2001-10-25
- Madam Speaker Braham took the Chair at 10 am.
PETITION
Moratorium on Taxi Leases
Moratorium on Taxi Leases
Mr AH KIT (Arnhem)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I present a petition, not conforming with standing orders, from 19 petitioners relating to a moratorium on the issue of taxi leases. I move that the petition be now read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
- To the Speaker and members of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly, we the undersigned humbly
request that the Northern Territory government place a limit on the number of taxis that are licensed to
operate in Darwin. We request a six-month moratorium on the issue of leases to begin immediately. Since
the introduction of compulsory acquisition and leasing arrangements, the number of taxis has increased
substantially. This has led to serious financial problems for many lessees and drivers. In addition, the
financial burden has been added to by massively increased fuel costs and the GST. The taxi industry is in
crisis and may collapse, resulting in bad service for the Territory public and tourists, and we, as in duty
bound, will ever pray.
MINISTERIAL REPORTS
Chief Minister’s Study Award for Women
Chief Minister’s Study Award for Women
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House today of an initiative to support Territory women. The Chief Minister’s Study Award for Women will link with my government’s policy focus on employment and training. It will be made available to women enrolled for study in vocational or tertiary programs in the Territory, and who have a commitment to living and working here. The Office of Women’s Policy will develop award guidelines, promote and administer the award, and monitor and report outcomes.
New enrolments in Territory educational institutions can generally be accepted up until February each year, which would allow for promotion of the award from October until December, with recipients announced in January. The award replaces the Northern Territory government Women’s Fellowship that has been in place since 1988. The fellowship was established to assist women, or groups of women, to implement and report on projects of professional interest. It also helped to advance government policy priorities as identified in action plans. The fellowship was awarded in November each year. The previous government announced that the fellowship would increase from $15 000 to $20 000 this year, and so the new award will be equivalent to that new amount.
Although the fellowship has produced some notable results including assistance to produce a virtual Internet site for the Alice Springs Pioneering Women’s Hall of Fame, the production of information on eating disorders, and the publication of a book to record the stories of Territory women, there was an obvious need for a new approach. The number and quality of fellowship submissions has slowly decreased over recent years, and the very nature of the award often precluded the involvement of younger women and women from less advantaged situations.
The new study award will be offered twice a year: an award of $14 000 for a tertiary study program and a $6000 award for a vocational study program. Some study programs could be completed over a six-month period while others could take up to three or four years to complete. It is anticipated that a schedule of progress payments could be developed over the life of each award. The award will adequately cover Higher Education Contribution Scheme payments for the majority of courses, and also provide a book allowance to recipients over the life of the full study program. Issues of diversity and equity will be significant considerations in the assessment process.
I believe the new Chief Minister’s Study Award for Women will better address the needs and aspirations of Territory women, and recognises the importance of higher education and learning in enhancing employment and general life outcomes for women.
Arts and Museums
Ms MARTIN (Arts and Museums): Madam Speaker, the Territory has a strong multicultural, innovative, and vibrant arts community with a national and international reputation for diversity and excellence. Our arts and cultural sector embraces, interprets and showcases our unique regional, cultural, and historical character. As consumers, we all enjoy the arts for pleasure and entertainment, but the arts also enhance our daily lives. Economically, the sector contributes to the growth and development of the Territory through important industries in arts and crafts, fashion, cultural tourism and indigenous arts, cultural export enterprises and residencies, design and technology.
The indigenous art sector, in particular, is a vital component of the Territory’s cultural tourism industry and largely determines our positioning and identity in this lucrative market. The health and wellbeing of a society is reflected by its ability to express diversity and to participate in a full wide-ranging and inclusive program of cultural activities and events.
My vision as Chief Minister and Minister for Arts and Museums is to see a whole-of-government approach to greater integration of the arts into core services provided by government. The arts play an integral role in obvious areas such as indigenous economic development, tourism and education. Research shows the academic and social advantages for young people who participate in arts programs, either in or out of school. These young people are often high achievers in maths, literacy and science. Involvement in the arts improves communication skill and self-esteem. However, the arts and artists can add real value and assist in the achievement of outcomes in less obvious areas such as correctional services, industry development, family, youth and senior services, international relations and urban development.
The highly successful Correctional Services’ Ending Offending program, an initiative in prisoner rehabilitation, exemplifies the important role of the arts. The program provides accredited vocational education and training to equip prisoners with skills and knowledge to enable them to take advantage of social, recreational, employment and economic opportunities available in their home communities. More than 150 prisoners and juvenile detainees in Darwin and Alice Springs have received training in music and art industry skills which, in turn, introduced them to literacy, computing, woodwork and trades. Art work produced is exhibited annually in Darwin and Alice Springs, and nationally through the Artback Touring program. Program participants have produced a collection of stories, paintings, songs, a music CD, and an interactive web site addressing the issues of offending, violence, and alcohol and drug abuse.
My Department of Arts and Museums provides a range of programs and services to support communities and individual artists throughout the Territory, which in turn provides the broader community with an enriched lifestyle. It provides an operating environment that links significant cultural, artistic, scientific, and heritage facilities that are nationally and internationally renowned as institutions of artistic and scientific excellence. This year, $13.417m has been allocated to the department to provide a range of services across the Territory. I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the efforts of all staff working in the Department of Arts and Museums and particularly their expertise and professionalism, high standards of client service and service delivery, and the excellence of the public programs provided by the department.
My government will encourage the pursuit and attainment of excellence in artistic endeavour and wider community access and involvement in the creative process. We will continue to appropriately fund and support the Territory’s art sector through training and skills development. We will ensure that funding to artists is fair and equitable, and we are currently working with the sector to establish a Territory Arts Grants Board. We will continue to promote the excellence of our artists and programs in national and international forums, and encourage strong links with our regional neighbours through cultural and scientific initiatives. We will advocate on behalf of our arts and cultural sector within the business community, and work towards an integrated and inclusive whole-of-government approach to arts and cultural development.
The department is currently working with the relevant organisations to identify how we can assist with the completion of the Indigenous Cultural Centre in Tennant Creek and will assist in the development of an Indigenous Cultural Centre in Alice Springs. Working with local government, we will explore opportunities to enhance our built environment through the development and implementation of a responsible public art policy.
Together with the Department of Industries and Business and the Tourism Commission, we will find ways in which the Territory can attract film makers and support the local film sector. Just last night, I approved more than $900 funding from the Arts Sponsorship Quick Response Scheme to support the development and production of a Darwin-made short film, The Replacement. The film, to be made by local production house, Burrundi Pictures, will be entered in the Australian Film Commission national short film competition. It is called Reinventing the Reel - Road Movie Competition. The script has been written by a local writer and the production will involve many local creative personnel and experienced and non-experienced actors and crew members, thus providing excellent training opportunities. The project will generate a local sense of pride and ownership and the potential for national exposure through the AFI competition.
The Quick Response Scheme funding will cover unforeseen costs associated with safety requirements on the film’s location. The project has gained the support of many local businesses through in-kind sponsorship. The cast and crew also waived fees. Other income has come from Burrundi Pictures and small amounts of cash sponsorship. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to offer this support for what I am sure will be an innovative film project.
My government will also continue to facilitate opportunities to showcase the talents of musicians through music festivals and improved venues. We will continue to consult with our community in developing and implementing government arts policy and we will continue to promote the excellence of the Territory’s arts and cultural sector.
Retirement of Mrs Minna Sitzler AM
Deputy of the Administrator
Deputy of the Administrator
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, it is with sadness that I inform the House today that Mrs Minna Sitzler AM, Deputy of the Northern Territory Administrator and a long-term Alice Springs resident, will be resigning her commissions as Deputy and First Dormant Commission at the end of the year. Mrs Sitzler will then be leaving Alice Springs in the new year and retiring to South Australia to spend more time with her family.
Mrs Sitzler was raised in Hermannsberg, west of Alice Springs, and has strong ties with the arts and crafts community in Alice Springs. She was born at Adelaide House in Alice Springs, the daughter of Pastor F.W. Albrecht and Minna Albrecht. Growing up at Hermannsberg Mission some 120 km from Alice Springs, her primary school education was conducted by correspondence under the supervision of a governess at the mission. Hermannsberg had already established a reputation for producing fine Australian artists, and encouraged by this environment and by her mother, who was an outstanding craftsperson, Minna Sitzler developed an early interest in art and craft. She studied at the Adelaide Kindergarten Training College for three years, returning to teach in what was then Alice Springs’ only preschool.
In 1959, she married Paul Sitzler and the following year they travelled to Germany for 12 months. Returning to Alice Springs in 1961, Mr Sitzler re-established his interest in the construction company he had started with his brother in 1957 - a business that grew to become one of the Territory’s most successful in the building sector. Mrs Sitzler resumed her involvement with education and accepted relief teaching positions in Alice Springs while her three young children attended primary school.
In 1972, she helped establish the Alice Springs Craft Council and with her interest in weaving heightened, developed a private studio to teach others. Mrs Sitzler has produced a number of exceptional works that have featured in exhibitions in Alice Springs, Darwin, Adelaide and Canberra, and are also held in private and state collections. Minna Sitzler is a member of the Alice Springs Art Foundation, an ardent supporter of the Alice Prize and a founder of the Alice Springs Craft Acquisition Awards. Two of her craft pieces, which were acquired through the awards, are on permanent display in Central Australia’s Araluen Centre. A Charter member of the Alice Springs Zonta Club, she also initiated the now biannual Wearable Works of Art fashion parade in Alice Springs.
Minna Sitzler was sworn in as Deputy of the Administrator on 17 February 1997. Since then, she has regularly deputised for the Administrator at community events and public occasions in Central Australia. She has also assumed the role of Acting Administrator whenever the Administrator has been away from the Territory. Mrs Sitzler was appointed a Member of the Order of Australia in the Queen’s Birthday Honours List 2000. On behalf of the government, I thank Mrs Sitzler for the outstanding job she has done as Deputy of the Administrator and as Acting Administrator over the past four and a half years.
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms MARTIN: She has attended dozens of community events and has performed a range of public duties with great professionalism. She has carried out this role with great dignity and distinction, and her contribution to Central Australian community life is highly respected.
Mrs Sitzler and her husband, Paul, will settle in their new home in Adelaide close to their children and their grandchildren. They will, however, maintain ties with Alice Springs and Central Australia.
In due course, appropriate celebrations will be announced to pay tribute to Minna Sitzler’s contribution to the Territory.
Members: Hear, hear!
Land for Wildlife Bushcare Project
Mr VATSKALIS (Lands, Planning and Environment): Madam Speaker, last week I was delighted to launch the Litchfield Shire Land for Wildlife Bushcare Project. Land for Wildlife is a nationwide scheme successful in encouraging private landholders to include the conservation of biodiversity as part of their land management. The scheme has not yet been established in the Territory but Litchfield Shire Council is piloting the scheme through a Natural Heritage Trust grant and is to be congratulated for their environmental foresight. So far, 45 applications for registration have been received from local land owners and this early support reflects community understanding of the importance of maintaining wildlife corridors and native habitats.
More than 10 000 ha of native bushland in the Litchfield Shire have been cleared and much of what remains has been modified and fragmented. Parks and reserves cannot exclusively protect our plants and animals from extinction in the face of development. The Northern Territory Parks and Wildlife Commission, the Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries and the Department of Lands, Planning and Environment have all pledged their support in the form of advice and staff to work on the project.
I encourage all landholders, however small or large their holdings, to join the scheme. Groups can also be registered, and group registration is suited to a number of small blocks or several larger properties with a landscape approach to wildlife habitat. Horticultural and cattle properties, bush blocks, parks, school grounds and golf courses are all eligible. Land for Wildlife does not alter the legal status of the property and does not convey the right of public access. There are no fees and people may withdraw at any time if they wish. It is a fantastic initiative and one that the Martin government supports and encourages.
Special Housing Program
Funding 2001-02
Funding 2001-02
Mr VATSKALIS (Housing): Madam Speaker, I wish to report to the House information regarding funding for the Crisis Accommodation Program and Community Housing Program for 2001-02. The Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement 1999 secured $1m in annual funding for these programs.
The Crisis Accommodation Program is a tied program in that it provides capital funding for the construction, purchase, upgrades and refurbishment of properties in conjunction with the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program (SAAP), administered by my colleague, the Minister for Health, Family and Children’s Services. Funds may also be used for non-SAAP funded crisis accommodation programs purposes.
The primary objectives of the Community Housing Program are to assist community agencies that provide accommodation services for people requiring ongoing support - those with special or complex needs who are at risk of homelessness. We achieve these objectives through property acquisition, property upgrades, and through community service resourcing where community organisations contribute financially towards the program. The Community Housing Program also develops and improves partnership opportunities with community agencies to extend their range of housing needs and options that cannot be adequately met through existing public housing provisions.
I am delighted today to announce that $1.3m has been approved for eight Territory community groups for a range of projects to enhance the lives of Territorians in need. The additional funding, on top of the annual allocations, has come from carryover funds from previous years. Newspaper advertisements in May alerted community organisations to the funding. There were numerous applications, all worthy, that were assessed and fitted to our funding allocations. The assessments are made by a joint officer group. The group is made up of senior officers of the Territory government, the Commonwealth government and, in the case of the Community Housing Program, from a major community organisation.
For the benefit of the House I seek leave to table the list of successful grant recipients.
Leave granted.
Mr VATSKALIS: Just briefly, the Katherine Women’s Crisis Centre will construct a purpose-built children’s activity centre and convert a bedroom to achieve wheelchair access. The St Vincent de Paul Centre will construct a disability toilet and shower facility. The Salvation Army Catherine Booth House will renovate their kitchen, install a carport and upgrade their driveway. Dawn House Women’s Shelter will provide supported exit point housing for women and children leaving their crisis accommodation and moving back into the general community. The Mt Liebig Community Yututju Women’s Aboriginal Corporation will renovate their premises to expand the Old People’s Centre for aged men and married couples.
All funded projects will contribute to improvements in the lifestyle of Territorians and the Martin government will continue to support these programs.
Reports noted pursuant to Sessional Order.
FISCAL INTEGRITY AND TRANSPARENCY BILL
(Serial 13)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
This bill is the government’s response to Professor Percy Allan’s recommendation that fiscal integrity and transparency legislation be introduced to improve budget accountability in the Territory.
The bill outlines a framework for comprehensive planning, targeting and reporting of the Territory’s public sector finances. Professor Allan found that financial estimates in the recent budget papers had been subject to ‘political manipulation’. Such manipulation of the budget figures was possible under the previous government for at least two reasons: the level of external fiscal reporting and the arrangements governing preparation of financial projections were dictated largely by convention not legislation; and responsibility for financial projection and related information rested with the Treasurer, not the Under Treasurer as the head of the agency that prepared such projections. This considerably impeded transparency and accountability.
The planning and reporting framework enshrined in the bill will go a long way towards restoring confidence in government budgetary practices. In addition, the quality of fiscal decision making will improve as a consequence of the medium- to longer-term effects of decisions being estimated and reported on, and also being subject to external scrutiny. Most Australian and many overseas jurisdictions have adopted explicit fiscal accountability standards to some degree.
The scope of such legislation differs significantly across jurisdictions with some including other matters in addition to fiscal reporting standards, such as the legislative enshrining of particular quantitative fiscal and non-fiscal targets, the requirement for pre-budget consultations with community groups, and explicit provision for, particularly, parliamentary scrutiny processes. None of these additional features are essential to ensuring best practice fiscal transparency and accountability and may serve to impose some unnecessary rigidities in the budget process. None were envisaged in Professor Allan’s recommendations.
The fiscal integrity and transparency framework proposed in the bill is designed to suit the Territory context, and based on relevant elements of the West Australian and Commonwealth legislation. Western Australia’s Government Financial Responsibility Act and the Commonwealth Charter of Budget Honesty Act represent the most comprehensive approaches taken to date to fiscal integrity legislation in Australia. They are the best examples of the approach recommended for governments by both the International Monetary Fund and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. The fiscal integrity and transparency framework requires the government of the day to:
- clearly state its fiscal strategy in a fiscal strategy statement;
adopt fiscal indicators that will enable taxpayers to judge whether the government is
achieving its stated strategy and objectives; and
report on progress in achieving that state of fiscal strategy at least annually in the
budget papers.
The framework establishes a legislative requirement for a regular fiscal reporting cycle with updated financial projections to be published at least twice a year, at budget time and mid-year; the final result for a year to be published annually; and updated financial projections to be published immediately prior to general elections. The framework establishes a timetable for such reporting with the mid-year fiscal outlook report usually to be published by 28 February each year, and the final results report by 31 October following the end of the year.
The framework adopts external fiscal reporting standards that are independent of the government of the day. All estimates and projections are to be presented in a manner consistent with the accrual Government Finance Statistics (GFS) standards. The framework obliges the Under Treasurer of the day to be responsible for the preparation and integrity of all the financial projections contained in the statements and reports required to be published under the framework.
I would like to emphasise a number of features of the proposed framework. The framework makes clear that the government is responsible for setting fiscal strategy including appropriate targets and benchmarks and that the Treasury is responsible for the integrity of the financial projections. Fiscal reporting in the Territory will move on to an accrual basis. Accrual reporting will begin in earnest in respect of the 2002-03 year when that year’s budget is brought down on an accrual basis. As the 2001-02 year’s budget is on a cash basis, the related final results report and the mid-year report will also be presented on a cash basis. The switch to accrual reporting will take place in respect of the 2002-03 year.
These transitional arrangements are permitted under the bill, which makes provision for the phased introduction of accrual reporting over a 12 month period. The regular fiscal reports required under the framework will represent reports at the whole-of-sector level. The reports will not be broken down on an agency-by-agency basis. Agency level information will be provided at budget time and at the time of the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Statements. It is the whole-of-sector level reporting that is essential for public scrutiny of the government’s fiscal performance.
It is important to state that the government has not substituted its fiscal management strategies and the government’s Good Government policy for the higher level fiscal management principles in clause 5 of the bill. The Good Government strategies are just that - strategies. They are not a higher level statement of fiscal principles as contained in clause 5 of the framework. The government’s intention is to include its Good Government strategies along with the elaboration and implementation details in the fiscal strategy statement required under the framework. To include the government’s Good Government strategies in the framework itself would require the legislation to be changed every time the government changed or the fiscal strategy changed. The intent is to establish a stable framework including high level fiscal principles with the government of the day expressing its interpretation of these principles and its particular strategy in its own fiscal strategy statement.
The framework requires the final results report to be published in the same format as the budget and the mid-year fiscal outlook reports. This will allow results reported to be audited, if appropriate, by the Auditor-General.
Consequential amendments to the Financial Management Act to support the fiscal integrity and transparency legislation, and also to move on accrual output budget framework, are required. These will include providing that the quarterly and annual reports required under the Financial Management Act move on to a format consistent with the reports required under the fiscal integrity and transparency framework. Such amendments, along with the additional role that could be performed by the outcome performance accountability, are matters to be addressed separately and subsequently. Consideration of these other issues will be usefully informed by first putting in place the fiscal reporting and accountability arrangements proposed in the bill.
Finally, I acknowledge that clause 2(2) of the bill provides that the obligations created under the framework are not enforceable in judicial and other proceedings. This is a usual provision and is included in similar acts elsewhere in Australia. This provision recognises that the government is accountable to the parliament and ultimately the electorate for its performance, not to the courts.
The bill has been modelled closely on relevant interstate legislation and represents best practice in the Australian context. It will be recognised as such by informed observers. I am confident that the bill will make the Territory’s public finances more transparent and serve to restore confidence in the integrity of budget processes within the Territory government.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to the Assembly.
Debate adjourned.
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
Take two bills together
Take two bills together
Dr TOYNE (Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent bills entitled Fines and Penalties (Recovery) Bill 2001 (Serial 16) and Fines and Penalties (Recovery) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2001 (Serial 17); (a) being presented and read a first time together and one motion being put in regard to, respectively, the second readings, the committee’s report stage and the third readings of the bills together and; (b) the consideration of the bills separately in the Committee of the Whole.
Motion agreed to.
FINES AND PENALTIES (RECOVERY) BILL
(Serial 16)
FINES AND PENALITIES (RECOVERY) (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL
(Serial 17)
(Serial 16)
FINES AND PENALITIES (RECOVERY) (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL
(Serial 17)
Bills presented and read a first time.
Dr TOYNE (Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bills be now read a second time.
The purpose of these bills is to consolidate and reform the current systems of court fine and infringement notice enforcement with a new, more efficient, centralised enforcement regime based on best practice models. The history of the proposed scheme can be traced back to February 1999 when the Public Accounts Committee released Report Number 33 entitled Inquiry Into Fees, Fines and Outstanding Debts. This report raised a number of concerns including the level of outstanding debt, the growth of the debt, current inefficient collection methods and the need to consider more appropriate strategies to reduce the debt. As a result of that report, a task force was established to address the problems.
The terms of reference emphasised the need to consider a solution to remove the use of courts to process infringement notices, possibly by an independent unit, and to explore alternative recovery mechanisms which would increase collection without sending defaulters to prison. The task force also tried to develop a scheme that encouraged the early payment of debts rather than relying on the issuing and executing of warrants of commitment as the only substantial incentive to pay.
The task force noted that similar problems with outstanding debts applied to both infringement notice penalties and court imposed fines.
The task force looked at the enforcement regimes in other jurisdictions and came up with a scheme based on the Australian Best Practice. The new Fines and Penalties (Recovery Act) is based on the New South Wales scheme, but with some significant differences. Rather than relying on imprisonment as the only significant deterrent, the new scheme enforces payment through a hierarchy of penalties ranging from licence and vehicle registration suspension, through to civil enforcement, community work orders and imprisonment.
Imprisonment will only be imposed as a last resort when the defaulter fails to complete a community work order. In this regard, the new regime is consistent with recommendation 92 of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody.
I seek leave to table some figures of the imprisonments that resulted from defaults of payments of fines.
Leave granted.
Dr TOYNE: I note that in these figures, over a two year period from the beginning of 1998 to the end of 1999, 1826 indigenous people went to gaol for failure to pay fines and 390 non-indigenous people went to gaol, so the numbers are quite high.
Currently the enforcement of court fines and infringement notices penalties are dealt with separately and are spread over various pieces of legislation, some provisions of which overlap. The current enforcement procedures are not always consistent. For example, community service orders, which are now to be known as community work orders, are not available to expiate an infringement notice penalty but are available for court fines. The new Fines and Penalties (Recovery) Act will replace these various provisions with a stand alone act to provide a more centralised process and a more coherent, accessible legislative structure.
The Fines and Penalties (Recovery) (Consequential Amendments) Act amends acts such as the Sentencing Act, Justices Act and Juvenile Justice Act to repeal provisions under those acts dealing with the enforcement of court fines and infringement notice penalties. It also amends the Traffic Act to provide for the suspension of driver’s licence and vehicle registration.
The framework of the new system of fine and infringement penalty enforcements is as follows:
- (a) the establishment of a new unit to be known as the Fines Recovery Unit or FRU. This will be a separate registry
of the Local Court, which will have the role of managing the process of enforcement. It will be a type of one-stop
shop for all aspects of fine recovery including the taking of payments, the making of time to pay arrangements,
and providing information to the public about the enforcement process. It will liaise and coordinate with other
agencies involved in the infringement notice process. The unit will be headed by a Director appointed under the act;
(b) enforcement procedures for infringement notices will require payment within 28 days of issue. If the penalty is not
paid within that time, the issuing agency will post a courtesy letter allowing a further 28 days to pay. The person
receiving the infringement notice will retain the right to elect to have the matter dealt with by a court. The issuing
agency in some cases may also withdraw the infringement notice in order to prosecute in appropriate cases;
(c) for a court imposed fine, the offender will have 28 days to pay the fine or to make arrangements with the FRU for
extra time to pay, or to enter into an instalment arrangement;
- (d) if the court fine or infringement penalty remains unpaid after these due dates, the matter will be referred to the
FRU for enforcement action;
- (e) the FRU will notify defaulters that they have 28 days to pay the fine or penalty, and that failure to do so will result
in a person’s licence being suspended or, if no licence is available, his or her car registration will be suspended.
Defaulters will also be advised of further action that will be taken if he or she continues to be in default;
- (f) after the 28 day period, the FRU will refer the matter to the Registrar of Motor Vehicles to determine whether
there is an available licence or registration. If so, the licence or registration will be suspended until payment is
received;
- (g) civil enforcement will follow if there is no licence or registration available for suspension, or the fine or penalty
remains unpaid after a licence or registration has been suspended for three months;
- (h) the FRU can issue a property seizure order, a garnishee order or a charge on land. A charge on land will not give
the FRU power to sell the land; it will act as a mortgage in every other respect. For example, the charge will
remain on the title to the land until it is discharged. The FRU will assess each case to decide which civil
enforcement option is most appropriate;
- (i) if civil enforcement is unsuccessful, or unlikely to be successful, the FRU can issue a community work order, and
(j) in the event of a breach of the community work order, a warrant for the arrest of the defaulter will be issued and
the police may take the person into custody to satisfy the outstanding amount plus enforcement costs at the rate
of $100 a day.
The focus of the new regime is in creating a more efficient, centralised and coordinated process for fine enforcement, one that provides the public with certainty of process. It is recognised that the imposition of infringement notice penalties and court fines plays a significant part in our justice system. The regime is aimed at maintaining the integrity of the fine as an effective sanction for less serious criminal offences, while ensuring that it applies consistently to both court-imposed fines and infringement penalties.
The regime under the new Fines and Penalties (Recovery) Act is also aimed at providing a more flexible enforcement process, and ensuring that those who can afford to pay a fine do so. By providing for a range of enforcement procedures and alternative methods of expiating the fine, early payment is encouraged. It is intended that the current community work programs will be extended, especially to accommodate the needs of indigenous Territorians. If cases of genuine hardship do arise, or if community work is not appropriate, the FRU is empowered to write off debts. Detailed guidelines in this regard are being prepared.
It should be noted that, under the Fines and Penalties (Recovery) Act, juveniles will not be detained for non-payment of a fine. All other penalties under the act will apply, such as licence suspension and community work orders. The only way that a juvenile will now be able to be detained for non-payment of a fine is if the court specifically orders detention in default of payment of a court imposed fine.
Another important aspect of the new regime will be the improved payment facilities to ensure easier and faster payment methods. It is proposed that the FRU be able to make payments by credit card or EFTPOS. It is anticipated that credit card payment over the phone will also be made available.
The FRU will also be empowered to enter into instalment orders or time to pay arrangements. There is no time limit on the arrangements the FRU can make and it is the intention that offenders will be given every opportunity to pay the fine, taking into account their financial situation. For infringement notice penalties, the alleged offender will have about two months to pay the debt before it is referred to the FRU for enforcement. Under the act, alleged offenders can then approach the FRU for further time to pay if they are having difficulties and the FRU will be able to defer enforcement action.
Clearly, the most important aspect of the new regime will be the suspension of driver licences and vehicle registration. This will be the first penalty imposed on the defaulter if a licence or registration is available, and is aimed at encouraging those who can afford to pay to do so at the earliest stage. The rationale is that the Territory grants the privilege of a licence to drive on Territory roads, and a person who defaults in the payment of a fine to the Territory can have that privilege removed. Defaulters will have their licence or registration removed until the fine is paid in full. This will apply to all fines, not only those imposed for traffic-related offences.
It should also be noted that one of the most significant differences between the new Fines and Penalties (Recovery) Act and the New South Wales act is our approach to licence suspension. In other jurisdictions, there have been some concerns raised over the fairness of this enforcement method, especially because of the possibility of a person not being informed of a licence suspension in certain circumstances, for example where there has been a change of address and the notice of suspension was not received.
The Fines and Penalties (Recovery) (Consequential Amendments) Act will therefore add a new provision to the Traffic Act to allow for police to give cautions where they are satisfied that a person is not aware of their licence being suspended. This will ensure that the suspension aspect of the new enforcement regime operates fairly. The caution provisions will allow for only one caution to be given in relation to the specific suspension, but will give police officers the power to issue permits at the time of giving a caution, to enable a person to drive to a specified place, for example, to arrange payment of the outstanding fine.
Provisions have also been included to ensure that a person’s general car insurance, as well as coverage under the Motor Accidents (Compensation) Act, are maintained if their licence and registration is suspended under the Fines and Penalties (Recovery) Act. All outstanding court-imposed fines current at the date of commencement of the new regime will be transferred to the new regime. Outstanding infringement notices issued under the current Territory Infringement Notices Enforcement Scheme (TINES) under the Justices Act will also be transferred to the FRU for enforcement, but only via civil procedures such as warrants for seizure and sale and garnishee orders. It is proposed that an amnesty of three months will be offered once the new regime is in place before the outstanding debt is enforced by the FRU.
A media campaign will precede the full operation of the regime so as to inform the general public of the new system, their obligations under it, and the hierarchical range of penalties. The campaign will stress the need for people to pay their fines, but will also make clear the opportunities to seek time and pay arrangements or, in the case of infringement notice penalties, to have the matter dealt with by a court instead. It is proposed that a media campaign will also be developed specifically for indigenous Territorians.
It is my view that this new fine enforcement regime is a better, fairer and more comprehensive system than the various enforcement processes currently in place in the Territory. It will make payment of fines and infringement notice penalties easier and, more importantly, will result in a reduction of the number of people being imprisoned for fine default. I commend the bills to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
VALIDATION (CHIEF MAGISTRATE) BILL
(Serial 18)
(Serial 18)
Continued from 23 October 2001.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I say at the outset I am indebted for the briefing I received from the Attorney-General’s Department on Tuesday morning. Having regard to the urgency under which the matter has been brought before this parliament, I have not had an opportunity to prepare at length some submissions but, at first blush, there are three observations I wish to make.
First, the purpose of the legislation is obvious and clear on the face of the bill and it is fairly obvious that, depending upon the outcome of legal proceedings currently before the Federal Court, the proposed bill may never have any practical effect. However, it is still an act of parliament and we must assume that it will be given effect and, accordingly, the usual safeguards should apply. In relation to the practical effect of this proposed legislation, there are two things I wish to raise. First, there is a significant and quite damaging drafting error contained in section 5 of the bill, and I will deal with that first. Then I am going to talk about a more insidious proposition that the bill, in its current form, may extend influence on our Chief Magistrate.
The first point is in relation to the drafting of section 5. The bill is drafted in such a way that there are three disjunctive limbs. Disjunctive means separate. There are three separate limbs which can stand completely by themselves confirming: first, the appointment of the Chief Magistrate; second, the terms and conditions of the remuneration he was to receive; and, third, section 5 deals with the actions of the Chief Magistrate.
Probably the most important provision of this bill from a practical perspective is confirming the decisions he has made if his employment is declared invalid from 27 February 1998 until the day that the Federal Court hands down its decision assuming, of course, it is adverse to his position. Section 5 says, and I will just read this into Hansard:
- In the event that the appointment of the Chief Magistrate made on 27 February 1998 is invalid, all actions
taken in pursuance of the purported employment are declared to be as valid …
and it goes onto say:
- … as if taken by a person properly appointed to the office under section 5 of the Magistrates Act.
The usual and proper drafting of a validation act confirming or validating or ratifying that a particular course of conduct was always proper, is to include a provision that says: ‘…and always to have been valid’. You cannot just declare something valid because there is a fundamental canon of interpretation that says an act of parliament is prospective, and unless you specifically say it is retrospective, it will only have effect from the day that it is assented to.
What I did before, sitting here listening very attentively to the ministerial statements, was go on the Internet to have a look at other acts of parliament which have fallen to be considered by this parliament. If you look at, for example, the Validation (Native Title) Act, section 4 deals with past acts:
- Every past act attributed to the Territory is valid and is taken always to have been valid.
The particular drafting technique is included in that legislation. Another one which I found is the Local Government (Validation) Act 1996, section 3(1) deals with validation and reads, in part:
- … the consequences of the decision or action, is declared to be, and always to have been, as valid
and effectual …
That term, that phrase, is used several times in that subsection.
There is a difficulty, a drafting oversight, which I think goes to the heart of this bill. I flag it now, and I can address it in more detail, paragraph by paragraph, at the committee stage. Perhaps the Attorney-General might like to take advice on that and take that suggested amendment on board.
The second matter really goes to the heart of the way this piece of legislation is drafted. If I can just remind honourable members who have the legislation in front of them that from a practical perspective, the government, when this bill becomes an act, has the power to confirm Mr Bradley’s appointment, to validate it. The government has the power to confirm his remuneration, and they also have the power - and I have touched upon that - to validate any decisions which he has made, albeit that it is unclear and not precise in its current form.
What the government can do is confirm his decisions, but then does not have to take the extra step and confirm his appointment. There is absolutely no reason why you would draft this in the way that it is currently before parliament if you did not anticipate or want the option of confirming one of those three disjunctive limbs. You can confirm all, but the way it is drafted, the government, when this bill becomes an act, does have the option of confirming only one or two of those three important matters contained in the bill. I have some real concerns about the position in which our Chief Magistrate finds himself, having regard to the possible effect that this legislation could have on him.
I need say little about the separation of powers. It is fundamental doctrine and one which is a cornerstone to our system. That is, the separation between the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. In a nutshell, as it relates to this legislation, the principle is that parliament should have no influence, perceived or otherwise, on a decision or a matter or a magistrate or a judge sitting in his role as a judicial officer.
I am not pre-empting or wishing to delve in the matters which are currently before the court and, with all due respect to Justice Olney, I understand that one of the arguments raised in the matter which is still being considered is an argument against the short-term appointment of Hugh Bradley. There is an opportunity for public perception that it is in his self-interest - that is, to confirm his re-appointment - and could seem to be erosive of the necessary independence of his judicial decision in his actions. That is, the continuance of his employment as a judicial officer after a certain date cannot be allowed to be perceived as going to be dependent upon any assessment of his performance by the appointing executive.
Whilst that decision has not come down and will probably define the exact parameters of what amounts to influence and perceived influence or actual influence, there is a very good chance that very decision will have an effect on the validity of this legislation and, probably more importantly - because it is difficult to confine parliament to an ultra vires argument in terms of the validity of a piece of legislation - but if the legislation is valid, it will most certainly, in my view, open up several potentially serious litigation actions against the government. There will be legal opportunities there because of this perceived or actual influence.
In my view, there is a real possibility that this bill offends against a fundamental safeguard which is a cornerstone of our Westminster system. The new validation bill puts Hugh Bradley on notice that if …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! The member for Goyder has the floor.
Mr MALEY: The new validation bill puts Hugh Bradley, our Chief Magistrate, on notice that, if his appointment is rendered invalid by the Federal Court’s forthcoming decision, the confirmation of his personal reappointment is not necessarily going to be automatic, but can be merely considered. Therefore, between now and the court’s decision, he will be in a position of delivering judgments in the face of uncertainty that the government will reconfirm him or not reconfirm him should his original appointment be invalidated by the court. Once again, we have the Chief Magistrate being put in the position of performing a judicial role knowing that he may need to be attracting executive favour in order to secure the continuance of his job. That is completely and totally unacceptable.
It seems the Attorney-General has deliberately drafted the legislation in its current form so that in the government’s absolute discretion, they can confirm or choose not to confirm the appointment of the Chief Magistrate - deliberately drafted in such a fashion. Can I remind honourable members and, indeed the Attorney-General, that the test at law is not merely actual influence but it is perceived influence, so if a reasonable person can perceive that the way that you have drafted this exerts influence on our Chief Magistrate, and if the answer is plainly ‘yes,’ then you have exposed the Territory taxpayer and yourself to review and litigation.
There is, deliberately incorporated into this legislation, a power of veto and that, on anybody’s understanding, is completely unacceptable. I am indebted to the Parliamentary Library Services who just provided me with some material. There is a very good article written by Justice Kirby, and it talks about wreckers at work. He talks about the erosion and the attack which parliaments around Australia and the effect, through legislation just like this, they are having on judicial institutions.
Mr Stirling: Who put him on tenure?
Mr MALEY: We are dealing with this piece of legislation. Justice Kirby says:
- It is a protection of the independence of their office which is vital to the interests of the public whom they serve;
the wreckers of important constitutional conventions are at work in Australia. We should expose them and reveal
the danger which their action poses to our good government.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! The member for Goyder.
Mr MALEY: Madam Speaker, this draft legislation is already having an affect. The legal profession is awash with rumours that the head of the Legal Aid Commission, Richard Coates, is the government’s preferred choice as Chief Magistrate. I can only speculate at the undue pressure that this type of rumour, as a direct result of this type of legislation, brings upon our own Chief Magistrate. It may be damaging to his credibility in the long run and, in my view, certainly undermines the due administration of justice in the Northern Territory. In an underhand way, the government has demonstrated that they do not have complete faith in our Chief Magistrate by drafting this legislation.
If I can digress. This is really the second example of where there is an enormous gulf between what is said and the practical effect of the legislation which currently falls to be considered by this parliament. We heard last week the rhetoric from the member for Fannie Bay about serious crime means serious time and the presumption of imprisonment and new schemes, tough on crime. The government could not just tell the truth to Territory people that the discretion was going to be returned in full to the judiciary. They had to approach that issue in a misleading way. I am happy to report that the decay of the member for Fannie Bay’s credibility has already set in. I was talking to a group of prosecutors who are also scratching their heads at this enormous gulf between what the member for Fannie Bay has been saying publicly and the true effect of the legislation, albeit the media may not have picked up on it - but someone has and it is going to eat away at her and the ultimate sanction will be in three-and-a-half years’ time when she comes back before the people of the Northern Territory.
As I said, I have not had an opportunity to really go through and research matters which I put on the record because of the urgency of the matter, but for the sake of getting on with the job and for the due administration of justice, the opposition will support the bill if we can be satisfied that there will not be any undue influence by government, perceived or otherwise, on our Chief Magistrate and second, if the Attorney-General gives an undertaking to this parliament that if the appointment of the Chief Magistrate is declared invalid, he will reappoint the Chief Magistrate pursuant to the powers which this legislation bestows upon him. If the government can provide to our satisfaction that there will be no influence, perceived or otherwise, and they will undertake to reappoint Hugh Bradley, and they deal with, by way of an amendment, the drafting oversight contained in section 5, then the opposition will support the amended bill with those relevant undertakings. In its current form, we cannot support the bill.
Mr STIRLING (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I thank the Attorney-General for allowing the Leader of Government Business to have a short reply to the shadow Attorney-General. I am sorry that he has seen something malicious or sinister in the way that this bill was structured because that is not the intention of the government, let me assure you. The intention of the government in framing this legislation in this way was that we did not wish to be seen to be pre-empting in any way the decision of the Federal Court. It was necessary, in order to achieve that, to have the ability to put certainty under any of the questions at stake here. That is, in the first place, the validity of the appointment; in the second place the remuneration, allowances and all of that sort detail; and in the third place, and most critically, every decision that the magistrate ever made in a court. In the worse cast scenario, the Federal Court says: ‘Appointment was invalid and any decision he made also invalid,’ the court system is plunged into chaos with any number of appeals by those who now say: ‘Well, his decision against me was invalid. I want to appeal’. That is also, of course, the reason for the urgency because we do not know when the Federal Court will hand down its decision. It is certainly likely to be before we are back here in November, by which time the judicial system is overflowing with appeals from any number of people believing they were aggrieved.
That is simply the way that the bill was structured, not to put the skids under anyone, not to have any sinister or malicious overtones about where we might be. We did not want to be seen to be pre-empting in any way the decision that the Federal Court may make. We are simply seeking to underline, and have the ability to underline, the certainty that is required in any decision that the Federal Court may make that would be otherwise injurious to the integrity to the whole judicial system and the Chief Magistrate’s role within that.
That is what the bill is about and, as I said, I am sorry if the shadow Attorney-General is reading more into it than otherwise is there. The reason you have a briefing is to raise these concerns. You talk the bill over with your colleagues, you go to your briefing so that you take both your questions and concerns about the bill and those of your colleagues. You clearly understand the need for urgency.
Mr Burke: When he has time to think about it and research it.
Mr STIRLING: I would keep out of this debate. This has cost you an arm and a leg so far, and you are not helping yourself now. It is your signature that was on the bottom and when we asked the question in here, you could not remember being in Cabinet. You said: ‘I do not remember’. You are a bit like Alan Bond! He is writing a book now – he is writing a book about the things he could not remember when he was in court a few years ago. You are a bit the same. Your memory’s coming back now but when you stood here and we asked you questions in the House, you could not remember. It was your signature on the documents and you tried to sheet it all home to your former mate Shane Stone. He was not going to wear it because he was quite open when he said: ‘Not me, this bloke. This bloke,’ and this bloke was trying to say: ‘I do not remember. I do not remember’. Well, you stand with Alan Bond because your memory’s coming back. No doubt you will go and write a book about it just like Bondy’s doing, and make a million bucks.
There is nothing sinister or malicious in this bill. It is the intention of government to have the ability to commence any part of the act so necessary to preserve the integrity of the judicial system, the same juridical system that this bloke said was ‘totally corrupt’. Well, he had a role in corrupting it in this sort of behaviour, behaviour on which he could not even remember his part in Cabinet. If you have an amendment that you can put across to us in writing that we can consider in committee, if we have not convinced you of our integrity in this, bring it over.
Mr BURKE: A point of order, Madam Speaker. One is used to the diatribe of the member for Nhulunbuy but he has used the word ‘corrupt’ and said that I had an active role in corrupting the process of government. He knows the rules of this House. This is a debate we have had before. He could bring it forward with a substantive motion and we are happy to debate it.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of Government Business, I think you should withdraw.
Mr STIRLING: Madam Speaker, I am happy to withdraw that. The fact is this appointment has been subject to a great deal of litigation. If there wasn’t something wrong with it, surely that litigation would not have arisen. I am happy to withdraw the term ‘corrupt’ but we must remember that it was the former Attorney-General himself who described our entire judicial system as ‘totally corrupt’.
I say to the shadow Attorney-General: if he has an amendment that he thinks makes things clearer, get it across to us so we can consider it in the committee stages.
There is nothing sinister about this bill, let me assure you. It simply seeks to put certainty under any aspect that may be found to be invalid by the Federal Court and any one part or the whole part of the act can be commenced. It needs to be passed and it needs to be passed on urgency, because we do not know when the Federal Court will bring down its decision, and we do not know what that decision will be. We are trying to be seen not to pre-empt that decision and, certainly, November sittings will be too late.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, apart from the waffle that the member for Nhulunbuy went on with, there was a simple question that does not need to be settled by amendment to the bill. It can be settled by the closing comments of the Attorney-General and that is that the opposition, despite its concern about this bill, despite its concern about undue influence on the Chief Magistrate by this bill, is prepared to support the bill providing the Attorney-General, in his closing comments, gives an undertaking that notwithstanding what happens in the court, you as a government will undertake to reappoint him to the position of Chief Magistrate. With that statement alone, our concerns disappear. That is the question. That is all you have to answer and we will support the legislation.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr BURKE: By not answering it, you are saying simply that you do not intend to reappoint him and, therefore, this legislation as outlined by the shadow Attorney-General brings undue influence on that man in his present capacity.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I am a little surprised to hear the Leader of Government Business assert that sheer weight of litigation confirms the impropriety of the government. That is outrageous.
Mr Stirling: Put a question on it.
Mr ELFERINK: No, that is an outrageous allegation. It is up to the courts to decide impropriety. You are standing in here and you have already come into this Chamber with your histrionics saying: ‘Oh, how evil the past government was’. Well, you guys got elected on a platform of ‘we shall, like pure silken-robed people, walk across your swimming pool and bring justice and pure government to the people of the Northern Territory’ and what do we see in this Chamber? We see debate shut down. We see the hallmark of this government. We saw an argument just a second ago on the front bench of this government with the Attorney-General trying to sit you down so he can close down debate. He was trying to gag it. You are absolutely outrageous. You and your whole front bench. Why? Because the Attorney-General knows exactly what is going on here.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Macdonnell, resume your seat. That is enough, thank you. Enough! We will not continue until you are all quiet. It is quite out of hand and there is shouting from both sides which makes it very hard for anyone to hear the member for Macdonnell. We will not continue until you stop it. We will try again.
Mr ELFERINK: In his censure motion against the government in the Eighth Assembly, the member for Nhulunbuy, now Leader of Government Business, described or said that he had been told that the Chief Magistrate was an honourable man and if that is the case, all he has to do, and his government has to do in this Chamber, is come in here and confirm the reappointment of the Chief Magistrate, not separate it out so that we see a situation where they can say to the Chief Magistrate: ‘Your decisions are fine, but you are not’. That is really through the gazettal process which is what has been loaded into this legislation.
This legislation has the potential to represent itself to the Chief Magistrate as an execution order on his job. I believe the words of the shadow Attorney-General were: ‘that would bring influence to bear upon the Chief Magistrate’. Considering the arguments that have been trotted out by these members opposite when they were in opposition, they have to be very, very careful in government, that they are not going to be repeating what they claim to be the mistakes of the past. I want to see alterations to this legislation so not only the magistrate’s decisions are confirmed but so is the Chief Magistrate himself.
Dr TOYNE (Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I would like to start my response to this debate with a bit of advice to the shadow Attorney-General. We have seen two bills now debated since we went into our respective roles. You had a briefing last Monday, you indicated to my chief advisor that you were going to support this legislation; you indicated to me yesterday you were not bringing any amendments forward. We have had two debates now where you have indicated supposed drafting faults in the bill before the House with no attempt to come back to us with written amendments, no warning of any amendments that we can get some legal opinion on. Let us get the process right here. I know you are new to this place, but if you are serious about these amendments and you want us to seriously consider them - and we will if they are put forward in good spirit - give them to us. Give them to us in time so that we can get some opinion on them and we will accept them if they are valid. But popping them up here in the middle of a debate with no warning even as …
Mr BURKE: A point of order, Madam Speaker. First, the Attorney-General should be speaking through the Chair and if he were speaking through the Chair, he would be addressing the fact that the processes of parliament are such that a bill such as this coming through on such urgency provides no opportunity for the shadow Attorney-General to research and bring forward amendments in the way that you are trying to instruct him on.
Madam SPEAKER: There is a point of order about speaking to the Chair, so I do ask the Attorney-General to address his remarks this way. When you are in committee you can do it the other way.
Dr TOYNE: I will, Madam Speaker. I was just overwhelmed by my nurturing instincts for a new member of parliament. He needs to know the processes by which he can actually influence the passage of bills through this House. If it is going to be theatrics, let us have theatrics. I quite enjoy them. But if you want substantial debate on amendments of the sort that you seem to want to bring here, give them to us in writing, give them to us so we can actually get a legal opinion on them.
Let us look at the issues that have been brought up in the debate. I want to make very clear before I start on this, that the Chief Minister has withdrawn from all discussions on this bill. She has done that because of the perception of her friendship with Hugh Bradley, and I admire her integrity for doing that. I want to put that on public record and on Hansard that the Chief Minister, Clare Martin, has not taken part in any deliberations on this bill at any stage during its process. So you can leave her out of this. We have brought forward this legislation for the reasons that we gave. It is not because Clare Martin is a friend of Hugh Bradley.
This bill, in its practical effect, allows us to do three things if the Federal Court judge, Justice Weinberg, brings down a judgment that the appointment of the Chief Magistrate was found to be invalid. If that decision is brought down by the Federal Court, three things flow from it. One, the most serious, is that all of the decisions made by the Chief Magistrate since his appointment are open to contest. That is a huge problem for our justice system, and I think even the other side would recognise that. They maybe would like to go and tell Shane Stone what he wrecked when he put that in place, the tenure of the Chief Magistrate. The second outcome that is more than possible is some legal dispute over the remuneration conditions of the Chief Magistrate, and the third outcome is the most obvious, and is that he would no longer be the Chief Magistrate of the Northern Territory.
We have to deal with all of the outcomes from that court case. In putting forward the three provisions of this bill, we are trying to deal with those three contingencies. I want to make it absolutely clear that at this stage, as we stand in this House, there has been no decision made by this government about any of those three issues other than it is pretty obvious to Blind Freddie that we are going to have to validate the decisions of the Chief Magistrate if his appointment is declared invalid. The question of the incumbent, Hugh Bradley, continuing on in the Chief Magistrate’s position is not one that we can validly make a decision on prior to the decision of the Federal Court.
Members interjecting.
Dr TOYNE: Madam Speaker, I am finding it very hard to …
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Both sides of the House.
Dr TOYNE: It would be highly presumptuous of us to announce a decision regarding the continued employment of the Chief Magistrate ahead of the decision of the Federal Court. In the event that the judge declares that appointment invalid, we do not know on what grounds the judge reached that conclusion. We do not know whether it would be substantive issues of propriety. We do not know whether they would be purely technical reasons. For that reason, to be getting up today and declaring the continued appointment of the Chief Magistrate beyond the decision of the Federal Court would be cutting right across the action of that court and that judge.
We will wait until that judgment and reasons are out there for all of us to see. We will then decide whether to commence the area of the bill that deals with the reappointment of the Chief Magistrate as a possibility, section 3. Similarly, we have to make a judgment in the event that the Chief Magistrate was not continued, as to what we want to do about his terms and conditions. We have to make a judgment in terms of the potential call on taxpayers’ money and the public processes of contesting that package with the Chief Magistrate, if that were the direction we wanted to take. We have to weigh that up as part of the overall decision. That is available to us within the framework of this bill.
Passing to section 5 which the shadow Attorney-General seems to have some problem with, I want to go to the words here that are in that section of the bill:
- In the event that the appointment of the Chief Magistrate made on the 27 February 1998 is invalid, …
or deemed invalid by the court decision, and here is the critical bit:
- … all actions taken in pursuance of the purported appointment are to be declared to be as valid as if taken
by a person properly appointed to the office under section 5 of the Magistrates Act.
That is a retrospective provision. It is saying that every action that the Chief Magistrate has performed, every decision he has made in a court since he became Chief Magistrate, is now validated by those words. Those words are looking at all his actions when he was placed into the role of the Chief Magistrate, regardless of whether that role was deemed to be valid or invalid by the Federal Court, or in this case, invalid. The reference to the Magistrates Act refers specifically to his actions in the role of a magistrate, and the terminology is taking us back to all the actions that he has performed while being in that role.
We believe that that wording is sufficient to guarantee that the action of this legislation is retrospective back to the time of appointment of Hugh Bradley. We do not, therefore, believe that there is a necessity for further introduction of the words that the shadow Attorney-General proposed today, which I have yet to see in writing.
With those comments, I believe that this bill is highly prudent ...
Mr REED: Madam Speaker, the honourable minister is in reply closing debate. I am not making a point of order, but rather seeking your indulgence. If he could expand on some advice that he provided in part earlier during his reply closing debate, whereby he made reference to the Chief Minister’s perceived friendliness with Mr Bradley and her exclusion from the decision making process. I wonder if he could just enlarge on that, just for the information of the House, in terms of what ...
Members interjecting.
Mr REED: … she excluded herself from and why it was raised.
Mr Ah Kit: There is no point of order.
Mr REED: I did not make a point of order.
Madam SPEAKER: It is not a point of order. You can discuss it in committee, but it is up to the Attorney-General whether he wishes to ...
Members interjecting.
Dr TOYNE: It is very common for people to withdraw from meetings, whether they be councillors or parliamentarians or anyone else, if they have a vested interest in the matter being discussed. In the case of the Chief Minister, she has done a very principled thing in saying that she wanted to be excluded from our deliberations on this matter. I do not think there is anything more to be said.
Members interjecting.
Dr TOYNE: Do you want me to say again what a good character, and how high a character our Chief Minister has? I will say it as many times as you like.
I would like to finish my remarks by reiterating to this Assembly that this is not only a very prudent piece of legislation, but it is an urgent piece of legislation. I have said it in an earlier debate last week that we are not going to make the habit of bringing things on in urgency unless there is a definite reason for it.
The two pieces of legislation I have brought on so far are all to do with the integrity and continued operation of our justice system. I will stand and fight on that every time, as Attorney-General. We have to have this legislation in place. The Federal Court decision could come down any time now. There are persistent rumours that it may be in the next few days. We have to be in a position to fully react to the decision of that judge. We do not dishonour the decision of the judge, unlike the previous Attorney-General. We do not pre-empt the decision of that judge. We will wait until we get the decision, we will wait until we see what the written reasons are in the decision. We will then respond through this legislation. It is adequate legislation for that purpose.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bills to members.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In Committee:
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:
Mr MALEY: Mr Chairman, the Attorney-General talked about the implementation of this provision being conditional upon the outcome - that is, the validity or otherwise of the original appointment of the Chief Magistrate. Do you agree with me that you did not have to draft it in such a way that it is only operative if the original appointment is invalid? You could have said - and it would have been clearer and certainly would have demonstrated your confidence in our Chief Magistrate – that you declare that the appointment of the Chief Magistrate was, and always has been, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, in accordance with section 5. You did not have to make it conditional upon the declaration of its validity. You could have said clearly, simply, that the appointment, as far as you are concerned in this piece of legislation, has always been and will always be valid. Why didn’t you do that? Why did you opt for this conditional approach when there is nothing at law requiring you to approach it in such a way?
Dr TOYNE: There is a very easy answer to that. If we had put that wording in there, we are telling a Federal Court judge that it does not matter what his decision is, we are going to validate the Chief Magistrate. We do not know the reasons for the decision until we see the decision. They might be quite serious matters of propriety, they may be purely technical arguments. We have to see the decision before we can say what we are going to do about the Chief Magistrate’s appointment.
Mr MALEY: I will clarify this for you. The declaration which is being sought is in relation to a given period in time - time is of the essence - and that declaration will be made and the result of that declaration will not be affected by anything you have put in clause 3. So, what you said then is absolutely wrong. This has nothing to do with the decision currently before the court as to whether you choose the wording ‘subject to the decision being declared invalid’. You can just declare and confirm that the appointment is valid and always has been valid. In light of that information - perhaps you can seek some advice - why then, have you chosen to go down this path which, in my view, undermines the integrity and credibility of the Chief Magistrate and your confidence in him?
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, who undermined the integrity of the Chief Magistrate in this matter? It is the former Chief Minister, former Attorney-General standing there. We are seeking certainty in the judicial system. We cannot tell the Federal Court: ‘We do not care what your decision is, or even what it is based on, this is what we are going to do’. Unlike you blokes, we have a bit of respect for the integrity of the judicial system as it stands and as it works. We do not stand here and declare them totally corrupt, as our predecessors have done.
Mr ELFERENK: Mr Chairman, this smoke and mirror stuff coming from the Leader of Government Business - make a little bit of noise and hopefully the issue will disappear inside the smokescreen. The fact is that this Attorney-General has come to this parliament with legislation …
Mr Burke: On urgency.
Mr ELFERINK: On urgency, we might add, trying to push this through as part of their open and accountable system of government but in actual ...
Mr Ah Kit: Yes, and it will go through.
Members interjecting.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: ... when in actual fact they are saying: ‘Look, we cannot pre-empt the decision of the Federal Court’. The truth of the matter is you can validate this appointment quite easily, and this legislature has every power to pass legislation.
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I really get aggravated when people do not read plain English. Have a look in the bill. In the event that the appointment of the Chief Magistrate made on 27 February 1998 is seen as invalid by the decision of the judge, it is declared that the appointment was and always has been a valid appointment of the Chief Magistrate under section 5 of the Magistrates Act. What we are saying is that if that part of this bill is commenced, then the Chief Magistrate is fully back in his job and validated and can go on with his work. It gives the government the power to do that two seconds after the court decision is brought down if the decision to invalidate were for minor and technical reasons, but not if there were some deeper fundamentals of malpractice involved.
Mr ELFERINK: I am curious. Is the Attorney-General anticipating fundamental malpractice?
Dr TOYNE: I am not anticipating anything except the announcement of a decision by a judge of the Federal Court. That is all we are anticipating. We do not know what the judge is going to say. We do not know what reasons are going to support his decision. All we know is that we have to react to it once that decision is made.
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, just in relation to the member for Macdonnell’s point, Justice Weinberg, during the hearing of this whole matter, said: ‘Any prudent legislature would prepare for the eventuality that the appointment be held invalid’. ‘Any prudent legislature would prepare for the eventuality that the appointment be held invalid’. That is exactly what this bill does. That is what this bill does! In the event that the appointment is held invalid and there is no reason in the court or any other reason that he should not be reappointed, we have the ability to commence any part of the act, once it is through this House, that is required.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chairman, this then brings us obviously to the issues in the next clauses. I also heard the member for Arnhem interject before that this will pass. Well, I find it curious that the Attorney-General has already said that the Chief Minister, as I understand it, is excluding herself from this debate. That makes the numbers in this Chamber 12:12, Jack. Don’t presume how the votes in this Chamber work, mate.
Dr TOYNE: I fail to see how that is different from ‘if the decision is invalid it is declared that the appointment was and always has been a valid appointment’. It is the same thing. You are talking about us bringing this forward. You were advised twice by QCs to bring forward validating legislation. Why didn’t you do it? Why are you leaving us to deal with this at the last minute before the Federal Court decision comes down?
Mr BURKE: I am happy to answer that question. The answer to the question is that at the appropriate time we would have brought it forward. If you believe it is now the appropriate time, the simple question we are asking is why don’t you do it properly and why don’t you do it in a way that demonstrates confidence in the Chief Magistrate?
Mr MALEY: Just picking up on a comment that the member for Nhulunbuy made when he cited something that the presiding judge said - indeed, what Justice Weinberg said was correct - and that there perhaps should be legislation put in place just in case the decision goes one way or the other. My point is this: you do not have to have the wording in clause 5 as it currently stands. You do not have to have it conditional upon the declaration that the appointment is invalid. You can simply and clearly and concisely declare that the appointment on 27 February 1998 of the Chief Magistrate, Hugh Bradley, is valid and has always been valid in accordance with Section 5 of the Magistrates Act. What I am suggesting …
Mr Stirling: Clause 3. It is already there.
Mr MALEY: No, that is the suggested wording. Your wording is the conditional ‘let us see how it goes, leave it up in the air’. It is ambiguous.
Dr Toyne: Yes, let’s see how it goes. It is called a court decision.
Mr MALEY: I will put on the record that this is something I would like you to address, Attorney-General. Do you realise - and perhaps you can seek advice on this - that the current wording as it stands, section 3, if it is properly gazetted and assented to, would be susceptible to further separate legal challenge? Do you realise that? Do you realise this ambiguity, this perception of influence leaves the Northern Territory taxpayer, through the government, susceptible to further legal challenge? That is my question. Do you realise that?
Dr TOYNE: No, I do not, simply because I have had legal advice of sufficient weight to say that what we have done here is to put a provision in which is, in effect, saying that we will wait for the court’s decision. We then have the capacity to either validate or invalidate the Chief Magistrate’s appointment on into the future. It will not be used at all, obviously, if the Federal Court declares him valid. He is our Chief Magistrate and he goes on to the normal retirement age of the Chief Magistrate. But the capacity under clause 3 is that we can quickly move to ensure continuity if there is insufficient …
Mr Maley: You can do it now.
Mr Burke: You can do it now, you are holding the stuff.
Dr TOYNE: No, we are not. We are not going to do it now prior to a Federal Court decision. No way known.
Mr Burke: But that is the point. You can confirm his reappointment in the event you have to.
Dr TOYNE: I think it is a point that you have failed to understand when you were Attorney-General and you are still failing to understand it. The court decisions have to be respected and that is what we are doing with this structure.
Mr MALEY: Mr Chairman, whether or not the practical effect of the court decision is a nullity is completely irrelevant. You have missed the point completely. The court will look at …
Ms Scrymgour: No, I think you’ve missed it.
Mr Henderson: In your opinion.
Mr MALEY: If you listen carefully, you might learn something. The court will look at a given set of facts on a date and then make a declaration in respect of it. Your argument that you do not want to be disrespectful or you are not foreshadowing anything - you are not disrespectful if it is declared invalid, the appointment, you are going to validate it in any event, so the very purpose of this legislation is apparent on the face of it. Your argument is flawed. It is not logical. All it does is create a mechanism for the government not to appoint this person as the Chief Magistrate. That is what it does.
Another thing, and perhaps you can address this: there is absolutely no reason at law why you have to have three separate, disjunctive or cumulative limbs to this legislation. You can just put it all into the one paragraph and then if the Federal Court decision comes down and invalidates one of those three limbs, it makes no difference that you have reaffirmed his appointment. It makes no difference that you have reaffirmed his remuneration, and it makes no difference whatsoever that you have reaffirmed the decisions he has made if that were not specifically the subject of the court order. So, there is no rationale from a construction perspective why you would do what you have done if it was not to keep that ace up your sleeve.
You heard what I said earlier, and I mean that. There are rumours circulating in the legal community and it has been caused by this sort of legislation. So can you explain to me why you have chosen to ignore that canon of interpretation and adopt the structure you have here, remembering that it makes no difference at all whether the court declares one or two or three of those points invalid if they are all rolled up in the one section?
Dr TOYNE: You might understand something of the law, but you certainly do not understand legislation. The way in which this act will be enacted is by being commenced in part or in the whole, and by having three sections of which we can commence either one, two or all three. If we commence all three, we have the same affect of putting them in the one paragraph, as you are suggesting. But let us have a look at what is in the judge’s decision; let us see what reasons he puts forward. He may talk specifically about the remuneration package that was offered to the Chief Magistrate. It may be an issue in his judgment, I do not know. But what this does is to give us the ability to respond separately to the three key issues that were seen in the appointment.
I have to say it is very rich coming from your side of the House. You have set up this whole situation by a very ill-judged and very manipulative process with the previous Chief Minister - the Chief Minister before the previous one; they come and go so quickly, I do not know - and we are trying to repair the damage. We will do it according to our legal advice and in a way that will allow us to fully respond to the decision of the Federal Court. I have very little more to say about this. If you are asking us to prove to you, the perpetrators of this situation, that our intentions are honourable in dealing with this, well, I am sorry, it is a bit rich, in my view, and there is no way we are going to prove it to you, anyway, so let us get on with it. Let us vote on this section.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chairman, I do not understand where the Attorney-General is coming from because nothing prevents the Attorney-General standing up in here and saying: ‘Validate the lot’. We do not have to wait for the decision. I do not understand why this absolute dead grip on this three-tiered validation process. The Attorney-General can make a decision, this parliament can make a decision, and it is as simple as that.
Mr STIRLING: The difference, I think, Mr Chairman, between the opposition and the government is the question of respect for the law and respect for the decision that comes out of the court process. Unlike you blokes who would ride roughshod, and always have tried to ride roughshod over the judiciary. We have seen and heard the comments from the former Attorney-General in times past where he described the entire judicial system as ‘totally corrupt’.
In terms of respect and upholding respect for the law and the judicial system, nothing could be further designed to undermine public respect for the judiciary than a statement like that. If the opposition is having difficulty understanding where the Attorney-General and the government are coming from on this issue, it comes down to this bottom line: respect for the judicial system, respect for the decisions that come out of our courts, unlike our opponents.
Mr ELFERINK: Once again, we see the government looking back into the past. It is your job to fix it. You guys have taken on the mantle of government, and you are saying: ‘We are going to fix this’. You want to sit here on one hand and claim: ‘Oh, we have respect for the law; we have respect for the Federal Court,’ but despite that, we are going to pass this piece of legislation and validate those decisions. Why can’t you just take the next step and validate his appointment and reappointment? No answer.
Dr Toyne: I am just waiting for the vote.
Mr ELFERINK: No answer.
Mr MALEY: My question is to the Attorney-General. We accept that your position is unmoved, and what we have said has fallen upon deaf ears. Perhaps we can move onto clause 5.
Mr CHAIRMAN: No, not yet. We need to put the question.
Clause 3, as printed, agreed to.
Clause 4, agreed to.
Clause 5:
Mr MALEY: My question is the Attorney-General. This is the matter I touched upon in my response in the earlier debate. To remind you, there is a canon of construction in any legislation that it is prospective. Unless it is very, very specific, it will not be retrospective. That is why, under the normal practice in draft legislation - and certainly it exists in other portions of legislation which have fallen to be considered by this parliament - that when you declare something to be valid, even if it is obvious what the mischief of this piece of legislation is, you have to have the words ‘is taken always to be valid’. So my suggested amendment is that after the word ‘valid’ on the third line, to insert, ‘is taken always to be valid’.
The difficulty is, Attorney-General - and perhaps you can explain this to me - that if you do not make it really clear that this section of the act is retrospective and clearly retrospective to a given date - and remember that is the very guts of the act - we are here to protect the decisions which he has made and all the consequences that flow from those decisions, and it has to be really clear. It is a simple amendment. Can you explain to this House why you have chosen to draft it in such a way that it creates an ambiguity?
Dr TOYNE: I can give the shadow Attorney-General the assurance that we have consulted with the Parliamentary Counsel whilst this debate has been going on. They have given an absolute assurance that there is full retrospectivity built into the structure and the wording of that section and I, for one, will accept their word for it.
Mr BURKE: As a closing comment on this committee stage debate, can I say that from the opposition’s point of view, you have made much of the fact that the intent of this legislation is not to pre-empt the court. To an ordinary person, I cannot for the life of me understand why this whole bill does not pre-empt the court in its intent, particularly where it says in clause 4(b), notwithstanding what the court may say:
- …the determination of remuneration and allowances and the terms and conditions of the Chief Magistrate made
on 27 February 1998 …
… is declared as valid. So notwithstanding what the court might say, this bill validates that issue and other issues. So to suggest that you are not pre-empting the court is wrong. The only option that is left in this legislation is the option to not reappoint. That is the intent of the legislation, that is the reason it has been drafted in the way it has, and that is the reason we object to the legislation.
Dr TOYNE: Again, we are putting a framework legislation through the House on urgency so it is ready for the time at which the Federal Court decision comes down. We can then choose to commence one, two or three of the sections in what will be the act. It in no way pre-empts our decision; it in no way pre-empts the Federal Court decision. We will see when the decision comes down what the reasons were for the decision according to the judge. We will then respond.
Clause 5, as printed, agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Dr TOYNE (Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, since we have started in this parliament, we have had numerous pieces of legislation rammed through on urgency. This is indicative of a government which is just trying to push through, without public consultation, its policy agenda. This is indicative of a government which is trying its hardest to shut down debate in this Chamber, and it has done so in the most extraordinary way with the ministerial reports, with the extraordinary way that they have tried to shut …
Mr STIRLING: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: There is a point of order. The third reading has been moved. The only debate that can occur is on the bill, not on the process, so let us move on. Not on the process; it is on the bill.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
Move Motion of Censure
Move Motion of Censure
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent me from moving a censure motion.
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: We will pause there while the cameramen leave the Chamber.
Mr Reed: This is historic. The government censuring an opposition member!
Mr Stirling: You censured Gary Cartwright in his first sittings, you dill! Can’t you remember? You’re like your mate, no memory. In his first sittings.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! I want to make a few comments before we do move on. I have already warned you, Leader of Government Business. I do not want any further outbursts from you. I inform all members, I am the person who makes the ruling in this House, and I do not expect those rulings to be discussed or debated after I have made them. Just remember that. We are into a censure motion now. Chief Minister, you have the floor to move your motion.
CENSURE MOTION
Former CLP Government
Former CLP Government
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move:
- That this Assembly:
including false information in the 2001-02 budget papers, and directing that false figures be included
in the Northern Territory budget so as to enable the Country Liberal Party to make fraudulent claims
about its budget and to deceive Territorians;
for being complicit in the former Treasurer deliberately including knowingly false information in the
2001-02 budget papers, and being complicit in the former Treasurer directing false figures be included
in the Northern Territory Budget so as to enable the Country Liberal Party to make fraudulent claims
about its budget and deceive Territorians; and
the Northern Territory’s budget and sought to deceive Territorians.
Madam Speaker, this is a very sad occasion for this House. It is a very, very sad and very shocking occasion for this House, have no doubt about it.
The starting point for this censure motion is the current Territory budget. In the budget papers, the CLP Treasurer, the member for Katherine, informed Territorians that the CLP government had increased spending in health by 2.5% this financial year. He knew that claim was false; he knew it was untrue. He stood in this House and he lied. He released false budget papers - false budget papers. The former Treasurer knew the figures in the budget were not based on reality, but instead were fictitious figures he had instructed be inserted in the budget. He knew he had made an $8m lie in the budget - and not just in the budget, but to Territorians.
The member for Katherine told Territorians the government increased expenditure in health by 2.5%. In making this claim, the former Treasurer compared the figure for spending on health during the last financial year to the new allocation of funds to health in the current financial year. The former Treasurer told Territorians in that budget that the government would spend $436m in health in 2000-01. This was the wrong figure, and the Chief Executive Officer of Territory Health Services knew it.
The material now before this parliament states that this figure was only inserted for presentational purposes. The figure was only inserted for presentational purposes! You have been sprung, and you have been sprung badly. The material makes it clear it was the former Treasurer’s direction - it was your direction - to understate the spending by $8m. The motive behind understating the expenditure in 2000-01 was that, by having an artificially low number, the CLP government would be able to make the false claim that it had increased funding to health by 2.5% in 2001-02 when it allocated the surprising new figure to health of $446m. The truth was the CLP government did not increase funding by 2.5% for health as it claimed. The CLP government’s false claim was, of course, made in an election year and on the eve of an election campaign. The CLP’s false news would have been warmly received - and was warmly received by many Territorians. But it was lie. Health is a very important issue for many in our community. In fact, health is a critical issue for Territorians. For the government to announce an increase in health funding of $10m in the budget would have been very welcome news - and it was welcome news.
During Question Time today, the current Minister for Health, Family and Children’s Services tabled what I think this House will agree is the most damning document that any minister ever has presented to this House - the most damning document. We can listen to the dismissive calls from across the other side of the House, but this is a very damning and shocking document.
I again refer to the memo because it is just so important that members of this House understand what has occurred. It is very important. We do not lightly release this document. We do not lightly release it at all, but it shows very clearly the extent to which the CLP went to falsify figures, to make false claims, to mislead Territorians, and the bottom line is, to lie to Territorians. This document implicates very clearly the member for Katherine, as Treasurer, the member for Drysdale, as the former health minister, and the former Chief Minister by implication. Because, if you are sitting there and ignoring the facts as Chief Minister, then you, too, are fully implicated in this deception.
The key bits of this memo are the ones I referred to before, and they need to be read into this censure debate ...
Mr Dunham: Really? It’s been read in twice already. Read it again.
Ms MARTIN: Well, listen, because you did not listen at the time, did you? You did not listen at the time ...
Members interjecting.
Mr Dunham: Read it again. Read it again. Haven’t you got a speech prepared, or something?
Ms MARTIN: Just listen to what was the situation and what was the assessment of your behaviour during those times.
‘There was’, says this memo, ‘an artificial reduction’ - an artificial reduction - ‘of $8m in THS’ 2000-01 budget, in order that the 2001-02 budget figure could be presented falsely’ - presented falsely - ‘as a 2.5% increase.’ Presented falsely. You knew it, and he did it, and he must have known as well. ‘In reality, THS’ 2001-02 budget represents a reduction on the final 2000-01 approved budget’.
The CEO wrote to his health minister, his new health minister: ‘My first knowledge of this situation was when I was in Sydney on official business on 9 May’. So that is how long you have known, former health minister.
- I received a telephone call from the Under Treasurer, Ken Clarke, who informed me the Treasurer intended to
adjust THS’ final budget for 2000-01 so that the following year’s budget could artificially be shown as providing
an increase at least equivalent to CPI.
I am glad there is a little more silence on that side of the House. That is an appalling deception. That is the most appalling deception. A misrepresentation, lying to Territorians. This information was going to be kept confidential within Territory Health Services, and it was agreed that there would liaison between Health and Treasury so this could happen, all directed by the then Treasurer, the member for Katherine.
On receipt of this message, the CEO expressed considerable concern to Mr Clarke and informed him that he would need to discuss this with his minister. So he goes to his minister and he says: ‘Look what’s happening’.
I rang Minister Dunham …
says the CEO,
- … and I expressed my alarm at this proposed deception. I advised him that in my view this arrangement would
undoubtedly be discovered in due course by the Auditor-General …
- … and would 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 was
demonstrably not the case’.
What did the then minister do, the member who has aspirations burning within to be the next Leader of the Opposition? This is what the minister did: ‘Minister Dunham expressed serious alarm’. So, we look forward to your contribution to this censure and to you telling us about what you did about this ‘serious alarm’. A minister of the Crown having serious alarm about budget figures being manipulated. Did he mention it to the Treasurer? Did he mention it to the then Chief Minister? ‘Minister Dunham expressed serious alarm at the information I conveyed to him and indicated he wished to be kept informed of all developments’. We’re informing you now. ‘The Minister was continually kept informed as the budget process continued.’ But what did he do? What did he do? He was kept informed. Did he go to the Treasurer? Did he go to the Chief Minister? Did he go to one of his other former Cabinet colleagues? Did he express any of this serious alarm that he was carrying deep within his heart? No, not a skerrick. ‘… but there was no change in the decision …’ is the last line of this memo. ‘… there was no change in the decision to artificially reduce by $8m the 2000-2001 budget’.
This is a disgrace, it is a disgrace. It is a disgrace that this has happened and it is a disgrace that we should be in here today debating this very serious issue. It is a disgrace.
Mr Burke: It is called frivolous in the House of Reps books, a government censure motion. It is called frivolous.
Ms MARTIN: I think that when we hear the level of frivolous comment now emerging, it just shows that you do not understand the seriousness of this issue. It shows the kind of culture of contempt that was developed for Territorians, for this Assembly, for what you actually produced in budget papers like this. This is a false document. This is a false document and your own budget trail and audit trail shows this very clearly. The memo I have referred to, this memo, was written by the Chief Executive Officer of Territory Health Services and it goes without saying this office holder was appointed by the former government. The memo establishes that the former Treasurer put false numbers in the Territory Budget. The former Treasurer was told by the agency what the true estimate was, but it did not suit the Treasurer’s purposes, so he rejected it and directed that his fictitious figure be included in the budget. The Treasury audit trail documents back the Territory Health Services memo. So it is more than simply one page of a memo.
I refer to the bottom of page 1 of the audit trail document, the information in the box, and I quote from it. This is Territory Health Services; it is the audit trail. Down the bottom of the page on the audit trail under ‘Outlays’ it says:
- Realignment of current year budget to ensure an increase in estimates for the 2001-02 budget year of
2.5% gross (Bluey #40) This adjustment for presentation purposes only.
‘This adjustment for presentation purposes only’. So if you want to be clever and say: ‘This is just a memo from the CEO’, it does not work, because this is the critical little piece of information. You cynically, as the previous administration, even documented your fraud. You are so stupid, you even documented your fraud. It is unbelievable, the contempt with which you hold the processes of this parliament, the contempt with which you hold public servants, their attempts to do a good job, this parliament and Territorians knows no bounds. You documented it. Are you fools? What is this about?
Here it is, a little box down the bottom of the audit trail from THS saying:
- Realignment of current year budget to ensure an increase in estimates for the 2001-02 budget of year of 2.5% …
This adjustment for presentational purposes only.
This is appalling. This is truly - in terms of good government - shocking and totally unacceptable. It is proof, very sadly, that the former Treasurer corrupted the budget, in collusion with the former health minister, and must be with the approval of the then Chief Minister. That is why you are being censured this afternoon. To doctor the books for, and I quote from the audit trail: ‘… for presentational purposes only’, is a scandal.
It is clear the true numbers, those provided by Territory Health Services, were thrown out and false numbers inserted. The former Treasurer’s corrupt conduct was drawn to the attention of the former Minister for Health, Family and Children’s Services, the member for Drysdale, by his own CEO. The member for Drysdale stands condemned because he went along with the corrupt acts perpetrated by the former Treasurer. What possible legitimate explanation could the member for Drysdale have for being complicit in the former Treasurer’s deceptions? What possible legitimate explanation? How could he, as Minister for Health, Family and Children’s Services, perpetrate a fraud along with the Treasurer? Perpetrate a fraud on the budget papers. From the contents of the memo, it is clear the warnings given to him were timely and he was fully aware of what was happening. He was the one who expressed serious alarm to his CEO. He was the one who said: ‘Keep me informed, CEO’. But what did he do? He went along with it. He went along with the Treasurer, and they all did it, because the then Chief Minister allowed them to do it.
These events bring with them a great sense of anger. I do not say that lightly. It is a great sense of anger, and I think everyone who read that memo was genuinely shocked by what they saw and what they read. It is also a sad day for Territorians. Therefore, it is with great regret that I speak to this motion that has such serious ramifications. The issues revealed to us today go beyond politics, and I hope the newer members opposite take strong note of the ethical standards their leaders have demonstrated recently and vow never to repeat them for the sake of the integrity of this parliament and, above all, for the sake of Territorians we are privileged to represent.
The information tabled today through the memo is undeniable proof of how far the former government leaders were prepared to let their ethical standards sink in an ultimate and vain attempt to hold on to power in the Territory. That is what it was all about. It was all about holding on to power. That is what sickens us most. It was all about a deception to show that you were managing the budget process, and that is how far your standards had fallen. Not only were you not good financial managers, you had to create false trails to pretend that you were even getting close. So you distorted the budget papers. You lied to Territorians, and you were stupid enough to leave the trail behind - stupid enough.
Professor Percy Allan, in his report to this new government, enlightened us all as to how the government of the day interfered in the budgetary processes in recent years. Professor Allan’s focus, however, was on the fact that the forecasts underpinning the growth, in some significant elements of the budget, were unrealistically low. So that is what Professor Allan concentrated on. How could the estimates for what was going to be spent over a year be so unrealistically low? He gave a very full explanation of how that had come about.
It underpinned, actually, what we said all along. We said all along that the former Treasurer sat in his office up in the corner of this Parliament House and made the figures up. They did not come from Treasury. They were the ‘Mike Reed specials’, the Treasurer for rubber figures: ‘What do I feel like today?’ We saw it in the estimates of this financial year, $12m. ‘$12m’, he said proudly as he stood there only a few months ago, and we knew how rubbery those were. As soon as this new government came in, the real figures emerged just like that. So quickly: ‘Oh, it is going to be more than $100m. Treasurer, what happened to the $12m?
The Treasurer then made up the figures, made up the figures for the agencies, and then went on and made up the forward estimates. A man of great skill, a man surrounded by fantasy, a man who has corrupted the process in the Northern Territory.
Going back to Professor Allan, he focused on the fact that the forecasts underpinning the growth in some significant areas - and those significant areas were the major ones like health and education and police - those significant elements in the budget were unrealistically low. This meant that year after year, the budget outcomes continually exceeded the original budgets brought down by substantial amounts - and this is the great fiscal management of the CLP.
As I revealed on Tuesday in this House, the 2000-01 underlying budget outcome was more than $95m worse than the original projection. Professor Allan also confirmed Treasury’s advice to me soon after achieving government that a similar outcome was likely in 2001-02. What’s more, Professor Allan identified the culprit in this deliberate understating of likely budget expenditures as the former Treasurer. No doubt about that - the former Treasurer. The budget bottom lines were those not of the Treasury with all their skill, with all the data at their fingertips, with all their expertise. No, the budget bottom lines were those of the government of the day, not the Treasury. Effectively, the calculation of the budget aggregates was taken out of the rightful hands of Treasury. Both the policies and their costings were effectively set by politicians, by the Country Liberal Party.
What has been revealed today is more than the use of deliberately low forward estimates. What we see today is the deliberate tampering of budgetary data, a fraud which artificially reduced numbers in the budget to enable a better outcome to be reported, an outcome which was always a tissue of lies, an outcome the former Treasurer and the former Minister for Health, Family and Children’s Services knew was untrue. They knew it, they knew they were lies. They knew they were untrue, and yet they stood in this House and claimed they were right.
This is gross fraud. The former CLP government crossed a very serious line. They chose to manipulate official data for political purposes, and what is worse, they instructed public servants to do their bidding despite those public servants having strong objections. That is the heart of this. This is gross fraud. The CLP crossed a very serious line, and what is worse …
Mr Dunham: You have run that line. You are reading the same paragraph.
Ms MARTIN: If you just did it as politicians, you could wear it electorally, but you asked public servants to do your bidding. You crossed a very serious line.
Let us be clear about what they did. The CLP government removed $8m from the Territory Health Services numbers for the expected outcome for 2000-01. It was a wilful and deliberate attempt to deceive this House and all Territorians. This was expenditure that had been previously approved by Cabinet to occur. There was no reality to the dodgy figures of the former Treasurer. The $8m was simply not shown and to quote from the documents tabled, ‘for presentational purposes’, those presentational purposes to enable the Treasurer to fraudulently claim a significant increase in health expenditures for 2001-02 over the previous year. This is what the then Treasurer said in his budget speech on 29 May this year - he might remember: ‘This budget provides,’ said the then Treasurer, ‘for increases in the key areas of health, education and the police’.
The Treasury audit trail which was tabled earlier by the minister for health also revealed that the aim was to show an increase of 2.5% in budgeted health expenditure between 2001-02. I described in my ministerial report last week that the former government stood accused of cooking the books and they smiled. It is a sad day to reveal just how many foul recipes they were prepared to resort to. The Treasury audit trail also reveals that apart from the $8m deliberately excluded from the published data for THS, a further $3.5m known to both THS and Treasury at the time, was also not included in the published estimated outcome, making the full extent of this deception $11.5m.
Publishing the financial accounts for the Territory, knowing they were misleading and deceptive, puts the Northern Territory in a terrible position with the financial markets both here and abroad. The former health minister, the member for Drysdale, was fully informed of the Treasurer’s decision to misrepresent the health budget in 2000-01 yet did nothing. For this, he, like the former Treasurer, stands condemned.
The memo makes it clear that the member for Drysdale knew. He asked the CEO to keep him informed but the fraud went ahead. The member for Drysdale was fully aware of the planned deception yet he would not take a stand and say something like: ‘No, Treasurer, what you are doing is wrong. If you proceed down this path, I will resign from Cabinet in protest’.
Mr Dunham: Is that your benchmark? Be careful saying this. Is that your benchmark? If they are the rules you want, we’ll read them back to you.
Ms MARTIN: As Chief Minister of my government, the buck stops with me. I cannot walk away from any issue, particularly one that deals with the ethical standing of the government. Deliberately lying and fraudulently misrepresenting financial information to this parliament and the people of the Territory is simply unacceptable. Yet the former Chief Minister and now Leader of the Opposition sat by as his deputy made decisions that even a child would know was wrong. Is this leadership? Is this accountability?
What sort of signal do you send to your troops when you are saying: ‘Lying is okay; deceit is all a necessary part of the battle’? This whole sorry saga to deceive the parliament, Territorians and taxpayers proves that the former government was no longer fit to sit on the government benches. While this motion is directed at three specific members, all members of the previous Cabinet stand condemned by these revelations. As a result of the lies and deceit perpetrated by the former government through the budget papers, Territorians do not know what to believe any more. What figures are right and what are wrong? What can they believe and what can’t they believe?
For this reason, I wish to advise this House I will, at the conclusion of this debate, be seeking to have these matters referred to the Public Accounts Committee for further investigation. This referral requests the Public Accounts Committee inquire into and report on the accuracy of the budgetary data published in the 2001-02 budget papers with respect to both the estimated outcomes for 2000-01 and the budget for 2001-02. The committee will be asked to examine both receipts and expenditure and will focus on whether the published data reflects agencies’ best estimates at the time or whether the published differed materially from the internal figures. We know it was the case with health expenditure. We know it was the case with Lands, Planning and Environment receipts from land sales. What Territorians do not know is the extent to which this sort of manipulation of the data occurred across all agencies.
Where a material difference is found to be evident, the committee will investigate whether there is supporting evidence from Treasury or the former Treasurer’s office regarding these differences. Further, the committee will also investigate whether agencies advised their ministers at the time of these differences to enable the issues to be discussed within the then Cabinet. Nobody expects the budget estimates to match exactly the budget outcomes. Even, with only six weeks of the year to go, there may be sound reasons why the estimated outcomes could differ significantly from the final outcomes, but we know the former government fell into the habit of deliberately falsifying the published data.
Territorians deserve to know the truth as to what happened. It was, after all, their money that was being collected in revenue and spent on services to them. As shareholders, Territorians expect their board, the Cabinet, to present reliable and reasonable estimates of the current state of the books and the financial outlook. That is not what the CLP delivered to them.
I am proud of the fact that it is a Labor government that will restore integrity to budget processes through the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Bill. I am proud of the fact that probity and prudence will once again become the hallmark of Territory financial management. I am proud of the fact that Territorians recognise they could place their faith in me and my government. The members opposite who are involved in this sordid chain of events, who continue to enjoy their high salaries and will walk out of this place with their generous superannuation benefits in place, should take responsibility for their actions. They are the ones who have brought this parliament and the Northern Territory into disrepute. They should not remain as members of this House, let alone stay in positions of leadership within it.
I would urge all members, other than those mentioned in this motion, to support the motion, to send the signal Territorians need: that deception and dishonesty should be banished from this place forthwith.
Mr REED (Katherine): Madam Speaker, at the outset, can I say that the suggestion by the Chief Minister of referring this matter to the Public Accounts Committee is a very good one. It is one that I would strongly support. I would also remind members of the House that the Chief Minister holds the two most important portfolios and responsibilities in government - she is both the Chief Minister and the Treasurer.
The Chief Minister’s Department is the peak agency of government and closely following that is the Treasury. Arguably, Treasury is the most important agency of government because it controls the money and it oversees the expenditure of the money, the reporting processes, the preparation of the budget – indeed, not only overseeing the preparation of the budget, but it actually formulates the budget.
It is a very telling argument today that the Chief Minister and Treasurer has presented to this House not one piece of evidence from her Under Treasurer or from Treasury or from the Department of Chief Minister to support the case that she has had. That is to say that the Chief Minister and Treasurer has stepped around the Treasury and stepped around the Department of Chief Minister with a note from an agency which she can use for political purposes and that is what this argument is all about.
This is about politics. This is about a government that has been in power for 59 days - I think one of the members opposite said in Question Time - and who have been sliding backwards since they were elected. They have been indecisive in terms of getting the economy going. They have been in charge of a Department of Transport and Works which is winding back contracts, period contracts and activities in the broader community, that generate economic activity in jobs and they have to find a shroud for that. The shroud is the fact that the Treasurer, in her presentation, failed to provide supporting documentation or advice from the Treasury. Further, it is a dreadful slight on the Treasurer …
Mr Stirling: The audit trail, a Treasury document. Treasury evidence.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr REED: … and the Chief Minister that she allowed one of her ministers to verbal the Under Treasurer. That in itself is bad enough, but …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Government members, you listened to the Chief Minister in relative silence.
Mr REED: … building on that, building on verbalising the Under Treasurer. We have the fact that the Treasurer and Chief Minister failed to mention in any way, not even in the most oblique sense, any support of Treasury in relation to this allegation, any piece of evidence of Treasury - from the peak finance management agency of government - to support her allegations, and that is what demonstrates this as a blatant political exercise.
The only time in my 14 years in parliament that I recall the government censuring an opposition member …
Mr Stirling: You said you couldn’t remember anyone before. How many can you remember? I’ll name them for you.
Mr REED: No, I did not say that. I pick up that interjection, Madam Speaker. I asked, by way of interjection indeed, the Leader of Government Business, when did the CLP in government ever censure an opposition member.
Mr Stirling: You censured Maggie Hickey not all that long ago.
Mr REED: The only one that springs to mind is when the honourable Fred Finch stood up one day and accidentally …
Mr Henderson: This is no laughing matter.
Mr REED: It is a laughing matter, actually. It is a laughing matter.
Mr Henderson: Let’s get to the point here. Let’s get to the point of your honour and integrity.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Minister, you will have your chance.
Mr REED: That is the only time that I recall that happening.
Mr Stirling: You don’t remember censuring Maggie Hickey? You don’t remember censuring Gary Cartwright? Worse memory than your boss.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, Leader of Government Business!
Mr REED: You have been warned. Your behaviour has not improved since you moved from this side of the Chamber to that side of the Chamber.
Mr Stirling: Well, don’t lie, don’t get in there and lie.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr REED: In terms of the support for these allegations of all sorts of things from fraud upwards, the Treasurer has side-stepped Treasury. She has criticised me for taking control of Treasury and manipulating it and making decisions on its behalf in my office, and she has done the very same thing. She has committed the crime that she accuses me of, that is to say, of sitting in my office making decisions that Treasury in fact has to wear.
Can I explain briefly the Cabinet budget process and the formulation of the budget? The process is one whereby agencies gather together a very comprehensive range of information in relation to the funding and operations of their agencies, and submit them to Treasury. Throughout the course of some months, the process is refined, not by the Treasurer but by Treasury, working in conjunction with the agencies, and that also includes discussions, of course, with the coordination committee and the overall parameters in which government is working and in which agencies are formulating their budgets. That information, and particularly information of recurrent aspect in relation to agencies’ budgets, is formulated and prepared to the respective ministers who are responsible, as you would be aware, for their agencies.
There are then, in terms of the scope of ministers, particular initiatives which may be considered at the government level that would be incorporated into the budget, and they would likely be new activities or capital works programs such as upgrading hospitals, building forensic laboratories and the like, and all of that information is cobbled together in a very professional way …
Mr Stirling: So you never rang Ken Clarke?
Mr Henderson: This is a lie? Bartholomew’s lying?
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Minister, I have spoken to you three times now.
Mr REED: … is prepared, and it comes to ministers in many boxes, and ministers have to go through it. They discuss it with their CEOs and, if appropriate, other staff members of agencies, and then there is a budget Cabinet meeting which considers in overall terms the allocations to agencies.
Can I say there is not much in the way of the overall budget that is discretionary. Most of the decisions are made because - well, in the case of health, you have a $400m budgetary decision that has been made already in terms of their operational activities and those costs. You may be able to make some adjustments as is demonstrated by the budget documents and …
Mr Stirling: Pull $8m out, like you did!
Mr REED: I might ask, Madam Speaker, for additional time at the end of this, if the interjections continue.
Mr Stirling: You have had seven minutes and you have said nothing.
Madam SPEAKER: I am getting a little bit fed up, I have to admit, that the remarks are coming from the government side. You have had enough warnings. Let us hope, Leader of Government Business, you are not the first one to go out.
Mr REED: The additional funding that is provided to agencies is decided at budget Cabinet. As I say, in relation to specific initiatives that government may be wishing to undertake in the forthcoming financial year, allocations are made in relation to those. If the Treasurer believes for a moment that I could ring up, as the former Treasurer, the Under Treasurer and say: ‘Listen, just tinker a little bit here, a little bit off there, a little bit over here and we will just fudge the figures’. That is a dreadful allegation to make against the professionalism of the Under Treasurer and the staff of Treasury. It is all the worse because the honourable Treasurer and Chief Minister has an ex-Treasury officer on her staff. To suggest that the Treasury is so unprofessional they would participate in an action of this kind is just extraordinary in the extreme.
The fact that the Treasurer today has made these allegations on the word of a lesser agency, it is fair to say - in terms of the importance of Territory Health Services in terms of economic management, the formulation of the budget and the management of government finances, they are certainly a lesser agency than Treasury. That she has come in here today without any supportive documentation from Treasury, without any advice from Treasury demonstrates that she is playing politics and she is concealing the fact that she has a government that is going nowhere.
Let us just assume for one moment that I, as Treasurer, had a desire to ferret away $8m. Let us just assume for a moment that that was the intention, and that was to, as the Treasurer and Chief Minister said, to enhance the presentation of the budget. It is a $3bn budget, a $3bn budget! If you were going to go to Brazil, as it were, fill your suitcase and trot out the door, do you think you would go with $8m? It is about 0.25% of the overall budget. It is just not worth thinking about. You would not even take it into account. If you were going to go for a bit of a ‘let’s get in here and fudge the figures and make things really look good’, you would do it in a way that was going to be advantageous to you, that there would be some tangible benefit in terms of the presentation that you would make as a result of the fudging of the figures. That in itself, $8m in a budget of $440m-odd, is not a large amount. $8m in a $3bn-plus budget , as I say, is less than 0.3% of the overall budget.
If you think for a moment that I was sitting up in the office and I had this little glimmer of an idea, this is as portrayed by the current Treasurer: ‘I think I will fudge the budget, just to make it look a bit better’. Do you think you would fudge it to the point of 0.3%? If you were going to have a fudge, you would have a fudge! You would not just fiddle around the edges with something ridiculous like this.
Can I say this: that Territorians, when they read this tripe - and again today I have had phone calls from contractors who were about to lay off staff …
Members: Oooh!
Mr REED: And you say, ‘Oooh!’ They will again be very concerned about the direction of this government. This Labor government can spend all the time they can muster on sorry messages; they can spend all the time they can muster on blaming me for all the things that they have over the course of these sittings, except World War II and the Black Plague. They will be reflecting on their shrinking contracts. We have had advice today of a contractor here in Darwin who has been advised by the Department of Transport and Works of a dramatic reduction in the contract that he held.
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! This is a censure motion in regard to a blatant misrepresentation and deception of the health budget, and I fail to see that contractors losing business has any relevance to this motion.
Madam SPEAKER: No, there is no point of order. While I do have your attention, Chief Minister, I think you need to have a word with some of your backbenchers. They are being very disruptive and I hope they realise that when the next speaker speaks, I expect them to be quiet. I do not think it is a laughing matter at all, member for Karama. I am not at all impressed with the behaviour today.
Mr REED: Can I say that it is very encouraging to see you instituting some decorum in the House. So, in terms of …
Ms Martin: It’s a pity you cannot tell the truth, isn’t it? What about the truth, Mike?
Mr REED: You are the lady who has the truth trouble. You must have abused the tooth fairy or something. I don’t think the tooth fairy ever came to you.
In terms of those contractors who experienced or have been advised over the period of the last few weeks, since the Labor government came to power, that their contracts had been dramatically reduced, they are laying off staff because the contracts that they won under a CLP government have been reduced to the extent that they no longer require the staff that they took on to fulfil the duties of those contracts over the period for which they were let; that is, probably a year or two. As a consequence of that, there is a crisis of confidence emerging of dramatic proportions, of dramatic proportions.
What do we have the government focusing on? We have the government focusing on issues of this nature, blame politics - blame politics. It is no more than that. And setting a scene for a summit that is going to take place over two or three days - I think it is next Sunday, Monday and Tuesday week. They expect the business community to go along to that summit and to be able to contribute. The business community themselves want to go along to contribute to it as well, because they want to get something out of it. I tell you what they do not want to get out of it. They do not want to get a political diatribe, they do not want to get blame politics, and they do not want to be focusing on issues that will not carry them forward and ensure that they will be able to continue to conduct their businesses at a high level, and to continue to fulfil the contracts that they won, which are currently being reduced.
This is not what the business community is looking for, these motions. It does not help them. This nonsense that we have had today, without any support from the two senior agencies of government, viz the Treasury and the Department of Chief Minister, will not create one job. It will not generate one little speck of activity in the economy. However, what it does do and what it will be demonstrated as achieving is distracting the government from what they are supposed to be doing and that is facilitating activity in the economy and creating jobs for Territorians.
I, as I said yesterday, have broad shoulders. They can blame me for all they want, but when I am blamed for something I do expect the Treasurer and the Chief Minister to have a much more substantive argument in terms of the evidence that she has produced here today. When you bear in mind that, I don’t know, $8m, what is it? A bit over 1% of the health budget, a bit over 1% of the health budget that I might have frittered away. I do not know what I am expected to have done with this money but the fact is that a $440m-odd budget over the course of the year will necessarily have fluctuations in terms of money and cash flow.
It will have variations in terms of incomings from the federal government in terms of special purpose payments, grants, activities that they will pursue, some of which will be carried over from one financial year to the next, and some of which won’t. If, indeed, you have that type of a presentation, then I think the Treasurer and the Chief Minister and her ministers should be a bit more aware of the activities of government.
We have seen here today a demonstration that they are not across what government is all about. They are not across the budgetary process. They have no understanding of it whatsoever. I am terribly offended that the professionalism and the dedication of Treasury staff has been placed in question today by no less a person than the Treasurer who has, for political purposes, avoided obtaining advice from Treasury in terms of any supportive documentation to present here today. Of course, that I think, demonstrates the political nature of this motion which, in itself, is extraordinary.
I must say, in terms of Pettifer - or is it the House of Representatives practice? - they refer to a motion moved by the government against an opposition member as frivolous, and that is precisely what this is all about. It is a frivolous action on behalf of a desperate government which 59 days after getting into government still do not know where they are going in terms of their priorities, in terms of keeping the economy going and creating jobs for Territorians.
If you think for a moment that Territorians are going to continue to accept this sort of behaviour, to continue to experience Question Times like we did yesterday, where all these dorothy dixers here sat around asking the Treasurer and other ministers questions about me - I am flattered that I can attract so much attention; I am flattered. If you think that the business community are not watching that and it is not registering with them, that you can sit through a Question Time having devoted weeks to a sorry statement, having devoted weeks to this sort of nonsense, having devoted no time at all to the economy - and that is what government is all about - that all of these other things, that even criticism of me of a political nature should come before the economy, five or six weeks in advance of your summit - don’t you think for a moment that the business community of the Northern Territory is expecting more of their Labor government than this nonsense? Don’t you think for a moment that the contractors in the northern suburbs who are laying off staff, who are reducing their staff in numbers from 10 down to two because your government is reducing their period contracts which they have had in their hands as printed documentation from the CLP government and a means of employing Territorians and keeping the economy going - how comfortable do you think that they feel with you, having put sorry, having put rubbishing Mike Reed and all this other tripe that you have been going on for two weeks of these sittings, six weeks, ahead of the economy.
The economy is going to follow all of this nonsense six weeks down the road. That is the priority of this government. They should be absolutely ashamed of themselves. You are costing Territorians jobs by focusing on this sort of rubbish, this political diatribe, simply to try to win a political point. The Chief Minister should put her head in her hands and she should bow her head because as Treasurer and Chief Minister, she has demonstrated she is a disgrace. As Treasurer and Chief Minister, she has demonstrated she cannot determine the priorities of the government and every Territorian will relate to the fact that the economy will follow six weeks after this nonsense. It is an absolute disgrace that they are the priorities of your government. If they are, if after all of those things and spending time to rubbish Mike Reed, the jobs of Territorians follow rubbishing Mike Reed, what hope do the people who are employed in your electorate on government contracts have if rubbishing Mike Reed is a higher priority than honouring those contracts? What hope can any Territorian place in this government? You are a sham and you should have a long face, Deputy Chief Minister, and the Chief Minister rightly put her head in her hands and bowed because that today is the outcome of this frivolous action. I quote from the House of Representatives Practice, which we follow very closely and we have in this House:
…the passage of a motion censuring the Opposition has no substantive effect. On one occasion a notice of motion
for the purpose of moving that an Address be presented to the Governor-General informing him that the Opposition
invited the censure of the House was ruled out of order on the ground that it was frivolous.
They are the rules by which this House operates. They are long traditional practices of this House, and they alone, those very powerful words, demonstrate the hollowness of this motion and the Leader of the Opposition should shake her head. I call on the Leader of the Opposition to personally apologise to ...
Ms Martin: I am not the Leader of the Opposition.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr REED: Well, it is where you should be, I daresay, and I acknowledge the error that I made. What is demonstrated is that the Chief Minister believes that she is still the Leader of the Opposition because it is the Leader of the Opposition’s practice usually to move censure motions. She has not picked up on the responsibilities of Chief Minister, the role of government and the importance that it has for Territorians.
I very strongly refute all of the political assertions and the criticism and the fraud accusations and all of the things that I have done wrong and all that sort of thing. I am flattered, as I say, that I can attract so much attention in this House. I am ashamed of the fact that that has a higher priority in the eyes of this government than maintaining jobs for Territorians, because the activities of government, the expenditure of government, plays such a very important role in employing Territorians. That we are going to consider those matters in this House six weeks after we have spent a fortnight going through all this sort of nonsense is a dreadful reflection on the priorities of the government, because it is the people of the Territory who should come first, not the politics of the Territory, especially these cheap and nasty gutter politics of the government. It is a demonstration, as I say, of their lost way.
In terms of, as I said at the outset, referring these matters to the Public Accounts Committee, that is a good idea. Let us take it out of the political arena. In my last and closing remarks, can I plead with the government to start focusing on what they should be doing as a government: maintaining the activities of the contractors who had sound contracts to employ Territorians up until 18 August, and who are now laying people off and putting them on the employment scrap heap.
Ms Martin: No wonder you keep saying: ‘Don’t look back, don’t look back’.
Mr Henderson: With no money in the bank!
Ms Martin: No money. $95m more in deficit last year.
Mr REED: Madam Speaker, I totally reject the accusations made by the Chief Minister.
Madam SPEAKER: Before we do continue, I do need to make the remark to the Chief Minister that the noise in this Chamber and the interjections are coming from the government side. Some of the new members need to understand very clearly that I am not going to tolerate those sort of interjections or that behaviour.
I have noticed that the opposition has not retaliated in such a way in this debate and I just hope that members of government realise it is a reflection on them that they are behaving in this way in this serious debate. It is a censure motion, the most serious motion we can have in this House. For you to be making frivolous remarks and screaming across the room does not impress me. Please show a bit of decorum - this is what we talked about - coming into this House.
Mr STIRLING (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I rise to support the censure motion moved by the Chief Minister. I am not surprised. I take your points to heart that you were just making, Madam Speaker, but I am not surprised at the silence from members opposite because I believe in their heart of hearts that they are as deeply shocked as indeed we, on this side of the House, are.
That is why we have not heard anything from them, because they are considering the implications. They are considering the implications of this memo, of the actions of the former Treasurer, of their former Minister for Health, Family and Children’s Services and shame of shame, the former Chief Minister and their leader.
I have spent a fair while in this Chamber. There is only one person, in terms of years of service, who has been here longer than myself and it is indeed the central figure in this troika of impostors. That is the member for Katherine, the former Treasurer. He is, I think, the chief co-conspirator in this troika between the former Chief Minister, the former Minister for Health, Family and Children’s Services and the Treasurer himself. I cannot recall in the 10, almost 11 years that I have been in this Chamber, a censure motion more serious than this one in terms of the integrity of this House. We have seen embarrassments, we have seen bad decisions - and I will not revisit the transmission line which I think was one of those dreadful decisions. There have been personal animosities in this Chamber. Sometimes they have gone too far; sometimes they have gone outside this Chamber into the media and that is unfortunate. But none of those have had the implications of what has been revealed today by the Minister for Health, Family and Children’s Services.
What we have learnt today is that the former Treasurer, assisted by his colleagues, the former Minister for Health, Family and Children’s Services and the former Chief Minister, deliberately and calculatedly misled this parliament. They misled Territorians and they misled all those with an interest in the Territory by colluding to publish false information in the 2001-02 budget papers. The memo from the Chief Executive Officer of Territory Health Services says it all, backed up by the Treasury audit trail. I will table this document, because as part of the former Treasurer’s less than fulsome defence of the accusations put before him, one of the points he was making in his first defence was: ‘Well, there’s nothing from Treasury. The Chief Minister has bypassed the Chief Minister’s Department; she has bypassed Treasury’. Let me table, in case I haven’t already, the audit trail from NT Treasury. It is a Treasury document and it has this little box that is on the second page:
OUTLAYS
End of 2000-01 Financial Year
Reinstatement of $8.0m for realignment of current year Budget to ensure an increase in estimates for the
2001-02 budget year of 2.5% gross.
On page 1 is the one where it says:
Realignment of current year Budget to ensure an increase in estimates of 2.5% gross (Bluey #40). This
adjustment for presentation purposes only.
I table that, Madam Speaker. There is the Treasury advice. There is the Treasury evidence that the former Treasurer thinks was so lacking in the presentation by the Chief Minister.
As the Chief Executive Officer so eloquently and succinctly put it: ‘… there was an artificial reduction of $8m in THS’ 2000-01 budget, in order that the 2001-02 budget figure could be presented falsely as a 2.5% increase’. He does not mince his words: ‘artificial reduction’ and ‘presented falsely’ he states. And he goes and describes what happened as a ‘deception’. My description is even more blunt. The published budget figures for health in the 2001-02 budgets are a blatant lie. They are a blatant lie put forward by the former Treasurer of this House.
The annual budget papers are the premier publication of the government of the day and we know how this former government loved to push out glossy brochure after glossy brochure. Good government to them equated to how many glossy brochures you can get out in a week. We remember the Foundations For Our Future documents for one - half a million dollars on developing those within the Chief Minister’s Department alone, let alone the dollars that were spent pulling all that information up from all the departments and agencies in order to put the documentation together. Everyone knows that those glossy brochures are mostly full of rhetoric, mostly rhetoric. If you want the serious information about what government is doing, if you want to know what is happening, you really have to go to the annual budget papers because there is no rhetoric in there. There is no rhetoric; it is all figures, but it does tell you where the government is placing its priorities in terms of where it is placing its money.
Now, government’s performance - and whether it is this current government, the former Territory government, any government in the world - is judged on the quality of their budgets and their budgetary information. The debates in this House rely on the voracity and integrity of the data provided before us in the budget papers.
The entire community, lots of people, many organisations, make decisions daily on the basis of the published government information shown in the budget papers. There is an assumption always that Treasuries act reliably and with integrity in putting together the financial information they contain and there is a presumption that the government of the day has allowed the Treasury and Treasury officials to do that without interference. In particular, the Territory’s wider reputation interstate and abroad as a place to invest, including investing in Territory bonds and securities, is severely compromised if it is realised that the former government has been deliberately falsifying the budget papers. If the budget papers are compromised, as they have been here, then everything that the former government produced or oversaw is likewise, as are the public servants who were obliged to give effect to these matters.
Given that the parliament is the highest decision-making body in the Territory, lying in the budget papers is tantamount to committing perjury in the courts - same thing. I take the nod from the member for Goyder that he agrees with me. Information was supplied that was deliberately misleading and contrived on which parliament had to debate and subsequently approve the budget or deliver its verdict, using the analogy of the courts. It is quite an irony that it is this week the member for Katherine has in the House accused the government of pushing through a mini-budget without allowing adequate debate. That is about the ultimate hypocrisy over a couple of occasions of hypocrisy from the other side this week. But the only reason we are having a mini-budget is the deliberate deception and fraud that he has perpetrated on this Chamber, on this parliament and on Territorians, in his original budget. If he had delivered an honest budget up front in the first place, none of this would be happening now nor indeed would the mini-budget be occurring.
He is standing there demanding the capacity to fully debate the mini-budget, but when we were in opposition earlier this year, he forced us, in this Chamber, to debate on the basis of deliberately falsified data. Even when we obliged the government of the day by providing questions in advance - and, I forget, we had to have them in there 10 days or seven days before we even got to the appropriation debate, in case the minister was too thick or too slow or didn’t understand the question on the floor - we had to give it to them 10 days in advance so they could send it down to the departments and get the necessary answers. Even after all that process, they still chose not to answer certain questions, even though they were in written form and provided seven and 10 days before we even got here, they didn’t answer those questions that suited them. Yet they demand today, and yesterday, a full process of scrutiny of the mini-budget to come before us in November, having forced us through a charade, because we know now that the bottom line in that budget, and particularly in health, in this agency, was not even the truth.
During the appropriation debate, my colleague, the member for Wanguri, when he was shadow health minister, challenged the accuracy of that data, the estimated outcome published for 2000-01, because he knew it stunk. He knew it was not right, and it was clear, based on previous quarterly expenditure reports, that the total shown was too low to be credible. Now, did the former health minister come clean to this parliament? After all, he knew from his Chief Executive Officer that the Territory Health Services figures had been deliberately tampered with by the then Treasurer. What did he do? We do not know, and we hope he contributes to this debate. Either he did not have the courage to confront his colleagues on this matter or, alternatively, he did and was thumped over the head by the former Chief Minister and the Treasurer who said: ‘Go away and be a good little boy and do not ask questions like that’.
Ms Martin: ‘Don’t you want to win this election?’
Mr STIRLING: Yes. ‘Do you want to hang on to your seat? If you want to continue to be a member of parliament, I suggest you don’t ask that question of me and please don’t bring it up in Cabinet’. Now, that may well have been the response, we do not know. We hope he contributes to this debate.
He stood in this Chamber, along with the former Treasurer, and continued to mislead this House and continued to mislead the members of this House all the way through the appropriation debate, knowing full well that what he was saying was a pack of lies. It was an absolute pack of lies. He stood on his feet, day after day in the appropriation debate, reeling off and standing on an absolute pack of lies. What honour? He used the word ‘honour’ at some point. What honour he displayed! I take your warning earlier in Question Time, Madam Speaker, but you can see how angry I was with the hypocrisy of this man using the word ‘honour’. I would be surprised if he could spell it, because he certainly does not show any of it. What integrity he demonstrated! And this, from an aspiring leader of this rag-tag little band. The aspiring leader, the next generation of leaders. It has to be him or Timmy, and I think Timmy has just placed himself well ahead because at least he has not been proven to be a liar. I, for one, would be ever surprised if he was because I have a little more respect for the member for Daly. I do not think he would get caught out in a charade and a lie as the member for Drysdale has here. He is a joke.
In the scheme of what governments do, and how the citizenry expect them to behave, deliberately falsifying information, especially financial information that reflects the use of taxpayers funds, is as serious as it gets because that is the bottom line of government. That is what governments are about. A conservative colleague of this group opposite, John Olsen, lost his job last week - just last week - for telling lies on financial dealings. Ultimately, this comes down to an issue of trust, and trust betrayed by the members opposite, the subject of this censure motion. Trust - I think the former Chief Minister was on the radio this morning about trust. He has betrayed the trust of Territorians, along with the former Minister for Health, Family and Children’s Services, and along with the former Treasurer.
They have sealed their own fate and that of their party for a considerable time to come. They have proven that they and their party cannot be trusted to provide accurate and reliable information to Territorians. They simply cannot be trusted as the custodians of the taxpayers’ money and taxpayers’ futures. Because, if they fiddled the books as recently as May and June when the budget went through, what surety, what confidence can Territorians or anyone else have that they wouldn’t do it again given half a chance?
The members on the back bench, who sit very quietly, really should start to see these three, the subject of this censure debate, not only as yesterday’s men. There is no future for them if the CLP is to have any credibility into the future. They are dead meat. They are dead meat – it is as simple as that. The member for Katherine perpetrated the fraud. The member for Drysdale knew about the fraud and did nothing about it. The Chief Executive Officer of Health has certainly not indicated that the minister took it up with his Cabinet colleagues, and it would be interesting to know whether he did. Unlike Grant Tambling, who honoured his personal conscience in defiance of party heavies and paid the price, the member for Drysdale apparently toed the party line. He walked the party line rather than listen to his own conscience, or he does not have a conscience. But my betting is that he was too weak to take this back to Cabinet. He wanted to hang on to the seat of Drysdale and he laid low.
The member for Brennan was too busy himself getting caught up in legal wrangles, so he probably did not know or care what was happening to the budget at the time, or what was happening to the government that he was supposed to be leading. He yesterday mentioned a quote from Benjamin Disraeli who reportedly said: ‘There is no honour among politicians’. I would suggest that it is the member for Brennan, as the former Chief Minister, who has done a fair bit to live up to Disraeli’s view of politicians. But he went on to say that:
- It has always been a personal point of view of mine to check myself all the time and be able to look at yourself
in the mirror, square off with the person you see because, as my mother always said to me, the only person really
at the end of the day you have to convince is the face that stares back at you from that mirror.
Well, you have to wonder if he has been looking in the mirror lately because he would not like what was looking back, you wouldn’t think. You wouldn’t think that he’d be looking in the mirror at all.
Territorians, of course, are unfortunately left to suffer the consequences of the previous government’s appalling financial mismanagement over recent years. They will not easily forget the deceit, the lies that the CLP delivered to them, and this government is duty bound to ensure they don’t.
I know, Madam Speaker, you have had concerns since the opening of this parliament over the use, by this side of the House, of the term ‘fraud’. For the record I would like to provide the House with the Macquarie Dictionary definition:
1. deceit; trickery, sharp practice or breach of confidence by which it is sought to gain some unfair
or dishonest advantage.
2. someone who makes deceitful pretences, imposter.
I think the Treasury’s own documents prove that fraud is appropriate to describe the events that occurred in the lead-up to the budget. It has been reinforced by the Chief Executive Officer of health when he described the fiddle as ‘deception’, and it was, as I said earlier, lies. It does confirm the rumour and innuendo floating around prior to the 18 August election about the CLP's financial management practices because, after 26 years in power - and I saw this, certainly over the last term - the former government was a power unto itself and it could no longer tell right from wrong.
We saw that in relation to polling. They had forgotten what was taxpayers’ money, government money and what was CLP money. It was all coming out of the same bucket; it did not worry them. The end justified the means to this former government, no matter how fraudulent, no matter how unethical those means might be. It highlights just how dangerous a piece of legislation like the Financial Management Act can be when it vests all powers in the minister, because the minister sets the reporting standards, the minister makes the adjustments as he or she sees fit - pull out $8m, put in $8m, take $20m there, whatever figure to make it look like there is a 2.5% increase, so the budget can be altered without the thorough and timely scrutiny of parliament and the people.
That is fine when you have a minister and a Treasurer that acts with integrity. It is clearly not fine when you have it under the control of someone like the member for Katherine. That is why the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Bill is so important to the future of the Territory. I am proud to be a member of the government that will end these dodgy practices, and I am proud to be a minister in a government that will set new standards of financial accountability through the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Bill.
The evidence speaks for itself in justifying this censure, because when we did hear from the former Treasurer, his only defence, as I said, was: ‘There was no evidence from Treasury’. I have tabled the audit trail through Treasury. He spent seven minutes on how budget Cabinet works in a patronising fashion, as always. He spent five minutes claiming the amount that he diddled everyone with was too small to amount to anything - it was only $8m. Who cares? Who cares? That is no defence. He spent five minutes on contractors; a couple of minutes on the economy in general terms; five minutes sledging us again because we have no understanding of government and its processes; two or three minutes on small business; and he wrapped up with a little look in the House of Representatives’ practice manual there. No defence at all. No defence at all on the core substance of this censure.
The evidence does speak for itself. The Treasury audit trail describes the $8m adjustment as ‘for presentation purposes only’. The memo confirms this was an artificial reduction to publish false figures. These people simply should not be parliamentary leaders within this Chamber, and I think one of these days the Country Liberal Party might actually acknowledge the damage that these three former ministers have done to the Territory and have done to the image of the Country Liberal Party.
Madam Speaker, I support this motion, and I would have thought any right-thinking person with any conscience and a shred of integrity would do likewise, regardless of where they sit in this Chamber. I urge all members to support the motion.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): I am quite happy to speak, Madam Speaker, and I had hoped that I would have the opportunity to speak after the current Minister for Health, Family and Children’s Services, who commenced this action this morning. It is a pretty good motion to be involved in, in some ways. One of the reasons for that is there is a sense of nostalgia. I can remember as a government minister being censured, and it gave those opposite the chance to use a lot of defamatory words that they cannot use in normal debates. So, there is certainly, as the …
Ms Martin: ‘Minister Dunham expressed his serious alarm’.
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker. We have listened in silence to two of the speakers, and the interjections grow when one of us speaks. I suggest if it is going to happen again during my contribution …
Madam SPEAKER: I ask government members to refrain and offer the same courtesy that was shown to your Leader of Government Business.
Mr DUNHAM: Not that I mind so much, but I think it is a sharp comparison that could be provided, for instance, to the Standing Orders Committee so that they could look at the phenomena.
Yes, it is quite nostalgic to hear the series of questions. When we were in Question Time we used to see a censure motion building. In this case I said: ‘Well, blow me down, they are going to censure us’, and they did. It is a motion that is being abused in this instance. But it is telling that the mind-set of those opposite is still in the past. They still think they are in opposition, they still think that the points they can score with the community are to somehow bash up what used to be the government, and they still think that by wallowing in the past, people will take their mind off the future.
None of those things will happen because, as the previous speaker on our side pointed out, there are contractors out there who see this type of stunt for what it actually is: it is an attempt to say to them that we are about to do all sorts of nasty things to you, and we have to do them to you because Mike Reed and Dunham are naughty, naughty people.
I do not think that is going to wash because the amounts of money we are talking about here, the periods we are talking about here, are easily put up for scrutiny. In my case, I would have been a pretty proud health minister to have the budget that is in the budget papers - $450m. As somebody who has been tracking budgets for some time, that is up vastly over the last 10 years. And those figures can be produced. I would have hoped that the government, in this motion, would have been able to provide a comparison over, for instance, the last couple of terms so that people could see just how this terrible cut had occurred. They would see that there have been increases every year in the health budget. They would see that the increases, certainly over the last 10 years, are enormous. They would see also, if you look closely at budgets, that they are a living document. It is something we tried to educate the now government on when they were in opposition. I hope that the reason the Treasury people have not contributed to this debate is that they are busy trying to educate them on the actual process of it.
If you look at the reasons why numbers differ, there are all sorts of reasons for it. Sometimes there is a one-off expenditure that has to be washed out of the budget . Sometimes you find that there is a crisis in East Timor and, unbeknownst to us, we have people coming to our shores and calling on our services. Sometimes there is a cyclone, like Cyclone Les that dumped lots of water on places and caused all sorts of additional costs for departments. Sometimes, on the other side of the ledger, the Commonwealth says to us: ‘Look, we think you are doing a particularly good job with this program. We would like to be partners with you, we would like to make a contribution’. We, in fact, heard that in parliament from the new health minister only the other day when she said:
- The Commonwealth has already approved $2.1m per annum for the Primary Health Care Access Program for
the funding of five central zones …
- …the total funding able to be allocated to the Territory and the health system in principle is some $60m.
For mine, when I became the health minister, the funding during last year was some $430m and this year, it is something like some $440m. I would venture that by the end of the year, it is probably going to be $450m. I do not say that because I think the present health minister is an incompetent buffoon or anything like that. I think it is going to be because there will be things that happen during the year like, for instance, today the hospital is very, very busy. In the ministerial statements that come to this House, I would have thought that that would have been a matter of some interest to the public who use the hospital, to the many people who are there …
Mr KIELY: A point of order, Madam Speaker. He is digressing from the subject, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Resume your seat.
Mr DUNHAM: We are talking about the health budget, and it is entirely appropriate that I should talk about, for instance, the health budget. So, the issues about activity, particularly in human services, are often very difficult to manage. Sometimes what has to happen is that there is a change in priorities because of changing circumstances. I was not a happy health minister to visit the Alice Springs Hospital and see something like 60 children on drips because of the rotavirus in Central Australia.
What Professor Percy Allan said - and I will come to Percy Allan later - is that that money should be sitting there. The health department should have access to that money because every year there is a calamity. We know that. We know that from year to year, there are issues that impact on our budget. What happened was pretty much the same system as was described by the police minister when he said that we had all these police out on the Stuart Highway because of a person they were trying to apprehend who had abducted two people. He told the House that it was $800 000 and he said that the Police Commissioner is going to try and find as much of that as he can within, and then he is going to take it to Cabinet. Well, blow me down. That is what we did; that is how we used to do it. So if, for instance, there was a rotavirus in Alice Springs, there were 60 children on drips, and we had to cease elective surgery and shut a ward to do it, we knew that there were some savings embedded in those actions. We deployed those savings into the priority task we had on hand. That was pretty much how we did it and it was pretty much how they are going to do it.
If you look at budget numbers across years, I can proudly stand here and say that the Territory Health Services has had remarkable increases in its budgets over the last decade or so, and more.
The other thing it is important to talk about is recurrent and capital. What we are talking about here is actually recurrent, but it should be pointed out that the same budget papers and the minister’s budget speech do talk about capital. They talk about the Territory Health Services budget with the major redevelopment programs at the Royal Darwin and Alice Springs Hospital with an expenditure of $6.3m and $15.4m respectively. So, there was an extra $21m in there.
The point is that if you look at the net Territory Health Services’ budget, you will find it is vastly higher than the year before and, if you go back to the year before you will find it is higher than that year, and the year before that you will find it is higher than that year. So the issue for government is one of saying: ‘We think that, notwithstanding we came in here in the budget process the year before last and talked about spending some $435m and ended the year with $445m, that that $10m is insignificant’.
What we would have done this year is manage the budget within our resources, and if I needed additional money I would have gone to Cabinet - which is I am sure you are going to do - and I would have also lobbied hard with my federal colleagues for additional subventions from the Commonwealth. This should not surprise anybody. I would have been quite confident in my expectation that if I had difficulties in any area that I could alert my Cabinet colleagues to it for some additional resource, and that is indeed what happened during last financial year. It is indeed what is the subject of the note to the health minister, because what was being talked about there was the additional warrant that was above and beyond appropriation.
Ms Martin: ‘Serious alarm’. Come on, you were seriously alarmed. Tell us about it. What did you do?
Mr DUNHAM: I am seriously alarmed by the fact that we have a Labor government that seems totally incapable of governing.
I would like to talk about a few things in the realm of scapegoating because that seems to be what we are talking about here. It seems to be that what we are talking about here is finding someone to blame so that when we finally get off to our little economic diatribe you can put it on the record that: ‘It is not us. We are not that sort of folk’.
The necessity for the economic summit, which has been brought up by interjection here, is because of a black hole. I think it was important to look at the black hole and I think it was important to look at it in terms of what this particular phenomena is. A black hole is the most powerful, most mysterious phenomena in the universe. The gravity within a black hole is so intense that not even light, the fastest object we know of, can escape its force.
Dr Burns: Great answer.
Mr Kiely: Well done!
Mr DUNHAM: A black hole is so dense - you should be listening to this - that 100 million suns would be compressed in a globe of 6 000 000 km in diameter. So there we are, we have the government saying they have found a black hole. It is not a bad black hole because it is very difficult for light to penetrate into it; it is very difficult for us to actually interrogate this particular hole; and also you can compress so many excuses into it. So this black hole is a wondrous beast. You can just keep jamming another excuse in and say: ‘We wanted the contractors to have more work but, gee, the black hole made us not do that. We would like to build a loop road in Mereenie and we can’t do that’ even though it was a road, I think, the member for Macdonnell was after. ‘We would like to put some more money into health but there is this terrible black hole’. So the black hole is a giant, destructive, mysterious beast and is the most complex puzzles in the universe, and I think that is probably what we are talking about here.
Having decided what it is that they want to jam this other excuse into, I think we should probably look at whether the issues of an error in documentation as alleged in the censure motion should inevitably lead to resignation.
A member: Yes.
Mr DUNHAM: That is pretty much what has been put. ‘Yes’ is the interjection I hear. That is a pretty high standard for the current Chief Minister to set herself because I only had three of her economic documents and there are some massive holes in all of them beyond the $8m …
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The honourable member is talking about our economic documents. This has absolutely no relevance to this censure motion before the House which is about the deception perpetrated on the people of the Northern Territory, and the previous budget handed down by the former government. It has nothing to do with our economic policies that he wants to talk about now.
Madam SPEAKER: You are very aware that in censure motions or any debate, as long as you are talking about basically the topic that is being discussed, which is economics and the budget, it is quite acceptable.
Mr DUNHAM: Madam Speaker, I thank you for educating those opposite because they need a fair bit of it.
It is entirely relevant. What we have here is a budget that went through a week’s interrogation in this House, a week. It was laid in the House a month before that so we had an opportunity to peruse those several documents and they are quite substantial. There is the budget for 2000-01. So we had a month to look at those and then the opposition had a week to come into this parliament and quiz us at some length. That Hansard, too, is quite large and …
Ms Martin: If you don’t put the right numbers down, how can we read anything?
Mr DUNHAM: How can you read anything? I don’t know how you can read anything.
Ms Martin: Just lies. When the bottom line is rubbery and made up by your mate …
Madam SPEAKER: Chief Minister!
Mr DUNHAM: Madam Speaker, I would ask you to afford me either a tad of protection or give me an extension because I have another half hour to talk. I think that if it is to be a talk of a type where we have to continually put up with disruptive, frivolous and stupid interjections, it is going to make it heavier going than it should be.
We found out what the black hole is. Now we have found out that the Chief Minister believes that if there is a mistake in a document - and in her case it was $8m - that should lead inevitably towards resignation. I think that is a pretty high bar for them to jump and they failed it in their first 50 days, or whatever it is they keep talking about. I would have thought that every day that they were sitting there in government should be a day that they enjoy, and I am surprised that they are ticking it away like a clock watcher. Nonetheless, if we go to these documents we can find, certainly in my own portfolio areas, some tens of millions of dollars missing.
Let us compare the two processes. The process that they found abhorrent was to have …
Dr Burns: Five minutes to go.
Mr DUNHAM: Hopefully, he contributes to this debate and, hopefully, he has written a speech. I know how difficult he finds it to read it but I hope he has written one.
The issues we talk about is the comparison of two governments. They are all sweetness and light; we are all nasty. The nasty government gave the punters, including the opposition, a month to look at the documents, a week to debate them. We had community consultative processes where we went out and talked to people. They were documents that saw the full light of this parliament’s interrogation.
Compare that with what is in front of us. What is in front of us is a very hastily cobbled together little roadshow parading as consultation and we still do not know the level of interrogation we can do for this mini-budget which, as the opposition pointed out, will run for four years. We also know that the actions of the previous budget will be discussed at length by the PAC. So, in terms of open and honest government, I do not think we did too badly. Two sittings of parliament, the budget roadshow went to all communities, we had many, many hours of questioning. Compare that with this mob who are standing up with one budget principle and that is the so-called black hole, the most mysterious beast in the universe.
In process alone, they should be ashamed. They should hang their head in shame because of the mistruths that people were told in the lead-up to the election about open and honest government. We were told that the PAC was such an important device that it would not be politicised. I am a member of the PAC and I think I have a reasonable prognosis of what might happen with this business, because I suspect that somehow it might come down to the numbers - that is my suspicion - and this was something that really offended those opposite when they were in opposition. It is something that they are now putting in train. If they were really genuine in their need to look into the past, they could do so via the good work that can be done within their departments. They could do so with the PAC.
It is my valiant hope that they would look to the future because I really think that whole notion of spending so much effort in finding a scapegoat is a wasted exercise because at the end of it, I am quite happy to have debates like this every day. I am quite happy to go way back into the past; I am happy to go back 10 years and debate the work we did. What we are talking about is going forward and it is really, really important that these people get over the rhetoric of: ‘We’re open, we’re honest, we’re transparent, we’re good guys. Never before has this been done or that been done. We can apologise. We can do all these wonderful things’. Now we want to see Action Man. We want to see people who can do things because there is a very sad set of circumstances happening out there and they impact on many of the people we know, and they will impact on them for some time. We know, for instance, that when Labor came in they said they would come in like a new broom to clean things up.
Well, I do not think I have ever seen the city looking so dirty. One of the reasons for that is that the litter is not being picked up any more. Here we are, black hole, Mike Reed told us lies - cannot pick up the litter. I really think it is just going a bit far, guys. I think the whole idea that somehow you believe that there was an $8m short circuit in the health budget means that you do not have to pick up the litter along the major arterials of Darwin, is a nonsense. It is a patent nonsense because what you are attempting to do is blame the circumstances right throughout the community, which are of your making, on one so-called $8m action by the Under Treasurer.
I am reluctant to talk about companies because I know how these people operate and I know how vindictive they can be, but certainly in the case of some contractors who have come to me, their work has dropped by 80%. They have had to put workers off. Some are on an hourly rate. The frequency of their work is determined by T and W. It is not consistent. They have difficulties with adhering to the level of performance they contracted for because ...
Madam SPEAKER: Order! The member’s time has expired.
Mr DUNHAM: I would ask for an extension, Madam Speaker.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the member for Drysdale from completing his words.
Motion negatived.
Madam SPEAKER: Please resume your seat. The question is that the censure motion be agreed to.
Motion agreed to.
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
Move motion forthwith
Move motion forthwith
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as will prevent me moving a motion giving a reference to the Public Accounts Committee.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Reference to Public Accounts Committee
Reference to Public Accounts Committee
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move:
(1) That the Public Accounts Committee inquire into and report upon the accuracy of the budget data
published in the 2001-02 budget papers with respect to both the estimated outcome for 2000-01
and the budget for 2001-02, with particular reference to:
(a) whether the data published for individual agencies differed materially from that
understood by agencies to properly reflect the best estimates available to each
agency at the time;
(b) where there is a material difference, whether there is any supporting advice issued
by the Treasury or the Treasurer’s office with regard to these differences, and the
nature of that advice;
(c) whether the agency undertook to advise its respective minister prior to the budget
being delivered that these differences existed;
(d) the impact these differences had on the reported totals for the Northern Territory
public sector, and
(e) examine both the expenditure and receipts attributable to each agency in regard to
points (a) to (e).
- (2) The committee report to the Assembly on or before the second sittings of the Assembly in 2002.
The reason for the referral is self-evident, from the speeches we have heard from the government this afternoon in the previous motion. The government has substantiated pieces of evidence and, even though they were not addressed in the opposition’s response to the censure, they are substantiated pieces of evidence and come directly from Treasury. The audit trail comes directly from Treasury. The evidence was that the 2001-02 budget papers were seriously compromised. The two agencies we have identified at this stage are Health and Lands, Planning and the Environment.
Territorians deserve to know the truth of how widespread this deception was through our budget process. The appropriate body to conduct this investigation is the Public Accounts Committee. It has an ongoing task to investigate and report on ongoing budgetary and financial matters on behalf of this parliament. The committee’s standing orders give it the power to conduct a thorough investigation of these matters, including the ability to request the appearance of people before it, and the provision of documents. This investigation will not be without some additional cost. It is likely the committee will need some outside help to sift through the appropriate material to come up with its report. I therefore give notice that I will require an estimate of the likely costs involved before the committee commences its deliberations.
It is not appropriate for me to determine the exact nature of the help that will be required, but I have every confidence the committee will choose an appropriate level and type of assistance to establish the facts before them. I take heart from the comments from the other side of the House that you believe that the reference to the Public Accounts Committee is an appropriate one. I hope when we vote on this referral that we will get full support.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, the opposition supports the reference to the Public Accounts Committee. It is the appropriate forum to discuss these sorts of allegations. It is a committee that can call before it various persons. I would hope that they might even allow observers in to have a listen, because I would be interested to hear what people such as the Under Treasurer and others would say about the sorts of allegations that have been made in this Chamber today.
Finally, to emphasise my point of view, I think it was an absolutely frivolous motion. There was no necessity to bring it in the House the way it was brought and particularly by government, with all the resources of government, and expect the opposition to debate the motion in a substantive way with the limited resources that it has, without any notice whatsoever. By referring it to the PAC, it allows it to be investigated in a proper way and we will cooperate with that investigation.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I would ask that the motion also consider the reports, the independent Review into the Northern Territory’s Financial Position No. 1 by Percy Allan, No.2 by Percy Allan, on the Access Economics assessment…
Madam SPEAKER: Are you moving an amendment to the terms of reference?
Mr DUNHAM: I am moving an amendment to the motion, Madam Speaker. The amendment is:
That the PAC investigate Professor Percy Allan’s two reports, the Access Economics investigation and
assessment of Labor’s pre-election policies, and that the PAC be allowed to investigate Labor’s mini-budget
due in November.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of Government Business, are you prepared to accept that amendment?
Mr STIRLING (Leader of Government Business): I think not, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: The question is that the amendment be agreed to.
Motion negatived.
Madam SPEAKER: We are back to the original motion that the terms of reference as outlined by the Chief Minister be referred to the Public Accounts Committee.
Motion agreed to.
SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT
Mr STIRLING (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that Assembly at its rising adjourn until Tuesday 27 November 2001 at 10 am, or such other time and/or date as may be set by Madam Speaker pursuant to sessional order.
Motion agreed to.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Trial of Restrictions on the Sale of
Liquor in Alice Springs
Trial of Restrictions on the Sale of
Liquor in Alice Springs
Mr HENDERSON (Racing, Gaming and Licensing): Madam Speaker, I rise to inform the House of a decision made at a special meeting of the Northern Territory Licensing Commission held on Wednesday, 17 October. At this meeting, the commission decided to proceed with a trial of restrictions on the sale of liquor in Alice Springs. Licensees in Alice Springs were informed of the commission’s decision at a meeting with the Chairman at 10am today. The Chairman will brief community organisations today as well.
The trial will be of 12 months duration, commencing 1 January 2002. The trial restrictions will apply to all hotels, clubs, stores, supermarkets and restaurants. The restrictions to be trialled are as follows:
From Monday to Friday, takeaway trading hours will be limited to 2 pm to 9 pm. On Saturdays and public holidays, from 10 am to 9 pm, and on Sunday from 12 noon until 9 pm. No liquor to be sold or supplied in containers larger than two litres. No liquor other than light beer to be sold or supplied for consumption on the premises before 12 noon. In addition, the commission will review the conditions of all licences throughout the Centralian region to ensure that any potential for conflict with the trial restrictions is eliminated and the effectiveness of the trial in reducing liquor-related harm in Alice Springs is not diminished by trading practices or broader licence conditions in the surrounding region.
The introduction of restrictions on the sale of liquor has proved beneficial in other Territory centres. Restrictions have been trialled and implemented in Tennant Creek, Katherine and Nhulunbuy and have been found to reduce alcohol-related harm, reduce antisocial behaviour and positively increase community amenity.
In Katherine, the commission trialled a series of restrictions throughout 2000 and comprehensively evaluated these earlier this year. During the evaluation exercise, the commission was told by medical and nursing staff at the hospital that the children’s ward had been empty on a number of occasions during the year, the first time this had occurred in the memory of many long-term staff. Medical staff informed the commission that patients with chronic illnesses were presenting less often for treatment, were in less deleterious states and did not need to be hospitalised for the same length of time. The staff interviewed by the commission attributed these benefits to the trial restrictions. The evidence provided by Katherine police was overwhelmingly in favour of retaining restrictions. Benefits cited included a lesser number of street offences and protective custody arrests. The sobering-up shelter and women’s crisis centre also reported benefits.
Tennant Creek has a relatively longer history of successful use of liquor restrictions to lessen alcohol-related harm and antisocial behaviour. Prior to the introduction of the restrictions during 1995, the per capita consumption of alcohol - that is pure alcohol from liquor consumption - was 25 litres. That is, everybody over the age of 15 years in Tennant Creek was consuming 25 litres of pure alcohol via liquor consumption per year. An appalling statistic, as all members of this House would agree.
This figure has now been reduced to less than 18 litres per capita over the age of 15, a figure that is still way too high, given my recollection that the average liquor consumption in Australia is about eight litres of pure alcohol per year per person. So we still have a long way to go.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order Madam Speaker! With all due respect to the minister, and I have no major problem with the minister digressing from time to time in his speech, but he is introducing factors that are not in the speech, and I think that we went through this issue yesterday.
Madam SPEAKER: Are you speaking to the speech that was circulated?
Mr HENDERSON: I am speaking to the paper, Madam Speaker. I was not aware - and I would seek clarification, speaking to the point of order from the member - exactly which Standing Order states that I have to read directly, word by word, from the statement.
Madam SPEAKER: It has been convention in this House that when ministers deliver a statement, they stick to the statement. I recall a couple of ministers in the previous term who were chastised for not doing that. It just means it gives the people who are going to respond to the statement a chance to know what they are responding to. There is no formal Standing Order about that. It is really a convention. You can make other remarks, of course, in your summing up.
Mr HENDERSON: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
This reduction can be attributed to the restrictions either directly by supply reduction or indirectly by greater community awareness of the problems arising from the excess consumption of liquor by a community. The reduction is noteworthy and the people of Tennant Creek should be applauded for their initiative and their persistence in addressing the alcohol-related issues that have plagued their community for many years.
The restrictions in Tennant Creek were reviewed by the former Liquor Commission in 1999 and were confirmed as continuing. An independent study found the restrictions were supported by a majority of the community. Many of those contacted thought the restrictions should be strengthened. The Tennant Creek restrictions were reviewed again earlier this year. The community-based committee advising the Licensing Commission has asked for the restrictions to be strengthened. Given that the greatly reduced alcohol consumption in the town is still twice the national average, a call for continuing and further restrictions is not unreasonable.
The most recent example of the successful implementation of restrictions on the sale of liquor is Nhulunbuy. Following a lengthy program of community consultation, the Licensing Commission introduced a six month trial of restrictions. During the trial, takeaway liquor sales did not commence before 2 pm Monday to Friday, and closed at 8 pm. The trial concluded on 31 August this year and, despite its extensive campaign seeking community views, the commission received less than half a dozen responses - some for, some against. Given the apparent high level of acceptance by the community, the commission has extended the trial for a full 12 month period after which it will make a final assessment.
Let me applaud this decision of the Licensing Commission to implement restrictions in Alice Springs. The misuse of alcohol is a terrible problem in Alice Springs, Madam Speaker, as you would know. These restrictions alone are by no means a solution, but hopefully they will form part of an overall plan that can help alleviate this problem. The commission’s decision to trial restrictions on the sale of liquor in Alice Springs will probably not be a surprise to anybody in the local community. The significant liquor-related problems in the town feature regularly in the local media and are of great concern to the town council, the police, Aboriginal organisations, a wide range of health, medical and community service providers, and to many members of the Alice Springs community at large.
In April and May of this year, the Licensing Commission conducted extensive community consultations regarding a proposed trial of liquor restrictions planned to commence on 1 July. The commission placed large notices detailing the planned trial in both local newspapers, all mail boxes at the Alice Springs Post Office and via street delivery. All members of the Alice Springs community were invited to put their opinions to the commission by letter, fax or e-mail. The trial proposed by the commission was to shift the opening time for the sale of takeaways from 12 noon to 2 pm, Monday to Friday, and to prohibit the sale of liquor in casks larger than two litres.
The response to the commission’s invitation to submit opinions was overwhelming. 2500 pieces of correspondence were submitted. The magnitude of this correspondence left the commission in no doubt that the Alice Springs community had been well and truly consulted. In its findings, the commission found that the opinions received from the community:
- …were accurately and powerfully expressed and fell readily into two divergent groups: those for and those
against the trial restrictions, poles apart with very little common ground and both with significant numbers
in their favour.
The common ground of the otherwise divergent opinions received by the commission were the many respondents who claimed that restrictions alone will not work. The commission’s response was that it would not walk away from the proposed trial of restrictions. The members of the commission were unanimous that something must be done. The government supports this. The problem is large and complex. This cannot be an excuse to do nothing.
Once initiated, it is vital that the effectiveness of the restrictions is gauged and monitored. As such, the trial will be thoroughly and professionally evaluated by accredited researchers with substantial experience in the areas of alcohol and other drugs. The commission, licensees, the town council and other peak community organisations in Alice Springs will be well represented on the community-based committee that will set the terms of reference for the evaluation.
The committee will ensure that progress reports on the outcomes of the trial are thoroughly communicated throughout the Alice Springs community. The Chairman and Alice Springs members of the commission will closely monitor the effectiveness of the trial restrictions and the conduct of the evaluation. The evaluation must be of the highest order. It must be conducted by a most reputable, independent institution. In the past, similar evaluations have been undertaken by the Menzies School of Health Research and by the National Drug Research Institute located at Curtin University. The evaluation should be undertaken by a body as reputable as these two.
As I mentioned earlier, it is the view of all involved, including this government, that restrictions alone will not solve the problem. The work undertaken by the Alcohol Measures Advisory Group of the Alice in 10 Committee in developing complementary measures has enabled the Licencing Commission to move immediately to implement the trial restrictions described earlier. The advisory group, chaired by Mr Nick Gill of the Drug and Alcohol Services Association, has based the development of complementary measures on the three-pronged approach to public health substance misuse encapsulated in the National Drug Strategy. The three prongs in this most important strategy are: (1) supply reduction; (2) demand reduction; and (3) harm reduction.
The most appropriate mechanism for supply reduction is the implementation of restrictions on the sale of liquor. Responsibility for liquor licence conditions lies with the Licencing Commission, that has today moved to amend the conditions of liquor licences in order to limit supply, and thus give its full support to the accompanying elements of this strategy. The changes to liquor trading conditions to be implemented by the commission go well beyond those proposed earlier in April/May of this year. In addition to the reduction of takeaway trading hours and the banning of casks larger than two litres, the commission will now prohibit the sale of liquor in all containers larger than two litres and will change bar trading hours so that hotels, clubs and restaurants cannot open before 12 noon, except for the sale of light beer only, which will be permitted from 10 am.
The commission has added these additional restraints on its own initiative to support the complementary measures developed by the Alcohol Measures Advisory Group chaired by Mr Nick Gill. Additional measures which are being considered include an extension of sobering-up shelter hours and a community day patrol which will, in effect, parallel the excellent work carried out by the Night Patrol in Alice Springs. The trial restrictions will have the effect of making Alice Springs and the Centralian region a cask- and flagon-free zone.
I want to make it clear that, in my view, it is important to allow the local community of Alice Springs to carry this matter through to its conclusion. It has been the agitation from the citizens of Alice Springs which has brought this matter so far. It is by far the best outcome if the community can oversee the process and make the determination as to how successful these restrictions and complementary measures have been.
I will, of course, be taking a keen interest in these developments. These are matters of keen interest to me personally, and to the government. The government will not, under my responsibility for this portfolio, take its eyes off the ball. This is too important an issue. We will work together with the community to achieve improved wellbeing for all members of the community.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to add my contribution to this debate. I think it is well known to members opposite, certainly the member for Stuart, the Attorney-General now, in relation to my opinions on liquor and the harm it does in the community. I have been in newspapers, indeed, national television saying that I am supportive of trial restrictions at least.
This has always been a difficult problem for me from a philosophical level, as I have always believed it is the right of businesses to trade, and to do so unencumbered by the action of government. This is, essentially, also true for the liquor industry. However, certain industries do have an impact on the community as a whole. It saddens me a little that this is happening now, more by an accident of history than anything else during a difficult time in the tourist trade, and a difficult time for the economy as a whole, because the tourist trade is somewhat reliant on the sale of liquor in the Alice Springs community. This does, I acknowledge, represent a further burden upon their shoulders.
However, governments have long agonised over and considered this problem, and it is no accident or twist of fate that we have a Liquor Act which is equally as thick as our Criminal Code in this Territory. The reason for that is because government has taken it upon itself, historically, to accept the responsibility of monitoring and keeping a handle on such items in our community. Indeed, the Liquor Act is not an insubstantial piece of legislation at all. The question that really sits before any government is not whether or not we should control liquor in our community, but rather to what degree. That is the question that has been posed to the minister and the Liquor Commission over the last few years.
The minister has embarked upon a trial that will take, I presume from his statement, 12 months. That trial is a courageous one because, electorally - I know from the people inside Alice Springs that the response to the Liquor Commission’s public consultation was actually majority against. This is why the Liquor Commissioner originally directed the community to go back out and look at the other areas where some further work could be done. Indeed, I understand that Nick Gill has been very closely associated with that through the Alice in 10 project, and I wish both he and his committee every success. Certainly, the minister is throwing quite a weight upon their shoulders.
I notice that the Attorney-General has also put out a letter this morning, which he was kind enough to hand to me, in relation to alcohol measures in Alice Springs. He notes in this letter five priority areas, namely: priority area 1 - youth; priority area 2 - public behaviour/law and order; priority area 3 - a safer drinking environment; priority area 4 - treatment and interventions; and priority area 5 - evaluation. Under each of those priority areas, the Attorney-General has noted a single bullet point casting attention to specific areas under that umbrella. I am supportive of the process and the ideas of the priority areas that have been outlined by the Attorney-General.
However, I hope, pray and request that the minister and the government as a whole understand that restrictions alone will not work …
Mr Henderson: Hear, hear!
Mr ELFERINK: I picked up from the minister, who acknowledges that restrictions alone will not work. There needs to be a fundamental shift in the way that a lot of things are done in the Centralian area, including the way that welfare is dished out.
We have a situation in Central Australia as a whole, and it goes beyond the town boundary of Alice Springs, where liquor has a profound effect. Certainly, in a lot of remote communities, as well as in my electorate, I get to see the outcomes of that liquor in those communities. Indeed, I was recounting to the Leader of the Opposition last night an incident where three people died in a motor car accident. At the risk of pre-empting the Coroner’s finding, I have some grounds to believe that liquor may have contributed to that motor car accident.
What I would like to see the government do is take this one step further, take their opportunities one step beyond where they are going and start getting onto organisations like ATSIC, the land councils, Tangentyere Council, the Tyeweretye Club, industry bodies, and, as far as they possibly can, putting pressure on those bodies to do what they can, now that there is potentially a lull in the problem in the community of Alice Springs and the Central Australian community as a whole, to take advantage of that lull and to turn that lull into something productive.
In the case of the land councils, they are magnificently positioned to create an environment which will create jobs. I am talking about real jobs. Get some companies in there, so when a company comes to the land council, the land council, instead of saying: ‘Well, fill out form AD1, and we will talk about it’, say: ‘Good. Come in!’. Let us get excited about this. Let us go and get out there and create a tourist job, to create a horticultural job, to create a job of some sort. Let us start developing those traditional lands so that they can provide for traditional owners in the way that they are providing in the Tiwi Islands, for arguments sake, or the way that they did in the past.
I know that the enthusiasm is out there in many places, and this would be a wonderful opportunity, while there is a lull in this other problem, to address that issue. Certainly, ATSIC could become involved in that process and I very much encourage the government to get onto ATSIC and start poking them in the chest, if needs be, and saying: ‘What are you going to contribute to this process? What are you going to do in this process?’
The Tangentyere Council, as I understand it, still are the holders of a liquor licence. Perhaps some pressure from the government on the Tangentyere Council to say to them: ‘What are you going to do with your liquor licence to make changes in the community?’
Also industry bodies - what can they do in a new environment, a liberalised environment, in terms of developing jobs, to help create those jobs and create that wealth? Because, Madam Speaker, one thing I will say is that wealth …
Mr Henderson: Madam Speaker has grown a beard.
Mr ELFERINK: I’m quite thrown now. Mr Deputy Speaker, what can the industry bodies do? Let us create a real sense of hope around this. There is no harm in trying to do that. I tend to be insufferably enthusiastic about the future. The welfare process as it has occurred since the early 1970s has, in my opinion, been one of the most destructive forces in Central Australia. I am utterly convinced that the return of land to the rightful owners of that land, the traditional people, has not been enough to give them determination or self-determination. The only way that you will get self-determination by my estimation is to have economic self-determination. Without it, the rest is almost romance.
Economic self-determination at an individual and personal level will create an environment where these people will start looking after their own interests, and that does not apply to just the people living in the outlying communities in Central Australia. It includes everybody who has a job, everybody in the Alice Springs area, everybody in the world. A sense of dignity and self-worth flows from an ability to make one’s own way in the world and I believe that the other side of that coin is that total dependence on others is demeaning to the human condition, no matter who you are.
I see in this a potential, an enormous potential, for the government to take the bull by the horns and put some real pressure and apply some real dollars to this, but also put some pressure on organisations like ATSIC, the Tyeweretye Club and the like, and let us see if we can bring about a change. What the government is at the moment doing is creating a situation which I believe will cause a lull in some of the agony. Certainly, the evidence that the minister has brought before this Chamber today clearly demonstrates that from the experience which has been seen in other communities. However, the downside of this is that it will only be a lull if at the end of 12 months, we come back, go back to the way we were, and some of the fundamental and structural things underneath have not changed.
Now, those fundamental and structural things underneath are going to have to put pressure on the people who are affected by the way that welfare is dished out. That pressure will, in some respects, have to be a big stick as much as a carrot, because to simply dangle out the carrots will mean that people take the carrots with no effort. There has to be a certain amount of effort and personal dignity and I would expect that the government would take this particular bull by the horns.
So all in all, I support the government in its intention. I am curious to see what will happen in 12 months. I am curious to see what the costings will be, what the effect on the ward in the hospital which is dedicated solely to gastroenteritis will be, how much money will be saved if any at all in those areas, the effect on DASA, the numbers, the arrests, etc. There are any number of measures and yardsticks you can use. I hope the government will report these honestly. If they fail, then so be it; if they do not fail, then I would like to see those figures as well.
I also hope that the government will report other things, non-statistical things, such as the effort that they are putting in to convincing other bodies such as ATSIC and the land councils to do their part in this job, because I believe that if we can change the way that many of the people who are affected by liquor in the community think within that 12 month period, it may just bring about a fundamental change.
Mrs AAGAARD (Health, Family and Children’s Services): Mr Deputy Speaker, I welcome the introduction of these measures in Alice Springs. The physical, mental and social health of people is fundamental to their capacity to contribute to society and its future development.
Alcohol contributes to health and wellbeing outcomes. At a personal level, it is a direct cause of disease, injury and death as well as being a broader factor in these areas. Alcohol misuse has serious affects on families, for example, in parental care of children, contributing to domestic violence as well as serious relationship and economic difficulties. It also affects productivity in the workplace, and can detract from the enjoyment of public places. Individuals need to be aware of the costs that can arise from their alcohol use and the steps they can take to reduce those costs.
The community needs to be encouraged to take individual and collective responsibility for the impact of alcohol in the Territory. As members of families, as friends, workmates or as part of the broader society, people have a vital role in determining how alcohol use is perceived and valued. There is a need to create and maintain communities that support the reduction of alcohol-related harm and help those who seek to deal with the problems. From the international and national literature, as well as from local experience, we know that a comprehensive approach is the one that works best, that is, one that addresses supply control issues, as well as providing a range of services that prevent, educate, care and assist both individuals and the community. This is achieved through a variety of education and information strategies that increase personal knowledge and skills. We also know that initiatives which strengthen the resilience of families and communities and improve their capacity to minimise risks associated with alcohol are important.
It is this government’s policy to protect and promote good health among Territorians. Alcohol misuse is a major source of preventable ill-health and certain actions to reduce the harm caused by alcohol are clearly within the scope of government’s health and wellbeing responsibilities. The nature of the Territory and the substance use choices of Territorians present different risks than occur in many other parts of Australia. Like elsewhere, however, these risks take a toll on the health and welfare of the community. Alcohol issues are subject to an enormous range of personal, social, economic, political and environmental influences. As such, the issues involved are complex and complicated and are continually emerging and changing in character. We need thoughtful responses based on evidence to meet these issues and make a meaningful and lasting difference.
Territory Health Services through the Living with Alcohol program, which significantly enhance alcohol and other drug services and approaches in the Territory, has had a significant impact on alcohol-related harm in the Northern Territory since its introduction in 1991. Evaluation of the Living with Alcohol program in 1999 estimated that the net saving to the people of the Northern Territory for an investment of $18.4m was $124.3m over four years. This figure was calculated on the demonstrated public health and safety benefits observed. This program has been nationally and internationally applauded for its innovation and its cohesive approach. Legislation, regulation and policy can have immediate and dramatic effects on the availability, promotion, serving and consumption of alcohol. They can work to direct change or support changes initiated through other processes.
Strong evidence at a national, international and local level indicates that there is a positive correlation between a reduction in alcohol availability and reductions in excessive consumption and associated harms. The development and putting in place of control measures is traditionally the province of the Liquor Commission, police, Road Safety Council, Legislative Assembly and the judiciary. The Living with Alcohol program provides a framework to link the activities and policies of these agencies so they are more coordinated with one another and integrated with educative and treatment strategies. The local experience in Katherine, Tennant Creek, Elliott and Nhulunbuy has borne out the local effectiveness of this type of community approach.
Supply control measures are the basis of our dry areas legislation which is the commonly used expression for Part VIII of the Northern Territory Liquor Act, Restricted Areas. I am aware that preliminary discussions have recently taken place with my department and representatives from the Alice in 10 Alcohol Measures Advisory Group which has been working on a package of complementary measures that will support these restrictions. The advisory group has identified six major strategic areas in which a range of demand reduction and harm reduction measures can be introduced. The majority of the measures can be achieved through existing resources. Further consideration needs to be given to a small number of the strategies proposed and more detailed work will be undertaken.
In addition, substance misuse was one of the first issues examined by the Central Australian Regional Indigenous Health Planning Committee which has undertaken extensive consultation with the community over two years and the subsequent production of the Central Australian Substance Misuse Strategic Plan which was launched by the Honourable Peter Toyne on 11 September 2001. A number of the recommendations highlighted in this plan stressed the importance of the introduction of alcohol supply control measures in Alice Springs. At present, the Alice Springs region receives $2.74m per annum of alcohol and other drug funding from Territory Health Services.
In addition, a range of Alice Springs organisations also receive Commonwealth funding for alcohol and other drug activities. $1.76m of Territory Health Services funds are allocated to non-government organisations which provide a range of services including $355 440 to the Central Australian Aboriginal Alcohol Programs Unit to provide alcohol and other drug, residential and outreach services; $714 506 to the Drug and Alcohol Services Association to manage and operate a 26 bed sobering-up shelter and to provide alcohol and other drug community education, withdrawal and counselling services; $189 310 to Holyoake to provide a drug education, prevention and treatment service for children, youth and families affected by substance misuse; $275 135 to Tangentyere Council to coordinate the activities of night patrols in rural and remote communities around Alice Springs and to provide a warden scheme; $82 439 to Intjarrtnama to provide an alcohol and drug residential therapeutic facility which is located 100 km from Alice Springs.
Territory Health Services internal providers receive $972 000 for a range of activities which include a specialist non-residential drug information, advisory, assessment, counselling and referral service; education and training opportunities for frontline workers who may be working with individuals and/or families with alcohol and other drug issues; and a Community Support Team who predominantly focus on developing a range of prevention, education and community development interventions in urban and remote communities in the Alice Springs region.
Alice Springs also benefits from a range of Territory-wide initiatives. The Living with Alcohol program previously provided intersectoral payments to a number of departments to nurture partnerships. Following a review of the program these funds are now allocated directly from Treasury. They include $330 000 to the Liquor Commission to enhance surveillance, compliance and education roles by the provision of additional inspectors and an Aboriginal liaison role; $100 000 to the Department of Education to enhance teacher training and curriculum development in the area of alcohol and other drug education; $250 000 to Northern Territory Correctional Services for the provision of alcohol and other drug services to offenders - this includes programs conducted in the prison such as Ending Offending; and $110 000 to NT Police to enhance policy development, school-based drug education and surveillance roles in the alcohol and drug area. The Alcohol and Other Drugs program of Territory Health Services also provides community education activities on a Territory-wide basis.
Community education is critical to maintaining alcohol on the public agenda, for engaging the community in issues and for delivering specific messages aimed at changing attitudes and behaviours in a sustainable manner. It is important for creating a climate in which other strategies become more acceptable. It is an area of continuous effort requiring ongoing creativity to present material in a meaningful way and constant reinforcement of any gains made. In Alice Springs, community education activities are coordinated by the Central Australian Alcohol and Other Drugs Services in conjunction with the Drug and Alcohol Services Association.
Mr Deputy Speaker, this government is serious about tackling the hard issues facing our society to deliver the outcome Territorians want - a safer community for individuals and families. The introduction of this trial is a significant step toward achieving this goal.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, it is obvious from what has been said today that there are many viewpoints and matters of concern from members here about alcohol. Just realising that there is a set of restrictions in a third town in the Northern Territory, one realises that there are problems with alcohol in the Northern Territory, not that that needed stating before but I think just because here we have another town that has restrictions, we have to accept there are problems with alcohol.
I wonder if we should perhaps look at a broad review of the use of alcohol which is a legal drug. There have probably been stacks of reviews before, and we should not ignore those, but we now have a new government. We have restrictions in towns and perhaps it is time we did look at a review of the affects of alcohol in our society.
Alcohol has a place in our society. It is used as a medium which, when sensibly used, makes life enjoyable especially with a meal or after a hard day’s work, to quote an ad, or as part of a celebration. Its misuse has had major social problems in the Territory. We have domestic violence and violence and those affects are what I spoke about yesterday. We have long-term health problems and that is why we have many of our renal units having to be set up now, and short-term health problems. Death is certainly a problem that occurs from alcohol due to violence or accidents: car accidents, pedestrians. We have social disruption including marital disruption, children not having a loving, caring family environment which, in the end, affects their education. We have alcoholism, cultural breakdown and we have binge drinking.
If we do have a review, I think we ought to inquire into the manner by which alcohol is promoted. What I have always found strange is that for years we picked out tobacco as the drug, the advertising of which we should ban. Yet how many people have been killed driving a car because of tobacco? How many families have had domestic violence due to tobacco? Here we have a drug which I think has far greater consequences in our society and, basically, it is promoted. It is promoted at sporting venues; it is promoted in advertising. You just have to look at a classic advertisement like the XXXX one, the bloke who gets a crab stuck on him. Everybody thinks it is funny. But when you open up a vehicle that is just chockers full of XXXX, can someone tell me that that is responsible advertising? Is that the sort of message we send out to our younger kids and to some of our Aboriginal communities - that drinking means you drink a whole truck load of grog and that is sensible drinking?
We now have flavoured alcohol. I mean, I never heard of people drinking Vodka years ago, unless you came from overseas. What is in the fridges of our bars these days? Red and yellow and green - all these lovely colours. Bright. They all taste like fruit drinks. Why? To get people into drinking spirits that were not the norm a few years ago. Should we be looking at that effect? A lot of young people are drinking Vodka type drinks today. We have statistics that are now telling us, as a recent report said, that many young girls engage in binge drinking. Is this a part of the cause? They are getting into high alcohol drinks. Also there are problems with peer group pressure. You go to parties today and if you do not touch alcohol, they look at you as very strange.
We have had programs which have talked about living with alcohol. I have always wondered why on the same hand, we couldn’t say: can we live without alcohol? It is not a matter of being a wowser. When it came to tobacco advertising, we were saying: ‘Don’t smoke’. End of story. People still smoke. We do not apply the same standard to another drug. We are not saying: ‘Don’t drink’; we are just saying: ‘Look, you can live life without drinking’. It is not wowserism; it is just saying here is another option.
We also ought to look at the responsibility of our breweries. They make millions out of grog and I see in many communities in the Territory absolute destitution, the disruption of life in those areas because of alcohol. I think that those companies have a responsibility to put back into the society some ways of helping those communities. They make millions. We pick up the tab as a society and I think they should be made more responsible. I know we get money from taxes and excise, but that is an easy way. That is the government taking the money. They should be made responsible; they should look at their advertising and say: ‘Is that sort of advertising responsible advertising?’ Of course, their job is to sell more alcohol but I, on the other hand, think they have a responsibility to make sure their product is used sensibly and not irresponsibly.
The issues are not just about, as sometimes is mentioned a lot, Aborigines. As is said many times, we see Aboriginal people drunk because they are the most obvious; they are under the water tower at Palmerston, they are in the mall, but that does not mean they are the main people who drink alcohol and are affected by alcohol. Many non-Aboriginal people suffer the effects of alcohol, many non-Aboriginal people drink alcohol to excess and think it is normal, and they do it at parties and they do it here.
If we were to see the same thing with Aboriginal people, we would say: ‘That’s pretty terrible’, but our society is not always the greatest example to the people we think have the alcohol problem. We had a Beer Can Regatta. All it was, was how big a boat could you make out of beer cans which sent the message: ‘How much can we drink in time to build a boat?’ Thankfully, the Beer Can Regatta has moved away from just being a beer can regatta. It sent the wrong message out to people.
I lived on Bathurst Island and in the time I was there, most men drank, and of course you would see advertisements about the Beer Can Regatta. You would see ads on TV: ‘You’ve got to be a man amongst the men’ was a common ad for Victoria Bitter. Those sort of images said: ‘That must be the way it’s done’. So, from a non-Aboriginal perspective, we have to show sometimes a better example and a more responsible way of drinking.
I support these trials. I think they are a start. They will help, but I think there is a long way to go. A review of the effects of alcohol on our society would allow us to assess accurately whether there are real problems and then see if the government should create a policy document and, if necessary, act on that policy.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I hope not only that this trial is successful, I hope that perhaps there can be some other spin-offs from the trial.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Mr Deputy Speaker, let me at the outset say that the CLP government can be proud of the initiatives it took while in government to deal with alcohol abuse in the Territory. The Living with Alcohol program and its beneficial effects continues today and is lauded by academics and those in industry as a very good program. The switch from normal beer to light beer was one of the programs through good advertising and other health promotion programs, it was through education and the choice of Territorians to switch to light beer.
No one in Alice Springs would contest that the community has a problem with alcohol abuse and its associated antisocial behaviour. It impacts on our daily lives. No one in Alice Springs would contest that something has to be done about the problems. What is not certain is what measures the Alice Springs community can bring about to resolve the problems. The opinions are divided and also very divisive.
Members will remember well, it was through my efforts as the Minister for Central Australia that we had two significant community meetings of stakeholders including the Alice Springs Town Council, the Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Central Australian Tourism Industry Association, all takeaway licensees, a wide range of medical and other associated health services providers, and Aboriginal organisations such as KAAPU, Congress, Arltunga Council, Arrernte Council, and the ATSIC Regional Council. It was through these meetings that some consensus of opinion came about which led the Licensing Commission to set about polling the whole of Alice Springs. The outcome of that poll is contained in this copy of the Commissioner’s report, dated 31 May 2001, which I seek leave to table.
Leave granted.
Dr LIM: I have been on the public record supporting some form of alcohol restriction in Alice Springs, in particular the restriction in trading hours of takeaway outlets. We all know that the greater portion of alcohol abuse is with takeaway alcohol. There are adequate legislative controls over on-premises drinking and there needs to be no more. As I said, I have been on record supporting some form of alcohol restriction in takeaway outlets. The principle of dealing with any substance abuse matter is, without doubt, one of restricted access, reduced demand and adequate treatment in its widest meaning of the word.
In that I agree with the minister’s comments on the three prongs of the strategy considered by the advisory group chaired by Nick Gill. However, this statement that the Labor government has brought down has gone well past what I consider is reasonable for the majority of the community of Alice Springs. Remember, when the Licensing Commission first sought input from the community, 65% of the 2500 responses to the commission’s community poll indicated very strongly that it would not support trading hours restrictions and that the majority of the 65% also stated that restrictions alone would not work.
Let me now go to the body of the minister’s statement. The minister declared there will be a 12 months trial commencing 1 January 2002 applying to all hotels, clubs, stores, supermarkets and restaurants. The restrictions imposed are listed in the determination of the Licensing Commission, which I now seek leave to table.
Leave granted.
Dr LIM: I won’t quote from it. There are seven points to it that were read out a bit earlier. I will come back to the rest of the determination later.
The decision applies to all licensed premises. This is one extension of restrictions with which I cannot agree. Why impose the restrictions on restaurants and clubs where patrons consume alcohol within the premises? At the start of all the debate on alcohol issues in Alice Springs, it was about the extent of and the abuse of takeaway alcohol, alcohol that is consumed without any restriction once the supplies are taken away from the outlet. There are many people living in Alice Springs who work shifts and would visit their respective clubs on their way home in the morning for a refreshing drink or two before they go to bed. These workers are now to be deprived. Having checked with many people in Alice Springs today, I was told by one club member that the vast majority of his clients prefer normal beer to light beer. Restricting supply of normal beer until noon is not acceptable for these people. Clubs such as the RSL, The Memo, Westies will all be affected, and this will also impact on their financial viability. Some of the licensees that I have contacted have told me that many of their clients have already expressed their unhappiness with the level of restrictions.
Many of these people will now buy their own bulk supplies of alcohol and consume them at home. These bulk supplies will be bought from the bigger outlets. It means the clubs will suffer, shrinking trade. Does the Labor government propose to subsidise or compensate the clubs for this loss of trade? I think not. These clubs serve their memberships well, providing services that no other type of alcohol outlet provides. I am thinking about clubs such as the RSL and The Memo Club in particular. Another licensee said that his business is suffering badly enough now, with the downturn of tourism in Alice Springs following the Ansett collapse and the 11 September events in New York and Washington. He advises that the restrictions will be another hurdle for his business to contend with.
The Licensing Commission qualified the restrictions with a two paragraph preamble which, in summary, states: ‘The commission agreed with this’ meaning that the restrictions alone would not work,
- …and our decision was to leave the proposed trial of restrictions on the table until suitable initiatives of
complementary measures were available to be trialled in tandem with a trial of liquor restrictions.
The commission also reported that:
- A range of health, education and community welfare initiatives has been put to the Commission as suitable
for trialling alongside a trial of liquor restrictions. The sponsoring organisations will announce the initiatives
in the near future.
Now here is the rub, Mr Deputy Speaker: nowhere in the minister’s statement does he say that he will commit the Labor government to supporting the so-called complementary measures. The Minister for Central Australia, in his release, which I now seek leave to table also, states:
- The Alice Springs Intense Substance Misuse Working Group, after significant consultation, has recommended
the following initiatives which we have agreed to look at supporting within our current budgetary constraints.
These weasel words are not any commitment to any initiatives. The Licensing Commission said, in no uncertain terms, I remind you, that he would not bring in any restrictions until complementary measures are in place, are in place.
Let me read to you what he handed down in May this year. The Licencing Commissioner said:
- The Commission will leave the proposed trial on the table and at the head of our agenda and will work with
an appropriate group or groups from the community to develop suitable initiatives to be implemented, or trial in
tandem with the proposed restrictions. Ideally, the proposed restrictions and other initiatives will be linked in
such a way that each complements the other and this provides better overall effectiveness.
What the Licencing Commissioner is saying is that the Labor government must commit funds to ensure that complementary measures are in place before any restrictions can be imposed. Where is the money? Where is the commitment to the people of Alice Springs from the Labor government? Why are you trying to fool the people of Alice Springs bringing in restrictions, when the stated position of the commission is not to do that until the complementary measures are in place?
It appears to me, from the discussions I had with the Licencing Commissioner as late as July of this year, that without any complementary measures, restrictions will not be imposed on the people of Alice Springs. Within a few short months the commission has turned 180, and without any surety that complementary measures are in place.
On 8 August 2001, the Chairman of the Licencing Commission handed down another report - which, again, I seek leave to table - and repeated his previous decision was contained in a letter to Nick Gill, Director of DASA, who the coordinator of the activities of the Substance Misuse Working Group of the Alice in 10 project.
Leave granted.
Dr LIM: I quote 3.1, Complementary Measures:
- The trial will not proceed as proposed. The Commission will leave the proposed trial on the table until such time
as suitable complementary measures are available to be implemented or trailled in tandem with the proposed
trial restrictions on the sale of liquor. Any proposed restrictions and other initiatives should be interrelated so
that each complements the other, thus optimising any opportunity for better overall effectiveness. It is expected
that most complementary measures will be newly developed for the purpose of the trial, while some may be
significantly enhanced existing measures. To simply bundle together existing measures with the proposed liquor
restrictions will not suffice. The community has commented on the proposed restrictions against the background
of the status quo.
The Chairman of the Licencing Commission went further and said:
- My letter to Mr Gill was copied to all organisations and referred to at No 1 of the resolutions of the forum, and also
to the Minister for Central Australia.
The Alice Springs community was reassured that there will be no - and I repeat, no - restrictions until such time as suitable complementary measures are available. I wonder what pressure the Licencing Commission has been under since the Labor government has been in place, and what threats he may have been under to make him and his colleagues on the commission change their position ...
Mr Henderson: So you do not support this? That is okay; sit down.
Dr LIM: Just listen. What is this Labor government doing to our community of Alice Springs? Since the handing down of this decision by the Licensing Commission at 11 o’clock today, there has been significant outrage in the community. One operator of an alcohol outlet is preparing to let his casual employees go because of his anticipated loss of trade. This concerns me; it is another nail in the coffin of the Alice Springs economy. It is another indication that this government has lost focus on the economy of the Territory, and is not concerned about employment in Alice Springs.
Let me now come to the five priorities contained in the list set up by the Alice in 10 Substance Misuse Working Group. Again, I say that the Labor government needs to be committed to these measures. The Labor government must identify what moneys it is going to put in place for these programs. As for the programs, I do not have any particular problem with a program for youth, and program for public behaviour and law and order. I commend the Alice in 10 Substance Misuse Group and their efforts. I am pleased that I was instrumental in setting up this group that has produced some real resolutions for our community. But these resolutions cannot come to fruition without funding.
Priority area one – youth, proposes to have a drop-in centre and grog-free entertainment. It also proposes to have a youth link-up service to give youth better access to recreation and referrals, and to treatment facilities including support for families. That is a good recommendation from the Alice in 10 Substance Misuse Working Group. However, how is this to be funded?
Priority area two - public behaviour/law and order, proposes to establish a community day patrol to complement the existing Night Patrol. This measure has been discussed at many forums for a long time. I am pleased to see that the working group has picked it up. Again, how is this to be funded?
In priority area three - safer drinking environment, the proposal is to put in place a system of ‘prescribed persons’ defined as persons authorised to ensure liquor outlets are complying with the provisions of their licence in terms of safe and responsible serving practices. Who are these prescribed persons? This needs clarification. What powers do these prescribed persons have? How is this to be funded?
Priority area four - treatment and interventions, proposes to extend the hours of the sobering-up shelter and have health professionals to carry out brief interventions with clients, in particular those who are frequent users of the shelter. Where does the government propose to find the health professionals from, and what funding is in place for these services?
Priority area five – evaluation, this proposal is a logical one and I support it, but I will come back to this later.
The minister speaks about other communities that have tried alcohol restrictions such as Nhulunbuy, Katherine and Tennant Creek. Analysis of these communities sought information from within the confines of the town in question. I find no evidence that the reviewers of programs, say in Tennant Creek, bothered to assess alcohol outlets some distance from the town. When the minister said that restrictions are supported by a majority of people in Tennant Creek - and many of those contacted thought the restrictions would be strengthened - the minister failed to recognise that what that meant was that all alcohol outlets should be treated equally. The hotels thought that the clubs were given special treatment, while they, the hotels, were being penalised. That was the flaw in the restrictions in Tennant Creek.
I do not wish see an inequitable set of restrictions brought into Alice Springs. The across-the-board restrictions of all outlets will cause this problem in Alice Springs. If any restrictions are to be brought into Alice Springs, it should be on takeaway outlets only. If, as it appears, restrictions are inevitable, and in my mind it is not; there are several more points to be made. I repeat my first point that the Labor government must commit funds to ensure the five priority areas of the Alice in 10 Substance Misuse Working Group are to be implemented before - and I repeat before - restrictions are in place. It cannot be challenged by anyone that 65% of Alice Springs residents are not in favour of restriction in trading hours and cask size. And those two were the issues the Licensing Commission polled in Alice Springs, nothing more. The community was not asked about any other restrictions. The present decision of the commission has definitely polarised the community even more.
Assuming the Licensing Commission’s decision comes into effect on 1 January 2002, it means there will be a division in the community. Many of us will have a detriment to our lifestyle, with a limitation of choice of what we want to do and when we want to do it, balanced by the benefits to the community of the anticipated reduction of alcohol abuse and antisocial behaviour. 65% of the Alice Springs community will be making a significant sacrifice in terms of their lifestyle. What sacrifice will the remaining 35% make to compensate – no, maybe not compensate - but to balance the other 65%?
In Alice Springs, much of the alcohol problem affects Aboriginal people. While there is also alcohol abuse within the white community, it is the issue of the visible alcohol abuse within the Aboriginal people which causes most of the angst in Alice Springs. All you have to do is reflect upon the speech by the member for Nelson when he grieved over the lost lives of many young Aboriginal people during the previous debate. It is true that we have a lost generation. So I ask: what will Aboriginal organisations do to assist the many Aboriginal people who are victims of alcohol abuse, directly and indirectly?
It is my understanding also that the Tangentyere Council, Central Land Council and the Central Australian Aboriginal Congress have ownership of the Millner Road Food Town and its alcohol outlet. What does it propose to do about that? Furthermore, the Tyeweretye Club, will it stop applying for a takeaway licence for ever and ever?
I want to return to the matter of priority five - evaluation, from the Alice in 10 Substance Misuse Working Group. The minister said that it is vital that effectiveness of the restrictions is gauged and monitored, using professional and independent organisations to do the assessment. The minister has obviously forgotten the Select Committee on Substance Abuse, a committee that the Labor government set up itself in this Assembly only a few short days ago. Without a doubt, it is important to assess the effectiveness or otherwise of the Licensing Commission’s restrictions. I recommend to the Labor government that the issue of alcohol restrictions in Alice Springs be referred to the Select Committee on Substance Abuse.
This committee should be given the responsibility to do a pre-restriction audit of the problems associated with alcohol in the Alice Springs community. It should be given the responsibility to continually assess the effectiveness of the restrictions in whatever form it takes throughout the life of the trial and obviously at the end of the trial. The question of restrictions of alcohol supply in Alice Springs has not been answered by this decision of the Licencing Commission. The question of what funding for the identified complementary measures has not been answered. The reason why in-premises restriction has to take place is not clear. The system of prescribed persons authorised to ensure compliance of licensees is unclear. I ask the minister that, in his reply closing debate, he respond to those specific questions and the many other issues I have raised.
Mr Deputy Speaker, as it stands, I cannot support the statement.
Dr TOYNE (Central Australia): Mr Deputy Speaker, I am not going to be swayed from my path by the comments of the last speaker. It is most unfortunate that he cannot celebrate with us and celebrate with the town this very important day of the introduction finally of some action against these terrible problems that the town has had for so long. I can only say that the community meeting which the Liquor Commission drew together today to inform the community of its decision was absolutely exultant that action has finally arrived in Alice Springs. We have had so many years of talking about these problems, spinning around the thousand options, the thousand possibilities. What this represents today is, finally, the arrival of action. For all its perfections or imperfections, we are on the road. We are starting to do things and through the monitoring process that will be put in place, we will start to see which of these initiatives are producing benefits. If they need to be refined, modified, we will do it, we will do it. Once you start the action going, you can always change the direction with a bit of fine tuning. Those people the member for Greatorex keeps talking to, he never gives a name or a source. Who are these people that he keeps referring to in his speeches?
I know who I have been speaking to. I have had written responses as early as four years ago from 1000 households in Alice Springs. One thousand households who were almost to a person, regardless of what specific issue or action that they wanted to put forward, they all wanted something done. And that is the whole core of this very important announcement today in Alice Springs, that something is finally going to be done.
I have been part of this issue with many other people. The member for Greatorex certainly convened the meetings he referred to. The member for Macdonnell has worked in a genuinely bipartisan way with me in the various events that we have been associated with. There have been many genuine attempts to get to a point where some action can be taken on these issues. Every day that action is delayed in Alice Springs, is just simply adding, not only to the toll of human tragedy that comes out of the overconsumption that we have in the town, but also right here in budget appropriations. Every year we are seeing increasing amounts of money being spent on our Accident and Emergency, on our chronic disease budgets, on our police budgets, on our Correctional Services budget, on our court budget. Where is it all coming from? It is coming from overconsumption of alcohol in our towns like Alice Springs.
We cannot sit here day after day and continue on looking at the thousand different things that could be done or might be done or might suit someone or may not suit someone. We have to get on and get this fixed up. I would like to say here and now that I commend the Licensing Commission. They have made a very sound decision today. They put it very clearly as to what criteria they were requiring from the townspeople and the organisation of Alice Springs and they have, on receipt of a solid plan of community action alongside the restrictions, now decided to go ahead. I commend them for that and they certainly have the full support of this government in the decision that they have made. It was very interesting to hear the proprietor of the Todd Tavern, one of the key takeaway outlets in Alice Springs, on radio about half an hour ago saying that these restrictions had been expected. She was not frantic about them, she did not think that it was going to make huge inroads into her business and she wished the initiatives well and hoped that they bring benefit to the town.
Is that the end of the earth, Madam Speaker? I do not think so. I think that if we can get that response from one of the key players in the retail trade, I can guarantee that other retailers in the town would also have that same view. In fact, reports of the briefing that was provided to the retailers at the time that the section 33 notices were presented to them indicate that it was a professional, a restrained and a polite meeting. So, if we are talking about the end of the world, an outcry from the business community, an outcry from the community, we are not seeing a lot of evidence of it to date. For years, the community of Alice Springs has been saying that alcohol is a major problem. People are sick and tired of the talk. We have had cycles of consultation to the point where people are almost sick and tired of being consulted with, given that the consultations up until now have not led to any significant action in response to the things people have been saying.
We saw the Hauritz Report go around to, I think it was 700 households, I cannot remember the figure, but certainly a major sample of households around the town. We saw the Bradley/Martin Report brought together by ATSIC that produced a chilling account of the consumption levels around the town, and an objective assessment of many of the ideas that were being put around in the public debates, things like wet canteens in communities, things like voucher systems such as the one that Tangentyere Council had been trialling. And things like the effectiveness or otherwise of the restriction of hours. So we have had many, many studies done, we have had many, many meetings. I do not think now is the time that anyone should be standing up and saying: ‘Let’s not act now. Let’s hold all this back. Let’s go into yet another cycle’. No. The town will not wear it.
The NT government is proud to facilitate the long overdue response to what people have been saying. We know that the Alice Springs community knows that liquor restrictions on their own won’t work and that is why the current proposals are so powerful in that they have made recognition of that fact and because of the commission’s position on this matter. Having said that, without restriction there is no point in doing anything else. Now, we have had propositions: ‘Let’s leave supply alone. Let’s leave the six million litres of alcoholic beverages that are consumed in Central Australia, let’s leave them alone. Let people keep drinking six million litres a year. Let’s do all the other things to fix it up’. Well, sorry, you cannot do that. I think every bit of scientific evidence says that the level of consumption equals the level of harm. Beyond doubt, law of God. So without dealing with supply, you cannot deal with alcohol problems in the town like Alice.
This government supports the Liquor Commission’s decision to the hilt. We not only support it as it stands now, we will support its evaluation and its modification if we need to into the future. This is going to be a long haul because these problems are very deep seated and we are in there for the long battle. While the current budget situation places constraints on our programs, I can assure this House that there is no higher priority that we would take to our government program than to support the initiatives that the town of Alice Springs has brought together today. We will find the resources, we will find it if we have to go to hell and back and we will find it out of our budgets.
It does not make any sense not to find it because what we spend now, for every dollar we will be saving hundreds of dollars in expenditure in the hospital, in the courts, in the police work and in the gaols. That is where it is all going at the moment, that is not getting us anywhere. All that is doing is bandaid-ing and fixing up the mess that has been created day by day. We have to move ahead so that our budget effort can be put back where it does belong, into getting kids a good education in school, getting proactive things happening in the community to improve our health cycle. That is where we want to put our budget, not into ever increasing expenditure in the Accident and Emergency wards.
Looking at some of these community initiatives, I would like to pay tribute immediately to the Tangentyere Night Patrol for the huge amount of work it has done in Alice Springs. Anyone who looks into the Todd River would know the effect of the Night Patrol and the police work that have gone on over recent times. You do not see anything like the huge encampments in the river that we used to see. A lot of that is due to the action of the Night Patrol. We need a day patrol because people drink all through the day. Even if we have these restricted hours, they will drink during the afternoon and we need to have some moderation on their behaviour. People can often still be 0.2 or 0.3% blood alcohol content by 10 o’clock the next morning. They are still drunk and they are still not fully in charge of their behaviour. That is why a day patrol patrolling the township will make a huge difference. I would like to point out that whether you are a townsperson or a tourist, if you run into a whole group of itinerant drinkers in the Todd Street Mall, you are not going to be too happy with the money that you spent getting there if you are a tourist and you are not going to be too happy if you have got your kids with you if you are walking through the town there. It is not a pleasant experience.
If we have the day patrol there, we can give both the townspeople of Alice Springs, the people who just want to get around the place and go about their family business without harassment, without beggars around them and without the effects of white drinking which is by no means insignificant around the town as well. That will moderate a lot of that behaviour during the day time. We need the sobering-up shelter to go back out to where it was under the Living With Alcohol arrangements. It has been pinched in ever since the change in the ability of the Territory government to maintain the levy and we need to pull it back out where it is there for the whole time that it needs to be there.
The effect on youth of the Youth Linkup Services is also very important in the town. There is a culture of binge drinking even amongst our young people there and they are not all from the bush, I can tell you. There are binge drinking parties going around to the point where the average household - these are very non-Aboriginal households - cannot safely stage a party for a teenage kid without seeing people barging in on it and causing damage to the house, violence, and all the others things. We have a lot to do with our youth. I think that there is a culture of alcohol in Alice Springs that goes right down to the early teenage years or even earlier than that.
We need to help the licensees with their ability to maintain their license provisions and the addition of the prescribed persons will give them further support in maintaining their boundaries. The whole thing of this is about targeted interventions. We hear these arguments around the town of maybe 150 chronic drinkers causing most of the mayhem that is going on with alcohol consumption. Well, that is quite true and I think Nick Gill from DASA sees that day in, day out. The idea of targeting those people and trying to take them out of the lifestyle that they have fallen into is going to have a major impact on the overall weight of drinking in the township.
The monitoring study is absolutely essential to this. The problem when initiatives are taken and, certainly some of the earlier initiatives, is that we had to go back afterwards and try and put together the story of what impact the initiatives had on the actual drinking in the town. Often studies were done in retrospect or after the fact. In this case it is absolutely essential that we have a tightly formed monitoring study in place on January 1 ready to follow this whole process through and to provide information to policy makers and program deliverers as to what contribution each of the initiatives is making to whatever change does occur. We will certainly make sure, and I gave an assurance to the Liquor Commissioner on this point, that we will facilitate getting that monitoring study together.
In addition to the new initiatives, I have already mentioned the Tangentyere Night Patrol but the Wardens Scheme, the Return to Country Program, the Irrkerlantye Learning Centre, the Larapinta Valley Learning Centre, the Gap Youth Centre, Alternative Education Program, Central Australian Aboriginal Alcohol Programs Unit, the Drug and Alcohol Service Association Program (DASA), the Youth Night Patrol run by Arrernte House are all there. They are all there and they are all working and they are doing the job that will complement these new measures and complement the restrictions. So we have quite a powerful base there to work on.
To say that in any way this is a premature initiative, to say in any way that it is going off half-cocked after five years of consultation that I have been part of, let alone whatever was done before that, is really drawing a long bow. I think we are over-ready to take action in Alice Springs and I think people will probably be, more than anything, relieved that something is finally going to happen.
To reassure the member for Greatorex about our commitment to this, I think you are one media release out of date on mine. Quoting from my media release today:
The Alice in 10 Substance Misuse Working Group has put to government a number of proposals. We are fully
supportive of their approach …
Now watch my lips …
- …and are currently looking to our resource base to find the financial support required.
We are going to find the money. We are going to find the money and the money will be there and these initiatives will go forward. We are already looking at the particular areas that cannot be immediately found from the existing resources of the sponsoring organisations.
I want to pay tribute to Nick Gill here. Nick Gill not only took on the role, from your meeting, of getting the community initiatives together, but he had to go one step further than that. He had to not only identify the sponsoring organisation, the initiative to be taken and where the money was going to come from. Nick and I have had a number of talks now as to which areas he is still having difficulty finding funding for, and there is certainly every prospect that Nick will be able to source Commonwealth funding into the Alice Springs grog initiatives early next year. In the meantime, we have to make sure that things are on the go, ready for the introduction of these restrictions.
I want to finalise my comments by saying I am a member of the Alice Springs community, the Central Australian community. I have every confidence in the community, the households, the organisations of Alice Springs. They are big enough and strong enough to do this and they are committed enough to do this. We are throwing the challenge out now to the town: let’s get in there, let’s accrue these benefits, let’s get the drinking down so that we can have a decent lifestyle for our households, particularly for our kids growing up in the town and let’s show the town to tourists with a lot of pride, free of all of these terrible problems that have blighted it for years.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to respond to the minister’s statement. Alcohol, as we all know here, is a major contributor to morbidity, mortality and social disorder in the Northern Territory. Indeed, the category of injury and poisoning is the largest category of death for non-Aboriginal males in the NT and the second largest for Aboriginal males. Alcohol is, of course, a major contributor to these deaths. The Living with Alcohol program was very successful in reducing alcohol consumption in the Territory and I believe that the Living with Alcohol program can take much of the credit for the reduction in NT road fatalities attributed to alcohol from approximately 20% in 1991 to approximately 10% in the year 2000. The former government and the dedicated staff of the Living with Alcohol program must take much of the credit for this. So credit where credit is due.
It is also worth noting patterns of alcohol consumption in the Territory, because there are some misconceptions about it. In a paper published in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, Associate Professor Dennis Gray concludes that alcohol consumption in the NT is far greater than in Australia as a whole, and there is significant variation. I think the Alice Springs region, in terms of the degree or the amount that alcohol consumption, is right up there with the Katherine region unfortunately. Associate Professor Dennis Gray also found that per capita consumption among NT Aboriginal people is approximately 1.97 times the national average, and 1.43 times the national average for NT non-Aboriginal people. In other words, I guess, unfortunately NT Aboriginal people probably consume twice the national average per capita, and non-Aboriginal people approximately consume about 50% more.
I would have to confess to being a bit of a contributor to the latter figure there. I enjoy a shandy on a hot day and I have probably had a wobbly boot on a couple of time. I am also mindful of the Ted Egan song, the ditty that says:
- We’ve got some bloody good drinkers in the Northern Territory, from Darwin down to Alice Springs, they’re
always on a spree.
So it’s been part of the culture, both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal in the Territory, and it is an issue that we have to address because, as the member for Nelson rightly pointed out in his speech the other day speaking to the apology motion, there has been death and destruction and whole generations of young men have been wiped out. While we like to think of ourselves as great drinkers, there is a terrible cost to that, too. Drinking is something that can be done in moderation, and that is a little bit distinct from tobacco where it is just a deadly drug in any dose if you keep on doing it.
Another point I would like to make is that I do not believe the problem of alcohol abuse can be simply stereotyped into an Aboriginal problem. I was quite unsure about the comments in relation to Aboriginal people and drinking made by the member for Greatorex in his speech in reply to the health minister’s statement on Tuesday. I quote from Hansard in relation to this where he said:
- …I believe when some social events occurred, such as the 1966 or 1967 Referendum …
For the member’s information it was 1967,
- …that allowed them open slather access to alcohol without any socialisation of their lifestyle with alcohol.
We are all aware that socialisation to alcohol is a very important component about the way the different cultures and populations handle alcohol. I always remember a statement by Professor John Mathews, who was Head of the Menzies School, one day put up a picture of a Hogarth print from the industrial revolution period that showed Gin Lane in London, and it showed drunkenness, disease, poverty, antisocial behaviour, if you like, right in the heart of London. What that was all about was a time of social and economic upheaval, a time when probably people who had not been used to drinking had come in to town and got into the vices of alcohol. It is a lesson that cultures have to learn, in a social context, about alcohol. But it was almost like the member for Greatorex was wishing that the 1967 Referendum had not occurred at all. I, for one, am very glad it occurred because it gave Aboriginal people in this country citizenship. Too often I have heard people talk about: ‘They should have never been given the vote; they should have never been given citizenship and should have never been allowed access to alcohol’. I think that is a retrograde view and I certainly hope that it is not one that the member for Greatorex subscribes to.
There is sometimes a visible problem with alcohol, and I think the minister mentioned it before, but let’s not forget the way in which alcohol misuse affects a wide cross-section of the Territory community. As the minister said previously, there is a proportional relationship to the amount of alcohol that is consumed and the harm that comes from that. So, for both non-Aboriginal people and Aboriginal people in the Territory, there is harm flowing from the high levels of alcohol consumption. There are also points of wider challenge and I will quote again from Associate Professor Dennis Gray, who, I am proud to say, is a colleague of mine and I admire his work, he does fine work. He said, when he published an article:
- Restrictions do not provide a simple answer to the problems associated with excess of alcohol consumption.
However, they can be an effective part of a broad public health strategy to deal with such problems.
Whilst education and reduction in harmful consumption levels are important factors in reducing alcohol related problems, as the minister has pointed out, two other strategies are also crucial. They are supply reduction and harm reduction. It is the supply reduction that we focussed on here today.
There is a substantial body of evidence that alcohol restrictions have a very beneficial effect in reducing alcohol related harm. In a paper published in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, Associate Professor Dennis Gray found that the Tennant Creek restrictions were:
- …effective in reducing alcohol consumption and acute related harm, and had the support of the majority of
people in Tennant Creek.
He also reported that the proportion of offences committed on Thursday, which was pension day, compared with the rest of the week, decreased from 20% to 8%. So that was a substantial number, relatively speaking, of offences.
In another study involving communities in Tennant Creek, Derby, Halls Creek, Elliott and Curtain Springs, Dr Peter d’Abbs from the Menzies School found that restrictions on the availability on alcohol was:
- …an effective means of reducing alcohol related harm at a local level and, depending on the processes
involved in their introduction, are likely to have strong community support.
The announcement of a trial of alcohol restrictions in Alice Springs made by the Minister for Business and Industries has finally allowed the Alice Springs community to take steps to redress long standing problems with alcohol in their community. Honourable members from Central Australia might correct me if I am incorrect in the following details. My understanding is that the Alice Springs representative committee made submissions to the Liquor Commission in 1999 to support examining the feasibility of alcohol restrictions in Alice Springs. Subsequently, the so-called Hauritz Report was commissioned to investigate the attitudes of Alice Springs residents to alcohol restrictions and to suggest solutions. My information is that the findings of the Hauritz Report were that was very strong support for alcohol restrictions amongst Alice Springs residents, and approximately 60% also stated that they were not in favour of further licences being granted in Alice Springs.
We have heard here today about some controversies surrounding the restrictions of the sale of liquor in Alice Springs. However, I welcome the announcement by the minister. I realise that there will be difficulties throughout the 12 month trial ahead. However, I wish the Alice Springs community well in their endeavour to effectively address what is a very serious matter for the Territory: that of reducing alcohol related harm and alcohol related antisocial behaviour through the restriction of alcohol sales and other social measures.
Mr McADAM (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I welcome the statement from the Minister for Industries and Business in respect of the announcement today of a trial to restrict the sale of alcohol in Alice Springs. I think it would be generally agreed that the excessive abuse of alcohol right throughout the Northern Territory and indeed in other parts of Australia, has a very, very negative and a very, very detrimental effect on all people.
To a degree, I think I can relate to what has occurred in Tennant Creek over the last five years. and understand in a way why the Alice Springs community, over a long period of time, has seen fit to take the action that it has in respect of these restrictions.
Prior to 1994, Tennant Creek probably had the same sorts of problems that Alice Springs is experiencing today. Obviously, the set of circumstances was different and, of course, the approach we took was not unlike what occurred in Alice Springs. It was comprehensive in terms of its consultation with all sectors of the community. We got all businesses on-side in respect of attempting to deal with the problem. Of course, that gave rise to a trial in 1994-95 which split two trial periods over a three-month period. At that point in time, the Commissioner, Mr John Maley, came to the conclusion over that six-month period that there was a definite improvement in police incidents - that is, contact with the police - public order; health and welfare. There were most definitely improvements in respect of those areas.
As a result of that, John Maley then made an order in respect of the existing conditions, and they are not dissimilar to what they are in Alice Springs with the exception –and it is a minor variation - in the sense that we have a Thirsty Thursday, as it is known today. Basically, the restriction of takeaway alcohol on a Thirsty Thursday was designed to take into account the large number of people who receive social security payments on that day. The front bars of pubs were closed as well. Times have moved on since then, and the present Chairperson of the Liquor Commission, Mr Peter Allen, is about to bring down a decision in regards to the existing restrictions in Tenant Creek. It would not be appropriate for me to comment in respect of that, because he has not yet brought it down.
The other point that I want to raise is that the decision today by the government in respect of tackling the problems in Alice Springs is a sign of maturity of the Territory, to have the guts and the courage to tackle some of the problems that the previous government have failed to do over a very long period of time. It was almost as if they had these entrenched positions where it was an accepted practice: the grog culture was strong, it was okay to go out and drink; it was okay to go home and bash your wife or compromise your kids; it was all right to act in a manner that was not acceptable to the community.
Unfortunately, this impacted upon indigenous people because there was this ‘them and us’ attitude. It is for that reason that the Territory has woken up to those types of divisions or the politics of division. But having said that, I would also like to pay tribute to the member for Macdonnell over the road, who I know has worked with the member for Stuart in trying to deal with some of these types of problems.
Mr Elferink: Thank you.
Mr McADAM: Unfortunately, as I say, perhaps in the past it was ‘out of sight, out of mind’. I know that certainly applies in a lot of indigenous communities out bush. Some of the smaller communities who do not have access to services and do not have access to the police in respect of some of the issues or some of the matters arising from excessive alcohol abuse.
I use Ali Curung as an example, which is a small community 150 km-odd to the south of Tennant Creek. That community basically had a problem whereby there was alcohol consumption in excess; that children were being compromised; that mothers and grandmothers were being compromised. They took it upon themselves, through a law and order strategy, to the extent that over the last 18 months there have been approximately four arrests, as I understand it, that can be associated with alcohol abuse.
The point I am trying to make is that if you give the community the support and the resources to be able to tackle these sorts of problems, they will. That is what I would say to Dr Lim from Greatorex in respect of what is occurring in Alice Springs. If you give the community the resources and the government provides commitment, then you have a very real chance of tackling this very serious issue in our community.
I was going to very briefly refer to what occurred in Tennant Creek and the member for Johnston has already referred to it in his address. But very quickly, again, Dennis Gray, who is an Associate Professor now at the Curtin University of Technology in WA; Cherie Saggers; David Atkinson; Brooke Sputore and Deidre Bowden, published an article in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, and it is the same one that the member for Johnston refers to. I will not read the whole lot, because already the member for Johnston has covered it. It is an extract I will read from the results:
- Over two years following the introduction of the restrictions, there was a reduction of 19.4% in annual
per capita consumption of pure alcohol. This was accompanied by declines in hospital admissions for
acute alcohol-related, diagnostic-related groups and persons taken into police custody, and the proportion
of the offences reported on a Thursday. The majority of survey respondents were in favour of retaining
or strengthening existing restrictions.
Also, in regards to Tennant Creek, Peter d’Abbs, Samantha Tongie, Natasha Stacey and Joe Fitz, who is from Tennant Creek, also presented a report to the Beat the Grog Committee in Tennant Creek, in respect of the first round of restrictions. In their summary and conclusions, they state that:
- The restrictions as a package have had a sustained, positive impact on reducing per capita alcohol consumption
in Tennant Creek and the levels of injury and violence.
I will say to the member for Greatorex that sometimes communities have to make sacrifices in regards to dealing with these sorts of problems. On this occasion, I think that the Alice Springs community, after taking all things into consideration, have possibly just done that. You are not going to please everyone, but what you will find is that the outcomes that the Alice Springs people are achieving, or are hoping to achieve, can only be reached by certain sacrifices or in the community’s interest. We sometimes tend to forget that it is imperative that we always act in the community’s interest.
In conclusion, I would like to congratulate the Chairperson of the NT Liquor Commission, Peter Allen, for having the courage to make this decision, and also his Commissioners. Congratulations also to Bob Durnan and John Boffa. They have been around a very long time, working in with the community, trying to find solutions in respect of what is occurring in communities right across the Northern Territory in regards to excessive alcohol abuse. So I pay tribute to them, also to Nick Gill, of the Alcohol Advisory Committee. It is important that I also pay tribute to the Tangentyere Night Patrol. Tangentyere Night Patrol has been around a long time at the coal face, attempting to resolve a whole set of matters that are mainly stemming from alcohol related issues. I congratulate them, and Willy Tilmouth for all the hard work they have put in over the years.
Madam Speaker, the result today is a vindication of their hard work and a maturing of the Northern Territory.
Mr HENDERSON (Industries and Business): Madam Speaker, I would like to thank all honourable members in the House who contributed to this debate this afternoon. It has been a very important debate and from the feedback that I have had from Alice Springs today in terms of the announcement and how it has been greeted, despite what the member for Greatorex had to say, it has been to my advice that this announcement has been well received in Alice Springs. It is long overdue that action has finally been taken in terms of trying to reduce the rate of alcohol induced harm in that community.
From the outset, can I say that this initiative, although it has been implemented by this government, is a community-based initiative. This initiative has come from the people of Alice Springs who have undoubtedly said that enough is enough. We cannot continue to do nothing and to live day by day with the impact of such a huge consumption rate of alcohol in our community and the effects of that excessive consumption across all aspects of the community. So, this is a win today for the people of Alice Springs who have spoken. This government has listened and we have, through the Liquor Commissioner, announced this trial of restrictions today.
Moving through the list of speakers, I would like to thank the member for Macdonnell for his support. He made a good contribution. Just touching on some of the issues that the honourable member raised, he talked about the right to trade. In my position of being minister responsible for licensing, I have met with the AHA on three occasions since I became minister and there are tensions in regard to public policy about the right to trade. Alcohol is a legal product. Anybody over the age of 18 can consume. There are significant social benefits to the temperate use of alcohol. Alcohol in our community generates a fair amount of economic activity through employment in pubs, clubs and restaurants. If we look to countries in Europe and South America where there are very liberal licensing regimes and people have access to alcohol at 2 or 3 o’clock in the morning, people out eating late at night and there is a lot less alcohol-related harm in a number of countries around the world which have much more liberal licensing regimes than we do here in the Northern Territory and in Australia. Just watching New South Wales grappling with the issues of allowing BYO licenses into restaurants. You know, the sky has not fallen in. But there are very real tensions and issues about the right to trade and for people to be able to profit from the sale of a legal substance.
But that has to be balanced with the community’s capacity as a whole to actually use this particular substance in a responsible manner and the broader community benefits. It is a balancing act and I think that the trials that we announced today have considered that. We have listened to the views from the AHA and there have been submissions from individual traders and those views have been listened to and yes, we are going to implement some restrictions. It is a trial. It will be assessed. We will be looking at the economic impacts in terms of whether pubs and clubs have closed their doors as a result and people have lost jobs. If there is no significant social improvement, if there is no significant reduction in terms of presentations to hospitals and the impact on our court system, and we have seen massive closures of pubs and clubs and restaurants closing down, then we will look at the issue again. But I doubt very much that it is going to happen. It has not happened in any of the other centres across the Northern Territory where we have trialled this.
The member talked about the effect on tourism. I would like to think that this will have a positive effect on tourism. The last thing that tourists want to be exposed to when visiting the Northern Territory is drunken people who harass them and abuse them. These restrictions are aimed in a large part to actually ensuring that we do not have large numbers of drunken people on the street. I think that this will have a positive effect on tourism. I cannot imagine that there are too many tourists who come to Central Australia looking for a beer at 10 am in the morning and they are going to go back to the countries or the places around Australia where they have come from and say: ‘Don’t visit Alice Springs, you cannot get a VB before 10 am in the morning’. I just do not believe that that is going to occur.
The member spoke about the Liquor Commission’s public consultation in terms of the letters that went out and the advertising that occurred. The member for Greatorex mentioned this as well and said that most people actually opposed any restrictions. My information is that the vast majority of people who did oppose restrictions did so by way of form letters - not people who have gone out of their way to put in a submission - that were being distributed through the pubs and clubs and drive through bottle shops. I do not know that that is a very accurate gauge in terms of ‘here is this piece of paper, sign your name and hand it in’, that that is a very accurate measure of genuine community concern in Alice Springs, given it was the industry itself that generated those letters and gave them to their clients and asked them to put the submissions in. I do not know that that is particularly accurate gauge. The Hauritz Report statistically certainly proved that the vast majority of people in Alice Springs on a statistical basis, it was totally impartial, not fed by a particular industry body, actually demonstrated that the majority of people in Alice Springs supported restrictions.
The member for Macdonnell was talking about indigenous people and as my colleague, the member for Johnston, showed yes, statistically indigenous people are drinking twice the national average of alcohol and that non-Aboriginal people in the Territory are at 50% more. We do have significant issues. We are not going to turn a blind eye to it. He talked about economic activity on Aboriginal land and I wholeheartedly agree and this government wholeheartedly agrees. We are totally committed to raising the level of economic activity on indigenous land in the Northern Territory. Part of the consequence of that is that people will have meaningful employment, will have a reason in terms of their day to day life. There will be a context for education. It is a major part of this government’s strategy over the first four years of our term to actually raise the level of economic activity on indigenous land which Aboriginal people are major stakeholders in and recipients from the benefits that flow from that. I agree with him. There is an old saying about an idle mind being a devil’s playground and certainly in terms of substance abuse across our entire community, people tend to be more susceptible to substance abuse in a number of areas if they do not have much to do with their life. So, in terms of the member for Macdonnell’s contribution to the debate, I thank him for his support. He was generally very positive and I would like to congratulate him on the efforts that he has made over the years in terms of trying to get this issue addressed in Alice Springs.
I would like to thank all of the members on my side of the House for their contribution. The health minister talked about the impacts on the health system and we have heard the figures, but the average consumption rate - and I have not seen the THS Annual Report for this year, but last year’s showed 18 litres of pure alcohol per person in the Northern Territory. The Australian average is eight litres so we are just over double. Yet, internationally - and again this figure is probably about 12 months old from a previous debate - Finland has the highest consumption of alcohol internationally at 11 litres. So, people in the Northern Territory - we are bloody good drinkers as they say - we are still nearly double the international leaders in terms of pure alcohol consumption. We have a long way to go and certainly strategies have to be put in place. We will be putting them in place and this is a part of it, to reduce this number even further and the consequences.
I would like to thank the member for Nelson for his valuable contribution. In terms of the review of the use of liquor, this parliament has convened a Substance Abuse Committee and this will be a term of reference to that committee. Previous parliaments have actually looked at the issue and led to the previous government’s strategy of Living With Alcohol which did a lot of good work over five or six years in terms of reducing that consumption level from 25 litres down to 18 litres. But we still have a long way to go and I would have to say that in the last one to two years, the previous government did take their eye off the ball in this effort and funding to that program actually did diminish over the last one to two years. It is time to pick up that effort. We will be picking up that effort. The member for Nelson is on that Substance Abuse Committee and I am sure that he will make a valuable contribution to that.
Moving through to my colleague, the member for Stuart, I have to pay tribute to the member for Stuart. In the two years that I have been in this House, this has been a constant issue that he has raised with the Caucus in terms of we have to do something. He has spent a lot of his time in his electorate in Central Australia raising this issue, surveying a thousand households. He has a very good handle on it. I would certainly trust his judgment in regard to how the people of Alice Springs feel about the issue and whether they are going to be supportive of these restrictions or not. I would like to pay tribute to the member for Stuart and the work that he has done and the contribution that he has made and will continue to make in terms of regaining some sense of control about alcohol consumption in Alice Springs.
The member for Johnston, a well researched contribution in terms of the facts and figures that he presented and I certainly appreciate the member for Johnston’s expert advice across a range of these areas of substance abuse. He brings a great deal of knowledge into this parliament in these areas and will continue to make a strong contribution, and particularly on the Substance Abuse Committee, not only looking at alcohol but looking at illicit substances. He is going to make a huge contribution to this parliament in this area.
The member for Barkly - certainly as the local member, somebody who has lived in Tennant Creek for many many years. Yes, I certainly know from friends I have in Tennant Creek, how contentious Thirsty Thursday was. It really was the only issue around barbecues for a couple of years in Tennant Creek that raised passions. But certainly, the proof is in the pudding. You know, Thirsty Thursday, the restrictions that were put in place in Tennant Creek, has reduced consumption there from 25 litres to 18 litres in just five years. We have to say that in terms of looking at public policy, we have to implement programs that work, and demonstrably in Tennant Creek, in Katherine, in Nhulunbuy, these reductions and restrictions, not in isolation - we cannot just do them in isolation - they do work and Tennant Creek, which is the leader in this field, has certainly proved that.
The member for Barkly talked about the effect of broken homes and domestic violence. I remember talking to people in the A and E section of Alice Springs Hospital and also over in Nhulunbuy about presentations, particularly of Aboriginal women to Accident and Emergency sections of the hospitals. The most prevalent demonstration of domestic violence, alcohol induced violence, substance abuse, is that the majority of broken bones that turn up in these A and Es happen to be these parts of the arm where women are putting their hands up to protect their faces and getting their arms broken. So much of that comes from alcohol abuse. If we can reduce consumption, we are certainly going to reduce that level of abuse.
The member for Barkly talked about Peter d’Abbs’ research, talking about the sustained positive impact in Tennant Creek and sometimes communities have to make sacrifices. I think giving away your access to VB over a front bar for a couple of hours between 10 and 12 o’clock to vastly improve social outcomes in the town is a small price to pay. You can have your VB at home before going to the pub at 12 o’clock.
Moving on to the member for Greatorex’s contribution. I have to say, I was very disappointed with his contribution, a person who represents his constituency in Alice Springs. I would have to say on this issue, he is the do-nothing member for Greatorex who wants further reviews, further paralysis by analysis and as a doctor, a clinician, I am surprised. I know from the training that the doctor would have had, that he would understand the devastating effect of alcohol abuse on the individual. I would have thought he would have been much more positive in terms of recognising that the consumption of 25 litres of pure alcohol per year is something that the human body cannot sustain and is something that you would want to do whatever you could, through this parliament, to put in place programs to actually reduce that amount of personal harm.
He talked about the great efforts that the CLP had made previously, when in government, in terms of dealing with this issue. We, on this side of the House, have recognised that Living With Alcohol, previous committees that looked at this issue, put in place a program initiated, might I add, from the former member for MacDonnell, Neil Bell, who was absolutely instrumental in terms of getting that committee up and running. But it was a bipartisan committee and good work came out of it. However, last year, the previous CLP administration was so committed to Living With Alcohol, so committed to winding back the amount of alcohol-related harm in the Northern Territory, that they actually ripped out $1m worth of funding for the Living With Alcohol program to throw at NTsafe and get that off the ground. So, I think that previous administrations had made the hard yards, but certainly in terms of priority, the previous government was certainly walking away from this issue as a priority and actually ripped $1m out of that program.
The member for Greatorex talked about businesses were going to suffer, clubs we are going to close, staff were going to be laid off. Well, I really will be surprised if that does happen, certainly over the long term. It has not been the case in Katherine and Tennant Creek and Nhulunbuy. People will very readily and very easily adapt to the new licensing hours. People who are selling alcohol will continue to be able to gain their livelihood through that business, that right to trade, as the member for Macdonnell said. I do not know that we have too many people in the parliament who do not enjoy a cold beer on a hot day and that is part of the Territory lifestyle and they will continue to do that and people will adapt. As human beings, we do adapt and I cannot believe that there is going to be a significant economic impact resulting from these restrictions. There will be an impact. There has to be an impact and you could then argue the point that some people may have been excessively profiting from this business. Maybe it is time that those profits are wound back.
In summing up, Madam Speaker, I would have to say that I am pleased to be able to announce these restrictions today. They are a trial. We will commit to funding those measures that the member for Stuart talked about in terms of the complementary initiatives surrounding these restrictions. They will be funded; they will be implemented before 1 January next year, and I again congratulate the people of Alice Springs who have pushed this issue forward, who have demanded that government takes action. I am pleased to say that we on this side of the House, as a new government, have responded and I will certainly be looking very closely at the outcomes of this trial as it progresses.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
MOTION
Reference to Standing Committee on
Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Reference to Standing Committee on
Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Dr TOYNE (Attorney-General)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move:
1. The Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs shall inquire, consider, make recommendations
and report to the Assembly from time to time on:
parliamentary reform, administrative law, legislative review and inter-governmental
relations;
Commonwealth;
admission of the Northern Territory as a new state of the Commonwealth; or
Territory and/or its residents;
Northern Territory and the Commonwealth and/or the states in the Australian federation;
3. Meet with any other state or Commonwealth parliamentary committees to inquire into matters of
mutual concern;
during the preceding financial year.
Motion agreed to.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr VATSKALIS (Lands, Planning and Environment): Madam Speaker, I move that this Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to raise an issue that I raised in Question Time earlier today. I am glad to see that both the member for Sanderson and the Minister for Health, Family and Children’s Services are in the House, because it is a matter of grave concern to me and it is something that I believe that should be raised. I refer, of course, to the comments made by the member for Sanderson on Tuesday, 23 October 2001.
However, before I do, I am going to raise a couple of issues in terms of the terms and conditions of the Community Welfare Act. Section 14(1) of the Community Welfare Act says the following:
A person, not being a member of the Police Force, who believes on reasonable grounds that a child has
suffered or is suffering maltreatment shall, as soon as practicable after obtaining the knowledge that
constitutes the reasonable grounds for his so believing, report the fact, and all material facts on which
that knowledge is based, to the minister or a member of the Police Force.
It carries a penalty of $500. That section makes it an obligation under the Community Welfare Act to report evidence of maltreatment. The next question that begs, of course, is when …
Mr Kiely: Protect us from bush lawyers. Bush lawyers. It’s bad enough we’ve got trained ones over there, we’ve got bush ones now.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I would like those comments by the member for Sanderson incorporated into Hansard, should he have to face a tribunal or a court at some point in the future.
The Community Welfare Act, under Interpretation at section 4 says:
(2) For the purposes of this act, a child is in need of care where …
- (c) he has suffered maltreatment.
So, there is an obligation that the member, or any person being in knowledge of a child suffering maltreatment should report that, and that the government should take the steps when receiving that report, to assess whether that child is in need of care. And to that end, the government should turn its attention to the following:
(3) For the purposes of this act, a child shall be taken to have suffered maltreatment where:
- (b) he has suffered serious emotional or intellectual impairment evidenced by
severe psychological or social malfunctioning measured by the commonly
accepted standards of the community to which he belongs, because of his
physical surroundings, nutritional or other deprivation or emotional or social
environment in which he is living, or where there is substantial risk that such
surroundings, deprivation or environment will cause such emotion or intellectual
impairment.
I now turn my attention to what the member for Sanderson had to say in this Chamber on Tuesday, and I will quote at some length to make certain that I do not miss the tenor of what he was saying:
- She spoke to me in what I perceived to be a drug-induced state, and thanked me for all of my efforts. I looked
down and I saw this young child who was trying to look after their parent, and I looked at the house which was
still pretty well unkempt, and I left. I walked out of there. That was all I could do. But when I look at the cost to
society, what it costs, if we do not tackle this problem with drugs, it is enormous. This woman is going to be in a
very poor health state. She is going to have lifestyle issues, you can bet on that. She is addicted. My belief is,
well, her story to me, was that her addiction came through her back injury and then an operation or two, that
she kept on taking MS Contin and kept on it, she created a form of addiction.
There are no treatment facilities, none that she could avail herself of, so she was pretty well hooked upon it. She
was getting her drug prescribed to her. There is a cost. There are other drug addicts in society, in her suburb,
who were preying on her. Her child was not looking well fed, and looked to have a few social difficulties. There is
another cost there. That is a cost society will be bearing in the future.
The point that I am getting at is that, after years of inattention to this problem, what we have is a compounding
social cost going on, a social cost we need to address now. You talked about it in the past, and we have got to the
stage now, because there is not enough money put in by the previous government to address such social issues as
this. To address the issues of education, family support for the child …
And he goes on to make a few further comments. I draw your attention specifically to the comments that he made, saying that ‘the child was not looking well fed and looked to have a few social difficulties. There is another cost here’.
If we go back to the section, the actual quote is ‘social malfunctioning’, and the member said ‘social difficulties’, ‘measured by the commonly accepted standards of the community to which he belongs’. The member was obviously so affronted as a member of the community, and I assume the member holds the commonly accepted standards of our community, that he came into this Chamber, well after the election, months after the election and reported the matter to this Chamber.
I am curious to see if the member is able to stand up in this Chamber tonight and simply advise the Chamber that he reported the matter as soon as practicable after he became aware of the information. If he did not, why …
Mr Ah Kit: Get on to something serious, you mug. Talk about that kangaroo tails, something serious.
Members interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I appreciate we often go through a bit of banter across this Chamber, but we are talking about a child here. We are talking about a child that the member for Sanderson was aware of, and I am deeply concerned that if that had not been reported, that child is still exposed and at risk. We can laugh and joke about it as much as we like, but this is a very serious issue.
The minister, after hearing the member’s debate, had this to say:
I was very interested to hear the member for Sanderson’s comments about illicit drugs in the northern suburbs
of Darwin, and they are very similar sorts of things that I found when I was doorknocking.
So she was obviously aware on Tuesday 23rd, of the member’s comments. I have asked her in the Chamber this morning whether or not she had instigated any form of investigation as required by the Community Welfare Act. It would have taken nothing for her to walk out of this Chamber, walk into the room there, wherever her departmental heads were, or departmental assistants were, and to simply say: ‘Gee whizz, did you hear that? We should investigate this’. I hope that the minister did say it. I really, genuinely hope that the minister has started to pursue this, and I hope the departmental people have gone to the member for Sanderson, and he has told them as much detail as he can possibly give them to assist this child, which, by his own statements, suggest to me that the child was in need of care.
Madam Speaker, this is not an issue for the mirth or joy, or anything else like that …
Mr Kiely: Perhaps if you had that $8m that was ripped out of the budget for health, such issues would not even be around.
Mr ELFERINK: I pick up on the interjection by the member for Sanderson. He is derelict if he has not reported this as is required by law, derelict in his duty under law, morally, and he is derelict to the people of Sanderson and the people that he purports to care about.
Mr Kiely: I do. I don’t make small mileage out of them like you.
Mr ELFERINK: Then did you report it? I ask the member for Sanderson did he report this situation? I invite him to stand up right now in this Chamber and explain to the people of Sanderson whether or not he could fulfil his legal responsibility and moral responsibility to the people of Sanderson to uphold the law, let alone offer himself up as somebody who makes the law.
The minister for health, if she has not acted upon this, must act upon it forthwith. In terms of the knowledge that she now has, in terms of what is in Hansard, the minister for health may want to take whatever action that she sees as appropriate. Perhaps a reference to the DPP might be an idea.
Mr VATSKALIS (Casuarina): Madam Speaker, I rise in this adjournment to speak about an anniversary that is going to be celebrated and commemorated in three days time. I am referring to the anniversary of 28 October that is not only going to be celebrated and commemorated by Greek Territorians but also by Australian people, especially the Australian people who, as members of the defence forces, took part in the so-called Greek Campaign. I want to pay tribute to all Australians who, as a member of the Australian Defence Force fought in Greece, and some of them made the supreme sacrifice for that country which happens to be the country of my birth.
Let me take you back to those days, 28 October 1940. In the 1930s the financial collapse of the western world saw the rising of the Nazis and fascism in Germany and Italy respectively. It also a number of extreme right wing governments taking power in European countries. Italy under Mussolini had views for revitalising the Roman Empire and, of course, they wanted to incorporate part of Greece in their plans and also to declare part of the Mediterranean including the Aegean Sea as Mare Nostrum, the Roman Empire Sea. They tried many times to cause incidents by sinking Greek Navy ships, by bombing the island of Corfu, incorporating Greek islands in the Aegean, but they did not succeed until they used, as an excuse, the presence of the British Forces in Greece, to request from the Greek government permission to invade the Greek territory on 28 October 1940.
They believed that the Greek Army was ill-equipped and as it was under a government that had similar views to the fascist government in Greece, would be very easy to capitulate. However, they underestimated the will of the Greek people to resist invasion and to defend their motherland. As a result, the invasion of Greece turned into a fiasco. Within two months, the Greek Army invaded Italian territory without any assistance from the Allies who were occupied with the Battle of Britain. It was not until early 1941 the Allies sent army assistance to Greece, and amongst them were the ANZAC forces, Australian and New Zealanders.
Almost a million Australians, both men and women, served in the Second World War, and they fought in a campaign against Germany and Italy in Europe, the Mediterranean and North Africa. The Royal Australian Navy participated in operations against Italy after its entry into the war in June 1940. A few Australians flew in the Battle of Britain in August to September of the same year, but the Australian Army was not engaged in combat until 1941. The ANZAC forces were the only Allied forces that fought side by side with the Greeks. A number of them fought really hard, and a number of them died. That was in mainland Greece. 28 October is the beginning of the winter in Greece, especially in the mountains of Greece, and the winter of 1940 was a particularly harsh winter. There were no roads. The Greek army was ill-equipped. There was no transport and logistics. The only way to arrive at the place of the battle grounds was either walking or riding horses or mules.
They fought together from October 1940 until March 1941. Unfortunately, the Germans came to the rescue of the Italians and they invaded Greece from the northern borders, Yugoslavia and Bulgaria. The Australian Army and the Greek Army, instead of surrendering, withdrew to the south of Greece. Some of them found their way to Crete. That was the last garrison. They stood there and they fought. In the second week of May 1941, the island of Crete was invaded by German paratroopers. The 6th, 7th and 9th Divisions of the Australian Army fought with in the different towns of Crete in Iraklion, Rethimnon and Chania. They fought really hard. They were ill-equipped. They did not have enough ammunition and they did not have any support. They were isolated by the rest of the forces, and they had to do the best they could any way they could. It was a time when many people fought like heroes. Friendships were formed and the Australian people earned the admiration of the Greek people.
I remember a few years back on Greek television there was a serial The Sullivans. You are probably aware of it. I remember a particular night that the serial episode was referring to the Battle of Crete. The streets of Athens were empty. People were actually glued to their television screens watching The Sullivans and the particular episode about the Battle of Crete.
A few Territorians took part in this campaign, and one name that comes in mind is Charlie Parrott, a very well known Territorian who fought in Greece. He fought in Crete, he was captured and he was imprisoned by the Germans. A large number of Australians, 10 000 of them, managed to escape by boat to Africa. An even larger number who remained were captured. Six of them evaded capture and they found refuge up in the mountains of Greece supported by the local population. The local population provided food, water, support and the means of escape. The penalty was death, and many Greeks died because they were assisting Australians.
The Greek people in the Territory celebrate the anniversary of 28 October which is called Ohi Day, for the simple reason that the Greeks refused to surrender to Italians, saying ‘Oxi’. At the same time, they commemorate the sacrifice of the Australian people. The Australian people who fought in Greece, they are still remembered. They still have friends there and quite often, they go back and meet their old friends. And every year, fewer and fewer of them make the trip back to Greece for the simple reason that time makes an attrition to the ranks of the old soldiers.
One of those soldiers was Corporal Geoff Edwards, from the 2nd/11 Battalion’s Carrier Platoon. He fought in Greece. He managed to escape up in the mountains and he was rescued by some monks from the Monastery of Prevaley in Crete. During his capture, he made the promise that if he came out of it alive, when he returned to Australia, he was going to make a big present to the people of Crete. A few years ago, in Western Australia, I attended a service in a Greek Church, a Cretan church, that stands on the slopes of Prevaley Park in Margaret River. Corporal Edwards was rescued, escaped, came to Australia and he fulfilled his promise. He built a Greek Church in the middle of the Western Australian bush and gave it to the people of Crete. It stands there as a memorial to their friendship and their support.
Australian people did not have to go to Greece to fight. It was 12 000 km away from their country of birth. But they found themselves there and they fought for democracy, for justice, to rescue the country that actually gave birth to democracy, and to help people in need. A lot of them died there, as a I said before, and very often, Greek people will tend their graves and on the anniversary of their death, will put flowers or they light a little candle in memory of their death.
It is significant to see this kind of sacrifice by people who have no reason to be there. They did not want to be there in the first place, but they went there. They went there and they fought, they fought hard. Some of them did not come back but they will be always remembered.
Greece is at the crossroads of civilisation and many times Greeks fought against invaders, as early as 480 BC when they fought against the Persians and that particular battle, in the Battle of Thermopylae, 300 Spartans died defending their motherland. There is an inscription on their grave that says:
- Foreigner, if you’re passing through, go to our country and tell our compatriots that we have died here faithful
to the orders of our country.
In 480 BC, 300 Spartans died there. In 1941, hundreds of Australians died there but the same inscription can be on their graves: Lest we forget.
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Deputy Speaker, I did not expect to rise this afternoon. However, I feel compelled to do so in light of the comments made by the member for Macdonnell in relation to the member for Sanderson, who I note scurried out of the Chamber shortly thereafter. It is unfortunate that the member for Sanderson …
Mr AH KIT: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is unbecoming of a member of this Chamber to reflect upon another member in their absence.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, there is a point of order that members shall not refer to a member’s absence or otherwise in the Chamber.
Ms CARNEY: So it is, Madam Deputy Speaker. The member for Sanderson took great issue to the member for Macdonnell’s comments on the basis that he described him as a ‘bush lawyer’. It is indeed the case that the member for Macdonnell does not hold qualifications in law. I, however, do and have practised extensively in child welfare law and have an extensive knowledge of the Community Welfare Act. I share very sincerely my disgust about a member of this House, a so-called respected member of our community walking away from an abusive situation when a child is concerned. This mandatory reporting came about because too many adults were walking away from abused children. The member of Sanderson should hang his head in shame that he did so. The matter ought properly to the authorities.
Dr Burns: Is the fact established? I don’t believe it is established! You’ve set yourself up as judge, jury and executioner.
Ms CARNEY: I will pick up that interjection and if the member for Sanderson wants to come back here and tell the House, then he can.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Can members please speak through the Chair.
Ms CARNEY: Further, he is on Hansard as saying he walked out, it was all he could do. So, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to record my utter disgust at the member for Sanderson, sitting throughout these sittings, verbal little fellow that he is, and he has nothing whatsoever to be proud about. I am very grateful indeed to the member for Macdonnell for raising these concerns. I share them and I again repeat the member for Sanderson should be ashamed of himself.
Mr BONSON (Millner): Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to speak about my experience over the last few days in regards to sitting in this House and watching people’s performance. The word used most often was ‘honour’ and it seemed to be coming from certain members of the opposition, in particular the member for Brennan, the member for Katherine and the member for Drysdale. I sat back and watched particular members of this House perform on some very important issues. I would like to reflect and comment that I entered this House with very simple and humble goals, and they were basically that I believe I could represent the people of Millner in a manner which was better than the then sitting member for Millner. So, I thought to myself: ‘Well, stop complaining about what you think is wrong with the CLP government and start doing something about it’.
So, I got sick of complaining to people that we were the only jurisdiction in Australia without freedom of information legislation. I think every member of the CLP, backbenchers included, should have asked why were we the only jurisdiction in Australia without freedom of information. I know that they would have got certain rhetoric from leaders of this party, in particular the member for Brennan, the member for Katherine and the member for Drysdale. I am sure they at the time would have thought to themselves: ‘Well, their excuses, their reasoning why we are the only jurisdiction in Australia without freedom of information is satisfactory and we will go along with it because we can get things done because we are in power and we are in government’.
I would like them to look inside themselves and ask: ‘Well, what was the reason?’ I believe that some of them knew the answer. We saw during the last few days of sittings over the last two weeks the reasons behind why we had no freedom of information.
The comments about freedom of information made by the member for Brennan on the radio was something pathetic, along the lines of it will create too much bureaucratic concerns for our public servants. Obviously, it has touched a bit of a bowstring in this House tonight, that they have questioned themselves and they do feel something about why we do not have freedom of information. Yes, they had drafted freedom of information but why wasn’t it ever introduced? That is a simple question I pose.
I believe that some of them do know the answer and, in particular, those are the member for Brennan, the member for Katherine and the member for Drysdale. I think it is because they were deceitful and a dishonest administration. The member for Drysdale knows, the member for Katherine knows why and the member for Brennan knows why. I would like to inform them, the member for Millner knows why as well. It has been shown over the last few days of sittings that there were three members of this House that had particular roles in the government of the day, the ex-CLP government, and that they were deceitful, they were dishonest and by their actions misled this House.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The member is now making an allegation that these members misled the House. He can only do so by way of substantive motion and if he chooses to do so, he should and put that motion before the house.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will take advice.
Mr BONSON: Madam Deputy Speaker, I will withdraw that.
So we have sat here and watched the performances of the member for Katherine, the member for Brennan and the member for Drysdale. I would like the new CLP members in particular and the back bench to look for leadership elsewhere. Now, why do I say that? Because I have a genuine interest in all Territorians and the benefit of democracy throughout the Northern Territory. I believe, and it has been shown tonight, some of the recognition of the member for Macdonnell that there obviously are good persons on the opposition side, and I would ask them to step forward and attack this leadership problem that the CLP now face.
The reason I do this is because I do genuinely believe in democracy; I do genuinely believe that we do represent our particular electorates. I do not know how they were informed of the past deeds in particular to do with the formation of the budget, but I do believe that ignorance is no longer an excuse. I genuinely hope that the new members of the CLP and the back benchers do operate with more honesty and integrity. This brings me back to the word ‘honour’.
When dealing with matters to do with honour and matters that are of real concern to Territorians and other members of this House, I think the last few days have shown that there has been a serious lack of honesty and honour demonstrated in the dealings of the budget. The member for Drysdale spoke in this House about honour. He said in his address:
- When you come to this House, there is a great honour and the honour is to work for the benefit of Territorians.
Well, I do not believe the member for Drysdale has a dictionary in his possession because he certainly has not acted honourably in the last few days, and probably for longer.
Mr DUNHAM: Madam Deputy Speaker, it is not an allegation that can be made other than by way of substantive motion.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I ask that the Member for Millner withdraw that statement.
Mr BONSON: Madam Deputy Speaker, I withdraw that statement.
I would like to ask the member for Drysdale when he uses the word ‘honour’ that in future he clearly understands what the word ‘honour’ means. I have been brought up to believe that your word is your bond. It does not matter what political party you are representing or what interest groups you are representing, when you present a document or you present an item or an argument, you stick by it. Honour, to me, has a deep meaning. When I walk away from this Chamber, whether it is in the next election, whether it is in future elections, I would like to say that I operated with honour and that throughout Caucus and the Labor Party that I pursued honourable intentions.
Mr Dunham: What about One Nation?
Mr BONSON: I am about to approach that issue with the member for Drysdale. Thank you very much. In summing up the issue of honour, I can only say that the member for Drysdale is a disgrace. The member for Drysdale also said he takes great satisfaction, particularly from being in government - no longer, I would like to add - and that he had been a minister – which he is no longer - and of the things that he has done. Well, members of this House, we have been told over the last few days of the things that have been done and it’s a disgrace. I doubt the member for Drysdale will ever be a minister again because he has shown today that he has taken great satisfaction in misinforming Territorians.
I would like to briefly comment on the member for Drysdale’s Address-In-Reply from yesterday where he took great satisfaction in somehow zoning in on me. Me, you know, the poor little representative of Millner. He mentioned the election of 18 August. What a great day that was. The CLP lost and they lost for a number of reasons. Yes, one of the reasons was CLP preferencing of One Nation. I would like to put that on record. Yes, One Nation was a reason. I am proud of all Territorians that took that into consideration, fantastic. But there are other reasons why the CLP lost the election.
Mr Dunham: No, stay on One Nation. Tell us all about that.
Mr BONSON: Just to comment on that One Nation matter, I was happy when the member for Brennan visited my election booth and was in utter shock when he noticed that the CLP were outnumbered five to one with campaign workers. It was another shock when he saw sombrero hats, music, dancing and people generally having a great time. He was in utter shock when he saw the result that night.
What I also comment on, a senior advisor, who I have a relationship with because we are all Territorians here, came up to me and said: ‘One Nation won’t have an effect on this election; it was only a tactic for seats that were under threat’. I am mentioning this to the member for Drysdale because I was in shock. I said to this person: ‘Yes, I believe it’s a tactic all right, but it’s a tactic that’s going to backfire on you’. And I am very proud to say that it did backfire and no way in the world should One Nation as a party ever be used as a tactic again in an election …
Mr Dunham: You did! You used it. Racists.
Mr Kiely: You’d preference the Hezbollah above us. That’s what you said. We’ll have anyone other than the Labor Party. That’s what you said. Hezbollah!
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Sanderson.
Mr BONSON: I would like to say that I hope the future leadership of the CLP, which I hope to work with in the future, will remember that tactic and never use it again. That tactic cost the CLP the election, we know that. Another reason the CLP lost the election, and I will go on, is because I did the work. I walked around and I talked to every human being in the electorate.
Dr Lim: He doesn’t understand, does he?
Mr BONSON: I have got more stuff on you, and the sad thing is I’m going to run out. Stay tuned. If I could say to the back benchers of the CLP, please look for new leadership, not from the member for Brennan, not from the member for Katherine and certainly not from the member for Drysdale.
Mr AH KIT (Arnhem): Madam Deputy Speaker, I just want to be brief and mention something that is happening in my electorate and, hopefully, there won’t be any interjections from the other side that will force me to continue my adjournment.
The member for Drysdale said: ‘Let’s talk about One Nation’. I will talk about One Nation; I will tell you a little bit and give you a reminder about One Nation. Who was this famous red-headed lady who was out at the Nelson Branch of the CLP a couple of years ago? Who was their guest speaker? Pauline Hanson! Who went out and had dinner with her, fellas? Who went out and said ‘g’day’ to this lovely lady? You blokes should be ashamed of yourselves, and you ladies who associated yourselves with her because you have whimped into this last election. You thought: ‘Let’s use this an election strategy. Let’s go out and let’s preference One Nation before the Labor Party.’ It backfired, and so it should have backfired because you got the caning you deserved and you need to learn from that. But one thing you haven’t done yet is - whether you’ve been in government for all those years - you still haven’t learnt lessons. This is a good lesson that you need to learn.
So get used to it there playing B Grade because that is what we were called when we were on that side. We are playing A Grade now. We have got the white cars. We have inherited the headaches from your budget and we, as ministers, each day we turn a file over, we find another bungle. We find another bungle and there is no doubt my colleague the Minister for Lands, Planning and Environment has lots of headaches dealing with those files because of the bungles made by the previous minister. Although he was a minister, his time was short lived, and that was a blessing in disguise.
What Territorians have realised is they want an honest, open, accountable government. They want the Labor party to govern, and govern properly and consult with the people. They want a government that is inclusive, not exclusive. Look at you people. You are worn out, you are tired. I think the member for Millner has hit it right on the head when he says you should start working out your leadership for the future. I mean, looking at the member for Goyder, with the lovely suit top. He is a good candidate. I do not recommend the member for Drysdale. No, he would have to go deputy. I do not know want Tim is planning, the member for Daly, but you have problems there.
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! You are now sitting in the Chair and he has mentioned my colleague the member for Daly by his first name, which so offended you when you were sitting in that chair. I suggest you pull him up and ask him to refer to the member for Daly by his electorate.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I remind everyone in the House that you should not refer to members by first name. I have heard it coming from both sides of the House. I would like people to refrain.
Mr AH KIT: Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to inform the House about the Angurugu Community Education Centre and the good work that is being done out at Groote Eylandt in my electorate. I would also like to inform the Chamber about the fantastic achievements of the Angurugu Community Education Centre at Groote. Before I go into further detail, I would like to stress the importance of education, particularly in relation to children, staff and parents in remote area schools. We know of the Collins report, we have all had an opportunity to look at that and the recommendations. We as a government intend to implement the Collins recommendations and this community education centre, against most odds, has done well and I will go on to explain where they have done well.
In May of this year the Angurugu Community Education Centre entered the National Literacy and Numeracy Awards. They were announced as the winners for the Northern Territory in Melbourne on 3 September this year. The federal Minister for Education, the Honourable David Kemp, was there to present the award. Six representatives of the community travelled to Melbourne for the two days to receive the award, plus a cheque for $10 000. The six proud representatives were: Donna Wurramarrba, Karl Lalara, Jimela Guruwiwi, Les Anwel, Katherine Lanion, and Bettina Core.
The project has been run at Angurugu for the past three years and has been recognised now at a national level. The ceremony on 3 September took place at the Melbourne Museum, and traditional dancing was conducted by Donna Wurramarrba and Jimela Guruwiwi. An additional ceremony was held in Darwin on 6 September to celebrate Literacy and Numeracy Week and also to acknowledge the participants and the winners on our home turf. Unfortunately, I was attending a funeral at Milingimbi at the time the ceremony took place, and I was saddened to have missed out on such an important occasion.
Traditionally, Aboriginal culture and learning has been based on an oral dissemination of knowledge. To a large extent, this still operates as the primary mode of learning and relaying of information in the community. As a result, this impacts significantly on the pre-literacy skills students bring to school. The skills, therefore, that each student bring to their place of education are extremely valuable. It is, therefore, very important that in cross-cultural situations students must have access to the skills of both cultures. That is was makes Darwin and the Top End so culturally rich.
I would therefore like to congratulate the following people for the supporting roles they have played over those past three years: Barbara Wilson, the Principal of Angurugu Community Education Centre, to the whole of the teaching staff at Angurugu Community Education Centre and they are too numerous to mention. To Benny Miniawat, Freda Wurrumarrba and Jackie Amagula. Furthermore, it would be remiss of me to not to mention the integral role that parents and community members deliver, whether that be in moral support or in the home reading project.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to draw the attention of members in the House tonight to a very special march tomorrow night. It is the Reclaim the Night march. As you know, several hundred women from across the Territory will be marching, and I hope many members here can join them as part of the protest march against violence aimed at women.
In Alice Springs, it is always very strongly supported and I am pleased to note that the member for Macdonnell has given a financial contribution, as I believe has the member for Araluen, of course, myself, the Minister for Aboriginal Development has through his department, and the Office of Women’s Policy, and I would urge the member for Stuart to also perhaps donate towards this. That is to help bring Aboriginal women in from various communities so they can be part of this march to show their strength. As you know, the Yuendumu women were one of the first group of Aboriginal women to band together and march through their community against the violence that was happening there, and it has continued since.
Last year’s march was a huge success in Alice Springs. There were over 300 women and children taking part, and many Aboriginal women who came from Ali Curung, Titjakala, Yuendumu and Mt Liebig. There were some young women from the Catholic High School and Centralian College who spoke about their feelings about violence, and there were some very stirring renditions of the song I will Survive. You have to be there to get the atmosphere of women of all ages getting together, talking of their experiences. One of the highlights last year was the women from Ali Curung who, as you know, have introduced this law and order strategy and have made a huge difference in the violence against the women in that community. They have established a safe house, and they have the whole community – elders, the council - behind them. So much so, as they say, they are still married to the same men, the men are still the same that live in the community. There is still grog out there. It is close to the community but the violence just does not occur now, and it is because of the strategy they have put in place. Their model is a huge example that has been expanded across other Aboriginal communities. Last year, it went to Lajamanu, and at the moment it is being looked at by Papunya and Mt Liebig. That is why this year in particular we wanted to get the Mt Liebig women in to town, and it is a pretty costly exercise to bring women in. Waltja has been very good at assisting in this way so that the Mt Liebig women can now start talking about their experience and they will tackle the violence that is occurring and the strategies they hope to put in place and the successes they will have.
The workers from Ali Curung safe house spoke of the success they had in setting up a safe place within the community where women and children can go. It is interesting. They say: ‘Well, if he’s going off to drink grog, I will go to the safe house before he comes home’, and in that way the abuse is stopped. There was also a suggestion by some of the men that perhaps when they come home, there should be a place where they can sleep it off, where they can be safe also and not abused. So it is a two-way thing, both parties wanting to work together.
Of course, they had to overcome many negative attitudes and threats from other community members, and they worked in conjunction with a lot of people from that community to make sure the strategy is in place. The stats, they can be very proud of: the safe house is just not used as frequently as it has been before and the amount of violence against women in that community has decreased dramatically.
The significant aim of last year’s committee was to ensure that all sectors of the community were involved, and this did indeed happen. There are people from all walks of life, not just women, but men also, who respected their request and joined in the march. The march will take place tomorrow night and there will, I hope, be lots of people there.
We all need to understand that this is not a womens problem. We deserve to live without the fear of being attacked or harmed. We should not have to stay inside our house after dark for fear of going out. It is a problem. It is a community problem, and too often we hear of women who have felt that they, who have been raped, have felt they were to blame. You know: ‘She should not have been on her own, she should not have been walking out, she should not be in that area, she should not have been drinking, she should not have been dressed like that’. That is not what it is all about. It is not her fault; it is the person who did it that has to take responsibility. This is the message we need to get across very strongly. We need to make everyone understand this is not a woman’s problem; this is everyone’s problem. We have to change the attitude of people who seem to think they can take advantage of women.
We should all be able to live in a safe community. I should be able to walk down Todd Street at night and not have fear. I should be able to drive past hotel areas and not be worried that my doors are not locked or my windows are not up, that I can drive through safely. This is what the protest march is all about: raising the awareness of the community to a problem that is there, and that we need to address, and we need to find ways to minimise.
This has been around for about 20 years or so, and it is interesting that it actually started in England. The women over there marched. You might remember the Ripper murders, and there was huge fear felt by women there. But you cannot go and hide, you cannot walk away from it and say: ‘Well, if I stay in my house, I will be safe’, because you probably may not even be safe there. So women over there questioned: ‘Why are we being confined to our homes? Let us get out on the streets together and show everyone that we are safe and that violence on the street is not acceptable to anyone’.
So Madam Deputy Speaker, I am here tonight urging all people who are present to go along to Reclaim the Night, and if you can possibly contribute to assisting bringing these women in, please do so because it is an expensive item. The volunteer committee that runs this, do it for all the good reasons. They work hard to make sure it happens well. Organisations get behind them. I know many of the women are actually going to be camping in one of the halls overnight because they obviously cannot all afford motel accommodation. But they will be provided with fuel to come to town, and meals and things like that. So the more donations that we can have, the better. I wish them well and I hope it is a great success.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016