know whether that is right or wrong. However, if that is the case, then there is a problem. Of course, your property crime statistics are going to look terrific because, in many cases, those $5000 property damage or loss are not recorded in the police system PROMIS and in your statistics.
$5000 buys you a lot. You think about it. It buys you a very reasonable television set; or a great sound system. A good sound system will cost you about $800 or $900, so when you add up $5000, that is a lot of money. A laptop costs you $3000. Therefore, a laptop, a television set and a sound system, is not insignificant for very many families. I say this to you that, even for all us here in this Chamber who earn a reasonable income, losing $5000 is very substantial.
I say again: watch out for those statistics. They can be made to look very pretty but, at the end of the day, they can tell you lots of lies too. The government needs to understand that if you really want to do this properly, they should divorce the Office of Crime Prevention - the people who put out the statistics - from government altogether, and make then an independent body, so that they can report this objectively, truthfully, without any government spin. Then, maybe, we can trust these figures.
Mr VATSKALIS (Ethnic Affairs): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I would like to speak in support for the crime prevention statement made in this House by my colleague, the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General, during the February sittings.
We were elected to government in 2001 and we had a well-defined plan in relation to protection of the community and prevention of crime. I have to admit, a long time before the election when the previous government put mandatory sentencing in place, I actually was wondering if that was the answer: if arresting some people who commit a crime and throwing them in for a certain period of time would become a good lesson for others.
After I was pre-selected and started doorknocking and talking to a lot of people in my electorate of Casuarina, I discovered that the reality was different. While it might be easy to find out who committed a crime and arrest them in a small community, in a large community like Darwin, people were not satisfied because first, the person who broke into their house and committed the crime would not be found or arrested and, if he or she was arrested, then probably with a good lawyer, might get off or would go to prison for 14 days, which means that the taxpayers have to pay for it. Because quite a few of them were habitual criminals, when they got out, they would commit the same crime again and the cycle would be repeated.
People did not want people to be arrested after they broke into their house, vandalised their house, and committed the crime; they wanted the crime to be prevented in the first place. The best way to do that was for the police to be out on the streets, visible on bicycles, motorcycles and on foot rather than in airconditioned cars or vans travelling around. It was coming back time after time, street after street, and the most disturbing was when …
Dr LIM: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. I draw your attention to the state of the House. The government is often ready to accuse the opposition of not being here. This is a ministerial statement and there is no one here ...
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, you have made your point. Ring the bells, please.
We have a quorum. Member for Greatorex, for the benefit of all members of the House, I remind you that, quite apart from the compulsion in respect of government members, it is equally incumbent upon members of the opposition to be present.
Dr Lim: I realise that. That is why I am here.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would you like to continue, Minister for Ethnic Affairs?
Mr VATSKALIS: Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker.
As I was saying, people were happy for offenders to be captured but they were not very comfortable with what was happening. They wanted the offence prevented in the first place and they wanted to see police in the streets. They wanted to see police on bicycles, bikes, or foot, rather than airconditioned vans or cars, driving around the main thoroughfares but never venturing onto the small streets in the neighbourhoods.
The most disturbing thing for me was when I was doorknocking in Casuarina and one of the residents identified himself as a policeman. He expressed concern about the lack of police numbers in Casuarina and, generally in Darwin, and their inability to actually address the crime situation. Of course, that became apparent when we had the ex-Police Commissioner from Queensland doing his review of police in Darwin. Quite rightly, one of the members earlier said that the police are always doing a very good job and have done for years. That is true. The reality is you to have the police on the streets to be able to address the crime situation.
One of our commitments was to address the situation but, also, we promised to build a safe and secure community for all Territorians, and we had a six-point plan. The member for Goyder said if it was so good then why has it not been adopted throughout the world? That is because we have a plan that is adapted to our own situation. It is not necessarily the case that the plan we have devised for the Territory would be suitable for Victoria, New South Wales or Western Australia or other countries.
Our plan promised serious crime means serious time, making people safe at home, getting help from the police when such help is needed, putting victims first, getting tough on the causes of crime, and the establishment of a central crime prevention agency. We have a plan. We went to the electorate with this plan, and people voted us in because they believed that this plan can address the issues of crime in the community.
Since we came to office in August 2001, the community is pleased to see that we have moved away from the reactive policies that were followed by the CLP government, to proactive strategies to prevent criminal behaviour. Of course, how do we prove we have actually done well in crime prevention? We have a series of statistics that will be issued at regular intervals so we can compare from quarter to quarter what is happening: if crime has gone down, or if crime is going up, if crime is actually static. These statistics analyse crime and provide accurate figures which are open for scrutiny. I believe the members of the opposition have criticised these statistics. It would be very difficult to say that these statistics are not accurate and prove that.
A few months ago, they were going on about property crime. All of a sudden, they are not worrying about property crime, but talking about violent crime. So, something has happened there. They realise that property crime has gone down and violent crime has become the new catchphrase. Again, I suggest that if they do the same analysis with the crime statistics, they would find out what violent crime means. Does it mean that I walk down the road and someone pulls a gun and robs me? Does it mean that people actually get into cars and break into houses of unknown persons and steal jewels, or the expensive stereo system the member for Greatorex mentioned before? All this violent crime is actually confined to certain areas of the community and has some different causes, like alcohol. Is this violent crime between strangers or between people who are related? Unfortunately, statistics show that we have a problem, a serious problem - and we acknowledge we have a problem, mainly in certain areas of the community. A lot of these problems are confined to domestic situations and domestic violence.
As for the property crime, we can now give you the 12 months that ended December 2003. There was a fall in house break-ins by 25% and in commercial premises by 29%. Motor vehicle theft and related offences fell by 27%. Yes, assaults rose by 1%, but sexual assaults fell by 2%. Crime is a complex situation. It is not an easy solution, and I agree with the member for Goyder, you cannot just find one model fits all, and we are going to do something and we will resolve the crime in the Northern Territory.
Anecdotal evidence and information I have from police is that, when Leanyer Park opened, vandalism and small break-in numbers collapsed. Obviously, some of the people who committed those crimes found something to do. Being occupied, being there all day and being tired at night, they could not go out and commit the crimes they committed before. That proves that part of the solution may be to give something else to some young people to do, keep young people occupied, then they actually find a way to keep out of crime. Quite regularly, I have spoken to young people, and some do it because they are bored, or because there are five of them together and they are dared to go and break into this car, to go and break into this house. It is peer pressure. This is something that I am not familiar with, because I have to admit, where I was growing up, the opportunity to commit crime was not there because social conditions were different. Neighbourhoods were more cohesive, neighbours knew each other. Certainly, if I had gone home with a bike that I could not have bought, my father would have kicked my butt and taken me straight to the police.
Things have changed; things are not the same. We have to acknowledge that. However, we have to work together as a community, because the reality is, the police cannot solve all the crimes. It is better to have prevention than solution and, in order to prevent, we must work together as a community, as neighbours. Neighbourhood Watch is a very good model and has worked effectively. We have seen in every neighbourhood where Neighbourhood Watch is very strong, the rate of crime is down.
At the same time, as parliamentarians, we have to stand up and be not only representing the people but, in some cases, leading the people. At the same time, we have to work together. It is very easy for the opposition to criticise government for this issue. However, it would be much better to work in a cooperative approach to try and find a solution, because crime will affect people who live in the electorates of opposition members and in government members’ electorates. I have to admit, I was very pleased that the member for Macdonnell, on 11 February 2004, was brave enough to go on 8KIN-FM Central Talkabout program and say:
… Look, I will give bouquets where they are deserved, and the government deserves a bouquet in delivering services
and money for services which help fight crime in our community. If they continue to spend money, I am never going to
sit here and point a finger at them saying that they are not doing their job in that area ...
This is actually a cooperative approach to address the issue of crime. We can sit here and argue about who is doing what and if we are doing good, and what was done wrong. However, the reality is, as parliamentarians, we are leaders of the community and we have to lead the community and take the community with us to work together with the community, the police, and the crime committees in our areas, to address the issue of crime. We have to be leaders to provide an alternative for young people. We have to be leaders to say no to drugs. We have to be leaders to say no to vandalism. We have to be leaders to be able to stand out there and provide alternatives to young people and other people and give them opportunities and choice of what to do. Give them something different. Bored kids are kids looking to do something and, most likely, are kids who are going to be involved in this antisocial behaviour.
Let us get involved in sports ourselves. Okay, we are not very young, but some of us do not have to actually run up and down the field. We can coach kids. We can take kids and provide an alternative way of life, if you want to put it like that, and give them something different to do. We have committees in our areas, but we should be able to have these committees not after the horse has bolted and when the crime rate has increased in our society, but before it happens.
To give you an example, we have had problems in the Casuarina area, especially at the shopping centre, for a number of months now. It started with antisocial behaviour and itinerants. We have got together many times and suggested some solutions. We found some solutions. We engaged the community, the police, the traders and the Darwin City Council and, working together, we solved the problem, to move them away from the areas which were of greater concern; for example, the parks close to schools and the shopping centres.
However, not only that, we had to find alternative ways of how to address this problem. I was very impressed. I was talking to one of the businessman in Casuarina who told me that he never had a problem with vandalism in his area. What he does every fortnight is go out - he knows the kids in the area – and takes them all to Hungry Jacks and buys hamburgers for everyone. He spends $50 and he never had a smashed window in his shop or in his car because the kids know him. They know that he looks after them and they would not go out of their way to smash it. It is not a perfect solution, but one way he found to address some of the problems.
However, I have a better solution. One of the people is the manager of Hungry Jacks. He came from down south, and is one of the people that the company uses to solve problems. There were some problems in the area in Casuarina. He walked in, had a look at the whole situation and changed the management system. He fired some of this management, and warned his employees that their friends were not to be waiting for them two hours before they finished their shifts. Within three months, the whole situation outside Hungry Jacks has changed. There are no problems. He also addressed the problem of itinerants. No small change is given to itinerant people. If itinerants concentrated in the area, and they used it for their ablutions, he changed the timer on his sprinklers. The sprinklers would turn on ...
Mr Dunham: Hose them down. Is that the way? Hose down itinerants. We will have to put that one around. That is a good idea, mate.
Mr VATSKALIS: … and people would not stay there. It is not just a practice used occasionally here. I was working for the city of Wanneroo in Western Australia. In order to address illegal camping by itinerants in the parks, the council had a random on and off of the sprinklers in the park. People would not camp in the parks illegally. That was a proactive measure to eliminate itinerants camping in parks. We have the same system in other areas. It is not hosing down the problem, it is actually finding a proactive way - a different way - to address some of the conditions, or the situation can later develop to a criminal situation.
Another issue with antisocial behaviour is that in Casuarina Shopping Square in Liquorland you cannot buy a five litre cask of wine. Why? That is the decision of Liquorland and the management of the centre. In Casuarina Shopping Village Liquorland you can buy a five litre cask of wine. We are working together with the shopping centre to write to the company, Coles, asking them to apply the same policy in both shopping centres and, in addition, a different design of outlets. Therefore, people are not going to concentrate there waiting for their outlets to open, they are not going to be there at all times, they are not going to be able to sleep on the footpath, thus avoiding the situation with antisocial behaviour and crime.
There are ways to address the issue of crime and antisocial behaviour. I went to Katherine in 1995, 1997 and 1999. I was employed with the Health Department and I used to travel down all the time. I know what Katherine was like at that time. I always questioned the need for so many liquor outlets in such a small town. I would question, not only in Katherine, but in other areas especially in the whole of the Territory. I knew a lot of itinerants and people used to sleep on the median strip in Katherine. They still do. I was there the other day and I saw people doing exactly the same. I have seen it in other parts of the Territory and it is alarming.
However, on the crime again, we have tried and we will continue to try. The fact that we have an increasing number of prisoners in prison is very sad, but that is because the police arrest people who commit a crime; the courts put people who commit a crime into prisons; and we are not afraid to say we are prepared to punish the people who break the law; and we will continue to do so. There is no one solution for crime. It is very difficult, but at least somebody has to give us credit for at least trying. We have not put our hands up and said: ‘Nothing can be done, the only thing we have is mandatory sentencing’. It was such a good policy that even your colleagues of the same political persuasion in Canberra were very unpopular with that, and pressured your government, the then government, to change. You had to change it, otherwise you could accept the same situation as euthanasia; it would have been reversed, and reversed by members of the same political persuasion as you. People in Canberra realised it was not working, it was a knee-jerk reaction; just something to show that you were doing something. The reality was you were not doing anything; not many people were in prisons. If you could catch somebody they would go to prison, but in Darwin I think your arrest rate was about 10%.
Therefore, it is for us as parliamentarians to work together. It is easy to criticise. Your government had to do what you were doing and it can happen if things change in the future. But it will be much, much better if we work together to find out the cause of crime, to address the issue of crime, and give us any constructive criticism and we will take it on board. The Minister for Justice and Attorney-General is a level-headed person. He accepts constructive criticism and suggestions. So let us work together.
We have seen a decline in crime, especially property crime. I am alarmed about the violence committed on people, and that it is really prominent in a particular section of the community. However, what is more alarming is what causes this increase in personal violence. Clearly, everywhere you look, alcohol is behind it and that is very alarming. We have to be able to address this issue. Once again, I reiterate I am very alarmed at the fact that we have so many liquor licences in such a small jurisdiction as the Territory. I have seen in my own electorate one particular outlet cause significant problems because of the sale of alcohol. I urge my colleagues in government to really look seriously at the situation of licences and why we give so many liquor licences to small establishments that otherwise would not be able to survive if it was not for alcohol.
___________________________
Visitors
Visitors
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, if I may, before we go on. I advise honourable members of the presence in the gallery of students from Charles Darwin University studying Certificate IV Business, accompanied by their lecturer, Ms Susan Bandias. On behalf of members, I extend a very warm welcome to you all. It is nice to have you here.
Members: Hear, hear!
___________________________
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, in keeping with the new code of conduct, I suppose I should declare an interest, as I am of a family of publicans who dispensed the very product that is apparently the root of all evil. Several of my relations are still involved in the hospitality industry. I will agree that liquor is often one of the contributing factors to violence in our society and that is why, as a government, the Northern Territory government introduced a world first program, the Living with Alcohol Programs, and that is why there was a great attempt to address this.
I am pleased that the member for Casuarina finished his contribution with: ‘Give us constructive criticism, and we will take it on board’. Here is some constructive criticism: minister, this statement is twaddle dressed up as rubbish parading as policy. If you look at it …
Members interjecting
Mr DUNHAM: Let us start with the compulsory treatment of addicts. It is on page 1 of your statement. ‘Compulsory treatment of addicts arrested on drug-related crime’. This is one of the major planks of your business. We are going to compulsorily treat them no matter what they have done, no matter where they have been. Do you reckon that is a good policy? Let us hear what the Supreme Courts says. Let us hear what Dean Mildren says. He is ‘absolutely staggered’ at how stupid this policy is. He goes on to say:
- He is back before this court with 40-odd offences, and everyone’s been dancing around saying he has to go to drug court …
Dancing around, according to your policy. I quote Justice Mildren:
- What absolute rubbish. This court should have been dealing with him, not a drug court.
Mr Stirling: Who bailed him the last time? Did you ask that question?
Mr DUNHAM: I do not care! The point is it is your policy to compulsorily direct people to a drug court, minister, and you know it is a failure because the very people sitting in judgment are telling you!
Mr Stirling: Find out who the idiot was who bailed him.
Mr DUNHAM: Now, let us stay with the NT News, minister, because you will learn something. This morning we had a disgusting display from the Minister for Housing where he used this parliament to blame the victim. I cannot believe this but, in this case here, back to the NT News, another front page. Gee, we are going well with our crime stuff: ‘Teens trash unit for fun; Autistic victim forced to flee’.
One of the things that the minister says is: ‘Put your hands up the other side if you believe every word the NT News prints. I cannot see hands going up’. Okay, maybe the story is wrong. Let us have a look at the picture. The picture tells a thousand words. How would you like to be living in a flat and come home - this bloke obviously has a computer, he has a bit of gear stored away in a unit, he has a study desk, shows a bit of industry, perhaps he goes to Charles Darwin University. Have a look at this. That tells a thousand words, minister. If you do not believe us, if you do not believe the bench, if you do not believe the NT News, what is the point of giving you constructive criticism?
This statement is based on ‘if we keep saying it, it is bound to happen’. It is a little bit like the Wizard of Oz: ‘I will just shut my eyes and click my heels together and I am back in Kansas and everything is okay’. We had the spectacle of the member for Karama telling us how wonderful things are in Karama. It was very educational because one of the things she talked about was her great interventions as a local member with a gang called the Karama Boys. Are they from Millner? Malak, perhaps? The Karama Boys are from Karama. They are a gang of youths and they are causing great mischief out there. Do not pretend it does not happen. If 19 coppers turn up in your office at Karama to stop a street fight with the Karama Boys and others, do you not think that is a problem? Do you not think that is a problem?
She says that we have to get a few things up and running like the Blue Light Discos. Now, there is a good idea. They used to run weekend after weekend after weekend under the CLP.
Mr Stirling: Until you gutted the police force and they had no resources to run them!
Mr DUNHAM: Oh, we could ask this in estimates, minister. We could ask this in estimates because they ran right up to the time you came into government, and then they ceased. I will lay you a bet right here; you are a betting man. I will lay you a bet right here: there were more Blue Light Discos run in the final two years …
Mr Stirling: You would not pay up! I would not trust you to pay!
Mr DUNHAM: Okay, I will put it on the table. I bet you that in the final two years of the CLP government, there were more Blue Light Discos run than in the last two years of this government.
Mr Henderson: I will bet you there are more coppers in the next two years of the Labor government than the last two years of yours.
Mr DUNHAM: Oh, the next two years! Future! At the moment there are fewer, minister! You have fewer coppers than we had!
Mr Henderson: No, there is not!
Members interjecting.
Mr DUNHAM: It is because your mathematics is to add the new recruits and conveniently forget that people retire. Some people do not like working under this government and they leave, so work that out. You have to do the take-offs if you want to do the add-ons.
This is an interesting statement because the Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services did not mention Blue Light Discos. The Minister for Justice and Attorney-General did not mention Blue Light Discos. However, we have had two people from electorates – oh, three, because we had the member for Arnhem saying when he was a young kid he was a lair, and that it was sport, some well intentioned advice from the coppers and activities that saved him. We then had the spectacle of the member for Casuarina standing up and saying: ‘We built Lake Leanyer’ - which you did not. Anyway, ‘We built it and graffiti and vandalism has all just disappeared in that area. It is all fixed up now’. So, we have Blue Light Discos, Lake Leanyer and sport, for the member for Arnhem.
What if we did something like, say, had a group come to Katherine and run a youth event over a couple of days – say, for instance, a Croc Fest. Wouldn’t that be a good idea? Wouldn’t that be a good idea to spend $100 00 and get other instrumentalities to put in another $300 000? Hey, there is a saving, for every $1 we put in, someone else will find $3 for the kids in Katherine. Have a look at your crime statistics, minister, and you will see Katherine is a hot spot. Katherine has some problems. Why would you cut back the Croc Festival in a town like that, that is crying out for activities for their youth? Why would you do it? It just flies in the face of any reason.
The member for Casuarina also told us about how various businesses are fixing up this crime problem. One bloke does not get his windows smashed in because he gives free burgers out. That is not a bad little - they used to work that in Boston, the Italian people; it is called extortion.
Members interjecting.
Mr DUNHAM: Well, it is interesting. Get him to stop giving out the burgers and see what happens to his windows, because what you are expecting here is businessmen to come up with things to thwart law and order problems that you should be thwarting. Hosing down itinerants - hmm, that is a good idea. So what we will do in the park is turn all the sprinklers on if there is a big mob of - dare we say - Aboriginal people sitting around drinking grog. Great idea! Do you not think that this is just a tad troublesome, minister? Do you not have a problem with this?
Mr Vatskalis: You used to lock them up, didn’t you?
Mr DUNHAM: No, we did not lock them up, actually. But possibly that is something we should consider. Possibly we should consider some of those issues where people might not be offending our laws, but they might be offending some of the social mores. For example, there is an expectation people will not drink in a public place, expectorate, fornicate, defecate and all those sort of things …
Mr Henderson: It never happened when you were in government?
Mr DUNHAM: Of course it happened. All I am saying to you is, we had a minister come out and say: ‘Well, we fixed that. Give us another problem; give us world peace. That is pretty easy after what we have just done’. You have not fixed it, and you certainly have not fixed it in my electorate. In my electorate, some of these issues are going up …
Mr Henderson: Do you know where it is? They have not seen you for a while.
Mr DUNHAM: You have not seen me for a while? Well, there is a good reason for that; you should be overseas.
In Palmerston, there is a 14% increase in property offences from the previous quarter. There is a 17% increase in house break-ins from the last quarter. There is an increase of 25% in other thefts from the previous quarter. There is an increase in 10% in property damage offences from the previous quarter. That is up; that is not down. If you want to run some of this data - particularly when you run data about break-ins and the wonderful things you have done to address that - you probably should also go back in history and look at the biggest intervention we have had to address: burglary and break-ins.
The member for Casuarina went doorknocking, and people said: ‘Look we do not like this because we cannot catch them. The people who broke into our house, they cannot be arrested because they do not know who they are’. Well, guess who brought in DNA testing? Guess who put a lot of money in the budget to build a lab for DNA? Guess what the biggest intervention with the break-ins has been? DNA! It has been the biggest breakthrough since fingerprinting. Therefore, these recidivists - these people who are out there doing it time and time again, starting with small crimes, ending up with bigger crimes - they have been taken out of the cycle. It has not been any great new interventions from you guys; it has been the advent of DNA. We stood out the front of this parliament when we passed the DNA act, and we said - pretty much like you – ‘Let us all get together and say this is the crime fighting tool that should be available and it has bipartisan support’. We got one of you out there - one of you. One of you was game enough to come out, take a Buccal swab - pretty simple procedure - put it in the thing and say: ‘There is my DNA. I support it’.
Let us have a look at some of these crime fighting tools. One of them is the community, and the community is doing it in spite of you. How do I know that? I know it because you told us. You told us that a lot of these small groups that are setting up are being set up because they are doing it of their own volition. The minister said in his statement that the government is not making them do it; they have decided to do it themselves. They decided to do it, a lot of them, because of frustration with the government. That is why they have decided to do it. That is why they are turning the sprinklers on out the front. That is why they are paying hamburgers to kids to not smash their windows. That is why they are organising themselves to do things.
Mr Kiely: You are against kids having a feed, are you?
Mr DUNHAM: Am I against kids having a feed? If you go through the stuff the member for Karama was telling you, she was saying there is a big problem when you see gangs of kids - big problem; gangs of kids, gangs of kids, gangs of kids. I would have thought it is a pretty significant issue that, if you get a group of young people together, that it is an indicator of crime. That is a problem in that suburb. It is a problem in Karama if you get a group of kids together and, all of a sudden, it is a precursor to the law being broken. That is something you should look at.
The other thing we should look at is the fact that you do need a suite of solutions to address a suite of problems. Some of them will be particular to that place, and some of them will not be portable to other places; they might work here and not work there. However, to hear people stand up and blame the victim – the lady whose house was trashed – you are hearing it from the courts and from the papers.
Last week, the member for Casuarina said: ‘Oh, these are only people who bash themselves up at home. She will be right. It is domestic violence, a little bit of biff. That is the usual stuff. When I walk down the street I am not going to get bashed on the head’. Well here is last Monday – the Monday before last – ‘Brawlers turn on police, officer kicked in head … it was the mother of all street fights’. This is not just something that is happening in the bedrooms of Katherine between a couple of people having a bit of a domestic stoush. This is a serious matter. It is a serious matter, and it is happening because there is a belief that people who flout the law can take the next step up.
Mr Bonson interjecting.
Mr DUNHAM: It might be a matter of great hilarity in Millner but, I tell you, it is not in Palmerston. It is one of those things where people will be dismissive of the law, dismissive of the things that the law does, and dismissive of the fact that they might get caught and go to gaol. They take the next step up, and the next step up. That is what we are seeing in this society.
It is important, minister, that you do not hide behind these words; that you do not hide behind the fact that people have told you that it is tickety-boo, that you had a six-point plan, that when you look at the statistics in various – there was a big yawn over there and it is indicative of this debate. We had to ring the bells in this debate.
A member interjecting.
Mr DUNHAM: It is a good thing these people were not here 20 minutes earlier, because they would have seen they outnumbered us in this parliament. There were four people in here. I agree with the Clerk; it is a matter for the opposition as well as the government to maintain the numbers in this House. This is a serious issue …
Mr Bonson: Exactly. They were all upstairs having a rest.
Mr DUNHAM: They were all upstairs. Having beer, are they mate? Well, there you go. That is the problem …
Members interjecting.
Mr DUNHAM: … because while this debate is on, it is incumbent on members to come in here and contribute to it. This is one of the most serious issues affecting our society at the moment. It is an issue that is reflected in stats, the newspaper, on the bench, anecdotally, and by people just going out and seeing it. For the government to be telling us you have it fixed – you are living in fairy land. You keep saying to us: ‘You guys have all these crazy ideas because …
Mr Bonson: It is a war zone here in the Territory, hey?
Mr DUNHAM: War zone. Yes, the war zone is the Alice Springs Hospital. Apparently, the member for Stuart called the Alice Springs Hospital, now he is the Health Minister. Let us hope he can fix that up.
Let us look at the Blue Light Disco – it is a good thing you brought it back up; the Croc Eisteddfod at Katherine; at getting more money into sport programs; and not assuming you have fixed something that is not fixed. Let us hear what the community is saying. We are not the only ones. When you say all you can do is knock – go and have a listen. Go back and knock on the door of the copper that you talked to - the policeman who said: ‘Look we have a problem here because we cannot do whatever it is we are doing’. Go back and talk to him again. Go and knock on his door again and see what he has to say to you.
Go and talk to some of the people who are victims and, instead of pillaring them in this House - the minister said ‘some mental health issues’. That is totally irrelevant to the fact that people broke into this house and trashed it. For the minister to stand up and divulge personal circumstances of that nature in an attempt to deflect some of the odium away from himself, does him no good. I condemn the minister’s feeble attempt. I thank him for bringing the statement forward, and I wish he would do it on a frequent basis, because these are times when we can educate the minister and the government. It is a pity he is not here to hear it, but the minister has to hear this …
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! The member well knows he can not reflect on the presence or otherwise of a member of this House. I ask him to withdraw it.
Mr DUNHAM: I will not reflect on his absence.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale!
Mr DUNHAM: I withdraw it.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.
Mr DUNHAM: However, they are matters of seriousness and they are matters that I hope he takes to his heart. I hope that he realises that behind these statistics are people - behind these statistics are human beings ...
Mr Henderson: And there are a lot less of them!
Mr DUNHAM: There are a lot less - and they are getting bashed and raped, punched around and stuff pinched off them. If you use the facts to say: ‘Oh, we only had 1500 last time’, that is 1500 people. That is 1500 human beings who are not that fussed on these things happening to them.
He talked about petrol sniffing. It is all very well saying any number is intolerable and we never accept this. He talked about petrol sniffers and he said: ‘We are down to five, and that is okay’.
Mr Henderson: No, he did not say that!
Mr DUNHAM: Here you go, I will give you the quote:
- I would like to report that we believe that, out of 18 sniffers at the Keith Lawrie flats, we are down to five who are
still in circulation. So, we are going okay.
You are not going okay, mate. This is not okay. Five sniffers going around the flats is fairly problematic also, my friend. Just remember, these are humans at the end of these stats. Also, just remember that when you do this stuff, do not stand up here with little trite throwaway lines about people who are victims, because they also vote.
Ms CARTER (Port Darwin): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I welcome the opportunity that the minister has provided for us to debate this very important issue. It is one of the key issues here in the Northern Territory, and it is certainly of great concern to many of my constituents in the electorate of Port Darwin. One of the most concerning issues for them is that of antisocial behaviour. I know the minister recently begged a certain group in the community to stop committing crimes. Well, I am begging the minister to do more about antisocial behaviour in our community. It is the most common complaint that I get in my electorate office.
It is sad to see the range of people who are affected by antisocial behaviour. They range from people such as tourists who visit our mall in the CBD of Darwin, and sometimes those tourists - in fact, I would say often - are picked on because they are tourists. I know we have the Dry Season coming up and we will see an influx of tourists into the mall. I know that it is particularly women who are targeted by people who are drunk in the mall, and how distressing it can be for these women. I am lucky; I obviously have a certain demeanour that shows that I do not take much rubbish from certain people. They get pretty short shrift from me when I am approached for some money, etcetera. However, it is not infrequent that you see either older women or young women being humbugged and harassed in our mall. In the end, they fork over their money and look pretty stressed by the experience. I believe it was the member for Katherine who spoke recently in this House about the problem that creates for us with regards to our tourism industry, in that the message very quickly goes up and down the track and elsewhere of where you should avoid because of these problems. Therefore; it is a key concern of mine.
Last year, I went to Cairns and met with the Mayor, Kevin Byrnes, who is an inspirational fellow for many reasons. He has done a very good job of addressing what I will now call the itinerant problem. What he described to me was, essentially, a zero tolerance policy by council as to what they would tolerate on council land, which includes their mall and many of the parks in the area. It takes effort and perseverance. It is not going to go away during our time, and it will take resources.
The itinerants in the CBD of Darwin are street people. They choose, many of them, not to go into accommodation. I know this because I am on the substance abuse committee and we have met with itinerants in various circumstances. They have been people who have been trying get off the grog and have been good enough to talk to us about their lives as itinerants, and the problems that they faced. A few years ago before I was elected to parliament when I was working in the Department of Health and Community Services, I chaired a number of meetings with service providers with regard to the itinerant problem. From both those experiences I have learnt that there is a group of people who choose not to live in accommodation. For example, St Vincent de Paul and the Salvation Army had hostels near and in the CBD, but there are a group of people who will not spend the $5 or $10 a night that some of them require, or they will not conform to any rules. They do not want anyone telling them what they should be doing. They choose not to stay in this cheap accommodation. Instead, they choose to live on the streets.
Why do they do that? They do it to maximise their money, which they can spend on alcohol. They want to drink, they are here to drink and, of course, the end result is it creates misery for all. It creates misery for them, I am sure; for us; and for the people who visit Darwin.
On Friday night of last week, I went on the March for Peace, which was hosted by three of the churches here in Darwin. On the way back from the march, we had to move up the mall by which time it was 7.30 pm. It was very distressing for me to see the itinerants around Raintree Park hassling people and drinking. They were drinking, as usual, a yellow liquid from coke bottles. This is constantly seen in the CBD. I am not a member of the police force, but it is there constantly, and it is beyond me why people who should be out there looking for this type of behaviour seem to be ignoring it to some extent.
Needless to say, sitting around at Raintree Park was a very happy group who were settled in for the night drinking. What we need to have is a greater emphasis on tip-out. I beg the minister and the minister for police to do more with the police force regarding being on top of the issue of tipping out alcohol and enforcing our laws in this area.
Although those on the other side may not see this as a serious issue, I can assure you it is a serious issue now and it is going to be a particularly serious issue that the people who are going to vote in the next 18 eighteen months will be thinking of. If you ask the average person living in our urban centres what are their major problems, I can guarantee you that the hassle caused by public drinking by certain groups of people is way up there. I can assure you the CLP will have plenty to say about it when we get closer to the election. My emphasis to the Martin Labor government is to do more to address the drinking activities of the itinerants.
Why am I so passionate about this topic? For the mall, for tourism and the people who live in my electorate comfortably, it is an issue. However, the ones who break my heart are the people who live in Housing Commission accommodation. There is a large block of units on the corner of Smith and Daly Streets. There are approximately 60 to 70 units and a range of people who are socially disadvantaged live there. When I was first elected three years ago and would go doorknocking in that area, I was struck by the genuineness of these people. They were doing their best on limited means. They kept the place neat and tidy and it was a delight to doorknock there and to visit these people who, I guess, some people would describe as battlers.
It is now breaking my heart that, as of about two years ago, we have seen a slow but steady deterioration in this block of Housing Commission units. The reason we have seen this change is that there have been placed in these units people who do not behave. These are people who do not follow the rules. They bring along and invite their mates to come and stay with them, and their mates are related to street people, itinerants, people visiting from other communities. So, they all join in at the Tomaris block of units, and they have turned into a hell hole over the last couple of years.
When you go there and walk up the stairs, the place stinks of urine, and the stairwells are full of rubbish. The drinking goes on night and day in the grounds of Tomaris. I have been working with the Minister for Housing with this over the last couple of years, and I do genuinely thank him and his staff for the efforts that they have made in this area. We have been battling it now for two years with various strategies. The end result is not much change, and I guess it was brought home to me a few weeks ago when I had a drunk white man come and complain to me bitterly - and, I might say, pretty aggressively - in my office about the drunken black people who are camped out at Tomaris. It is so bad that they are getting desperate about each other. It was just pitiful. He is a tenant at Tomaris, and cannot afford the $150 that you need to give to try and get relocated to another set of units somewhere in Darwin. This is a problem faced by many people on low incomes; they cannot escape. He was basically saying to me: ‘You could go, couldn’t you?’. Of course, I could. I would not put up with it; I would definitely leave.
Another constituent of mine who lives in this block of units - another sad case – is a guy who is unemployed. He is about 50 years of age and we have developed a good friendship over the last few years. About a year or so ago, he finally enrolled at the then Northern Territory University, now Charles Darwin University, to do computer studies in the hope that he would one day be able to get a paying job. He has recently had to relinquish his studies at the university because he cannot get any sleep because of the endless shrieking, yelling and carry-on that goes on at this block of units.
I know we talk about high crime, serious crimes. However, I implore the minister for Justice and the minister for Police to do more about the itinerant problem. I highly recommend, based on my experience from the Mayor of Cairns, that the emphasis goes to tipping out alcohol and zero tolerance for this behaviour. In Northern Territory housing accommodation you should have a set of standards for tenants and everybody has to comply with that set of standards - not one set for Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islanders, and a different set of rules for non-Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. You have to have the rules that are enforced across the board.
The other thing that we must do is have a zero tolerance on drinking in public, and that includes enforcing. I am pleased that the Minister for Housing agreed with me on this and we have erected trespass signs at Tomaris Court. However, we must enforce the trespass situation, so that you can get these people out of the complex. What they are doing, of course, is saying: ‘Oh, I am a friend of so and so’s and we are just having a picnic, and so we are going to drink here’. For quite some time the police were somewhat hamstrung by that sort of excuse which allowed these people to keep drinking, trashing the cars in the car park, and driving everybody else to distraction having to listen to the blues that were going on, and the threats.
We have to do more with itinerants, and I believe that includes putting a real effort into tipping out alcohol. I do feel sorry for the police. They are highly trained people, who want to be solving crimes and doing those sorts of more intellectual jobs. However, unfortunately for them, they are also the people whose job it is to tip out alcohol and enforce, for example, the 2 km law. We need to put pressure on people who are behaving badly - and I definitely concede that these could be people who are white people; you definitely see that problem there as well – by saying we will not tolerate this behaviour in our urban centres, and we will put in the resources to tip out alcohol. This will go a long way in overcoming the problem that public drinking is causing.
The other issue that I am going to touch on briefly here with regard to crime - and I would encourage the minister for Justice to concentrate on it - is the issue of drink spiking. My electorate contains many people who go out to nightclubs and, unfortunately, there appears to be an increased incidence of drink spiking. It is hard to get the stats on a thing like drink spiking because the criminal puts a drug into the victims drink, the victim loses control, and the criminal assist them out into a place where, often, they are sexually assaulted. These criminals, to my mind, are disgusting cowards. I am very well aware of cases where women and men have been attacked in this manner. They are absolutely devastated to wake up in a room that they do not know and realise that something has occurred to their body while they have been unconscious. They are often loath to report it because of the embarrassment that entails for them. I do not think we have any idea as to the extent of drink spiking here in the Northern Territory.
It is an area that needs more work and, to that extent, I have prepared a flyer which I send out. It covers, for example, what drink spiking is, why a person should be concerned, what drugs are involved with drink spiking, how you would know if your drink has been spiked, how to reduce the risks, and how to avoid drink spiking. Those sorts of things have been put into this flyer which I distribute to certain people within my electorate who fit in a certain demographic and who I think might be going out to nightclubs and need to be further educated in this area. The Leader of Opposition also does the same. He also has distributed a flyer to people we think might find it of interest. That is what we are doing with regards to drink spiking. I would encourage the government to think about drink spiking as a serious issue. It certainly affects people in my electorate, and there is more that could be done.
Madam Speaker, those are just two issues specific to crime that affect my electorate. I welcome the minister’s statement and the efforts made by the government with regard to the reduction of crime, but I believe there needs to be more done. Of course, it is concerning to note that there are certain categories of crime which are actually increasing. I certainly hope that we will see improvements in the time to come.
Debate adjourned.
MOTION
Note Paper – Northern Territory Alcohol Framework, Interim Report
Note Paper – Northern Territory Alcohol Framework, Interim Report
Continued from 25 February 2004.
Mr HENDERSON (Business and Industry): Madam Speaker, it is a coincidence, I suppose, in the order of the Notice Paper today, that this report comes on for debate after debate on crime prevention, when so much of the crime prevention debates this evening in the House was related to alcohol abuse or excessive alcohol consumption in the Northern Territory. It goes to show what a huge issue excessive alcohol consumption is in the Northern Territory, and an issue that really has had bipartisan support on a policy basis in trying to address this issues. We are always going to have acrimonious debates in this House on crime and law and order; it is one of the great political divides and battlefields. However, everybody in this parliament recognises and is committed to public policy that tries to reduce the amount of alcohol-related harm in our community. I urge all members, as we move through the current debate of a review of the Liquor Act in the Northern Territory, to really put our collective minds to this as a significant policy issue for this parliament, because we all understand the amount of grief and harm that excessive alcohol consumption causes in our community. I hope that we can have unanimous support for the recommendations which will come as a result of the current work being done and the public consultation being conducted at the moment, and the parliament can reach some consensus in policy and a way forward.
I commend the working group that has presented this interim report - a very extensive and detailed report that is out for public comment now. However, the most startling figures are the per capita consumption of alcohol in the Northern Territory compared to the Australian average. We can certainly see that, in the period of 1991-92 to 1995-96, the per capita consumption of alcohol in the Northern Territory was 14.63 litres of pure alcohol compared to the Australian average of 9.53. In 2000-01, it had reduced to 13.82 litres per person compared to the national average of 9.32 litres. So it is coming down. We do not appear to have any statistics post that period. However, it is still way in excess of the Australian average and, given so many in our community do not drink at all - particularly the majority of our 30% indigenous population - that really is still an extraordinary figure. From my time as shadow health minister, and comparing that 14 litres per person, if you look at that on an international scale, that really does put Territorians right up there in the largest consumers per capita of alcohol in the world. It looks as though we are making some inroads, but there is still a long way to go.
We are all mindful of trying to address this issue without putting policy together that is going to impact on the vast majority of Territorians who do enjoy a cold beer on a hot day. Many of us do. I certainly enjoy a glass or two or three of wine. Certainly, alcohol is the lubricant of a lot of what is good in society but, taken to excess, causes a lot of grief in our community. As policy makers and legislators, we are all going to be concerned to ensure that we do not, through any policy that we might put in place, really constrain a lot of the good that does come on the social side from moderate alcohol intake.
However, the abuse of alcohol is destroying parts of our community. It is a tragedy that impacts on the lives of almost every Territorian, directly or indirectly. We heard a lot of the indirect comment tonight, that we see the grief around our community. Certainly, that is further borne out by the statistical analysis that I, as Police minister, and my colleague, the Justice minister, organised as a result of reviewing the latest crime statistics, when we arranged for senior officers to actually look at the details of the PROMIS records of the 130-odd assaults in the Katherine region in the last quarter, and really go to the underlying causes of those assaults. The Minister for Justice and Attorney-General is on record, without the exact numbers there, that the vast majority of those assaults were alcohol related, contributing to domestic violence and absolute tragedy that is being played out in the community.
Speaking as Police minister, I get around and talk to many police officers around the Northern Territory to gain an understanding of their work. Certainly, much of their police work is alcohol related. Just picking up on the concerns for the member for Port Darwin about a zero tolerance approach of drinking in a public place, I can say that the police do adopt that approach. I do not have the figures with me, but they tip out hundreds of thousands of litres - probably millions of litres - of alcohol, per year, around the Northern Territory. They will tip out more as more police officers come into the police force, given our government’s commitment to boost police numbers by 200 people by 2006. An extra 200 police officers deployed in our community is going to have a more effective impact in zero tolerance and the policing of the 2 km law.
The men and women of our police force are out there in the front line every day and night, moving people on, tipping out grog, picking people up, taking them to the sobering-up shelters or into protective custody. Far too often, an awful part of policing is responding to fatal or serious motor vehicle accidents in which alcohol has been a major factor. Our police force really is in the front line of this problem and they see so much of the harm caused to society and individuals in our society. They have my highest level of esteem and compliments for the work that they do. Dealing with alcohol-related offences is a core part of policing duties and our officers do it well.
Anecdotally, particularly in Alice Springs - Katherine and Tennant Creek will probably be the same - talking to Gary Mannison, the Commander Southern Region who is doing a magnificent job with the police in Alice, he tells anybody that about 80% of police work in Alice Springs in one way or another is alcohol-related. That really is an extraordinary figure. It would be the same in Katherine and Tennant Creek. It is a bit less here in Darwin where property offences are far higher as a percentage of overall police workload than in some of our regional centres. Those figures are just extraordinary and it is part of the policy challenge for this parliament and government to bring that percentage of their workload down. As Police minister, I am appalled that so much of their work and resources are taken up with dealing with alcohol-related social order and violent offences in the Northern Territory.
As business minister, I hear the frustration of small business owners and operators when they return to work in the morning to find smashed windows, rubbish strewn around the place and property damage. I get it as I move around the Northern Territory talking to business owners. The member for Katherine mentioned the Katherine high street. It is astounding when you talk to the poor operators there who, almost on a weekly basis, have their windows smashed in. I have absolute admiration for their doggedness and fortitude in continuing to pursue those business operations at the front street of Katherine.
We are putting more police resources into Katherine; an additional five officers in the last 12 months or so, dedicated street patrols. However, we all know that policing is only part of the answer. The other part of the answer really does revolve around the supply and consumption of alcohol in our society, and we all recognise that it is much more complicated than just the policing issue. The impact on business and the broader community is frustrating, devastating and very costly, particularly for small business when they have to claim on their insurance, their insurance premiums go up as a result of the claims, and it is an ever increasing cycle.
Too much money is being spent by businesses on fixing vandalism caused by drunkenness. Business is saying enough is enough. As my colleague, the member for Casuarina, said, business owners are starting to work cooperatively together in the Casuarina region. Businesses are working together with the police and private security operators and, despite the colourful - for want of a better word - contribution to the crime prevention statement by the member for Drysdale tonight, as I get around the Northern Territory talking to business owners, business round tables, and holding community business discussions, people are telling me that things are getting better. They are still not great, but people do remember the problems we had 12 months and two years ago. The member for Drysdale continues to deny that, unlike the member for Port Darwin, who had a much more balanced contribution.
We are not saying things are fixed. Depending on your definition of ‘fixed’, we are always going to have crime in our community. However, things are getting better. The more police we put in place, the more crime prevention initiatives that a community base will work on. If we address the issue as best we can as a parliament regarding public policy on alcohol, we will start to make the Territory a better place to live regarding the problems we face with crime and alcohol abuse.
To deny that there has been any improvements at all, and that things are getting worse and are totally out of control, is really a slur, particularly on our police force, who have done such a huge job in the last 12 to 18 months, and will continue to do that as the extra resources go into the system under the stewardship of a very competent, capable commissioner. It is early days yet, but he is proving to be one of the best Police Commissioners the Territory has seen, given the results that our current commissioner has on the board in the first 18 months in his role. I believe that they are doing a great job. To deny that there has been any change, well, the member for Drysdale can do better than that.
Having an effective alcohol policy in action is vital for the future development of the Northern Territory. So much of our Territory lifestyle is celebrated with a beer or two, or three or maybe four, but we must work to address the problems alcohol abuse causes in our community.
I congratulate the dual chairs, Daryl Manzie and Donna Ah Chee on their important interim report. It really is a very detailed report, probably one of the seminal reports of its type produced to parliament in the Northern Territory. There is good promotion of the public forums that are discussing this report at the moment. I am hearing ads for them on the radio. I think the one in Casuarina might be tomorrow if my memory is correct. I urge all Territorians to really have a think about where we are going with grog in our community.
The member for Casuarina talked about the number of liquor outlets, and that it an issue in the Northern Territory. On the other side of that issue, as business minister - and particularly as small business minister - I am also very much aware that many of our small shopkeepers in the Northern Territory who have liquor licences and responsibly administer those liquor licences - well, they would not be in business, given the power and the dominance of the big shopping complexes and the 24-hour trading that those major chains can operate out of those shopping complexes. Competition is very tough and a lot of those businesses are hanging on by the skin of their teeth. They are providing a role in our community. The vast majority of them are responsible. The issue with alcohol policy is really finding that balance in the community between supply and demand. I believe that if we can work really strongly on the demand side, as well as looking at reducing the supply when the demand drops, then maybe that is the way to go.
Liquor licensees have to be responsible in regard to the licence that they hold. It is not a right. It is a licence that has conditions on it. Certainly, I would have to say that I sometimes look at some of the bigger operators and the products that they stock. The member for Araluen, in adjournment last night, was showing the type of advertising on high alcohol content wines. I sometimes look - and I am not passing the judgment of Solomon, I suppose – at some of these operators, and think where is their community conscience? Where is their moral commitment to our community when they are deliberately selling high alcohol content products to sections of our community that they know will not only damage themselves, but damage much of the social fabric of our community. They actually focus so much of their retail trading practice and targeting their market on that particular sector. Sometimes, I wonder how those people sleep at night with their consciences.
It is a complex issue in our society. There are no simple answers, but that is why we are elected. We are elected as members of parliament by our community to come to grips with some of these issues. In the law and order debates, where there will always be political friction and intense debate around, we are all politicians, we all know that law and order is always up there in the minds of voters at election time. We are certainly progressing our initiatives and seeing improving results for those policy initiatives. However, for this issue of the use and abuse of alcohol in our community, it would be good to see that this parliament brings its collective knowledge, understanding and community contacts to bear on this issue, to see if we can get a better alcohol framework in the Northern Territory that really starts moving on the demand and supply issues, and making a better Territory for all of us.
I commend the authors of this report and look forward, when they bring their final report back to the Assembly, to further contributing in the debate.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to say that the member for Arnhem and I have something in common. He stated this afternoon that he likes to call it as it is, and so do I. It was very refreshing to hear him say that.
The Minister for Justice and Attorney-General, in Question Time yesterday, stated that five more police officers and an Aboriginal community police officer have been stationed in Katherine, and that police operations are now being targeted with patrols going to hot spots. I made some inquiries with the police to ask how they determine the hot spots. I thought it would be fairly visible, but they determine them by the number of reports that are made to the police station by telephone by the public. In Katherine’s case, the businesses I spoke to in the Oasis Shopping Centre actually do not bother to ring the police on each instance because it would take too much time, and it is such a prevalent problem in the Oasis Shopping Centre, they found that they did not have the time and it was inconvenient. Therefore, several of the businesses in the shopping centre have employed a security firm to patrol the area, but they have no more powers in enforcing the law than you or I do. They just move people on.
I welcome the police foot patrols and the work of the Kalano Night Patrol in assisting the clean-up in Katherine, and especially the main street. However, I can assure the minister that the Kalano Night Patrol needs considerably more training to be able to carry out the duties that are required of them. I urge the minister to address the patrol training issue urgently to upskill its members which will, in turn, raise their credibility in the community.
The issue that public drunkenness in Katherine is supposedly being used by myself as political point scoring is garbage. Like the member for Arnhem …
Dr Toyne: Why do you sell the stuff then?
Mrs MILLER: … I like to call it how it is. I have been involved in the Katherine community for almost 15 years now, working voluntarily on various committees and through Katherine Town Council, with the issue of antisocial behaviour constantly being discussed, and the frustration as to what can be done. This issue was always discussed, argued, and ideas bandied around about what to do to address the issue that would be acceptable to everyone.
Restricted alcohol trials were implemented with the first six months of those trials being very successful. Unfortunately, after the 12-month trial was completed and the appeals had been heard, Katherine reverted to pretty much the same as before the trials. Back to square one, I thought, which was most unfortunate. However, it has been interesting to note that, since that time, there is considerably less alcohol being sold in Katherine. The minister would be very pleased to note that in the establishment that my husband runs, which sells alcohol, the sales are down 47% in three years. However, public drunkenness is not. We still have a problem with public drunkenness. The number of people involved is still the same, and the associated problems of antisocial behaviour have not lessened in that time.
Since that time of the trial, significant steps have been implemented with the Harmony Program, with a very hard-working management committee in Katherine, to address the whole range of issues that are required to address antisocial behaviour, and I welcome their efforts. My request to be able to attend those meetings when possible to assist in the community in any way that I could was rejected, as it was seen to be political. Amazing, isn’t it, Madam Speaker, that 12 months ago my involvement would have been seen as a caring community person? The committee did, however, agree to forward the minutes of those meetings, which keeps me in touch with what is happening in the community. Members of this House would be well aware that my electorate office is situated in the main street of Katherine and, therefore, I see first-hand what is happening in the street. I am very aware of what happens in front of my own eyes. The issue of public drunkenness is something so visible in the main street of Katherine and it does need addressing now. Everybody is just sick of waiting for a miracle, and there isn’t one.
The domestic violence statistics that the Attorney-General spoke of during his address implied that because they are domestic that they occur in homes. In Katherine, domestic violence occurs very visibly in our streets, and it is usually associated with alcohol. The police in Katherine do a fantastic job and I have the greatest respect for their tireless commitment to keeping law and order on our streets. However, I agree with the member for Barkly that we need legislative changes to assist the police with tidying up violence in our communities. There is no other way but to take a firm stand on this unacceptable behaviour. I believe that zero tolerance to public drunkenness and associated acts of violence, backed up with legislative support to assist the police to enforce the zero tolerance, is rightfully demanded by our community. For too long we have been soft shoe shuffling around the issue of public drunkenness and trying to deal with the complex issue without directing our energies to target the obvious offenders. Zero tolerance seems to me to be the only obvious way to clean up our streets .and our shopping centres.
The remarks by government ministers today, and in the media during the week, that my comments about drunkenness were driving away tourists is absolute rubbish and they know it. Tourists do not buy the paper to determine whether they will visit the Territory. They come to the Northern Territory following very expensive marketing and advertising campaigns by the Northern Territory Tourism Commission. The commission spends hundreds of thousands of dollars marketing the Territory to encourage people to come. All too often, they arrive in Katherine - and I have no doubt other Territory towns - to witness drunken behaviours by groups which includes very loud, explicit language and unruly behaviour. Tourists are intimidated by this and apprehensive, and many times I have had to reassure visitors witnessing these incidents in the main street that they are not under any threat. However, first impressions are very hard to alter.
I and members of the community are not always on the spot to reassure people of their safety, and I know that there have been numerous visitors who have changed their plans to stay in Katherine and moved on because of what they have experienced. It is what the visitors see that is so detrimental to Katherine and other towns. The domino effect is that negative experiences are transferred along the track at a fast rate and multiplied dramatically. As a result, we lose the tourist before they even arrive in our town.
One day last week, the House would be interested to know, I had a visit by a gentleman to my electorate office in Katherine who wished to talk to me. I will not name him here, but he had arrived in Katherine that day. He assured me that he was a friend of the Chief Minister and has known her for some years. He has a coffee with her regularly. He lives in her electorate. He has been out of the state for two months on holidays. When he arrived in Katherine on his way back, he was so mortified by what he saw on our street that he inquired where the local member’s office was. He took the time to walk to my office, during which time he had to step over some alcohol-related ‘incidents’ in the streets until he got to my door. He had to tell me that in Katherine it was quite the worse he had ever seen. He said that he was going to spend some time and talk to the Chief Minister about it. I asked this gentleman if he had read the paper because the report that I put in the paper would have been two days prior. He said he had not read any paper and he was unaware of any report that had been in it. His experience just reinforces what I was saying and it is just the cold, hard facts of what is happening.
I look forward to contributing towards addressing substance abuse in our communities through my involvement on the substance abuse select committee. I have only attended three meetings and I have probably about four feet high of paperwork to go through, as well as the excellent report that has been put together by Daryl Manzie and Donna Ah Chee. It is going to take me some time to go through.
I also look forward to supporting the community through the Harmony Group that is working so very hard in Katherine, and to working with the Katherine Police who do an excellent job. I support what the minister who spoke previously was saying in relation to the hard effort that they have to go to, and especially the difficulty they face in attempting to tip out all of the alcohol that they are required to tip out.
I support the Neighbourhood Watch program, which is being established in Katherine and, through different sectors of that program, I am sure we are going to see some improvements in our community.
I will continue to ensure that every avenue is addressed in ensuring that Katherine has a drunk-free Katherine Terrace and Oasis Shopping Centre, to ensure that all members of our community, and visitors alike, can go about their shopping without being subjected to antisocial behaviour.
Madam Speaker, I will not gloss over the facts of what happens in Katherine in the future. I have no intention of it. I will continue to call it how it is, because the people of Katherine would expect nothing less of me.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I have to say at the outset that I have had not as much time as I would like to prepare my contribution. I am standing in for the Minister for Family and Community Services who, unfortunately, has lost a family member and is absent from the Chamber.
The public process around the alcohol framework is coming at a critical point in the relationship of the NT community to alcohol and its use. There is obviously a very long history of the use of alcohol - often destructive use - within our part of Australia. It is fair to say that successive administrations have tried to grapple with some of the problems that it has created. What makes the current exercise through the framework, and the ability of the framework to promote a new round of public contemplation of these issues, is that we are really at a point in the Territory’s history, both as a community and government jurisdiction, where we really cannot ride the trends that alcohol use is creating in a number of critical areas.
Some of the areas where alcohol is absolutely a critical factor are our crime rates, particularly in violent crime - and we spoke a lot about that in these sittings - the health profiles of Territorians, the employability and economic health of our community, and the general strength of our cultural and family life throughout the community. All of those elements are being significantly impacted on by the ongoing abuse of alcohol.
If left unchecked, we are going to find the type of debate that we have been having on violent crime earlier today are not going to be tractable to any other measures if we do not deal with the contribution that alcohol abuse makes to these terrible offences.
The framework and the response to it are going to be very critical to any successful promulgation of crime prevention and community safety within the Northern Territory. The safety I am most concern about - and I do not think there would be a member in this House who would disagree - is the safety of women and children in our community. The people they have to fear most, unfortunately, are the people that they are often closest to Often, a husband or partner, who should be their greatest protection and support in the community, is the person who is offending against them. If we are going to talk about things like domestic violence and public violence, then we have to talk about alcohol and what we are going to do about it.
In health, we are finding all areas of chronic disease, particularly, and also trauma, are underlain again by alcohol abuse. We are seeing this avalanche of cases of diabetes, end-stage renal failure and pancreatitis that are overwhelming areas of our community, the very expensive facilities that you have to keep in place to deal with these terrible illnesses, and our ability to extend services to all the contexts in which people suffering these illnesses are found in the Northern Territory. That effort will not be sustainable on the current trends. If we see the same additions to the chronic disease cases that we have throughout the Territory, the health system simply will not be able to accommodate the level of care and treatment that would be required for these increasing numbers of very sick people. While it might be, in a very ironic way, the reason why some medical people would like to practice in the Territory, we are seeing levels of ill health here, as a result of these connections, that do not exist anywhere else in Australia. It is the thing that we do not want to be known for as a community, because sick people are not functional, happy or supportive people to others around them. They are simply incapacitated by the effect of the illness on them.
If we did not know these connections you could say it is terribly bad luck and the fates have visited this on our community. However, we know what is causing all this, and we have known for many years. What is different about the current era is that these problems have now reached a scale and an intensity that we can no longer take our time in addressing. These are critical matters that have to be addressed in a very powerful way across many areas of government.
Additional to the crime and health areas that I have talked about, a life of substance abuse is a life of unemployability and economic vulnerability. You cannot mix heavy use of alcohol with a successful career. You cannot mix heavy use of alcohol with the acquisition of employable skills and general life skills in the community. People become dysfunctional and dependent on the support of the community around them, and they drain the living energy out of the community. It is all used up in reactive support to people who are not functioning within our community. That is the ultimate cost of all this on our economy and of the general economic health of our individual communities.
Moving through to the cultural and family integrity, we are a community of broken families. We are a community of cultures - whether they be ethnic, Anglo-Saxon or indigenous cultures - that are under pressure, under stress, and a community of families that are not fully functional. That is a day-to-day reality for all of us in public life. We see it around us every single day. Those of us who are also responsible for bush electorates see it in the sense that life becomes a very regular attendance at funerals, hospital wards, and gaols and courts, if you are wanting to support those people for whom you have some affection and respect. To see the numbers of people who have found or got themselves into this sort of situation as a result of alcohol abuse, is nothing short of tragic. It is certainly a blight on the Northern Territory community as it stands right now, today.
This is why the framework and the other processes that are gathering around that - such as the itinerant strategy, the substance abuse initiatives, and the crime prevention initiatives - are all urgent and timely to this particular point in the Territory’s history. We are at the point where we are threatened to be overwhelmed by this. We have to deal with it in a bipartisan way, rather than by cheap political point scoring. That is the message we all have to take out of this very excellent report that was done by the consultants, Donna Ah Chee and Daryl Manzie. They have done a fantastic job in gathering together a picture of the reality that the Territory is in right now.
I would like to talk a little beyond that, about the measures that have been tried in our communities. The member for Katherine mentioned the grog restrictions in Katherine. We have had grog restrictions in Tennant Creek. Actually, the initial trials of restrictions of grog were in Tennant Creek, and it took a huge amount of courage. I know the member for Barkly would back me up on this: this was not an easy initiative to take through to your community. There were everything through to death threats in the early stages of the Tennant Creek trials. There was a lot of emotion and vested interests that were being dealt with there. The Alice Springs trials have come and gone in their first incarnation, if you like.
When you look at the turmoil, or the emotional level, that comes into these types of community reforms, it is very important to keep the actual factors that have been tested in these trials beyond individual interests of business, individual positions that various members of the community might take, or various organisations. This is a very polarised debate, and we need to look at what the tools are that can be worked with when you are looking at how to get these enormous consumption levels in our community down. It is a supply/demand. The supply of alcohol is governed by our licensing arrangements, and by commercial pressures of who might want to make some money selling alcohol products.
However, there is no doubt about the huge body of research that says that the number of outlets, the hours that they trade, and the nature of the way in which alcohol is purveyed in those outlets, are all very critical factors in the overall consumption levels and, therefore, the level of harm that accrues in the community. There have been extended studies done around Australia on the impact of outlet numbers. There is no doubt, equally, that on the history of regulation of alcohol access in the Territory, we have a very high number of outlets per capita within our population. We have pretty extended hours of trading, by and large.
Looking at the impact of the alcohol trials in Alice Springs, which I am probably most familiar with, obviously the trials did not alter the number of outlets. Certainly, the two areas that the Liquor Commissioner chose to work with were the hours of trading and bans on particular alcohol products. Having assessed the evaluation that went with that 12-month trial, I am pretty convinced that there were benefits accrued from looking at changing or shortening the hours of trading in takeaway outlets.
I am far from convinced that the product bans produced a beneficial effect. In fact, I believe it drove many of the drinkers to cask port as an alternative to cask wine. That is not a step forward. That is a step backwards because, of all the products that are on sale, for someone who is going to drink high volumes of alcohol, cask port would be just about the most damaging product that anyone could pick up and drink in large quantities. We have learnt from that. The product bans have had discernible benefits in Tennant Creek from what I have been told by the safe community group there. However, our experience in Alice Springs was that the product bans had the opposite effect to that which was hoped for. Most people were hoping - or certainly the commissioner was - that the shift would be down to products like beer rather than up to fortified products.
Regarding the nature of outlets, we have had a history in the rustic early parts of the Territory of having pretty bare bones bar facilities and takeaways. It is good to see around our major urban centres at least, that we are seeing more mixed food and drink outlets, and people associating drink with socialised activity and eating. That is probably the lesson that European countries have learnt over thousands of years of living with alcohol; that you can build it into a more normal relationship if it is treated as only one element in having a pleasant night out, rather than the only element that dominates the proceedings.
There is certainly ongoing debate about the effectiveness of dry communities and canteens. The example I was talking about earlier today about Ntaria where, because of a very strong action by the community, supported by a dry community declaration over that particular community, they have been able to get the level of grog runs right down into the community. A lot of cars have been confiscated because the police have been told who is coming in and when, and they grab the grog and the cars. It just means that a whole range of violence then does not happen as a follow-on to heavy drinking in the community. Canteens have often been mooted as an alternative to dry communities. The research is not good on that in general. Some detailed studies that were done in the Carpentaria area in far north Queensland showed that you would just add on another domain of drinking to the drinking that goes on, on visits into the local town - in that case to Mt Isa, Cairns or those areas.
On the other hand, we have other examples such as at Kalkarindji, where a very strong management regime maintained by the Daguragu Community Council has seen very controlled drinking patterns in the community. You do not drink if you are not working or if your kids are not going to school, and that has been a very good innovation there and one that shows that it is not always a disastrous thing to have alcohol in communities. However, the key in both of the examples I have given is that you have very strong commitment on the part of the community and the community leaders to a controlled relationship to alcohol within the community. You cannot do it if that strength is not there.
The framework could well look at serving practices and ways of refusing supply to people who are very heavy and chronic drinkers. I do not feel very precious about the human rights in this regard. If someone is, in effect, killing themselves by excessive drinking patterns, why would you not attempt to curtail the amount of alcohol they have access to, if you can at least at the point of sale? Our industry has shown responsibility in training their staff, and probably need to take further steps in that direction so that staff feel secure with both their right and ability to decide whether it is in a person’s interest - or even legal for that matter under the licensing conditions - to receive alcohol at a point of sale.
All of that has to be woven into legislation. However, going back to my opening comments, the absolute reality is that, unless we have a significant drop in the consumption of alcohol per capita in the Northern Territory, the harm will continue. Whether that is achieved through changes in public attitude or by having an act that accepts as one of its guiding principles that the purpose of regulation is to drop the levels of consumption in the community, I do not think we are going to get very far. We have to move forward in this current exercise; we cannot afford not to.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to address the House in regards to the Northern Territory Alcohol Framework Interim Report.
I congratulate the authors of this report, the co-chairs of the group tasked with developing alcohol framework: Mr Manzie, Ms Ah Chee and Gordon Renouf and his team who have pulled this all together.
The report reflects a widespread consultation process with members of the community, hospitality industry, health sector, law enforcement and regulatory agencies. I would also like at this point to offer my sincere congratulations to the incoming Chair of the Select Committee on Substance Abuse in the Community on her appointment, and offer the support of this side of the House to the member for Nightcliff in this role.
Abuse of alcohol in the Northern Territory is a serious problem and something that I was confronted with in a profound way at the Alice Springs Show some years ago. We hear time and again how much of a problem alcohol is in our community. We have tragic ads on television. We see the signs of social disintegration of families and violence, and it causes great concern. However, at the Alice Spring Show, I was presented with a very graphic display that showed the average consumption of alcohol per adult member of that community. It lined it up in how many cartons, casks and bottle of spirits. It was worked out by what was consumed in total in the community, divided by the number of adults living in that community. There was a display of how every adult in this community drinks that quantity.
In speaking to the people at the stand, I discovered this was an Alice Springs group that was there to present these issues to those that were attending the show. However, the figures were no different in Palmerston, Darwin or Tenant Creek and, perhaps, could well have been higher in some centres.
I could not believe that this amount of alcohol could be consumed by one individual in a year. Then, of course, you know of many people who do not drink at all. Therefore, knowing some basic statistics, you know that what was presented, which was a mountain of casks and cartons and even spirits, would be even higher for those who drink moderately. Of course, it is obviously exceptionally higher for those who are heavy drinkers. What I was seeing there was an average. Therefore, the heavy drinkers in our community were consuming extraordinary amounts of alcohol.
When you look at it again and think that you only have two kidneys and those two kidneys have one liver, having to process that quantity of alcohol per year, there is no wonder we place so much strain on our health system. It was – I almost dare not use the word - sobering to see that.
It takes some reflection to see that the effect of alcohol in our communities is so profound. As any local member here knows, 90% or more of the issues that we deal with are fueled by alcohol. It becomes, in a sense, disheartening to keep playing around with the same parameters. Whilst I am really pleased that this interim report has been produced and many directions, propositions and ideas suggested for investigation, discussion and consideration, the problem is becoming so profound and the pressure is building to such a degree, our attention is being directed now to the increasingly high incidence of violence in communities - and we know the reason behind that violence is alcohol. Nearly every case of distortion of our crime statistics, alcohol is a factor. We see it in a graphic way in the communities that we live in, but also in hidden ways that we do not acknowledge easily.
There is alcohol abuse in the politest circles, where it is not so graphic. Most of us, if we reflect quite honestly on our families - no, we may not sit in the parks and drink, but even in our own families there are examples, that I am sure all of us would acknowledge, of very serious alcohol abuse. We might point to the jolly family that gets together, and we may reminisce about Christmas day and how all the uncles got together and had a good old time. However, sometimes our memory blurs that other memory of some uncles getting legless and violent and carrying on. We sometimes forget that. We may reflect on, for example, with my wife having a European background, how European culture seems to really be able to live with it and, growing up there, it is no big issue. However, even there - and I grew up in a good Irish Catholic family, and racism, a few drinks - I knew there were alcoholics in my family, my extended family, and in my wife’s family also. We have a bit of a discussion about it, quite honestly - same issue.
Alcohol is a serious problem. However, I would have to say in the Northern Territory the pressure is building to such a degree that it is going to cause pressure on legislators to take some strong action. I can see the pressure building when I pay attention to what Noel Pearson is saying. I hear a man who is living in that environment and trying to find solutions, proposing directions that, really, are very challenging, and there is no end. There is no joy in looking at five-point plans or strategic plans, or an interim report and then another report. We know that, at the end of it, we are going to be faced with some very strong decisions.
I have had reported to me recently that the pressures are manifesting in ways that will cause communities to make strong decisions. We see small communities make big decisions and they need to be backed up. I do not know the name of the community, but there is one in Pine Creek where that small group have made a decision and have passed their express will on to the licence holder that, if any one of the members of their community present themselves at the licensed venue, the licence holder is not serve them full strength alcohol. It was good to hear the member for Stuart saying, ‘It goes beyond human rights’. That has been backed up by licence holders, to my understanding, in Pine Creek and it has resulted in a significant improvement. When small communities make big decisions, they have to be backed up.
I see that as an example of where we are headed. There is going to be pressure applied. I guess there is going to be a very pronounced and heated public debate when we realise that we are going to have to make a significant policy shift that is going to require action. I predict that that is coming because I have never had any comfort with the arguments and the philosophy of harm minimisation. The ideas of harm minimisation have permeated every one of our social policies for the last 20 or 30 years. The messages that comes through our decision-making, our policy frames, is of such a nature that they send confusing messages - ambiguous messages. There are enough studies to show that, if a government takes a particularly strong and decisive action with regards to a substance - whether it be legal or illegal – you are going to end up with all sorts of debates.
However, in the case of illegal substances, there are two approaches that have been taken by separate jurisdictions, both in Scandinavia. One has taken the harm minimisation road, and it can be dressed up in all sorts of ways. There will be proponents in this argument who will throw all sorts of facts, but I am convinced that the harm minimisation position that has been taken by Holland in regards to an illegal substance contrasts with Sweden which has taken, in the same instance, a completely different position. They have not talked about symptom, thinking, and harm minimisation but that it is wrong - seriously wrong. There are appropriate measures there to reinforce that through the legal system. If you look at the whole social account in how much the health system is costing in one or the other, such as the social disorder, the affect of a completely different approach to social policy is quite evident. I am convinced it is not down the harm minimisation road; it is a far clearer and more decisive action.
You can have so much chatting around the table when you are raising kids, and talk about what you should really be doing. If they go down the wrong way, you bring them back. You say: ‘I know what you should really be doing and you know it, don’t you?’ ‘Yes, I do’. Off they go and go back on the wrong track and you bring them back and have another chat with them. Well, no sensible person with good kids goes on that strategy forever. They tried in 1960s and 1970s and it does not work. There has to be a point where it is very clear: if it is wrong, it is wrong. We are going to have to come to the point where the community is going to say: ‘Do something, for goodness sake’.
I was in the northern suburbs the other day, and I was really quite surprised, to be honest with you. I was at the Alawa shops and saw the number of people who were just sitting around the middle of the day drinking. Maybe I believed the rubbish that is poured out about the community I live in, Palmerston, but what I was seeing was something that people are becoming increasing frustrated with. I predict it is going to be exacerbated and there is going to be the requirement for some strong actions such as – yes, I know the laws are there and the police can tip it out, but it has to be tipped out on every occasion. If you want to maintain control and a tone, it must be done on every single occasion. It must be zero tolerance, and it must be ‘move on’.
Taking the position like that on this side of the House, our political opponents will say: ‘Oh there you go, you do not care’. Not at all! Both work together, and I fear that the debate gets a bit out of hand when it gets too soft and kind people say: ‘It is not really your fault. Unfortunately, you have to some social disadvantage and we will see what we can do there because the causes of this are so consuming and, obviously, it is not really your fault’. That is the balance one way, and the other balance, obviously, is: ‘I do not care what your dramas are. Lock you up and you are in the clink’. That is the other extreme. However, the balance is you have to send a clear, concise and effective message very strongly and consistently. I believe the community is expecting that.
At the same time, there is the rehabilitative mechanisms that need to be made available, but do not over-balance it one way or another. I believe the balance is going to swing back to having far more decisive and strong action, which will be disputed by stakeholders – people who sell the grog. People who are civil libertarians will also join the fray. However, the community as a whole is demanding far more decisive action because it is becoming beyond the pail. We have a problem.
I am very attracted to the language that is coming out of Cape York, and I believe that is an encouragement for us all. The primary concern as a resident of the Northern Territory is our responsibility, one and all, for the issue that we see in indigenous communities. I urge indigenous leaders to have courage to step forward and speak up and lead their communities in ways that are creative, such as we have seen at Pine Creek. However, as I said, if small communities make big decisions we, as elected representatives and community leaders, must make sure that those people in those small communities who have made big decisions, must certainly be backed up, whatever the cost. We really must protect those strong but small moves, because they are the sparks of hope.
When we hear stories of indigenous ladies in the community becoming so concerned that they get together and demand strong action and they want this or that, they must be backed up. We must do everything that we can to back those people, because that is where it is going to happen. We can just open the floodgates of education and pour it across the Northern Territory and channel every bit of resource we have into education, but it will not really change the problem. We also have to have the strength to back up those indigenous leaders and those ladies in communities who stand up and say they want an end to this, and find creative and enthusiastic ways of supporting them.
I am grateful that we have this document to assist us in discussing a very important issue. However, I predict that the future belongs to those who have the courage to take a very strong and decisive role; a role that is going to require the ability to withstand strong criticism and abuse of those who would say that we are abusing human rights. It has entered the danger zone right across the community. Anyone with the sense to listen to what the community is saying and feel how they are feeling, will know they are going to require strong action. It is up to us who have that responsibility to provide that, and I am prepared to go there.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I support very much what the Leader of the Opposition just said. He covered many important issues that I believe most people in this Legislative Assembly would agree with. I do not believe we have any simple answers to these issues. They are going to be ongoing, but we have to try. In saying that, this particular document is certainly going a long way towards that.
I have said before, as a member of the substance abuse committee, I was a little disappointed when all of a sudden this was announced. Working on the substance abuse committee, we thought that this was our job. However, I should say to the minister, that what the group that you have brought together have put together, is an excellent document - an excellent starter. It is called an interim report but it certainly has not left a lot out. It is quite a thorough document, and it covers pretty well all the issues that we have been looking at on the substance abuse committee. They have been able to do it quickly and put it together logically, and it will certainly be the foundation, I believe, for the government to introduce policies which have to have an effect.
I do not think we have any other choice because things have not improved at all over the time that I have lived in the Territory. When I arrived at Daly River in 1970, the pub was well and truly going then, plus there was Robbie’s Sandbar. If you had just arrived from Melbourne and ended up in a place like Daly River, you ran into drunks all over the place, as happened late at night, especially on Friday nights. It was a bit of a rude shock. We even had cases where the owner of Robbie’s Sandbar - I can say it now - would pick up people from the mission, take them down, get them all plied up with grog and drop them back at the mission. You copped a fairly violent night in the community, especially on Friday nights. Of course, you had the Daly River Pub on top of that.
When I was there, they sold warm beer to Aboriginal people and they sold cold beer to others. If you were an Aboriginal, you were served out the back through a little side window. That is how you were treated. It was pretty bad then, but today, it is just as bad. The only difference is that, maybe, the houses look a bit better and the lawns are a bit greener, or well kept. However, there are still major problems with alcohol in those communities.
Travelling around the Territory and visiting the Aboriginal communities – I am not talking about Aboriginal communities only, but we on the substance abuse committee have put a fair bit of work into visiting Aboriginal communities - alcohol still has major effects. It has major effects on non-indigenous communities. My electorate may not have an itinerant problem as such – occasionally it has – but it does have issues of excessive drinking.
Sporting clubs, basically, use alcohol to increase the profits to help the club continue. Maybe that is an indictment of what I might call lack of government funding. I am not saying sporting clubs should rely only on government funding, but there are times when clubs use things like gambling and alcohol to make profits to provide the sporting facilities that they need. We need to invest more money in sport. The member for Arnhem spoke about the importance of sport in crime prevention and a lot of that has to do with the reduction of alcohol consumption.
I would like to comment on the make-up of the interim report. I have not read it thoroughly yet; it is a fairly detailed document. It is the sort of document you need to read a couple of times to have a proper understanding of it. It raises some really interesting issues, one of which is what will the goals, aims and principles of the framework be. Even when you have done that, the most important thing will be the monitoring, review and revision of the framework. It is all very well to set up programs but, if there is no way to monitor and evaluate them to see where they are going, they will be a waste of time.
The other thing which is very important, is the coordination of programs. You have so many programs with so many people doing differing aspects of either alcohol rehabilitation or study or whatever. How can we combine all of those together - not necessarily combine them as one, but that they all be heading towards the same goals so that we do not duplicate and waste government funds?
There are a couple of issues I will raise. I spoke on alcohol last night when we were talking about the interim report of the substance abuse committee. There was talk by the member for Stuart on consumption. It is an issue because, when you read the opening chapter of this report, it says:
- The Northern Territory has consistently reported the highest per capita consumption of alcohol in Australia
at 13.82 litres of pure alcohol per person each year. This is 1.5 times the Australian average of 9.53 litres.
A lot of that is combined with, I suppose, a lifestyle that we pretend is Territorian, plus a fair bit of what I would call corporate advertising that promotes the excessive consumption of alcohol. I have said before that a number of ads on television are not just to do with the sale of a particular product, they are to do with the sale of a large quantity of alcohol. They are basically saying to people that it is good to drink a lot of alcohol. You have all seen the ad where he opens up the back of the vehicle and it is full of XXXX. There is another one where he opens up the big fridge in the side of the garage and that is all full of XXXX. They might be quite funny ads, but they also have a subliminal message which says drink a lot of alcohol. We have to look at the issue of advertising and what part it plays in us having 1.5 times the Australian average.
Last night, the member for Araluen showed a flagon of wine where people could get cash back. Once again, you have a company which does not seem to have any qualms about promoting or encouraging people to drink alcohol. It will be important for these alcohol framework people to look at it, because the framework actually does not have much to say on the promotion - that is, the promotion via advertising - of alcohol. I believe that, when they bring out their final report, I would hope - and I will be putting that to them - that they will look at the possible effects that advertising does have on the increasing consumption in the Northern Territory.
I also wonder whether our government will really take the bull by the horns. The reason I say that is because I notice that Traeger Park now has light beer, and I have mentioned it before. There were some concerns - think in the first interstate football match this year - about problems with alcohol at Marrara Oval. Anyway, I went to the second interstate football match, the Wizard Cup, and I would say mid-strength and full-strength beers were the only things being sold there. People may say there was no problem, but I saw in front of me an indigenous girl about 15 years old who was drunk, drinking full-strength beer next to her mother, who did not seem to care two hoots. She was not the only one, and it was not just indigenous people. I am not saying there were many young people drinking. However, when I looked across the crowd there just seemed to be a lot of people over the limit by about half-time in the football. I do wonder whether the government would be brave enough to say to Marrara that they only serve light beer. After all, are we going to the footy or are we going to get drunk? That is the question we have to ask. There were certainly quite a few people who were well and truly over the limit at the football. Therefore, when the government says that it will have to take some hard decisions, they are some of the decisions that it will have to make.
The other issue that I would like the alcohol framework people to look at is what involvement can they have with the companies that produce alcohol? I still believe we cannot leave them out of the loop. If a company is selling wine casks in Alice Springs, with a promotion to try to get more people to drink that alcohol, why are we not making contact with the people who produce that product? Why are they not being brought into the loop to discuss the issues the Territory’s has? Why are they not being taken around to the Alawa supermarket to show people what problems we have with itinerants? Why do they not see the results of the violence in the Northern Territory that is alcohol related. as stated in the report? I believe they have to take some responsibility for the product they produce. I do not think they can just produce a product, put ads on television, promote the goods and wipe their hands of responsibility. I believe they should be asked to account, at least in some way, for the product they produce. Certainly, for most people it is a product of enjoyment and refreshment, but I also think they need to look at the downside.
A good section in the framework interim report, minister, is the section with all the questions in it, Part C. That certainly encourages community response. It puts quite good summaries before the questions so that it enables people to think about what the issues are. I do not think I would have thought of quite a few of these issues. I thank Gordon Renouf, Daryl Manzie, Donna Ah Chee and Jo Townsend and quite a few other people who put this document together. They have put together excellent, very relevant questions, that I hope more of the community can have a look at because, if we are to really get a community response, we want it more than just coming from politicians and a few people involved in the industry. Some of these questions would be good to ask consumers, people who use the licensed premises, and also people who do not use licensed premises. There are some excellent questions in here and the people who put this together should be congratulated for it.
I do not want to say any more than that. I believe that this document is a good start. It is called an interim report. It is a pretty good interim report. Whatever goes into becoming the final report will not be much more than this. I will certainly be looking forward to the final report. The proof in the pudding will be whether government - and I say government in the sense of parliament - is going to be brave enough to act.
As you would have known, trying to introduce alcohol restrictions in Tennant Creek was a fairly brave move. I was actually there when John Maley was the Chairman of the Liquor Commission and he was conducting the hearings. I was there for local government reasons, and I went into the court room where they held the hearings. There were certainly some very persuasive people involved in those discussions, like the AHA and the owners of some of the licensed premises. Their priority was profit, and they saw their profit reducing. They really did not have a concern about what effect their premises had on the community in the Tennant Creek area. There might still be some problems in Tennant Creek, but there are obviously winners. The liquor restrictions in Tennant Creek certainly have not solved all the problems, but have helped a lot. John Maley and his team got it right for that time and for that town.
Therefore, I do not think we can stop there. I certainly hope that we can do something. I have said here before - and I probably said it in my first speech - that I remember out of the 30 kids that I had in the dormitory at Daly River, 15 of those died under the age of 21, all because of alcohol. I used to be able to name them all, but my memory is starting to fade a bit. They all died violently and all because of grog. I owe it, and we owe it, to try and reverse that situation, to stop so much wasted talent in our community, and not only from alcohol. We know about petrol and marijuana, but alcohol is the main one. If the Territory is ever going to grow, then we have to use the talent that comes from our youth - both indigenous and non-indigenous. If we are losing that, we are losing generations of growth for the Territory. Therefore, I am hoping that this is a start and we will continue on in a very positive and brave way.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I know that so many members of this House this evening have spoken on this particular issue and it is no major surprise because it is such a profound problem in our community. Believe you me, my electorate is no exception. I see on a daily basis what happens in Alice Springs in relation to substance and, particularly alcohol abuse. I find the effects of alcohol in our community depressing. However, there is, of course, the nexus between the fact that there are those elements of our community who choose to abuse it, and those who choose to use it. There is liquor in my home and, although I am a teetotaller by habit myself, my wife certainly is not, but it does not cause her any problems. I know there are many homes in Alice Springs and throughout the Northern Territory like it, so you have to find the balance between both sides.
I do not particularly want to dwell on it a great deal. What I wish to remind the government of was the bill that I brought before this House which was defeated - politely defeated I have to say - by the government with a promise that what I said in the bill will not be forgotten in relation to using the prohibition elements of the Liquor Act and changing them to create a system by which a habitual drunk could be declared, that such habitual drunks could become subject to court orders, and to breach those court orders would be an offence. I thanked the minister at the time when he spoke to us about it, and I know this is just part of what the government …
Mr Stirling: I am still the minister.
Mr ELFERINK: … has to touch on. However, I would still urge the government to revisit the habitual drunks legislation that I brought before this House, when they finally get around to putting out an alcohol strategy.
I am disappointed this report did not touch on it. They do touch on section 122 of the Liquor Act and talk about the frustrating inability for it to effectively operate in the real world. What I suggested was an answer to that, and I had hoped to see some sort of comment in relation to what I brought before this House in the report. It is not there, sadly enough.
However, I know it is still first and foremost in the mind of the government. The Deputy Chief Minister is indicating to me that he still remembers the bill that I brought before this House. That is basically all I wanted to say in relation to this report this evening.
Ms CARTER (Port Darwin): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I would like to place on the record my gratitude for the Interim Report of the Alcohol Framework for the Northern Territory and the work that has been done by the small but very active group appointed by the minister to do this work.
I am a member of the substance abuse committee and I admit that it was a disappointment when we became aware that this particular group would be formed and, to some extent, take over the role that we were doing at that time, and that is frustrating. However, I am certainly convinced that all the work that we have done as a committee has been presented to the group which is developing this framework. I know that they are using the information that we had gathered over the last couple of years because it is reflected in the interim report.
As far as I am concerned, alcohol is the biggest problem that faces the Northern Territory, and we must continue to work as hard as we can to try to reduce the impact that harmful consumption of alcohol is having on the Territory. It is causing social disruption. I am sure all members would have seen today’s NT News, on page 7, where half a page or more is devoted to the problems caused by alcohol. One headlines is: ‘Car park drunks out of control’, and another headline is: ‘Residents’ anger at wall prank’. The resident in question, James Groombridge, is a constituent of mine. I know how hard James has worked over the last year or so to try to address the alcohol issues that he faces as resident living in Mitchell Street, and the problems those residents have from the behaviour of the people who get intoxicated at licensed premises in Mitchell Street and then come out of those premises and cause a degree of havoc for the people who live in Mitchell Street. Members need to remember that the CBD is a place where people live. They certainly go there to party, and we welcome that, but excessive drunken behaviour is a total pain for everybody. This is what does occur in Mitchell Street, for example, from time to time.
I applauded when the government introduced foot patrols into Mitchell Street, which has had an effect. I hope that the government is able to find the resources to continue those. There are times when we have trouble locating the foot patrols. Perhaps that night was one of them, when drunks knocked over the letterbox structure at the block of units at 79 Mitchell Street.
That is just today’s paper. The car park drunks referred to in the article pretty much reflect the issue that I talked about earlier this evening with regard to crime and the problems that we face with public drinking and groups that, basically, live on the streets, consume alcohol and then behave in a way that is very upsetting for law-abiding citizens.
That is one aspect of the social disruption: the vandalism and associated misdemeanours arising from drunken behaviour. The other social disruption, of course, is to families and the heartbreak that families suffer when a member of that family becomes addicted to alcohol.
Health, then, for the people who are affected by alcohol, either as substance abusers or as family members under stress, is a major problem in the NT. I know the statistics are pretty horrific in respect of the percentage of people who are injured as a result of alcohol intoxication, who suffer long-term health problems – for example, neuropathies to the feet. You often see these people in our urban centres. They have trouble walking because the nerve endings to their feet have been affected by years of alcohol abuse. There are brain injuries and so many things related to health aspects of alcohol abuse.
Another problem we face is the one of loss of work hours of Territorians who are employed but abuse alcohol. Statistics demonstrate this when you look at the rates of absenteeism and sick leave on Mondays compared to, say, Thursdays because someone has had a heavy weekend.
The affects of alcohol abuse are felt everywhere and, I would argue, by just about everyone in the Northern Territory. The reasons it is a particular problem in the NT include things such as our relatively young age. We are a young population with an average age of about 30 years. This is the age when people like to go out and socialise, the age at which people drink. Because of that statistic, we have a high per capita consumption of alcohol.
Another thing, of course, is the cultural acceptance and almost encouragement of drinking. A few years ago, we had the Living With Alcohol program, which did a fantastic job in starting to change our attitudes towards alcohol consumption. I do not drink very much at all, but 10 or 15 years ago when I went out socially in the Northern Territory, I was under some pressure, socially, to drink and to be like everyone else. When the Living With Alcohol program was introduced, the advertisements touched everyone; everyone could relate to them and they started to make people think that it is okay not to drink. Friends and colleagues understood that you did not have to drink to have a good time and it was okay for people not to drink.
That was a move in the right direction of changing people’s attitudes, just as all of us, I am sure, have had our attitudes change. If you are old enough - and some of us are not – you may remember the time before we had the anti-litter campaigns throughout Australia. Those media campaigns have had a massive impact on littering in Australia, and on our attitudes and behaviour. So it is possible - and we have seen it with the Living With Alcohol program - to have strategies that change community behaviour and attitudes to behaviour.
However, it remains a fact that, because of our young age group, it is cool to drink for many people. It is a fun thing to do and, to a degree, it is culturally encouraged here.
The other reason why we have a high alcohol consumption rate is the easy availability of alcohol in the Northern Territory. When I came here in 1979 from Queensland, and I was nursing at Royal Darwin Hospital, I was at the old hospital in town for the first year, but I lived at Casuarina. I went to the Tiwi shops, and I was absolutely stunned to see this great wall of alcohol for sale in the local supermarket. It was just amazing. At the stage, I was about 23 years of age, and I probably thought: ‘Hey, that is pretty neat isn’t it?’. No problem at all with that. Now it really dawns on me, when I go back home to my parents and go to the supermarkets there and it is not on display the way that it is here, and the accessibility of alcohol is nowhere near as much as it is here. We have many outlets and, in fact, there are less than 500 Territorians for every licence in the Northern Territory. Therefore, every 500 of us are supporting a licensed premises - be that a restaurant, a takeaway, or a hotel. It is interesting to know that 75% of all alcohol consumed in the Northern Territory is takeaway liquor. That is a huge amount, this takeaway. These are the sort of issues that we are going to have to grapple with - these tough issues - very soon.
Another reason why people drink in the Northern Territory - and it is the world over; there is not a society in the world that does not use some form of substance to change their appreciation of life - is that they like it. It creates a sensation of happiness, relaxes people, gives them something to do and is often used in a social setting to, basically, lubricate the conversations and make people feel like they are having a great time. So, it is an enjoyable thing for many people to do.
Over the past 10 years or so, both the Country Liberal Party and the Labor governments have worked to address this issue. This is necessary and needs to be applauded. The interim report touches on issues, provides some detail on issues, and gives us a basis to think about issues. It is now being circulated in the community and people are being asked to make comment on it and provide feedback on it so that, together as a community, we can work to continue to reduce the harm caused by alcohol in the Northern Territory.
With my involvement with the substance abuse committee over the last couple of years, I have certainly appreciated the travel that this committee has done throughout the Northern Territory. Major centres, small centres, and very distant places have been visited by the committee. We have gone out there to listen to what people have to say to us, and it has certainly been a pretty sad story. However, what I have found is an overwhelming desire for change in the community of the Northern Territory. Regardless of who is in government, you will find great support from this community for hard decisions. Some of those decisions will get lots of media, and the handful of loud people who complain about things, but I believe there is a grassroots, strong support for tough decisions to be made, and I hope that I will be here over the years to come to be part of that change.
It is frustrating though for Territorians. We have met with countless people involved in trying to address alcohol issues. Some of these people work for the Northern Territory government, others work for non-government organisations, and others just do it out of the goodness of their heart for their community. There is a frustration across the board with a feeling that nothing much is changing. I hope that this report provides an impetus to change, to make tough decisions.
There is no one answer to this problem. We did see, as I said earlier, in the mid-1990s, the success of the new Living with Alcohol program. It is my hope that this report will create an opportunity for whoever is in government to be able to implement and resource a program as successful as the Living with Alcohol program was, and maintain it for years to come as we slowly work to improve the problems.
We need a coordinated approach. The substance abuse committee met with the alcohol framework team today, and this was one of the main things we talked about: the need for the establishment of some body which can work to coordinate the provision of an alcohol strategy in the Northern Territory - a strategy which incorporates not just the government aspects but also the non-government aspects of the work that is going to be done to improve this problem.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I welcome the report; it is definitely a step in the right direction. I look forward to the recommendations of the final report, and the support that I hope we are able to give it, and to the government, as they move to implement some of the recommendations.
Mr STIRLING (Racing, Gaming and Licensing): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, there has been a lot said about alcohol and alcohol abuse over the last two days in this Chamber, so I will not take a long time in summing up debate. However, I want to thank all members who contributed to the debate, particularly those who doubled-up, I guess, in the sense they spoke to both the substance abuse committee report over the last 24 hours or so, and again tonight on the alcohol framework review. The debate leaves no member in any doubt as to that strong statistical link between alcohol abuse and crime, particularly those crimes of violence - and many members spoke to that point.
I guess each of us, as local members, see it in different perspectives, whilst still recognising the seriousness of it. Members like the members for Macdonnell, Stuart, Barkly, myself - any member, in fact, with a rural and strong indigenous face to their electorate - see it from the point of view of attending funerals. We see it in our local paper when a 34-year-old woman laid down on the road and was run over and killed a matter of four weeks ago, not far from my place in Nhulunbuy. We see it in the antisocial behaviour that other members have talked about, and in the number of funerals we go to. Again, just a matter of weeks ago, a well-known and highly-respected man died in his 40s. These are people I have known for 20 or more years, and many of them at 43, 44, 45 are gone and are no longer with us. Often, it is a result of alcohol abuse. I am not demeaning anybody’s perception in this, but different members come at it with different levels, I guess, at a personal perspective, as you would expect.
It is not a new problem in the Northern Territory, and many members have alluded to that. Certainly, the previous government addressed it. Under Marshal Perron, it recognised and addressed it with the Living with Alcohol program. The tragedy with the Living with Alcohol program - and I remember Marshal Perron on the night it was introduced, when someone asked the question: ‘What if it does not work?’ He said: ‘We are going to make it work. If these strategies do not work in the first instance, we are flexible enough; we will go back and change it’. Sadly, when the government was so strong about it in the first instance, it fell out of favour over time, rather than being updated and renewed as the energy and the options in there began to fail to take effect. However, we are, as a government, absolutely determined to make a difference in this area, and in some cases we already are.
The itinerants strategy has had a marked effect already in Darwin. However, the problem I have with that is sending people back to my home base of Nhulunbuy where we do not have the strategies yet in place to deal with that in intervention, rehabilitation, programs, training and so on. That is coming, but we have this little gap at the moment where people are heading home and, of course, adding to the antisocial behaviour mix and problems that we already have.
There was some commentary throughout the debate that the alcohol framework review was perceived to come over the top of the substance abuse committee. It certainly was not the intention of the government. I see the roles as quite different. In fact, the substance abuse has a much broader charter than the alcohol review team. Tonight I heard much more positive commentary about that, where members were picking up and appreciating the fact that they were, in fact, complementary and there was a lot of synergies here. Each member of the substance abuse committee spoke of the appreciation they had that the alcohol review work had picked up all of their findings and was working through them. There was no intention to subvert or take over, if you like, the work of the substance abuse committee, but to recognise this as a much more precise and distinctive role than the substance abuse committee. Therefore, it was a complementary exercise and, obviously, offering synergies as well.
The key issue though, is the need for government to set an overall direction on alcohol strategy. That really is what government is looking for once this report has been out and about and fully finalised. The content of the report is not final – it is an interim report. My hope is that the report at this stage of development will continue to generate debate and interest beyond the commentary of the last 24 hours or so of this Chamber. It will be tested. It will be revised against the views of the public and the ideas that the pubic have about this. I encourage all Territorians and members to continue to contribute views to the review. I look forward to the final report. I have no doubt that the final report will provide challenging recommendations to the government. I doubt that the recommendations would be worthwhile to government unless they contained a serious amount of challenge within them, because the situation is dire and it is going to take challenging problem solving to begin to overcome it.
The members for Nelson and Port Darwin, and the Leader of the Opposition, all pointed to the fact that government will probably have to make tough decisions in and around this report. Each of them expressed their support for government making those tough decisions. I welcome that support and I look forward to it at the time that we are in here discussing the way forward. I thank those members particularly for recognising that tough problems are going to require tough solutions which require, in ‘Yes Minister’ terminology, ‘brave decisions’. That is something that always sent Sir Humphrey – well, the minister actually - scurrying a bit. I do not intend to scurry away. I look forward to the support of members of this Chamber when we face the tough decisions later. Thank you to those members in particular, and thanks to all members who contributed, some of them twice.
A final thank you to Mr Daryl Manzie, Ms Donna Ah Chee, Mr Gordon Renouf and the others for their work so far. I thank them as well in anticipation of what I expect will be a very comprehensive and very valuable report to this Assembly and to this government.
Motion agreed to; paper noted.
ADJOURNMENT
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
I would like to tell the House about a wonderful morning I enjoyed on Wednesday of last week when I was invited to visit Taminmin High School. I was greatly impressed by the energy and enthusiasm of the whole school community and some very impressive activities that are taking place there.
When I arrived at the school I was greeted by the principal, Kim Rowe. With him were Jennifer Pickering, the School Council Chairperson; Anjie Smith and Joanna Daby the Aboriginal Student Support Parental Awareness (ASSPA) Committee representatives; Dianne Wilcox, the School Council representative; and Sydney Robinson, the School Council Deputy Chairperson. This group officially welcomed me and began the tour of the school.
The first stop on the Cook’s tour of the facilities was the drama room, where the Taminmin Choristers were waiting to begin a performance. Some 35 girls from Years 8 to 10 were ready. I particularly enjoyed their choice of songs: California Dreaming from the Mamas and the Papas and Tears in Heaven from Eric Clapton. I love choral singing so it was a real pleasure to listen to them. I could hardly believe it when I was told that the choir had only been working together for six weeks. It is a tribute to the girls choir, but also to the commitment of Tanya Ham and Vicki Mannion, who work with the girls to achieve this great result. I wish them luck in their future singing.
Tanya came to Taminmin from Howard Springs Primary this year and has a great love of singing and music. She teaches English and Social Education and takes the choir in her spare time with Vicki Mannion. Vicki teaches English and is currently taking the Year 12 English Studies group.
I was then taken to the new Skillcentre, which is the centre for VET in Schools programs. On a Wednesday they have cluster engineering and automotive, and automotive and engineering and metal work during the week. I met with some of the young men and had a look at some of the projects they are working on. I spoke to Stewart Godwin, Dan Keogh, Tyson Yeo and Adam Foster, among others, who told me about the real value they saw in the VET in Schools programs and study and skills they developed. Kai Pedersen, a long-term Taminmin teacher, noted that Ross Hull from the 2003 group was to compete in the Worldskills VET in Schools metal and engineering competition in Brisbane in late May. He also said that Jim Frees had gained employment specifically because of his competencies acquired in the program. VET in Schools programs are fully integrated into senior secondary education and they are undertaken by students at all levels. Taminmin leads in the involvement in the VET in Schools program with approximately 100 students currently undertaking those programs.
We moved onto agriculture/horticulture and I met teacher David McCarrick. I saw the justly famous Drought Master cattle in the yards being put through the crush by Ed Pickering, a farm technician, and the students, and I talked with a number of students about their Ag courses. David outlined the range of areas covered in his area including the development of horticulture in the school. The school is looking to move increasingly into Asian vegetables as an area of study since it is such a growth area in the district.
We then hopped into four-wheel drives driven by Sue McLean and Sandy McCullough, two long--term staff members, and went to the Woodside Natural Reserve. On the way, the group travelled through the Taminmin farm itself. This is a managed agricultural asset next to a managed natural reserve. The farm, which is some 70 hectares, sits adjacent the Woodside Reserve, which is sponsored by Woodside Petroleum with $5000 per annum. Altogether, with the 129 hectares of the school plus Woodside itself, which is 51 hectares, and the solar village settlement of some 200 hectares, there is a haven of relatively untouched land in the Litchfield Shire which provides a shelter for animals and birds of all kinds in a natural bush ecosystem.
The Wet Season walk across the boardwalks and through the beautiful Litchfield bush was great. Frogwatch and Waterwatch are programs undertaken in the reserves by the students under the guidance of Anjela Flahive from the science faculty. The reserves are excellent teaching and learning environments, and are also the headwaters of the Elizabeth River. Kim Rowe explained to me how the reserve acts as a valuable protector of the riverine corridor down into the tidal zones further downstream.
I was fortunate to meet with a number of students studying Certificate I in Conservation and Land Management, who were clearing the interpretive pathways and identifying weeds and noxious pests. Peter Foster, the school caretaker, runs this successful course, which has already led to employment for graduates.
It was a quick drive back to the main school buildings, and then I was taken to Rose Christie’s English Communications class. Rose is acknowledged as one of the best teachers of this subject in the Territory. The principal said that her success rates are of the highest order. I spoke to students Kerry Durdin and Amber Fitchner about pressures on the students.
In Palmerston, at the high school the week before, when I had met with Year 12 students, they all told me how stressed they were about the workloads of Year 12, not surprisingly. When I told the Taminmin students this, Amber suggested that for her at least, the jump from Year 11 to Year 12 was in some ways less than the difference between Year 10 and 11 because of the demands of so much extra homework and independent study in the final years. Either way, I left a motivated and quietly hard-working class who are clearly putting their heads down in this challenging year.
I was then interviewed by the school’s cadet journalist, Carly Watt from Year 11. Carly asked a number of incisive and thoughtful questions about my background and the main influences on my professional life. VET in Schools multimedia students Ross Hull and Clancy Townsend filmed us under the watchful eye of instructor Mark Clemmens. The film was a learning and skills opportunity in the areas of interviewing, filming, sound recording, and, of course, digital editing.
After this, I had an opportunity to speak with the council and ASSPA representatives in more detail, and hear about their plans to integrate the school within the family and the community. I also listened while they discussed areas of general interest at the school.
I was then invited to attend a combination morning tea and lunch with the staff. Kim told me that it is the school’s policy to hold these morning teas regularly to acknowledge the quality service that all of the staff provide to the school. It is clearly an excellent group of professional people whose morale is high.
Finally, I had to go, but via a quick stop at the joint use Taminmin Community Library. There I met Adja Whelan, a young lady in Year 11. I was told that Adja battles severe vision impairment, but Kim told me that this does not stop her from performing very well in her studies. I met Josh and Beau from Year 9 and Sam from Year 10. I also chatted with Liz Short, the school Librarian. While I was there, I could not help but notice the enthusiastic usage of the library resources by a large number of students, and also members of the community. Often in the morning you can find a parent, or particularly a mother and baby group, having activities in part of the community library.
With an enrolment of 577, the school is functioning at capacity, and attendance is symptomatic of a full commitment by staff at all levels, and parents. The school genuinely represents the community, and is strongly supported by an enthusiastic school council and ASSPA committee, dedicated to seeing the very best for the students of the rural community.
I had a great morning. My congratulations to an inspirational principal in Kim Rowe, and to all the staff, students and community at Taminmin. They are doing some fantastic work there, and the energy and commitment at all levels clearly shows in the excellence of the product.
While talking predominantly about young people, I would like to share with the House an event I attended with the Minister for Family and Community Services, at the presentation of the Young Achiever Awards, held at the Holiday Inn on the Esplanade last Saturday. These awards are a way of promoting the positive contributions that young people make to the community and encouraging young people to become actively involved. The Young Achiever Awards presentation night recognised and celebrated the exceptional talents and achievements of all award nominees and finalists. There are eight categories in the awards, with three finalists nominated by the executive judging panel for each category.
First, the Woodside Energy Sports Award, and the finalists were Anthony Roberts and Matthew Devereaux, and the winner, Kelly Fong. Kelly is considered the most talented judo athlete in the Territory and is currently a member of the Australian judo team. Kelly is ranked No 2 in the women’s Under-52 kg division in the Oceania Region. Last year, she participated in a variety of athletic achievements, including finishing in 7th place in the US Open Championship, and was silver medallist in the Oceania Judo Championships. It is our hope that Kelly will achieve her goal this year of representing Australia in Athens.
Then there was the ConocoPhillips Environment Award. The finalists were Garth Forrester, Lawrence Fletcher, and the winner, Kate Wagner. Kate is an Honours degree student in Environmental Chemistry at the Charles Darwin University. This is a joint project between the university and the Environment Research Institute of the Supervising Scientist. Kate was recently awarded a scholarship for her project investigating the effects of the Ranger Uranium Mine on the surrounding environment, including the natural creek systems of Kakadu National Park - a very timely research project.
In the Parmalat Community Service Award this year the finalists were Jacinta Thorbjornsen and Joseph Aberdeen, with the winner Alice Hageman. Alice is the youngest medic to be accepted in 50 years by St John Ambulance, where she is committed to working around the clock with volunteer crews. Last year, she also volunteered her time as a camp counsellor in the USA, working with mentally and physically disabled people, aged seven to 70. Alice has volunteered her services to the Litchfield Recreation Reserve, the Territory Wildlife Park Veterinary Centre caring for injured and sick animals, and is also an accredited volunteer gymnastics coach.
The next award was the NT Office of Youth Affairs Minister for Young Territorians Excellence in Youth Leadership Award, not a title known for its brevity. The finalists were Deng Mador Koch and Jessica Mouthaan, and the winner, Maria Scaturchio. Maria is passionate about creating opportunity for regional youth. Despite being diagnosed with bipolar disorder, she works tirelessly supporting and encouraging young Territorians to follow and achieve their dreams in a variety of different pursuits. In 2001-02, Maria worked part-time as the Northern Territory Program Development Officer for the Duke of Edinburgh Awards. She implemented the award in a record number of schools and youth organisations throughout the state. In 2002, Maria was selected as Chairperson of the Chief Minister’s Round Table for Young Territorians.
The next award is the Power and Water Science and Technology Award. The finalists were Shane Dwyer and Kate Wagner, and the winner, Gurmeet Kaur. Gurmeet is completing a double degree, majoring in Electronic Engineering and Computer Science, aspiring for a career in the research and design sector of electronic engineering, and would like to be involved with the development of new technological inventions. Gurmeet was a member of the Northern Territory University - now Charles Darwin University - solar car team, which built a new solar electronic car for the World Solar Car Challenge.
In the Perkins Shipping Regional Initiative Award, the finalists were Jarrod Williams and Frances Elcoate, and the winner was Dean Williams. Last year, in 2003, Dean founded the first emergency services school cadet unit in Australia. The St Philip’s College Northern Territory emergency services cadet unit provide students with training in a range of skills including communication in the workplace, map reading, navigation, team work, and abseiling. The unit has attracted attention from other emergency services around the country, and recently won the National Category of the Australian Safer Community Awards. Last year, Dean was selected to attend the National Science Forum in Canberra and was chosen to become a convening staff member for national youth science forum.
In the Drake International Career Achievement Awards, the finalists were Matthew Kernick and Angela Bates, and the winner was Serina Tran. Since working part-time after school in the local seafood business 11 years ago, Serina has now become the General Manager of Sea King Seafood Supply She undertakes all aspects of the business operations, from packing and grading crabs to developing the long-term business plans for the company. She has played and integral role in expanding and developing export markets in the USA, Malaysia, Hong Kong, Taiwan and Singapore, and this has culminated in the company winning the prestigious Northern Territory Exporter of the Year Award. Sea King Seafood Supply is now also the largest supply in the Territory’s $15m mud crab industry.
Then there was the Charles Darwin University Arts Award. The finalists were Melanie Silva and Tashka Urban, and the winner Penny Cameron. For the past five years, Penny was tutti cellist with the Darwin Youth Orchestra and has now been the principle cellist for the past two. For the past two years she has also been a tutti member of the Darwin Symphony Orchestra. Last year, she was a member of the Darwin Sunset String Quartet, and was a former member of the University Chamber Orchestra. Penny is an accomplishment participant in many artistic fields and, as a budding writer she has won literary awards and, as an artist she has won prizes for her patchwork, quilting, jewellery, and art work.
In the Channel 9 Achiever of the Year, the winner overall was Maria Scaturchio. Maria certainly was delighted with that award. It is a very difficult one because there are eight talented young Territorians and you have to make a choice of one. It must have been very difficult for the judges, but Maria is a very deserving winner.
I would like to thank the talented young people who provided the entertainment for the night’s awards: the members of the Darwin Youth Choir, Jessica Mauboy, Karen Hurley, and the team of Drum Drum who are outstanding achievers in their own rights, and it was great to see them at this prestigious event. Jonathan Uptin from Channel 9 did a great job as master of ceremonies. The presentation night was a huge success and thoroughly enjoyed by everyone. I also thank the event organisers, particularly Jeffrey Hopp and Amber Somer, who were supported by Channel 9, Imparja Darwin and Palmerston Sun, TIO and the Holiday Inn The Esplanade. I thank my Office for Youth Affairs for their work in supporting this event and coordinating the Minister for Young Territorian’s Excellence in Youth Leadership Award.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, it is ironic that I should be listening to the Chief Minister talking about the wonderful achievements of the young people here in the Darwin region and metropolitan area. I congratulate all of them. It is absolutely fabulous that they have the opportunity. I want to continue on from last night when I was talking about the opportunity that we are trying to offer 2000 kids in Katherine, so that they have the same opportunities that the children here have.
A school teacher at Katherine High School contacted me last week to advise that she had attended the Croc Festival in Tennant Creek, Nhulunbuy and Kununurra, taking a total of 47 students with her. As a result of her experience, she has compiled a presentation which she has presented to as many schools as she has been able to attend, to demonstrate the benefits of schoolchildren’s participation at these festivals. She has been learning as much as she can from each of the festivals she has attended, with the intent of being able, in the future, to introduce some of the festival content to local school activities. She has stated quite clearly that there is nobody here in the Territory who has produced an equivalent alternative event as the Croc Festival and, until such time as there is, why would this government deprive students of the opportunity of the valuable experience of the Croc Festival?
In the climate of harmony and reconciliation, the Croc Festival, which is open to all students, is one way we can show reconciliation, celebrate what kids do, develop personal relationships, and bring together indigenous and non-indigenous communities across all aspects.
In the six years of the Croc Festivals, Moree has participated five times, Weipa four times, Kununurra and Port Augusta three times, Swan Hill and Kalgoorlie twice, and additional to Thursday Island, Nhulunbuy and Tennant Creek. The towns that have had repeat festivals have increased the numbers of schools and students participating each year, which highlights the benefit of community partnerships and the building of students’ self-esteem and self-confidence resulting in better education outcomes.
It is absolutely outrageous that this Martin Labor government has taken the decision not to support the funding of the Katherine Croc Festival for August this year. Their negativity towards the organising committee in Katherine which has worked tirelessly to make this festival a great success, and towards the school students, their teachers and the Katherine community, is absolutely insulting, and has confirmed the contempt that this government continues to show Katherine. I have received many phone calls, letters, representation from schools and petitions all urging the Martin Labor government to reconsider the Cabinet decision. I have also received numerous copies of letters that have been forwarded to the Chief Minister and the minister for Education. These include letters from Amanbidji School, Our Lady of the Sacred Heart at Wadeye, Jilkminggan School, Driver Primary School, the Mayor of Katherine, Jane Nankivell Arts Katherine, Burridj Aboriginal Group Training Katherine, Katherine Youth Group, Katherine Croc Festival Committee, Katherine South Primary School, and Delsey Tamiano of Moulden. It is quite clear that the Croc Festival has massive community support; a factor that this government should be taking very seriously.
I urge the Martin Labor government to reconsider their decision. It is not too late to recognise the benefits of this experience for over 2000 Territory students who are under-privileged, and the associated economic benefits to not only Katherine but to those students, and for this Katherine Croc Festival for 2004 to go ahead.
Mr VATSKALIS (Casuarina): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, this morning I mentioned Harmony Day and how we celebrate the contribution of ethnic communities in the Northern Territory. I also said that we not only celebrate the ethnic communities but we also some of their activities and religious events and, certainly, the days of importance to those communities. Last week, I took part in two celebrations of National Days: the Greek National Day and the Pakistan National Day.
The Greek National Day is 25 March, and I attended the reception held by the Honorary Consul of Greece in Darwin, Mr George Kapetas, at his house, together with my colleagues, the members for Sanderson and Wanguri. There were a number of other parliamentarians there amongst a large number of people.
On Saturday 27th, the Greek School of Darwin organised a celebration for the national day. I took part in that celebration with my colleagues, the members for Johnston and Nightcliff. This year was exceptional because the presentations were done in both English and Greek and some of our guests who do not speak Greek at least understood for the first time in their life what it was all about. It was not all Greek to them!
On Sunday 28th, we participated with the Greek community in a church and wreath laying ceremony. There was a large number of people and, I have to admit, that this is the important national day for the Greek people and is celebrated all over the world. As a matter of fact, on 25 March or on Sunday following that day, a big parade is held in New York where the Greek community in America participates to honour the Greek National Day.
Of course, the Greek National Day commemorates the Greek revolution that happened on 25 March 1821 when Greeks, after 400 years of occupation by the Ottoman Empire, rose and fought hard for five years in order to establish a free state. Greeks are very patriotic. Greece is pretty and very picturesque and a joy to visit. In reality it is not a very rich place; it does not have a lot of minerals or agricultural wealth. However, the Greeks have been living there for 3500 years. They have become accustomed to the place and they hold it dear to their hearts. They feel very strongly about it and, even after they migrate, the first, second, and third generations will always go back to see the land where they or their parents came from.
Therefore, Greek National Day for Greeks is a very significant event. It is also a significant event for other nations, especially in south-east Europe, because the Greek revolution in 1821 marked the beginning of the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the beginning of new nations in the Balkans. If it was not for the Greek revolution in 1821, nations like Bulgaria, Serbia, Croatia, Montenegro, Slovenia and Romania would not exist today because following the Greek revolution these states also revolted and gained independence from the Ottoman Empire. With the Greek revolution, the map of Europe changed because the Austro-Hungarian Empire also dissolved and two new nations, Austria and Hungary, appeared on the European map. It may appear that it was a small event that resulted in a creation of a small country in the Balkans, but the reality is that it was a bigger event than that.
The modern Greek state was established in 1826 after five years of bloody battles and fights. The first Greek parliament sat in the Pillars of Epidaurus in 1826. This small state was only 40% of today’s Greece. Following many wars and struggles, the last piece of Greek soil was united with the Greek motherland in 1948, nearly 100 years after the beginning of the revolution. Therefore, you understand why this day is important for Greek people all over the world.
I also attended another national day, the Pakistan National Day, on Sunday, 28 March. Pakistan National Day was celebrated by Pakistanis all over the world on 23 March 2004. That marks the adoption of the Lahore Resolution on 23 March 1940 by the Muslim League. The resolution expounded the idea of Pakistan as a separate homeland for the Muslims of British India after the British left.
This was the vision of the founder Pakistan, Quaid-i-Azam (which translates to The Great Leader), Muhammad Ali Jinnah. I recall watching the film Ghandi in which the separation between India and Pakistan occurs. I recall the troubles, war, slaughter, holocaust and how the two nations separated, and the pain and suffering of both nations.
How Pakistan was establish is interesting because we know about these communities. However, we have to look in depth at what makes these communities tick in order to understand their culture, language, and what makes them function. I found very interesting information about The Great Leader Muhammad Ali Jinnah.
Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah’s achievement as the founder of Pakistan dominates everything else he did in his long and crowded public life, spanning some 42 years. He was an ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity, a great constitutionalist, a distinguished parliamentarian, a top-notch politician, a freedom fighter, a dynamic Muslim leader, a political strategist and, above all, one of the great nation builders of modern times. What, however, made him so remarkable was the fact that, while other leaders assumed their leadership of traditionally well-defined nations and espoused their cause or led them to freedom, he created a nation that was not well defined, a downtrodden minority, and established a cultural and national home for it.
He was born on 25 December 1876 into a rich family in Karachi. He was educated in a Muslim school and a Christian school and, in 1893, he joined legal school and three years later he became the youngest Indian to be called to the Bar.
Once he was firmly established in the legal profession, Jinnah formally entered politics in 1905 from the platform of the Indian National Congress. He went to England in that year alongside Gopal Krishna Gokhale - who was the big Indian leader before Ghandi - as a member of the congress delegation to plead the cause of Indian self-government during the British elections.
For about three decades after his entry into politics in 1906, Jinnah passionately believed in and worked for Hindu-Muslim unity. Gokhale, the foremost Hindu leader before Ghandi, once said of him:
- He has the true stuff in him and that freedom from all sectarian prejudice, which will make him the best
ambassador for Hindu-Muslim unity.
By 1917, Jinnah came to be recognised amongst both Hindus and Muslims as one of India’s most outstanding political leaders. Not only was he prominent in the Congress and the Imperial Legislative Council, he was also the President of the All-India Muslim and that of the Bombay Branch of the Home Rule League. More important, because of his key role in the Congress-League entente at Lucknow, he was hailed as the ambassador, as well as the embodiment, of Hindu-Muslim unity.
‘We are a nation’, they claimed in the ever eloquent words of the Quaid-i-Azam:
- We are a nation with our own distinctive culture and civilisation, language and literature, art and architecture,
names and nomenclature, sense of values and proportion, legal laws and moral code, customs and calendar,
history and tradition, aptitudes and ambitions; in short, we have our own distinctive outlook on life and of life.
By all canons of international law, we are a nation.
The formulation of the Muslim demand for Pakistan in 1940 had a tremendous impact on the nature and course of Indian politics. Equally hostile were the British to the Muslim demand, their hostility having stemmed from their belief that the unity of India was their main achievement and their foremost contribution. The irony was that both the Hindus and the British had not anticipated the astonishingly tremendous response that the Pakistan demand had elicited from the Muslim masses. Above all, they failed to realise how a hundred million people had suddenly become supremely conscious of their distinct nationhood and their high destiny. In channelling the course of Muslim politics towards Pakistan, no less than in directing it towards its consummation in the establishment of Pakistan in 1947, none played a more decisive role than did Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah.
In recognition of his singular contribution, Ali Jinnah was nominated by the Muslim League as the Governor-General of Pakistan, while the Indian Congress appointed Mountbatten as India’s first Governor-General. Pakistan, is has been truly said, was born in virtual chaos: no nation, no capital city, no statistics, no army, no governor. This, along with the en masse migration of the Hindu and Sikh business and managerial classes from Pakistan, left the economy of the country almost shattered. In his last message on 14 August 1948, Jinnah said:
- The foundations of your state have been laid and it is now for you to build, and build as quickly and as well as you can.
In accomplishing the task he had taken upon himself on the morrow of Pakistan’s birth, Jinnah had worked himself to death, but he had, to quote Richard Symons: ‘… contributed more than any other man to Pakistan’s survival’. He died on 11 September 1948. How true was Lord Pethick Lawrence, the former Secretary of State for India, when he said: ‘Gandhi died by the hands of an assassin; Jinnah died by his devotion to Pakistan’.
Jinnah was the founder of Pakistan and I was very moved when, during the celebration, the Pakistani people not only spoke about Jinnah - and that raised my interest to find out more about the man - but also spoke about his devotion to Pakistan and the fact that he only lived one year after Pakistan became an independent state, and died because he really worked himself to the grave to establish Pakistan as a modern state.
I am also very proud, because the Pakistani people of Darwin want to keep their traditions and language alive. Recently, we granted them a $10 000 grant to establish a Pakistani language school. I negotiated with the principal of Nakara Primary School, and now they have a class every Sunday afternoon, where 40 Australian children of Pakistani background learn their language. They also approached the education department of Pakistan, and I am very pleased to see that the education department of Pakistan sent them material, CD-ROMs, videos, DVDs, books, and other education material to continue teaching the Urdu language.
I believe it is very important that we maintain traditions and cultural languages. These people not only will contribute to our culture, but will be our Australian ambassadors tomorrow; to improve relationships between our different countries and also - why not? - improve commercial and trade links with the country where they or their parents came from.
I was very pleased to be invited to these national days: the Greek National Day for which I did not need a special invitation as I participated of my own free will; and the Pakistani National Day, because I knew very little about Pakistan. After I attended, I looked it up, and learned quite a bit about, and am very impressed by Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I have the pleasure tonight to talk about a school in my electorate. I have spoken about it in parliament before, and happily I do so again. In particular, I refer to Bradshaw Primary School which is in the heart of Gillen, which most people would say is in the heart of my electorate. I was delighted to be able to attend, on 3 March at Bradshaw Primary School, a special assembly. It was the presentation, amongst other things, of the school captains’ badges, as well as those students who were fortunate enough to be elected onto the SRC. I always enjoy going to the Bradshaw Primary School assemblies and there are many reasons for that: they really are good fun and the school has a great feel. What stands out though, is that the students actually run the assembly so, instead of the adults standing up there with microphones, children do - and you do not get to see that too often in my experience, at least. The school students really do, it seems to me, have the running of the assembly. That is great; it is very empowering, and the students learn to stand up in front of lots of their peers and run the assembly. That is a great challenge and, on the occasions I have been there, a challenge that has been well met by the students involved.
I would like to mention, in particular, the school students who are now members of the student representative council for 2004. In Year 3, they are Shayne Talbot and Max Rycroft; in Year 3/4, they are Ben Hall and Aleesha O’Hanlon; Year 4 representatives are Jess Rayner and Ben Ellis; Year 5 are Sam Squires and Madilene Brereton, who is also the treasurer. Other representatives from Year 5 are Greg Eaton and Lily Andrews. Lily is the secretary of the SRC. There are four representatives from Year 6, and they are Jonathon Schmidt and Caitlyn Andresen, who is vice-president, and Ruby Patman and Sam Acres, who is the president of the SRC. I know Sam and his parents, and I am sure that Sam will very ably take on the presidency and be a fine leader, not only to members of his team, but to other students of the school. I do not know some of the other students as well, but meeting them on the day I was inspired and filled with confidence. I know that members of this House will share my enthusiasm, because it is always great to see enthusiastic kids at schools, especially when those schools are in your electorate. The kids I met on that day were just fantastic.
I have offered to meet with the SRC to share some ideas and help them with fundraising and so on. I look forward to doing that, perhaps over the next month or so. I receive and regularly read the newsletters that come from the Bradshaw Primary School. I know that the SRC are doing some fundraising at the moment, and I will happily assist them with that. Part of the confidence I have for those students I have mentioned arises from the fact that Bradshaw Primary School offers them a great education and great opportunities. The school is well positioned in its resources and its space. In fact, it is probably one of the best schools around for not being all crammed up. They have some spare classrooms which enables the teachers to have a bit of flexibility in how they run their days. It is noteworthy that more than a third of the student population are of Aboriginal descent. A lot of Aboriginal kids go to Bradshaw and I believe that there is a very active ASSPA committee working there, and that is always to be encouraged. I am also aware that Bradshaw continues its strong focus in the areas of literacy, numeracy and information technology. That is not a recent development; it has been there for some time.
The school, as I said earlier, has a great feel to it when you walk in. It is a school with a buzz and, as I said, I am always very happy to go there. It would be no surprise to members to know that a school with that sort of buzz is well supported by the local community of Alice Springs. I have been to a few events now at Bradshaw Primary School. The last one prior to this assembly on 3 March was the Christmas function and I helped out cooking and serving with the barbecue and I know that late that afternoon and evening was very pleasant for all involved.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, on behalf of all members I would like to formally, in the parliament of the Northern Territory, extend my heartfelt congratulations to the students I have mentioned for being elected to the SRC. I know that they will achieve well. As the Territory’s politicians, we are always delighted to see the future potential leaders in the Northern Territory. Student representative councils, generally, are great training grounds for young leaders, and the SRC, in particular at Bradshaw Primary School, is an especially good training ground. Children will learn skills of team work, negotiation, identifying problems and projects within the school community, and they can look to achieving some of the goals that they set for themselves on behalf of the approximately 380 students at the school. I know members will join with me in offering them my congratulations and wishing them and the teachers, the school council and the ASSPA committee the very best for 2004.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, this debate is often used to farewell people leaving jobs, the deceased and others. Tonight I would like to use it to welcome somebody. I would like to use it to welcome somebody to politics. His name is Anthony Reiter. Anthony Reiter, I believe, will take his seat in here as the member for Nightcliff. He has been preselected by the CLP and he is a formidable talent. I am very proud tonight to be able to stand up and say a little about this man.
I lived in Nightcliff prior to when I was able to vote. I moved to Nightcliff at 17 years of age from Katherine, and we lived in Hakea Street. I first voted in Nightcliff. My mother had a dress shop there called Tara Boutique in the Riteprice complex. My niece and nephews went to Nightcliff Primary School and I have a fair association with the suburb. I believe Anthony Reiter is the right sort of person to be the member for Nightcliff. I am happy to offer my assistance to him and to put some of his credentials on the Parliamentary Record.
Anthony is a born and bred Territorian. He grew up and lived in Nightcliff, in Sergison Circuit in fact, and was there for Cyclone Tracy in 1974, as I was in Hakea Street. He was five years old at the time and it was a pretty traumatic experience for most of us who were here, and for a young five-year-old it obviously left an impression on him. He saw the devastation and, after Cyclone Tracy, he went to Nightcliff High School because the primary schools were being rebuilt. He attended Nightcliff primary for a short time then went to Rapid Creek Primary School for the remainder of his school years. He was a member of the Green Ants Little Athletics Club, which is Rapid Creek; a member of the Nightcliff Swimming Club; and a member of the Nightcliff Baseball Club. He was an elite sportsman in his day and is still very keen with his connections with sport.
He is a most intelligent man who has worked hard to get where he is, and he has gone a long way and will go a long way in the future. His first job was with the Riteprice Supermarket in 1984 as a fridge boy and a packer. In those days, that was pretty much where you shopped in Nightcliff - that was before Woollies were there. It was a pretty hard job working for Tony Riteprice as we all knew him, and he did the hard yards alongside his boss, who was and still is one of those people who gets out with the broom and helps pack the shelves. He mowed lawns at the Beachfront Hotel when he was 12 years old and has a massive connection with the electorate.
He is the father of three and he currently is the Managing Director of Mobil Fast Food in Berrimah, which is my electorate. I have come across Tony a few times one way or another. I am very pleased that the talent pool that has been preselected for the CLP includes a man of this calibre. He has the potential not only to win this seat, but to go on in politics. I see him as a potential Cabinet member. He is not that old and he is entering politics at the right time. A man of his energy, intellect, connections with the electorate, and his genuine love and affection for the place he was born and bred, place him as a man well and truly capable of making a mark in politics.
That is my short contribution tonight. I am happy to parade his credentials to the House because we will hear a lot about Anthony Reiter as a contributor to debates to this parliament over the next few years, I would expect. I am happy to say that he has my full endorsement and I will be doing what I can to help he and other candidates.
We have a formidable pack of candidates standing and it is our way home. We will go back to our rightful inheritance of being the party that runs this place; being a Territory born and bred party. We have a disposition to only look to this and no other place. We are certainly not beholden to the policy whims and shenanigans that come out of Canberra. I see Tony as a formidable plank in the CLP’s march to its return to government, and someone who can make a massive contribution to this parliament.
Mr BONSON (Millner): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I wish to thank constituents and volunteers involved with the Clean Up Australia Day on 7 March. I was pleased to be a part of the event with my lovely wife, Mona-Lisa.
As people are aware, the idea of Clean Up Australia Day is to focus our great country, Australia, on the fact that, unfortunately, there is a lot of environmental damage arising from uncollected rubbish. The site that we chose as our focus was none other than Freshwater/Rapid Creek, which runs along the boundary of my electorate.
There was a group of volunteers who attended at the red footbridge at the Water Gardens. They included Ann Foster, Esther Egger, Raphael Lawler, Jessica and Tyrone Sariago, Peter and Tim O’Hagan, Lesley Alford and Ted Kilpatrick. Also included were Peter Robinson, Anne Stevens, Steve Brennan, and Al and Jacky Stanger. This group was able to collect between 30 and 40 bags of rubbish, unfortunately. It was fantastic that we did it, but it was unfortunate that the rubbish was there. I enjoyed myself so much that I got into the creek and started collecting rubbish up the length of the creek.
I also arranged some promotion for Clean Up Australia Day. We did a letter box drop throughout Millner and we telephone canvassed about 200 or 300 and invited them down. To get between 30 and 40 people during the day at such short notice was a fantastic effort from everyone. I look forward to arranging another such event in the not-too-distant future. It should be a regular event in our community upon which we should focus. A lot of young people swim, fish and play in that area and a lot of senior Territorians walk their pets or have fitness walks in the area. It is like a mini-bush walk, I suppose, along the banks of Freshwater/Rapid Creek. It is a special place for all people living in urban Darwin. I would like to see that future generations are able to access that resource as I did when I was a lot younger.
I thank all those who attended on the Clean Up Australia Day. I look forward, in the not-too-distant future, not necessarily under the banner of the Clean Up Australia Day, but under some other banner - maybe the protection of Freshwater/Rapid Creek - to organising a group of volunteers again to get down and get stuck into all the rubbish that we, unfortunately, were unable to pick up at the time.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, this evening I give accolades to the Karama School community, which is a terrific school. They were mentioned in the paper today. It is no surprise for members to hear that there has been an inquiry going on concerning the principal of Karama School, and we have had an acting principal for the first term. Ron Abbott, the Acting Principal, is no stranger to the Karama School community. He was the principal last year at Manunda Terrace Primary, a neighbouring school in the community, and is well known to a lot of families in the area. Ron has been able to come and caretake the school while the inquiry is conducted. Most of us in the community are still waiting for the outcome of that inquiry, and I urge the Department of Education to move as swiftly as possible. I know that staff and parents, and the broader school community, are quite keen to get some stability through this 2004 school year.
It is a terrific school. It has grown and it is a very diverse school in the kids who go there. They come from such a vast variety of backgrounds, as well as socio-economic circumstances, yet it is a very harmonious school and a real delight to be involved with. I am a previous chair of the school council. I have a very strong attachment to the school, and I get there as often as I can. I was there just the other week having a lunch with the teachers. It was a very heavy rainy day. We ended up having the wet weather policy, with the kids staying in the classroom, which is a challenge to the teachers. I congratulate the teachers for their dedication and commitment to the school.
The students there are very outgoing kids; they are so interested in everything that is going on. They are full of questions for me. They particularly love the Leanyer Recreation Park which is operating in the northern suburbs. They go there after school and have a huge time. They are full of ideas about how we can enhance the community for them. I congratulate the kids who put their hands up to show leadership in the school. There is a terrific student representative council, the members being: Drew Thomas, Peter Ah Sam, Anthony Gugliotta, Michael Harcla, Lachlan Vincent, Nikolas Nicolakis, Sam Thompson, Joshua Mariano, Brittoney Woodcock, Coby Weetra, Caitlin Evans, Charlene Garcia, Kelsey Anstee, Chelsea Gargan, Karli Clarke and Jerica Phoneyiem.
In addition, there are captains and vice captains. We have School Captains - Joseph Williams and Nomiki Mpilias; Vice Captains - Edward Mareko and Jasmine Miller. The Blue House Captains are Duncan Seden and Shyne Brenton, with Vice Captains Shaun Pollock and Jamie-Lee Farrow. Red House Captain are Desiree Weetra and Matthew Edwards, with Vice Captains Tessna Dwyer and Tyson Walker. Purple House Captains - and they were Green House last year with the change to Purple - Jordan Ah Sam and David Luta, and their Vice Captains are Apara Brewster-O’Brien and Jade Ponter. Gold House Captains are Con Kambouris and Jzarmazin Marchant, with Vice Captains Brenton Robertson and Minnie Marchant. I wish all these kids a really good, positive, happy year.
May they have a lot of successful fundraisers at the school. I know the big event at the school is the school concert. I look forward to being at that again this year, and helping and encouraging the kids throughout the year. I have the opportunity to get to the school and talk to classes about democracy and community workers in our society. It is always a really good experience to be at the school. I particularly enjoy going to assemblies and watching the kids perform. They have a great deal of pride in the effort they put into their school work, their sport prowess – they have a fantastic football team at the school - and their drama and singing. There is a really good ATSI dance group there, as well as a modern dance group.
Helen Gugliotta is back as the chairperson of the school council. She put in a big effort last year, and I congratulate Helen on her work for the school. The secretary is Andrew Devlin. He is coming on really well in his role on the school council. Treasurer again is Debbie Harrison, who has put in many years as treasurer of the school. She is a stable influence in the front office and someone we can all rely on for sound advice. Committee members are: Kerry Wetherall; Wendy McKay; Joanne McDonald; Vickianne Purcell, who does a wonderful job running the after school care at the school and vacation care - I put my kids in the vacation care there and Vickianne is a tremendous woman with a great heart and a great love for kids, and is a very popular vacation care programmer at Karama; along with Sheree Ah Sam; and Tracey Scofield. It is a very woman dominated committee with only one dad in there but, I guess, that reflects on the busyness of people’s lives and how mothers often have a little more time to put in at the school level.
I congratulate all the parents and staff for putting their hand up to work on the school council. They have a big job ahead of them this year in getting down some of the curriculum that is flowing out of the department. Certainly, there is a trial of the early entry for preschool that is occurring at the school. That has been a challenge that has been well met by the preschool staff.
I congratulate the school. It is looking 100%. There is a lot of work that has gone in by Jacko and Noel Long, to the grounds. The new fence has gone up in front of the preschool, which is something I remember a few years ago as chair of the school council, I was very much advocating decent fencing at the front. It is great to see that has happened. I look forward to participating with the school to have a really terrific 2004.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, on 13 March, I attended the Indian Holi Festival at Lake Alexander that was hosted by the Indian Society of Darwin and attracted many guests, new members, students, relatives and friends of the members. Apart from the member for Karama and her mother who were also there, there were many present from the Johnston electorate. These included Bharat and Priya Desai, Anita Ramnath, Siva and Jyoti Vemuri, together with Ratan and Kabita Ghosh; Shanthi Ramdoss; Jasminder and Amarjit Anand; Vinod and Shobana Anand; Priya Chakravarty; Prith and Jaya Chakravarty; Sumati Chakravarty; Ramakrishna and Vinutha Chondur; Emmanuel D’Souza; Noel and Christina D’Souza; Raj and Madju Dasgupta; Kamal and Bulbul Debnath; Sumesh and Manju Dhir; Ramkumar and Meeta Konesh; Daveen and Priti Patel; Jayant and Rup Prakash; Vikash and Roshini Prasad; Sameer and Megha Raut; Sitaram and Sarojini Raut; Chanrandas and Krishna Sharma; Randhir and Inderjit Singh; Ashobk and Niketa Sinorwala; and Bernard and Savita Valadian.
The Holi Festival commences about 10 days before the full moon of Phalgun in March and is usually observed for the last three or four days terminating with the full moon. It is a time when people from all castes and social strata come together, forgetting all past differences and grievances. Originally, the festival was primarily for the Shudras, who otherwise are not allowed to participate in festivals. Today, having lost its original significance, the festival is a favourite with most Indians for being the most colourful and joyous of all. Every year, it succeeds in bridging the social gap between employers and employees, men and women.
People visit homes, distribute sweets, and apply gulal to each other, signifying the colourful and happy spring times ahead. Gulal is a very colourful powder - orange and green and every coloured powder you could think of, plus a paste which people apply to each other in a fun-loving way. I was not really familiar with this aspect of the festival and I turned up on the Saturday morning and, being a busy minister, I had schedule meetings with members of a real estate industry that afternoon. I had to ring my wife to get a new pair of slacks and a shirt. However, I really loved it and got in the spirit of it, as did the member for Karama and her mother. It was a fun time and next year I will be wearing a pair of shorts and a T-shirt, and really entering into the festival. It is a lot of fun.
On 13 March, I also attended the Darwin Entertainment Centre to hear the renowned virtuoso bassoonist, Mr George Zukerman in concert with the Darwin Symphony Orchestra. Mr Zukerman came to Australia from Canada especially for this performance and starred in Weber’s Bassoon Concerto and Andante and Rondo. This was a fantastic evening’s entertainment which also include Tchaikovsky’s Fifth Symphony and Rossini’s extremely well-loved William Tell Overture. I congratulate Martin Jarvis and the Darwin Symphony Orchestra; they were just fantastic. I must comment on Mr Zukerman, who is a virtuoso and world-renowned. His spirit comes out in the instrument. It is very hard to describe, but it was a real treat for music lovers in Darwin to hear Mr Zukerman play.
On 19 March, it gave me great pleasure to attend Len Kiely’s quiz night at the Greek Orthodox School, which attracted 26 tables of quizzers. It was a great night with great food and great wine but only one table of winners. It was great to meet up with Jim Davidson and his wife, Robyn. The member for Drysdale is talking about winners at the next election. Well, I reckon Jim Davidson is a fantastic candidate and he is going to come very close to taking the seat of Solomon. So, I mentioned Robyn, Jim’s wife and Tom Kiely, who is no relative of the member of Sanderson. Tom is a great bloke, Irish to the bone and we had a lot of fun. Trish Crossin was also on the table.
The Filipino Australian Association of the NT on 20 March celebrated Harmony Day in great style with a youth concert at the Filipino Community Centre. It was fantastic to see so much young talent in one place. The Darwin Youth and Children’s Choir, under the superb direction of Mrs Emma Tantengco, performed brilliantly. Of course, Mrs Tantengco lives in the Johnston electorate, in Moil. She does a fantastic job with all these young people - schooling them up, teaching them discipline and grooming them for performance and stardom and, in some cases, beyond the Youth and Children’s Choir. All those children learn a skill for life. Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to have the names of the children in the choir incorporated in the Parliamentary Record.
Leave granted.
- Kaitlyn Andrews Kate Huntingford
Simon Collister Shanece Liddy-Wilde
Tiffany Cornell Kyra Mulvena
Helen Fegan Yuliana Pascoe
Erin Fritz Miriam Scapin
Casey Harrison Rachel Tolliday
Skyler Hemy Amelia Wardle
Sangeetha Hickman Joanne Yallop
Saweetha Hickman
Dr BURNS: Also performing was Bernadine Crute who was also one of my electorate’s treasure, a young lady with so much talent, and a fantastic voice. Also at that event, the Casuarina Senior College Dance Group performed a terrific number with a great deal of enthusiasm from the dancers. I also seek leave to have their names incorporated in the Parliamentary Record.
Leave granted.
- Helen Baitz Alison Baker
Rebecca Ballinger Kylie Burns
Cheryl Fitzsimmons Crystal Fostel
Yasmin Foti Erica-Jade Gordon
Amy Gwilliam Madeleine Haslett
Rebecca Hilder Ashlee Kirkham
Georgia Mansfield Jessica Pickering
Jessica Potts Talyea Ralph
Francine Ryenbakken Jessica Spry
Dr BURNS: The Moil Primary School produced a German Choir. Imagine that! The little kids from the primary school were just great; it was a fantastic performance. The children who participated in the German Choir were under the tutelage of Janine Sutter. You could just tell the kids just loved Janine, they worked so well together. I also seek leave to have their names incorporated in the Parliamentary Record.
Leave granted.
- Jane Anderson Matilda Bowman
Lewis Torrington Chad Dickens
Georgia Bliss Helen Carroll
Adam Johnston Rheina Shean
William Carroll Nick Deveril
Mollie Harding Briege Kelly
Sau-ching Leung Anna Torrington
Mitchell Aldridge Lucy Anderson
Jack Bliss Clancy Bowman
Jethro Dickens Mallory McGuiness
Natalie Freak David Carroll
Briana Harding Harry Kerr
Erin Moriarty Rachel Quong
Kathryn Rehrmann Zac Anderson
Clancy Bennett-Kellam Gareth Dickens
Darcy Stanford
Dr BURNS: Many other young people from a great variety of cultural groups performed, including the Holy Spirit Primary School Choir, the Filipino Maharlika Association Group, the Sudanese Community and they just caused such a storm in Darwin. They have a very interesting dance that the Sudanese ladies do. Basically, they have been performing at high schools and drawing a great deal of interest. So, that is the Sudanese community.
The Kiribati Cultural Group did a beautiful hula dance and that captured everyone’s imagination. The Darwin Youth for Christ, a great group of young people, who do so much work, are a beacon for young people and give so much support to young people in our community. There was also Darwin High School dance classes, the Casuarina Senior College music classes, and the Mediterranean Greek Dancers who performed so well, so energetic and coordinated. They are a great group of young people who perform at a lot of venues around Darwin. The Timorese-Chinese dance group also performed.
This is a great initiative of the Filipino Australian Association, and a truly marvellous showcase for such impressive talent. Of course, the MC for the night was Judith Ventic. Judith is well known to most members here, I believe. She works so hard for that Filipino community and she has such a great personality to be an MC. Of course, Mr John Rivas is the backbone and the cornerstone of that Filipino group. All credit to John and all the people who looked after the technical side of it.
I know the Northern Territory government was a major sponsor of this event and we should all be proud of Harmony Day. You + Me = Us is a great motto that we should have in Darwin. We are a great example around Australia and the world with the truly multicultural aspects of our Darwin society.
It has been great for me to be able to talk about the events in the Johnston electorate. It is a great electorate. I really enjoy being the local member. I try to get out and doorknock as much as I can. I try to serve the electorate of Johnston as much as I can, and I have so much fun being the member attending these functions, meeting all these people and seeing all the great talent that we have in Darwin.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, that is enough from me tonight.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016