2002-11-26
Madam Speaker Braham took the Chair at 10 am.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I would like to let the House know of new ministerial arrangements. As the House is aware, there was an eighth minister introduced into the government, and I welcome the member for Johnston.
Madam SPEAKER: Chief Minister, do you have a form of words?
Ms MARTIN: No, I don’t. I do not know where they got to.
Madam SPEAKER: Is leave granted for the Chief Minister to make the statement about administrative arrangements?
Leave granted.
Ms MARTIN: Madam Speaker, I wish to inform the House of the new ministerial arrangements: myself as Chief Minister, Minister for Young Territorians, Minister for Women’s Policy, Minister for Senior Territorians, Minister for Arts and Museums, Minister for AustralAsia Railway, Minister for Territory Development and Minister for Indigenous Affairs.
The member for Nhulunbuy is the new Treasurer, Minister for Employment, Education and Training and Minister for Racing, Gaming and Licensing.
The member for Stuart continues in his previous portfolios: Minister for Justice and Attorney-General, Minister for Corporate and Information Services, Minister for Communications and Minister for Central Australia.
The member for Wanguri is now Leader of Government Business, Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services, Minister for Business, Industry and Resource Development, Minister for Asian Relations and Trade and Minister for Defence Support.
The member for Casuarina is the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, Minister for Lands and Planning, Minister for Ethnic Affairs and Minister for Parks and Wildlife.
The member for Nightcliff continues in her previous portfolio responsibilities of Minister for Health and Community Services, without Minister Assisting on Women’s Policy.
The member for Arnhem is the Minister for Community Development, Minister for Housing, Minister for Local Government, Minister for Sport and Recreation, Minister for Regional Development and Minister Assisting the Chief Minister on Indigenous Affairs.
The new minister, the member for Johnston, is the Minister for Tourism, Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries, Minister for Environment and Heritage, and Minister for Essential Services.
Madam SPEAKER: Would you like to table the administrative arrangements as published in the Northern Territory Gazette on 18 October 2002?
Ms MARTIN: I shall, Madam Speaker.
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, in relation to the parliamentary committee membership, I move that:
(a) the member for Johnston be discharged from service on the Public Accounts Committee and that
the member for Karama be appointed in his stead;
for Casuarina be appointed in her stead;
and that the member for Sanderson be appointed in his stead; and
Stuart be appointed in her stead.
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, pursuant to the provision of Standing Order 12. I hereby revoke all previous warrants nominating members to act as Deputy Chairmen of Committees. I lay on the Table my warrant nominating members to be Deputy Chairmen of Committees. I nominate the following members to act as Deputy Chairmen of Committees: Ms Lawrie, Mr McAdam, Mr Bonson, Mr Elferink, Mr Maley, Mr Mills and Dr Lim, when requested to do so by the Chairman of Committees.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Gilly Mathieson. Gilly is a journalist from the BBC Scotland visiting Darwin as part of the Winston Churchill Fellowship, conducting interviews for her project on political journalism in Spain, Canada and Australia. Gilly would like to take the opportunity to interview some members and the interviews will take place in the small room behind the Chamber. On behalf of all honourable members, I extend a warm welcome to you, Gilly.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: I also draw your attention to students in our gallery. These are students from Katherine High School accompanied by their teacher Mr Chris Shaw. On behalf of all honourable members, I extend a warm welcome to you.
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms CARNEY (Araluen)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I present a petition not conforming with standing orders from 378 petitioners relating to the Women’s Information Centre. I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
MEDIA ARRANGEMENTS
Madam SPEAKER: I advise the honourable members that I have given permission for various media to broadcast with sound and vision the Chief Minister’s motion relating to the plight of the East Timorese asylum seekers in Darwin. The motion will occur after ministerial reports. I point that out for the benefit of the camera operator.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I rise to provide a ministerial report on the recent activities in respect of the development of the Timor Sea gas province, an area with a potential production value of at least $100bn and, in particular, the Sunrise and Bayu-Undan projects.
Last week, I received a preliminary briefing from the Woodside team, the operators of the Sunrise project, as they approach the end of their gas market study conducted on behalf of their joint venture partners, Shell, Phillips and Osaka Gas. Members of this House would recall that this study arose following a concerted campaign by government and Team NT to demonstrate the economic viability of the alternative domestic gas case, and the nett benefits to Australia of such a development.
The preliminary briefing was provided to me on a confidential basis. I understand the Leader of the Opposition has received a similar briefing from Woodside. My discussions with Woodside were frank. Our position is clear as far as this government is concerned: FLNG, a floating LNG was and is simply not on, full stop. A multi-billion dollar development on our doorstep that does not generate jobs for Territorians is patently unacceptable.
In this regard, our own analyses, and that of many industry experts, confirm that the so-called United States markets for LNG from a floating barge in the Timor Sea simply is not there. The gas price in the US needed for the project is uncertain, and this would continue to undermine the project given the capital expenditure and associated technology risks.
In relation to the domestic gas case, we understand the complexities involved in negotiating prices, terms and conditions and aligning the timing of customer needs and the joint venture’s ability to deliver gas. However, I indicated my bitter disappointment that some representatives of Woodside had chosen to continue to promote FLNG publicly in the middle of what was supposed to be a genuine attempt to market domestic gas. If matching the project to the varying timetables of main Sunrise customers is not enough, it becomes very difficult when two disparate projects are placed side by side in the market. This can only undermine customer confidence, a fact confirmed directly to me by key customers. So we are still waiting on the outcome of the study by the joint venture. For our part, we will continue to work with them to develop the customer base, but I also urge them to drop the FLNG proposal once and for all. It was not, and never will be, in the national interest, let alone viable.
I urge them to cooperate on the development of the gas fields in the province, for example, with Bayu-Undan, pursue the domestic gas case option only, and focus on building the customer base that is clearly there. For example, one option could be to develop a brown fields LNG project. Most importantly, I urge them to put a proposal to the Commonwealth government clearly articulating the level of support required to make this multi-billion dollar project happen.
Members of this House would be aware that I recently met with the Prime Minister to discuss many of these issues. As part of that discussion, I presented him with the formal NT government submission outlining the national interest case for Sunrise gas onshore in Darwin. This was a major submission, drawing on the collective work of our officials, private research organisations and, of course, Team NT. The Prime Minister acknowledged this work and will consider a Sunrise proposal once it is on the table. While Sunrise is still in its formative stages we continue to advance quickly to the realisation of our vision for gas onshore with the Bayu-Undan development. It is extremely close to the final investment decisions that will deliver the $1bn offshore pipeline and the $1.8bn LNG project at Wickham Point.
Given the publicity of the recent $25bn LNG sale to China from the North West Shelf, it often goes unnoticed that the combined liquids and gas export value of the Bayu-Undan projects exceed $26bn. The Wickham Point LNG project will be our passport to enter the worldwide energy market.
The final hurdle for Bayu-Undan to overcome is the ratification of the Timor Sea Treaty by the Australian and East Timorese governments. Both governments remain confident that their self-imposed timetable of 31 December can be met, allowing the Phillips board to make the momentous final investment decision in February 2003.
Importantly, the combined offshore and onshore developments under the Bayu-Undan umbrella provide the spine or skeleton for the overall development of the Timor Sea Gas province. They herald the green fields development of the province, providing tangible evidence to investors and downstream customers that it really is Australia’s second international gas hub.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, this is the second occasion that I have refrained from commenting on a report by the Chief Minister with regards to Sunrise gas because of the clear sensitivities that are involved with those discussions at the moment. I worry that the Chief Minister has presented this report today because of the sensitivities that she knows will become apparent to everyone over the next few days.
So, I can only put Sunrise aside for one moment and talk about Bayu-Undan. The Chief Minister is aware that this week, Minister Macfarlane and Minister Downer are in East Timor to negotiate the final outcome of the ratification of the Timor Sea Treaty, and the fact that the unitisation agreement will be agreed for both Bayu-Undan and Sunrise from those discussions or, at the very least, the unitisation agreement decided for Bayu-Undan alone.
If that is the case, that is a major hurdle with regards to Bayu-Undan reaching its next milestone in being able to be developed for bringing gas onshore to Darwin for processing at an LNG plant at Wickham Point.
I agree with the Chief Minister; I believe the outcome of those discussions will be positive. Maybe a decision will not be made this week, but hopefully a decision in principle to agree on those issues will be made this week, and Bayu-Undan will inexorably pass through having that treaty ratified. I hope the unitisation agreements for both fields are decided at the same time.
For Sunrise, I am concerned that the government is positioning itself in the wrong direction. It seems to me that the outcome of the investigation by the three producers - Phillips, Woodside and Shell - will be such that they are aligned completely. They will agree with the outcome of that study. I was of the understanding that if that is the case, the Northern Territory government would also be aligned with the outcome of that study. That outcome will be notified to everyone, I understand, by the end of this week and at that stage I will make further comment.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, this House and Territorians should be very disappointed by the Opposition Leader’s comments. I very clearly stated in my report what we should be loudly and strongly saying to joint venturers is that FLNG is not on. Finished, dead, over. They should be working together; they should not be telling gas customers on one hand that they are pursuing a domestic gas option and on the other hand making public statements about floating LNG. They were very clear statements. I would like to have heard them supported by the Leader of the Opposition. Silence on that. Also, very importantly, to say to the joint venturers that the gas case - the domestic gas, the onshore case - is not finished until you have been to the federal government, put your figures down to the Prime Minister, who is waiting for them, to see what kind of fiscal incentives are needed to make this important project work, just as fiscal incentives were put in place for the North-West Shelf 25 years ago. Yet from the Opposition Leader: nothing.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, with the release last week of the Territory’s first quarterly crime adjusted statistics, the Territory has moved out of the dark ages and into a light of the new, information rich era. This government has implemented its election commitment to provide Territorians, for the first time, with information on crime in our community. Overall, we have found some areas of early improvement. We will not be getting cocky. Levels of crime are still too high in our community, but this is an encouraging start.
Look at the snapshot of the trends that have been revealed in the first report: reported assaults down Territory wide, reported sexual assaults down, break-ins to commercial premises down and, importantly, residential break-ins are down across the Territory.
What response did we get from the opposition? What did they say about some encouraging signs and about the most detailed information that has ever been released in the Northern Territory? They got desperate; they were a bit like cockroaches running to hide from the light. They claimed police were not recording crime properly, that quarterly statistics were different from police annual statistics, that break-ins had gone up and that one in three property offenders walked free. All absolutely wrong. The opposition should stop trying to deceive Territorians. This area is too important in terms of the public interest.
Let me place some facts on the record. Police reported crime incidents after determining exactly what offences have been committed, the same system that operated when the CLP was in government. Every offender charged under our new aggravated property crime offences is penalised. Most receive a term of imprisonment. Others are subject to community work orders, fines or other orders. The police annual report and quarterly crime statistics are not inconsistent at all; they just report on different time periods. The Commissioner of Police has confirmed that some important areas of crime are trending downwards.
To remove any doubt, we have had the quarterly report independently scrutinised by Ernst & Young and it has been given a clean bill of health. Ernst & Young have found that the data has been calculated and presented accurately, that comparison with prior quarters is a widely accepted and common means of analysing changes in data over time, and that the report is presented without undue bias.
It is time to move on and start looking at issues of substance in this debate rather than arguing back and forth about figures. Let us see the opposition come clean and talk truthful about what is in this report, not play politics with this absolutely crucial issue on behalf of our community.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, the Labor government came to power heralding a deficit reduction strategy. What we have seen is that, whilst you have been conducting your deficit reduction strategy, Territorians have had an asset reduction strategy. The asset reduction strategy is that more and more Territorians go to their house and find that it has been cleaned out because crime is on the rise.
The Minister for Justice and Attorney-General has been dribbling on in this House about how he is going to fix crime. In fact, I understand you have put your whole career on the line, on how you were going to fix crime. Well, we look forward to seeing how your career goes on, Minister for Justice and Attorney-General.
I would imagine that if the Chief Minister was not involved in that enormous botch up that occurred a few days ago, she would have asked some questions like: ‘I have an enormous propaganda unit up here that I pay enormous amounts of money to try and get propaganda out to Territorians to say we are doing well …
Dr Toyne: No, we got rid of that. That was yours.
Mr Stirling: That was yours! We got rid of it.
Mr BURKE: The previous minister for police, the current minister for police and this dribbling Minister for Justice and Attorney-General cannot even get their act together to bring out a story to Territorians - well, you have had about 14 months to get yourself prepared - without failing on every count.
You could not even convince the media who were sitting in that room. After listening to you for about 20-odd minutes, they walked out of there and said: ‘Right, we are going to give it to this lot’. Do you know why? You have been misleading Territorians. That is what the media said, and that is why you got done in. ‘We do not have the report prepared so, therefore, we cannot give it to you; it is being printed’. It was holding up the OH projector. The report they would not give the media was holding up the OH projector so that the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General could give out and show his crime graph that said: ‘Dib, dib, dib, up, up - sorry, I cannot reach that far. But, our new statistics - the last three months - show a really good figure. We are down here for the last three months’.
This has been an appalling botch-up. The opposition is sick to death of listening to the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General dribble on about how he is going to fix crime. You have some questions to answer that will be posed to you later in this day and, at that time, we will have a full chance for a full debate.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, this is a sign of a desperate man trying to defend the indefensible. Yes, I would be very happy to answer your questions later on today if you want to pose me some because there is a picture here that you cannot hold back any more …
Mr Burke: One in three walk. Since mandatory sentencing was abolished, one in three walk. You answer that one.
Dr TOYNE: Every three months, every quarter, you will have to answer to the facts of crime in our community, not some construction that you take out there and use to manipulate a political agenda.
Territorians deserve to know the truth about crime in the community. They are getting the truth about crime in our community, and they will continue to get the truth about crime in our community. That was our election promise and that promise has been kept.
Mr VATSKALIS (Lands and Planning): Madam Speaker, as all members are aware, this year has been a terrible year for bush fires in Central Australia. Today I wish to report on the fire problems we have experienced over the last few weeks. However, first I would like to place on record the thanks and appreciation of the government and all members of this House for the work and determination of the people who have fought these fires and, undoubtedly, saved us from millions of dollars of damage and possibly loss of life.
I record my thanks to Bushfires Council members, Police, Fire and Emergency Services members, members of my department and the volunteers from the public who have helped make our communities and us in Central Australia safe. They are first class, genuine Territory heroes; we owe them a lot.
Bush fires present a huge problem for the Territory at this time of year. Central Australia has experienced its worst bush fire year for many years. Twenty-two pastoral properties have reported fires, some with up to nine fires each.
On 9 and 10 November, a 50 km fire was stopped at the Arltunga tourist road. Erldunda, Idracowra and Mt Ebenezer stations had huge fires which have burnt out thousands of square kilometres. On Friday 15 November, Kulgera had to use graders to keep out fires that had spread from Umbera Station.
At Yulara, a fire was pulled up on Friday, 15 November, just before it consumed the recently installed luxury tents. On 16 and 17 November, bushfires blazed to the north-east of Alice Springs along a 25 km front, from Bond Springs Homestead through to Undoolya Homestead, and as far as the Garden Station boundary. To the east, four separate fires had been burning in the vicinity of Ross River Homestead over the weekend of 16 and 17 November, while to the west, some people living in the Iwupakata Land Trust self-evacuated as fire burnt through there as far as Honeymoon Gap on one front, into Pine Gap on another front, before bolting on Monday afternoon through to the already devastated Owen Springs Station.
On Monday, 17 November, seven metre high flames leaping the road forced the closure of Namatjira Drive at Ellery Creek Big Hole. On Tuesday, 19 November, three volunteer grass fire units and six personnel out of Darwin arrived, as well as a Bushfires Council command vehicle and officers, to relieve exhausted local staff and volunteers.
This is merely the recent history. In the couple of months leading up to this last awful month, fires have been fought in the Yulara area and across Owen Springs Station and Palm Valley. This government has stopped the declining budgets provided to the Bushfires Council over the years, with an injection of and additional $75 000 this year. This will be examined in our budget deliberations in the near future.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I have to say that the government’s response has been very poor indeed in relation to these fires, and it was not until last week when I started agitating for some assistance to cattlemen that the new minister responsible for this area was even aware that these fires were occurring.
I spent two days driving around in the bush, talking to cattlemen from many of the stations that the minister has spoken about today, and I am wondering how many he has spoken to. In terms of the behaviour of the new minister, his response was: ‘I jumped in a helicopter and I had a flight over it’. There were other people on the ground, people from the Bushfires Council and those sorts of organisations, who were working very hard to try and fight these fires. It was not until there was some sort of public agitation that this government would even respond.
I congratulate Neil Phillips and the work of the Bushfires Council, as I congratulate those cattle stations that put in a lot of time and effort into supporting the battle against the fires. Some of these guys were working up to 20 hours a day fighting these fires with no support other than what they were receiving from the Bushfires Council.
I have called upon the government to make every effort and endeavour to support the cattle stations which have been affected by these fires - I am aware of one which has lost well over $100 000 worth of equipment as a result - and throw its weight behind them. It is this government which has upped the rents of pastoral leases by 100% since coming to government, and it is about time they started putting something back in.
They are more than happy to leach it out, but when it comes to making the effort of putting something back in, they are saying at the moment that it is the Commonwealth government’s problem. This government has to put in $4m before the Commonwealth comes to that party, as I understand it, and I urge this government to reach into its very deep pockets with its very short arms and find some money and ways to support those cattlemen who have had their pastures destroyed. Up to 80% of their pasture has been destroyed in some of the worst fires in the Northern Territory’s history. The fact that this government has had to respond to pressure from myself – and the minister flying over the area to have a quick look - is not good enough.
Mr VATSKALIS (Lands and Planning): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his kind words, but I have to advise him that during my recent visit to Alice Springs, I received a full briefing by the Bushfires Council about the problem with the fires.
This government supports the Bushfires Council and all the volunteers. After many years of neglect, we increased the budget and we are going to do that again next year. We supported the new technology, the satellite imaging technology, that the Bushfires Council is using. We are also cooperating with the Central Land Council to produce and screen television advertisements on Imparja and other television stations, and I have called for harsher fines for people who light fires.
What happened before? Nothing. Nothing happened. Not even higher fines - $800 if you light a fire. Now they have the audacity to call for tougher action. We will give tougher action, we will help these people. The departments will now assess the damage and if there is significant damage, this government has promised to help the pastoralists. We will do it – we do not pay lip service; we deliver on our promises.
Dr BURNS (Tourism): Madam Speaker, since becoming Minister for Tourism some four weeks ago, I have had a series of meetings and constant dialogue with airline companies about increasing airline capacity into the Northern Territory.
In late October I travelled to Singapore where I had a number of meetings with Qantas, with Mr Stephen Thompson who is the Singapore Regional Manager of Qantas, and, as a new minister, I needed to find out more about regional tourism in the Asian area, particularly the crucial Darwin-Singapore sector. I also met with representatives from Silk Air in Singapore, Mr Goh Boon Hwee who is manager of Singapore’s Silk Air.
Silk Air, as most members would be aware, is a low cost carrier with the potential to service Darwin. It is a subsidiary of Singapore Airlines. It is essential in all of these meetings that I lift the profile of the Northern Territory as a destination and start building relationships with these carriers in the South East Asian area. On that topic, most members would also be aware that engaging the airlines is a top priority of the government and Northern Territory airports. Mr Peter Roberts commenced on 18 November as the Airline Development Director. He has considerable experience in the airline industry, and part of our strategy is to engage the industry with someone who is very experienced to put a business case, because it is a business case that will appeal to the airline operators.
I also met with senior executives of Singapore Airlines in Singapore on 1 November. Of course, it is the parent company of Silk Air. As most members would be aware, Singapore Airlines withdrew its service in 1998, and the case that was put to me was that they had endeavoured, over a period of about a decade, to make that route work, and they asked what was different with Darwin; what was the different case we could put to them, particularly in relation to business travel and freight. That is another issue in which this government and Mr Roberts will be engaging very closely with Singapore Airlines.
There has been a lot of talk about potential air charter from Singapore into Darwin to try and open that route up a bit. We did meet with an operator who was expressing some interest. In terms of a positive business case, in some ways it was difficult to ascertain what was being proposed by this operator, although it remains true that such operators don’t link up with global reservation systems, so it is very hard for them to tap into the European market. They also would have to secure CASA approval and overcome some regulatory restrictions at Singapore airport.
On 13 November I met with Mr John Borghetti who is the Executive General Manager of Sales, a very senior executive with Qantas. Qantas is reconfiguring some of their aircraft which will have the same effect as producing three new aircraft. This increased capacity will be distributed across their route network by May 2003. Once again, we have Mr Roberts engaged at a very high level with Qantas on this issue, and putting a case for increased capacity into the Northern Territory.
In relation to the Sydney-Darwin-Singapore service, forward bookings on this additional service look good, although it is true to say that the extra flight has initially only been scheduled for two months, from 1 December 2002 to 31 January 2003, so there is one additional aircraft. It is also true to inform Parliament that following 31 January, Qantas will reinstate one direct Darwin-Denpasar service per week and the current Sydney-Darwin-Denpasar service will cease.
Now, while that does obviously have some negative effects for Darwin in terms of the Singapore route, it is good for local outbound tourism. We are all aware that there are quite a lot of tourists, particularly backpackers, that come from the Bali route or have come from the Bali route into Darwin. We wish the Balinese people well, and we know how crucial these links are to our economy and to theirs.
Madam Speaker, what I have said before, that airlines constantly reassess their network scheduling to maximise their use of assets is very true, so we need to ensure that we continually put the Northern Territory case, and we are doing that on a constant basis. I have also met with Virgin Blue about increased services into Darwin and, once again, Mr Roberts is in constant dialogue and negotiation with them.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I will start with the good news first. I welcome the appointment of Mr Peter Roberts. I met with the Board of the NT Airports Corporation last month and, although they didn’t disclose this man’s name at that point because it hadn’t become public, he is obviously held in great esteem and appears well qualified for the position. I look forward to meeting with him in the not too distant future.
However, as for the new minister’s trip to Singapore, what a joke! That was five minutes of drivel and apology. We want to know what the new minister put on the table in order to entice airlines here. We want to know what the result was because anyone listening to that diatribe will know that this new minister, just like the other two, has done nothing and have …
Mr Ah Kit: You are never happy.
Ms CARNEY: At least this one bothered to travel overseas. Many members of the industry were pleased to see that. Nevertheless, he came back with nothing - a bit fat zero in his first six weeks as a new minister. Well, I hope, on behalf of the industry, things get better.
He said that he was going to lift the profile of Darwin. I am pleased that he did actually bother to pick up his passport and go for a trip because his predecessor did not, to his eternal shame. I am pleased that this minister at least gave it a go. However, I am distressed on behalf of members of the industry that he came back with nothing.
As to the appointment of this new minister, the tourism industry is appalled and aghast. Had the minister bothered to move from his table at the Brolga Awards on Saturday night, members of the tourism industry would have told him that the appointment is a joke. He is not taken seriously. Not only does he have no experience, but he is the most junior minister in this Cabinet. He has trainer wheels on; he is wearing a yellow L-plate on his back and his front and, for the first time in years, I suspect a decade, tourism is at the bottom of the pile.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, your time has expired.
Dr BURNS (Tourism): Madam Speaker, it is hard to know where to start to respond to that. I think I will strip away the bad feelings and the negativity.
What did I lay on the table? I am trying to lay a business plan on the table for these airlines because that is what the respond to. I would be very interested to hear what the shadow minister for tourism would do differently.
Ms Carney: You are in government, you goose!
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Araluen! Order!
Dr BURNS: Maybe she would go over there and be nasty to them and they would do what she wants. I do not think so because they do not want to hear whinges; they want to hear positive things; they want to hear a business plan. That is my response to what you said.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: It is not often I have to stand; in fact, this is the first time. I am pretty disgusted at that outburst. You have visitors in the gallery whom you invited this morning. I am sure they are most impressed with your behaviour. Just settle down. I know it is the last week of sittings, but be warned: there are a few of you on a short string.
Reports noted pursuant to Sessional Order.
Madam SPEAKER: I acknowledge the presence in the gallery of our visitors, the senior members of the East Timorese community and representatives of the asylum seekers. I apologise for the behaviour of the members that you just saw. It was most disorderly and dishonourable to you.
On behalf of all members, I do extend a warm welcome. I hope that you will be interested in the next debate during which I hope members will behave with a little more decorum.
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that this Assembly:-
(a) acknowledge the substantial contribution members of the East Timorese community have made
to the Northern Territory community over many years;
of being served with deportation orders by the federal government;
(c) extend its support to those affected families, some of whom are facing having their family permanently
separated because of the federal government’s decision to deport individual members in some instances;
Madam Speaker, the Territory leads Australia in many respects and most important among these is our cultural diversity, the way in which people from many parts of the world and many parts of Australia live together in relative peace and harmony.
We often hear people pay lip service to multiculturalism in other parts of the country, but here in the Territory, it is really working. It is readily seen in our schools, on our sporting fields and in our workplaces. We are a small community and tightly knit one. What happens to one family can affect us all, and that is why the plight of 80 or more East Timorese, who have made this Territory their home and are now facing deportation, has raised so much concern in our community. These people are known to many of us. Some have spent up to 10 years or more living here and many have had children here. They have opened businesses, many are studying or working. They are good neighbours, good friends and good immigrants.
Many of them once faced very grave fears for their safety in East Timor, some fleeing for their lives and losing family and friends in the outbreaks of violence leading up to and following the independence vote. They have found peace in Australia and a haven in which to bring up their children.
This is why it was so devastating to hear that the federal government has given them a short deadline before planning to send them back to East Timor forcibly. Many of these people will lose everything if they leave now, and they face a very difficult time of dislocation, language problems for children and unemployment. Our small Territory population needs building up through good immigrants like the East Timorese, not the loss of families like these.
We note that the federal government does not consider these people to be refugees following Australia’s involvement in restoring peace in East Timor, but we do not accept the federal government’s ruling. We believe they should be considered as a special case because of their great contribution to the Darwin community and the widespread support and respect that they have won. Unfortunately, our attempts to get the federal government to agree to special purpose category visas has failed. Nevertheless, we will continue to work tirelessly on their behalf, assisting them through Legal Aid and other means to stay here.
I want to let honourable members know that there will be an evening event on 8 December at the Italian Club near Marrara Stadium to raise funds for our East Timorese families. St Vincent de Paul, St Vinnies, has kindly offered to be the collector of monies for this appeal, and I hope as many honourable members as possible will attend this event. I recognise the presence in the House today of St Vincent de Paul’s Mick Fox. It is good to have you here, Mick.
St Vincent de Paul’s long involvement with the East Timorese community makes it the most appropriate organisation to carry out this work. Government has agreed to make a significant contribution and I also want to thank the many individuals and businesses that have pledged their support. These funds will assist the East Timorese to secure legal advice for their cases in support of skilled migration application or costs incurred through the appeal process. There are other expenses incurred by the group for which this money might also be used. We believe there are compelling reasons on a case by case basis for these East Timorese Darwinians to be successful in their applications to the federal government, as I have told Immigration Minister Philip Ruddock. It is a very difficult process and we know that not many asylum seekers have been successful in their appeals so far.
I want to inform the House today of some of the steps we as a government have taken to keep these families in the Territory. On 4 January this year, the then Acting Chief Minister wrote to Philip Ruddock to advise of the valuable community contribution of East Timorese asylum seekers. In light of anticipated changes to the East Timorese immigration status, we requested the federal minister to give due recognition to the suffering already endured by the East Timorese asylum seekers. We asked him to take into account the community ties developed, and to the local and historical importance of relations between the Territory and East Timor.
On 1 February this year, along with the Minister for Ethnic Affairs, I met with the Immigration Minister to discuss this matter. On 14 May, the minister responded, forecasting the return of the asylum seekers to East Timor in the absence of compelling compassionate circumstances. Since then, the minister has announced that no special treatment will be given to the East Timorese in the assessment of their applications for asylum. However, Mr Ruddock has given an undertaking that each case will be looked at individually under section 417, which is where the minister has discretion.
Earlier this month, I spoke and wrote to Minister Ruddock to persuade him to consider the compelling reasons on a case by case basis for the Territory’s East Timorese to be successful in their applications. On Sunday 17 November, a public meeting was held at Nightcliff Markets in support of Darwin’s East Timorese asylum seekers, and called on the federal government to declare a new visa class to enable the East Timorese to remain in Australia. My colleague, the member for Karama, addressed that meeting. The members for Sanderson and Millner were also in attendance.
The Office of Ethnic Affairs, with support from the NT Legal Aid Commission, organised a meeting on 19 November to provide advice and assistance to the East Timorese in preparation of their case to the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, DIMIA, the Refugee Review Tribunal and the federal minister. The Office of Ethnic Affairs acts as a contact point to assist the East Timorese in obtaining legal advice and assistance. It is clear that the East Timorese asylum seekers will require legal assistance in providing the additional information to justify their claims and to assist them to work through the processes of appealing to the Refugee Review Tribunal and to the federal minister, if applicable.
Government is committed to looking at all potential visa categories, for individual East Timorese affected, within the regulations of the Commonwealth Migration Act. The Office of Ethnic Affairs will assist East Timorese asylum seekers with the provision of interpreters to enable effective communication in processing their applications and will act as a contact point to assist East Timorese to obtain legal advice.
The Multicultural Council of the NT has received funding to establish a Community Migration Agent Service for the Top End, aimed at assisting the East Timorese with their applications for asylum. A locally based operator accredited by the Migration Agents Registration Authority is currently conducting a training course in Darwin and the service should become operational in February. In the meantime, the needs of the East Timorese asylum seekers will continue to be addressed through the NT Legal Aid Commission.
I take this opportunity to thank the Red Cross and the trade unions of the Territory; both groups have done a great deal to assist during these difficult times.
We will continue to do all we can to assist our East Timorese Territorians who are a very valued part of our community. Darwin has been an important point of contact for the East Timorese in their struggle for independence and freedom. We forged very close links with this small nation in 1999 when Marrara was turned into a tent city to house thousands of East Timorese seeking temporary asylum when violence broke out after the vote for independence.
Going back further, many Territorians gave aid and comfort to the East Timorese in the dark years when it seemed that there was no hope for a separate existence. Some thousands of Timorese have made their permanent home in Darwin and other parts of the Territory through the immigration system over the years, and we are very much hoping that our East Timorese can take their place permanently here as well.
My government has been on the friendliest of terms with the East Timor government and the large Timorese population here has helped forge closer and stronger links. It is good for both our countries, reminding us of their kinfolk, telling us of their stories, assisting their families back home and each other here. Our links go right back to WWII when the East Timorese did so much to help Australian soldiers. We call on Philip Ruddock to look carefully at each of these applications and let the humanitarian impulse rule.
I ask that if and when this motion is passed, the terms of the motion and the debate be sent to the House of Representatives and to the Senate to inform their deliberations. We also note that the Senate has passed a motion in similar terms to the one we are debating today.
Madam Speaker, these people, these East Timorese Territorians, deserve our help and our support, and I commend the motion to the House.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I thank the Chief Minister for this motion because it gives us an opportunity to express our point of view with regards to the dilemma that faces these Territorians today. I say the word ‘Territorian’ and acknowledge our Territorian visitors to the House, because that is the sentiment of the opposition: as far as we are concerned, you are Territorians. You are part of the tapestry of the Northern Territory, your family is integrated into the Northern Territory. You have been an inspiration and a benefit to Territorians, and Territorians will not let you leave. If some people call other than the Northern Territory home, that is for only you to decide. The sentiment of our new Territorians is that they want to remain in the Northern Territory; they have made their homes in the Northern Territory. That is a sentiment the opposition supports strongly.
We have a dilemma in terms of how this issue is dealt with because it is clearly a federal issue and the limitations of the Northern Territory government to deal with it are clearly defined. We need to understand that from the outset and, in doing so, from a legislative base, not raise false expectations in terms of the capacity of the Northern Territory government through its powers under the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act to affect this issue. The Commonwealth legislation has been in place for many years. The Commonwealth legislation was put in place by a Labor government. I do not say that as a criticism; I simply say that the Commonwealth legislation, in terms of how it operates for all people who seek protection visas and refugee status in Australia …
Mr Stirling: Don’t stand up for your constituents. Don’t say anything.
Mr BURKE: … are dealt with under that legislation which is supported by both sides of parliament.
Mr Stirling: Don’t do anything.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr BURKE: I am sorry about the interjection that the Deputy Chief Minister makes, Madam Speaker. The reason I am sorry is that we listened to the Chief Minister in silence, and I would have thought I would be accorded the same privilege. But it also points to the fact that - and I hope it is not the case - if the Deputy Chief Minister interjects and says: ‘You want to do nothing, you are not interested’, it makes cheap politics out of people’s lives. That is not the aim of this motion and we will not be party to it.
Unfortunately, we are not in government. But if the CLP was in government, it would be a stronger motion than you have on the Table today, I can tell you. If the CLP was in government, this motion would not be one of sentiment; it would be one of action. It would be a motion that said these people are Territorians and that the Northern Territory government will use all of its endeavors and all of its powers to ensure that these people remain in Australia and remain as Territorians.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr BURKE: We are but the opposition, and we can only provide our comment. In terms of this motion, the statements are self-evident: we acknowledge the substantial contribution members of the East Timorese community have made in the Northern Territory over many years. We acknowledge that unequivocally and support that sentiment entirely. It expresses its support for the East Timorese asylum seekers living in Darwin who are in the process of being served with deportation orders by the federal government.
Only for the point of accuracy, we need to understand that all of the East Timorese people in the Northern Territory, at this point in time, have not been served deportation orders by the federal government. I understand 41 applications for protection visas have been processed out of an extant total of 76. It is not true to say that they have been given deportation orders or are in the process of being given deportation orders. In that regard, I will table for the benefit of members the letter that comes from the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs to every person who is going through this process at the moment, which not only lays down the primary decision that is given by the federal government in terms of the refugee status on the initial benchmark application, but also lays down the options that the applicant has in terms of the review of that application as it proceeds through processing. I seek leave to table that document.
Leave granted.
Mr BURKE: It is also important to put on the record the Commonwealth’s view on this issue at the moment. It is clearly enunciated in one part by a question to Senator Ellison from Senator Bartlett in the Senate on Tuesday, 12 November 2002. The questions and answers are worth reading into the Hansard so that people understand where the Commonwealth government is at this point in time. The first questions is:
This question was dealing with all East Timorese applicants in Australia. The answer by Senator Ellison to that question:
The allegation that the government has sat on its hands on this issue is wrong. It has been the subject of litigation that I understand was commenced, in fact, initially by the Federal Labor Keating government which believed that their responsibility for these people initially remained with Portugal and it was in dispute of that point of view that the court case and the litigation led to significant delay in the processing of the initial applications.
The second issue was the instability in East Timor and, clearly, whilst that instability was there, it was wrong to consider these people as anything other than those who required protection visas, and they had bridging visas too, whilst that situation existed. The situation has now been clarified in terms that we now have a new national government, and those protection visa applications are now being processed.
The second question that was raised was:
The answer was:
Now, you have to understand, refusal is refusal for refugee status. It is not refusal to remain in Australia, and we have a responsibility to ensure that everyone understands that. It is the refusal for the initial application for refugee status.
The third question was:
Then answer was:
The fourth question:
And the answer was:
The fifth question:
And the answer to that question was:
The sixth question was:
The answer to that question was:
Now, that is very important. There is a decision made in terms of refugee status. If the refugee status decision is a negative, the minister has then the power - and I would emphasise to you, this is unfettered and unconstrained power on the minister. There are guidelines, but the power itself is unfettered - to make a decision which is non-compellable and discretionary. The minister, this is Minister Ruddock, has made it clear that he is keen to hear of cases where there may be public interest grounds warranting the use of this power. In that regard, I refer to a comment the minister himself made on 20 November 2002:
That is what is important to understand:. We have a process that is moving through the federal parliamentary system. It is the process that, whilst our East Timorese Territorians continue to apply for refugee status, will move inexorably on through that process in that there will be an application for a Protection Visa under refugee status. If that application is denied, the applicants can then appeal to the Refugee Review Tribunal.
I applaud the efforts that the Northern Territory government is making through the Legal Aid Commission to ensure that every resource is provided to muster that case, and to put the best case to the Refugee Review Tribunal. I also understand that the Refugee Review Tribunal is constrained in terms of the issues it can deal with in the review.
If the review on refugee status is still negative, then it is the responsibility of the applicant, supported by the government and the Northern Territory, to ensure that the application is then made to the minister to use those non-compellable and discretionary powers to grant status to remain in the Northern Territory.
So let us get something very clear: it is not true, I don’t believe, that these Territorians will move through a process that will see them having to go back to East Timor. They are moving through a process that has to decide whether or not they can continue to have permanent visas in Australia as refugees. That process will decide whether refugee status is supported by the federal government. The real issue is that we have to then ensure that every applicant in the Northern Territory is successful on all the other grounds on which the minister can make his decision. That is where the Northern Territory government and the Northern Territory people have real power. That power is not there in any legislation. It is not there through any legal mechanism. You can spend a fortune on lawyers; it is not there with lawyers. It is there by the power of Territorians to say: ‘You are Territorians, we want you to stay in the Northern Territory and we will use people power to ensure the minister makes the right decision’. That is the way these people will stay in the Northern Territory.
It is important to understand this: I believe that Minister Ruddock - and I believe this emphatically - is absolutely sympathetic to your case. But I also believe that we have a situation in Australia where there are enormous numbers of people from countries like Afghanistan and Iraq and various countries in the Middle East, who are also seeking to have the rules changed and create a precedent for themselves to remain in Australia. So, through the processes that are put in place, I would hope that you understand that the federal government has an obligation to follow that process in determining whether or not a person is a refugee.
But, when it comes to determining whether or not these are people have earned their right to stay in the Northern Territory and to be Australian citizens, I believe that is when the non-compellable and discretionary power of Minister Ruddock comes into play. I would remind you of this: the Labor Party may be in power in the Northern Territory; it is a Coalition government that is in power federally. The Coalition government has me as one of its allies, and Mr Tollner and Senator Scullion who have been exhaustively on this case for many, many weeks. I can tell you, I spoke as late as last night with Senator Scullion - quite late last night. I know Senator Scullion was up early this morning seeking the latest information.
Mr Bonson: You wouldn’t be talking with Tollner, would you?
Mr BURKE: It is very sad. Could I just say it is disappointing when your true motives come out. The Labor government’s true motive here is to play politics with this issue. You can tell from the interjections that are coming across this Chamber, that that is their aim. Their aim is to try and incite a situation whereby we have division in our community. I think that is the lowest form of politics. There are times that we sit in this Chamber and we have a responsibility to act on behalf of Australians and in the public interest and as responsible legislators …
Mr Stirling: Tell us what Nigel is doing. Hey! You have Nigel on the job. Tell them what you are doing.
Madam SPEAKER: Deputy Chief Minister, order!
Mr BURKE: It is a great sadness that, somehow, you would see that the trauma that individual Territorians are facing at the moment - at least 76 on my briefings - could somehow be the subject of petty politics. We all want to achieve the same objective.
But, let us just understand where the power lies. The power lies with the people of the Northern Territory and it lies with the minister. That is where it lies, and it does not lie in refugee status. It lies with humanitarianism, and it relies on the arguments that we will put to the federal minister that each and every one of you good people stay in the Northern Territory. I can give you an unequivocal undertaking that until this situation is resolved for every individual East Timorese Territorian, certainly the opposition will not rest. I can tell you that there will be a bee under Senator Scullion’s and Mr Tollner’s efforts. I also know - and I say it quite truthfully - that Minister Ruddock is simply looking for the mechanism that has to be provided to him.
That is where the East Timorese applicants have to play their part. The East Timorese applicants, at some point in time, have to apply to the minister to consider each of their cases on humanitarian grounds. The minister cannot and will not deal with a group. He will make decisions on each and every individual case. The Northern Territory government has given an undertaking that it will use all of its resources to muster that case. I will give you an undertaking that the opposition will not rest until every avenue is explored. I am confident we will be successful, but not if we misinform people. We won’t be successful if we are divisive with Territorians on the issue or if you play super-politics with the minister. The federal minister is dealing with thousands of people and it would be the greatest injustice to these individual Territorians, these few Territorians who have given so much to the Northern Territory that for the sake of cheap politics, politics reigns supreme and they are sent back to East Timor. That would be the greatest sadness of the lot.
So let’s all work together. Let’s get this thing into perspective. There are mechanisms. For example, there comes a point where you have to apply to the minister to remain in Australia on humanitarian grounds. Those grounds are provided under section 417 of the Migration Act and there are reams - reams of areas, sub-classes - that the minister can refer to in order to make his determination in your favour. But let’s not forget this: these reams, at the end of the day, are only part of the answer. The real answer is this: the minister has a non-compellable and discretionary power, and that is where we as Territorians get together; that is where a government worth its salt would stand and say: ‘This is our responsibility. These people are ours and they are not moving,’ and that is where we need to take this debate to its next step.
There is a provision for the Northern Territory government to sponsor every individual applicant under section 417. I hope that the Northern Territory government explores that because the minister himself has alluded to the fact that sponsorship is one of the areas where he can make that decision, but I do not believe that is entirely the answer. I believe the answer will be that if each and every individual case is determined in terms of your contribution to the Northern Territory, your ties to the Northern Territory, your tenure to the Northern Territory, your support of, by and from Territorians, and the unwavering support from your Territory government, that will move the day.
That will move the day, and I tell you what: when I see that unwavering support, when I see less than petty politics being played in this Chamber, then we can all move together as one and get this issue resolved fairly, squarely, keep our eye on the ball and the 76 people and their families who need to be looked after.
I think the motion itself, as I said, for the most part is nice sentiment. I think we can do more. I propose an amendment to the motion. The amendment would read, if you look at the motion itself, because we are going to send a motion to the federal parliament - let’s send a motion that means something, not just sentiment. I believe that if we look at paragraph (f) of the motion we could strengthen it in this way: that the following words be inserted at the start of paragraph (f), and that says:
states unequivocally that the Northern Territory government wants the East Timorese to remain at home
in the Northern Territory and will use its best endeavours to achieve that end and ...
That is what you have to do. So sponsored either by the Northern Territory government, application by the East Timorese themselves to say: ‘We want you, minister, to use your discretionary powers’, muster the case, use our resources, get people power, and I believe you will be successful. I can tell you that as this process moves through, you will at least have one occasion - and if it requires more, it will be more - that CLP members will go to Minister Ruddock and sit in his office, and we will tell him clearly and unequivocally where Territorians stand on this issue.
Madam Speaker, I move that the amendment be supported. With the amendment, the opposition supports the motion.
Madam SPEAKER: Do we need to have that amendment circulated?
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Yes. I was just going to say the sooner we get it circulated, probably not without support on this side, if we can have a look at the wording.
Mr HENDERSON (Asian Relations and Trade): Madam Speaker, it is disappointing to rise and speak in support of the motion having listened to what was in some parts a constructive, but in other parts a churlish response from the Leader of the Opposition.
In terms of cheap politics - and that is what he was talking about; that we were playing cheap politics with this - no way at all. This was a bipartisan motion; this was a motion that was circulated to the opposition I think at about 7 o’clock last night, and there have been a number of discussions between the two Whips since that time. It was agreed that this was a bipartisan motion, so on the face of it we have no problems with the amendment and we will have a look at it, but we are certainly not seeking cheap political point scoring over this. We have engaged the opposition in the drafting of this motion, and certainly nothing has come back to us that the opposition had any problem with the motion until the contribution from the Opposition Leader just now.
For him to say that it is not strong enough, well, he had an opportunity in discussions last night and we would have looked at it. But then he stood up and spent 15 minutes explaining in one way the structure of the process that our Timorese friends have to go through, and then almost being an apologist for the federal Immigration Minister. At the end of the day, this is a humanitarian issue. It is about people; it is about individuals who have made their lives in the Northern Territory, who have had children born and raised here, whose kids go to school with our kids. These people are running businesses, working in businesses. The bottom line of this is it is a humanitarian issue, and it is not about thousands of people. It is about relatively small numbers of people. Territorians and Australians are compassionate people. I believe that in terms of the will of the people being expressed in parliament, both in the Northern Territory and in the Commonwealth Parliament of Australia, and the will of the people being expressed by way of ministerial action, then certainly there are a number of mechanisms available to the federal Immigration Minister to grant permanent residency to these people.
It is about the will of the people, it is about humanitarian issues and seeking outcomes and using all of our best endeavours - our every endeavour - as a parliament, as a government and - I agree with the Leader of the Opposition - totally, unmitigated and unwavering support.
So there are mechanisms there. It is about humanity and expediting the processes as quickly as we can to get to a just outcome for individual people; not putting them through some bureaucratic minefield that is just going to cause distress, alarm and concern. If the end outcome is that these people should be supported in their fight to stay in the Northern Territory, well, we should get to that point as quickly as possible. I would have to say that this issue is not without precedent. We saw federal government expressing the will of the people when an exemption was granted for the refugees from China from the Tiananmen Square massacre where, as a group of people who came in under that class of visa, they were given permanent residency status.
So it is not setting a precedent which could then apply for other classes and categories of people. I do not buy the precedent argument because I do not believe that if an exemption was granted that is one way the federal government could resolve this issue, or as on a case by case basis making those decisions. What we and, I believe, the people in the Northern Territory want, is for our Timorese friends to be allowed to stay here in the country of their choice. It is not about large numbers of people. So I refute from the Leader of the Opposition that we are seeking to play cheap politics with this. We did engage to come to a bipartisan motion to show our friends here that we do support their plight.
Regarding Minister Ruddock, I admit he has one hell of a job to do. Migration is a very, very complex issue, and there is a lot of emotion surrounding it, but I would appeal to the minister’s sense of humanity in making these assessments, if he does not believe that an exemption should be put in place for the group as a whole.
The Northern Territory government is doing everything we can to support people, as is the community. One of the groups in the community that is doing such a big job in supporting these people and their fight for permanent residency is the Hakka Association of the Northern Territory. This association is providing assistance and does a great deal of good work in our community. I can stand here today and say that I am honoured to be a Patron of that society, and accepted that offer just a couple of weeks ago. Mr Jason Lee has been elected as President and is very strongly supporting these people being given permanent residency in the Northern Territory.
We can talk about legislation and how difficult it is in establishing precedents, but we are dealing with individuals, we are talking about people and individual cases and perspectives. Jason Lee, on behalf of the Hakka Association in the Northern Territory, has written to the parliament and wants this letter recorded in the parliament. It sets the point of view from the association and some individual cases. I would like to read this letter into the record:
So, a few examples there of what this is about. This is about individual people and their lives and it is about the capacity of us as a government, as members, to express the will of the Australian people in providing a humanitarian outcome. That is what we are talking about here. I say again to the Leader of the Opposition and members opposite who may follow in this debate: we are not seeking to play cheap politics with this. This is far too important, Madam Speaker.
In terms of some of the practical ways that we, as a government, are working, we certainly do not underestimate the difficulty of the task. The Migration Act and regulations prescribe the conditions people must meet to become permanent residents. The Territory’s East Timorese have applied to stay here permanently as refugees and to be eligible they must be found to meet Article One criteria of the UN Refugees Convention. This means that they must prove they have a well-founded fear of persecution in their home country because of their race, religion, nationality, political opinion or the social group to which they belong. When they first applied for permanent protection, when East Timor was under Indonesian rule, the danger they faced was apparent.
Now that East Timor has gained its independence, they must prove to the satisfaction of the Australian government that they are still at risk under this classification, and I read Jason’s letter as a specific example that these people feel very strongly, and with a lot of insight as a community, that they certainly would be under threat if they were to return, having resided outside of East Timor for so many years.
If the Commonwealth finds against a claim, the person or family can seek a review of their case by the Refugee Review Tribunal, and whilst there is no fee for the review, if the tribunal upholds the department’s decision, the unsuccessful applicant must pay $1000. This is very distressful for a lot of these people. I can certainly say that we as a government, with the community, will put our hands in our pockets to help with this fee.
We are working through Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs and the Office of Ethnic Affairs. We have provided Legal Aid with additional funding to help people put through individual claims. That is the process and the hurdles that the federal government has put in place on this matter; to look at these cases on a case by case basis. We have put additional funding into the Legal Aid Commission to support our Timorese Territorians to put these claims together, and through whatever mechanism, I urge the Immigration Minister to process these claims and make decisions as expeditiously as possible and to grant these people permanent residency here in Australia.
We will look at the amendment proposed by the Leader of the Opposition. I can say to our Timorese friends who are here in the parliament today, and in our community, that you do have our total, unwavering support, that we will leave no stone unturned for each and every one of you to be allowed to stay in the Northern Territory. If it were our decision, if it were the decision of this parliament, then obviously you would be allowed to stay. But the power and that decision rests in another place; it rests in the Commonwealth Parliament of Australia and the hands of the minister.
It is good to see bipartisan support from the Leader of the Opposition because, as he says, the power is with the Commonwealth government, and the Country Liberal Party and its representative, the member for Solomon, Dave Tollner, as the CLP are affiliated with the Liberal Party, that Dave Tollner sits in party room meetings in Canberra and does have access to the federal Immigration Minister. I implore him to use all of his advocacy skills to get the outcome that we want which is for each of the applications to be granted.
Madam Speaker, we urge the Commonwealth government to get on with it, to make these decisions, to give our Timorese community here in Darwin permanent residency status.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, I rise to contribute to this debate in a similar vein as the previous three speakers, that being our support for the motion. If it were, as the previous speaker said, the decision of this Chamber, there wouldn’t be a problem. The issue here is that we in this Chamber and as representatives of the Northern Territory community can do something, and that has been well articulated by the Leader of the Opposition.
I urge members opposite to seriously consider the weight of the argument put by the Leader of the Opposition and that which is contained in the amendment to this motion because the amendment adds strength to this motion.
If the member for Wanguri was smarter and resisted the accusation of cheap politics being played here, perhaps we could then alter that to being just a little nave, because as already explained, the fact is there is not a lot that we can do. There is not a lot we can do, but we can do something. It is the essential ingredient that can be added to this issue, and that is the complete support demonstrated in an official capacity as we can stand completely behind our fellow Territorians here, and to add that in an official way so that we then add weight to the consideration of deliberations of the relevant federal minister. That is what we can do. That is the essential ingredient that is required and we can formally do that.
When we understand the mechanisms that lie before the federal minister, this not some kitchen cabinet this is being run, this is a nation that is being run and these are questions that are being placed before our nation. We, as Territorians in this federation, can stand and add our sincere weight to the request that has been issued here by the East Timorese. We would stand completely behind them and we would add our weight as a unified community, to support on both sides of this House the request and the sentiment of concerns of the East Timorese community here in the Northern Territory, without a doubt. By understanding the mechanics of the situation we know where we can apply weight. We know where we can make a difference and that is being able to stand and sponsor the East Timorese; to stand behind them and say: ‘They are a part of this community and, federal minister, we send you that message. We stand united on this point’.
I appreciate the letter that had been presented by the member for Wanguri from Jason Lee, the President of the Hakka Association, because that reminds each one of us that behind each one of these people is a story that we can respond to. The more that we understand the plight and the journey of each one of these East Timorese Territorians, that helps us to understand the humanity that must be responded to. The issue is not to downplay that, but to accept it and then to look at the mechanics that we have before us to see how we can then facilitate a positive outcome.
That has been the work that we have undertaken on this side of the House, and I am sure to some degree it has been reflected on the other side of the House. The issue is we understand the humanity, the journey that has led each one of these East Timorese to this particular point; some more than others. It does affect our emotions when we understand the fortunate position we are in - that many of us have never faced situations that have been faced by those who are already in our community. Once we understand that, we put that in its place and then we work out how we, as a just society, can find a way, a solution. The issue is to find the solution and I believe that we will, together, find that solution, and we will together be able to spend our Christmases, our Easters and our other community celebrations together in many years to come as the families grow up here. But the issue is how do we do it? I believe it has been well articulated by the Leader of the Opposition that there is a way forward, and together we will achieve that outcome.
In closing, I have been particularly concerned about the way the media reflected the plight that we are discussing in this motion. What is needed at times like this is correct and well-balanced information, and appropriate understanding. We can respond emotionally to these issues and it is fitting when we do understand the humanity behind the people involved, but it is important that we have a sober view so we can then work our way through, as the member for Wanguri called it, the bureaucratic nightmare.
We are the ones here in this Chamber who should be facilitating the path through that bureaucratic nightmare, working it out, finding the solution, piecing the bits of the puzzle together, understanding the bureaucratic map before us and applying the pressure where we need to. We need the appropriate information so that there is no unnecessary grief, concern, fear or anxiety. Together, we can solve this issue, and I do believe that we will.
Mr VATSKALIS (Ethnic Affairs): Madam Speaker, I support the motion, and I have to admit that I don’t envy Minister Ruddock’s position. He has to make some really tough decisions. Some members of his household don’t agree with his decisions and what was reported in the media. His daughter totally disagreed with what the minister is doing, and I can certainly understand in these difficult times we have a mass wave of migration for economic or for other reasons to Australia and Minister Ruddock has to make a decision bearing in mind the best interests of the nation.
At the same time, Australia has a proud humanitarian record. After the war, Australia welcomed refugees from the Baltic States; in the 1950s, accepted refugees from the Hungarian revolution and in 1974, just the year before East Timor was invaded by Indonesia, Australia accepted refugees from Cyprus when it was invaded by Turkey - in very similar circumstances, many of these refugees came to Darwin, stayed in Darwin, and today a large number of the Cypriot community are ex-refugees.
Following the invasion by Indonesia of East Timor, a number of Timorese escaped in order to save their lives, to rescue their families, for the simple reason that they were threatened, and they came to Darwin. They were not economic refugees; if they were economic refugees, most likely they would finish up in Melbourne or Sydney like so many others who tried to evade the authorities and disappear in the crowds of five million people in Sydney or three million in Melbourne.
But they stayed in Darwin because they wanted to be close to East Timor where they had other members of their families and friends, and in the belief that one day Timor would be liberated. Many of those refugees helped the Territory, helped Australia, when the East Timor crisis exploded, and we received in Darwin 2000 refugees from East Timor, from Dili. Many of those refugees came here to the Kalymnian Hall and offered their services as interpreters and translators, they cooked, they confronted some of the issues of the Timorese refugees and helped the Territory and Australian authorities to cope with the disaster.
At the same time, it is not a bureaucratic issue only; it is a humanitarian issue. I am not about to say that, yes, our motion has a lot of sentiment in it for the simple reason that we live next to these people - my next door neighbour is a Timorese person - probably yours is, too. They have been here in Darwin, some of them have been in other towns in the Territory and that was brought home one day when my wife came home with a letter from one of her students, a young boy, 15 years old, who went to her and said: ‘Miss, can you help me? I want to stay here. I don’t have any other home but Australia. I don’t speak the language, I don’t know anybody in East Timor. I have no friends, I have no home. There’s nothing for us to do there, and we have been asked to prove our status or pack up and go’.
Of course, I promised to help him out, not as a minister but as a citizen of the Territory because I felt for these people. I felt the same. I know what it means to actually leave your country, leave your friends, leave your relatives and come to another country. As a minister, I tried to help out as well, through my department, the Office of Ethnic Affairs, and I would like to point out their continuous effort to work with the Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission to help these people to go through that bureaucratic nightmare. They have to go through a process, and nobody knows the outcome. I am very pleased to see that there is bipartisan support for these people to stay in Darwin.
I agree with the Leader of the Opposition that there is a coalition government in Canberra, the other side of this House are their natural allies but they are prepared to stand up. He also admitted that probably he would be landed in hot water, but he was not afraid to make an amendment to make our motion stronger, and I am prepared to accept that. I am prepared to support the amendment because what we are talking about is 85 people, 85 families that have made Darwin home. They have contributed significantly to the Territory’s multicultural character, to the Territory character. A lot of our communities support these East Timorese refugees in their plea to remain in Australia. We should not forget that many of our citizens were themselves refugees. Many Vietnamese arrived in Darwin a few years back, some of them are still in Darwin. There are other people from other places in South East Asia, war torn countries came to Darwin and are still here. They support the Timorese people.
I do not want to continue for long, but I want to say that our government is fighting very hard to help the East Timorese. We tried to find a way to sponsor the East Timorese refugees to stay in Darwin, even trying to find a way of employing them in the public service but, unfortunately, the rules and regulations of the public service prevent us from directly sponsoring these people. However, we have a commitment that we are going try as hard as we can to help these people. I am very pleased that we and those on the other side of the House are prepared to stand up and push the government in Canberra to have these people remain in Darwin.
Madam Speaker, we want these people to stay in Darwin. They are fellow Territorians; fellow citizens. We want you to stay here and we will try our best for you to stay.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, it is very important when a motion like this is presented to the House that the solidarity of the House be demonstrated. It is really important that there should be fulsome contribution from both sides to this debate. I will start with a small quote:
It is probably one of our more famous poems, The Man From Snowy River. The word ‘Timor’ is in there. The poem deals with a breed of horse. But it goes way back before WWII; our relationship with Timor has endured for a very long time. At Coburg Peninsula, some of these horses still exist because they were imported from Timor. I have spoken in this House before about our proximity to Timor, with people treating a visit as a small yachting vacation or a small hop on a plane back in the days when it was a Portuguese colony.
We are, as a community, very familiar with people from East Timor. As previous speakers have said, it is because they mix so freely in our community. All of us would have been to weddings at the Timor Portuguese Club or the new Chinese Timor Club. All of us would have - particularly members such as I who have had kids at Catholic schools - mixed with many Timorese people and many of their offspring who are indistinguishable in many ways from anybody else in the community. They play the same sports and go to the same clubs as the rest of us.
It is therefore an easy decision for us to support the motion for their inclusion in our community, the great gifts that they have provided to us in terms of their contribution, should be recognised by this House. The House also should recognise its limitations and that some things are ultra vires. That is, they are beyond our competence to fix, but not beyond our capacity for personal lobbying of the type that has been discussed here by the Chief Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and others. It will be assistance with individual applications for those people who are close to us and seek that assistance, and it will be for a logical and fulsome debate so that other parts of Australia or people, for instance, in this part of Australia that have strong views about immigration refugee status, we can take that case to them and we can put it in a cogent, level headed, unemotional way.
Much of what needs to be said has been said, but I would like it placed firmly on the record that I will do what I can to support those Territorians who wish to stay here, who are faced with this current situation. I can understand the difficulty when confronted by a system that says: ‘Look, if you give up that status which has given you residency here for 10 years, and take on this other status, you have a chance’. That would seem like a risk; it would seem like stepping off one stepping stone without really knowing that the next stepping stone is not in some way going to mean jeopardy.
That is the process that has to be taken and, if the good words that are provided in this parliament are conveyed to the federal minister and if the lobbying that is evidenced through non-government organisations like St Vincent de Paul, the Catholic Church and others reach the ear of the federal minister, I am sure that that next stepping stone can be described in such a way that it is not seen as a risky proposition, and that that step can be taken.
I support the motion, and the amended motion more fully in that it provides a stronger acknowledgment of this House’s great resolve to have these people continue to live here as Territorians.
Dr BURNS (Tourism): Madam Speaker, I, too, support the motion and the amendment, and I fully support the sentiments of the member for Drysdale: there has to be a bipartisan approach from this parliament. Yes, some things are ultra vires, beyond our control, but we can certainly influence them.
I have a little story to tell here in a minute, a bit of history of Darwin about a powerful way in which the Darwin community influenced the Commonwealth government in the 1940s in relation to a similar matter. However, yes, there is no doubt the Timorese people are an important part of the fabric of Darwin. I know that many people in my electorate are concerned about the letters that are being sent out and some of the decisions that are being made, and they are very fearful about the consequences - having to leave Australia, leave Darwin, and return to Timor.
Reading from a media release issued by Minister Ruddock in September, he said:
The story that I wanted to talk about actually involves a West Timorese man, Mr Bas Wie. In 1946, at the age of 11, he climbed inside the wheel housing of a DC3. He flew across in the DC3 and was found at the other end with severe injuries. He had burns all down his front and, of course, he was almost frozen - an 11-year-old boy. He was badly injured and he was in hospital for three months. He was then taken in by the then Administrator, Mr Michael Driver. I believe at that stage the Commonwealth was really pushing hard for this 11-year-old boy to be returned to Timor. The whole of the Darwin community got together and got behind it, with a lot of courage shown by the Administrator, to stand up against Canberra. There was correspondence going back and forth: ‘He is not to stay here; we do not want him to go to school here’. He was being schooled in the Catholic education system. However, the Territory and the people of Darwin prevailed in that case. We all know the Wie family – I have worked with Jeni Wie for many years and I have met the rest of the family, and they are fantastic people.
What I am saying is that I believe if we stick together, if we have a united front, then we can put a very strong case to the Commonwealth. The Territory has done it before. We appreciate East Timorese people now need our support, and we will give it to them. In short, I support the motion and I support the amendment.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I add a few comments to the debate. I support the amended motion thoroughly. I believe it is so very important that this Chamber and every Territorian from Alice Springs right through to Darwin support our East Timorese Territorians and their right to say in this country.
Far be it for me to say I came as a refugee. I did not. I came out as a young teenager on my own to study, to grow up in this country. After I graduated, while working, I heard the then Prime Minister of the day of my then home say that he did not want to have any expats back home: ‘You are not wanted back home’. What do you do? You are here as a guest of this country and yet to go through a process of applying for a change of status. This is exactly the situation many of our East Timorese Territorians face today; they are here under refugee status and now they have to extract themselves from that situation and apply for a different status. There is a big gap between what they are in at the moment to what they are going to look for. It is a terrifying experience. You do not know whether coming off one reasonably secure position would allow you to go to another secure position or into a bottomless pit. If I were in their shoes, I would be terrified. I would be terrified to say nobody has given us this assurance, what can I do?
The Leader of the Opposition explained very clearly what the process is, that there are in fact safety nets available that will protect everybody when they step off from one criteria and are applying under to the next. I will give my personal commitment, and I also heard the Leader of the Opposition speak on behalf of the Opposition, that we will work with all our endeavours to make sure that every East Timorese Territorian receives all the support that we can possibly give to ensure that Minister Ruddock exercises his ministerial right to allow our East Timorese Territorians to receive citizenship. This is what I will be working toward. The member for Wanguri, the Leader of Government Business, spoke about the Tiananmen Square Chinese. That is an entirely different category altogether. That was a class application. In this instance with the East Timorese applications, Minister Ruddock has to look at it on an individual basis and I think that is important to make sure that people who have jumped on this band wagon without due rights should not be included. By doing it on an individual basis you can exclude all those people. It is very important, otherwise, potentially, we can have people who are not entitled to apply get in on a non-discriminatory class application.
I agree with the members who have spoken here today that it is about people power; that a sentiment of Territorians in support of East Timorese Territorians must be expressed very loudly, very clearly so that the federal government hears it. But it has to be an unemotional appeal because many times when it is an emotional appeal many people turn off; emotion gets in the way. What I suggest we need to do is for every Territorian to say loudly that we are prepared to sponsor through employment, through government securing employment for those who are not, for government to sponsor employees who are already employing East Timorese Territorians. By doing that, the federal government will see that the East Timorese people are gainfully employed, they are contributing to the community, they are part of the community and very much an integral fabric of the Northern Territory community. We do it that way, we take emotion out of the issue we will achieve what nobody has been able to achieve successfully for so very long.
We have some 80 or fewer. It is not a big population, so Territorians can do it together and support this small group of people.
The Leader of Government Business spoke about Jason Lee and what he has done in our community. I have been publicly speaking about this gentleman myself, and he is one of the people that I said ought to be sitting in this Chamber with us as a member of the Legislative Assembly, representing the East Timorese and the Chinese community in the Top End. I hope one day that he will do that.
Madam Speaker, I strongly support the amended motion. I believe it carries the weight of the feeling that Territorians want to convey to the federal government. If we do that and we are unified in our actions, Minister Ruddock will help us and allow all our East Timorese Territorians to achieve their rightful place in the Territory.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Madam Speaker, my contribution will be brief considering the time that debate on this motion has already incurred. Basically, my actions are speaking louder than my words at the moment. I have been working with the East Timorese community and their legal advisors for some months now to ensure that the Northern Territory government provides every possible assistance to the community that we can.
I acknowledge the presence in the gallery of people who have worked tirelessly as well. I acknowledge that we have in the gallery Jenny Devlin from Legal Aid. She has worked tirelessly for the East Timorese. Unfortunately, we are about to lose Ms Devlin; she is going off travelling. I wish her bon voyage and I look forward to continuing to work with Jonathon Kneebone from Legal Aid who will replace her.
I also acknowledge Charles Yuen, a very well regarded and respected member of the Chinese community here in Darwin, who has been applying his legal expertise and knowledge to assist members of the East Timorese community, and I thank him for his efforts. I acknowledge in the gallery Teng Murray. Teng has been tirelessly working as a volunteer to assist the East Timorese community to have access to all services. Teng is fluent in five different languages and offers her interpreting skills for free and works tirelessly day and night to assist the community, so thank you for your efforts, Teng. I am sure the community is well served by your efforts.
I acknowledge members representing the peak organisations for the East Timorese. Mr Kivi Lay who heads up the Chinese Timorese Club. Kivi is an employer of many of the people who actually are in this situation of uncertainty, and I know that Mr Lay is using all of his endeavours working with the government in the area of business sponsorship to ensure that these people will be able to stay and I thank Mr Lay for his tremendous efforts
Already acknowledged is Mr Jason Lee who is head of the Hakka Association. I know he has worked tirelessly behind the scenes with the Northern Territory government to ensure that all of our resources that can be applied to this effort are being applied, and I thank you for your effort on behalf of the community, Mr Lee.
I also acknowledge in the gallery, Mr Oscar de Nunes. Oscar heads up the Portuguese Timorese Club, and from the very earliest meetings at the start of the year when we first became aware of the federal minister’s intention to move to deport East Timorese from Australia who were under temporary protection visas, Mr de Nunes has swung into action and has coordinated meetings with the Office of Ethnic Affairs - I acknowledge the head of the office there, Ms Janicean Price who has worked ably to assist minister Kon Vatskalis who, from the outset, has been very active. He immediately put necessary resources into the Office of Ethnic Affairs to fund the Multicultural Council of the Northern Territory for migration skills training so that we could equip individual people to work with the East Timorese, to work them through the migration process to the best outcome which is that they can stay and continue to be contributing members of our community.
We also, as you heard previously, put money into Northern Territory Legal Aid. They did not have the funding at that stage to support the legal work and the effort that they were making to represent the East Timorese. It is the Northern Territory government’s actions - not just rhetoric; actions - of resourcing both the Multicultural Council of Northern Territory and Legal Aid to assist the East Timorese community.
I acknowledge the great efforts made by our Chief Minister. She has very publicly supported the East Timorese to stay, as have many of her ministers. She has also lobbied the federal minister to put the case that the Northern Territory is more than happy to have these East Timorese people stay and continue to contribute to our community. We are very proud of our relationship, close cultural and geographic ties with East Timor. That relationship is, as we know, an historic relationship. Other members have spoken eloquently on the historical ties before in this debate.
I want to also thank Flavia Pinto. Flavia is a member of the East Timorese community who has Australian residency. I know she has been working very closely with the East Timor government to ensure that the East Timor government is making representations to the federal government on this matter. I have had meetings with representatives of the East Timor government myself, and I know that they are supporting the Northern Territory’s efforts to have the East Timorese stay here in the Territory. Essentially, they are, as we all know, a new nation. They are not yet ready to absorb large numbers of people back into their nation. These are not the wealthy East Timorese. If they were wealthy they could stay here under various immigration schemes dealing and surrounding people with wealth. They are hard-working battlers; they are families who are not doing it easy. They are in jobs; they are working hard to keep a roof over the heads of their families, to put their kids through education.
Some of the scenarios that I have come across - and I recognise that the families have been through tremendous anxiety. So I say to the member for Greatorex: you cannot take emotion out of this debate because the families are suffering daily with anxiety and the uncertainty of their future and, particularly, are obviously very concerned for their children.
A couple who we have been assisting are grandparents – she is in her seventies, he is in his eighties. All of their children live here in Darwin and have permanent residency. Their role in this community is to care for their grandchildren. Their adult children go to work because they are there caring for their grandchildren. Other people I know of are married to Australian citizens and they have children who have all been born in Darwin and are going through our school systems.
So I congratulate every member who has participated in this debate today. For those members who I know who are supportive but have not availed themselves of the opportunity, thank you very much. Madam Speaker, I wholeheartedly support this motion.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Madam Speaker, today I place on the Parliamentary Record my absolute and unconditional support for the families and the people from East Timor in their plight to stay in Darwin, in the Northern Territory, where they belong. I do not just say that because I went to school up here and I have lots of Timorese friends but, genuinely, the community enjoys a good reputation and has made a significant contribution to our multicultural community.
Briefly, the tone of the debate has, of course, changed as it has progressed. The initial motion is high on rhetoric and really does not go far enough. There has been quite a constructive amendment suggested by the opposition. I am happy to say that has been, it seems, readily adopted by the government. However, in the initial chronology which was read out by the Chief Minister, it really looked what this government has done to date. We have a letter on the 4 January and some brief meeting – there was no detail given about that - and a second letter on 14 May. There were references to public meetings, of course, not organised by the government. Really, if you cut to the bone, the Martin Labor government has done little more than to write two letters on behalf of this important group in our community and if you …
Mr Ah Kit: Now go back and see what your mob said about six years ago, if you want to start bringing up a bit of rubbish.
Mr MALEY: Well, I will just pick up on that interjection, Madam Speaker.
Mr Ah Kit: Well, pick up on it. Read up on it, too!
Mr MALEY: Okay. The only suggestion that these people should not be supported has really come from the jibes - certainly at the beginning of this debate - from the Deputy Chief Minister and the Chief Minister. The …
Ms Martin: When we were being accused of playing cheap politics! You’re not surprised we responded.
Mr MALEY: There are other things the government can do and those things include sponsorship of these people. There are 73 people. The government has billions of dollars in resources, and to take that extra step and sponsor these people is something which should be considered.
There are a number of legal practitioners who have been involved in helping these people and they should be commended. I notice that Colin McDonald QC is also in the gallery, and has been championing the cause for the East Timorese people for some time, and of course the invaluable help that Darwin’s premier immigration specialist, Charles Yuen, has given these people in terms of legal advice.
There is no doubt that if this government is serious about pro-actively helping these good people, then there has to be more than just talk; there has to be some real action, and that is what we don’t seem to be seeing. I have spoken at length with Nigel Scullion and also Dave Tollner, who I understand have had several meetings with members and representatives from the East Timorese community, and they also are very concerned about this issue.
Madam Speaker, I end where I started: by pledging my unconditional and total support for these people in their application to stay permanently in Darwin.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I will also be brief, recognising the time of day. I support both the motion and the amendment that have been proposed. As has been said by others, it is important that we stand united as a parliament, to tell the federal government that we believe East Timorese Territorians should be allowed to stay in the Territory.
I thank the government for introducing the motion. It is an important motion. I thank the Leader of the Opposition for clearly stating the process that has to be gone through, which I think most people would have difficulty understanding if you just heard the stories that are circulated in the media. It is a little bit more complex than most of us realise. But, from what the Leader of the Opposition said, there certainly is hope, and by being a united parliament today, we can tell the federal government that we believe the East Timorese Territorians should stay. If it means that Mr Ruddock has to use his discretionary powers, so be it.
East Timorese have helped our Territory, they have helped make the Northern Territory the unique part of Australia that it is. East Timorese have been through a lot, and I don’t believe that our federal government should be making that lot any worse. The East Timorese should be given a free choice if they wish to stay or return to East Timor. At the same time, I believe, like Father Frank Brennan, who was interviewed on ABC Radio the other day, that the government should still encourage East Timorese who have gained skills and education in the Territory to use those skills to help their own country in its rebuilding process. I think the Northern Territory should remain as a centre of learning and facilitate skills for East Timorese so we can always be a base, so that people can come here, train and go back to East Timor and help their country. That would also give them less reliance on help from outside which is important if it is to advance itself as an independent nation in the future.
Amendment agreed to.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I can assure you that this motion will be sent on to the federal government within the next couple of days.
Madam SPEAKER: I advise members of the presence in the gallery of members of the New South Wales Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics: Mr John Price MP, member for Maitland, who is the Chairman; Mr Matthew Brown MP, member for Kiama; Mr Rod Caldwell who is the community member on that committee; Dr Elizabeth Kernohan; and Rhonda Miller, the Secretary to the committee On behalf of all members, I welcome you all to our Assembly. We had a very informative meeting with them at lunch time. It is noteworthy that they have a community member on their committee.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, at this stage I would like to take this opportunity to update and advise you of the wide range of activities relating to the security of Parliament House and the Parliamentary Precinct.
As you are all aware, Parliament House is a high profile building located close to the central business district in Darwin. As such, the building is utilised by large numbers of the general public, as well as providing a working venue for some 200 people. On some occasions, there are in excess of 500 to 600 people at any one time in this building. In this respect, we can be considered vulnerable and a soft target in a high threat situation.
In the past 12 months or so, we have experienced increasing levels of domestic disruption to the parliament in Darwin, to which the department has responded to by improving and enhancing security arrangements. This has been an ongoing task for us and we will continue to do so as the environment changes around us. To date, the incidents have not incurred any injury to persons or damage to property. Above all, I am keen to maintain a sensible and appropriate balance of public and property safety against access and involvement with this building, its wide range of community activities and as an open public institution for the democratic process of government in the Northern Territory.
We are fully aware, however, of the increasing problem of international terrorism and, therefore, my policy will be to minimise the risk against any threat by appropriate security measures and surveillance. Departmental staff are currently developing a three-tier approach to security conditions, responses and actions for the building and the precinct, and this will be advised to all building occupants in the near future. For security reasons, the details of these arrangements will not be made public, and I would appreciate them remaining confidential.
Discussion has also taken place with other building staff in the State Square area – namely, the Supreme Court, the Chan Building, Government House and the Office of the Administrator - to establish a State Square Security Precinct Working Group to improve coordination and communication between all parties. The NT Police have been involved in these discussions and are very supportive of the tiered security level approach and the joint arrangements for State Square.
You will have noticed and experienced the screening security equipment in the foyer. That has been well accepted by all building users and will remain in place. However, as a temporary arrangement, there are access and exit problems which will require a redesign and a proper fit-out of the front foyer area. Plans and equipment requirements are currently being developed and will be the subject of a Cabinet submission in mid-December this year.
Following the May Chamber invasion and subsequent legal action against the alleged offenders, I have also directed a review of the current Legislative Assembly legislation in respect of security and parliamentary privilege within this precinct. This action was taken on the advice of the Director of Public Prosecutions when some difficulty arose in respect of framing criminal charges under our Legislative Assembly acts.
The review also includes security aspects for the NT Library which provides us with a unique challenge in being a resident within this precinct.
Members will be updated on court proceedings that should be set down for early next year and which some of you may be involved in as a result of that invasion.
In concert with the Parliament House review, the department is also reviewing security arrangements for electorate offices following concerns and incidents that have occurred in some members’ offices. I am pleased to advise members that the support and input from your officers have been most helpful in resolving this matter.
Finally, the new requirements to be put in place in Parliament House are now also being considered in the planning process for the sittings in Alice Springs next year. As you will agree, there has been considerable activity by the department to address and resolve a wide range of security issues in a constantly changing environment.
This activity will be ongoing and will be dictated by the security environment in which we live. With this in mind, I seek your full support and cooperation in ensuring that we are appropriately prepared and equipped to minimise any security threat to Parliament House, the precinct and electorate offices.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Seeing that the police minister refuses to answer the questions posed and shoves them all off to some conspiracy theory and seeks to pervert the business of this House by playing the man, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent me from moving that this House censures the member for Nhulunbuy, the former Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services, and the member for Wanguri…
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Mr BURKE: …the present Minister for…
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Speaker, the censure motion is the most serious motion that can be raised, and we accept debate on this motion.
Madam SPEAKER: I ask media crews to cease recording now.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move:
(1) deceiving Territorians as to the true picture of the level of crime in the Northern Territory;
and they alone, have responsibility for; and
Police, Fire and Emergency Services.
Madam Speaker, let me preface my remarks on this most serious of motions by saying that we are not criticising Northern Territory Police, Fire and Emergency Services, and we are certainly not attacking the hard working dedicated men and women who work for that service. Rather, we are defending them; we are joining them in their plea for more resources, for more numbers. We are speaking for Territorians who are no longer receiving the service they used to receive, that they are entitled to receive and that they expect from their police men and women.
Each time we have come into this Chamber and urged the government to do something to help our police force, this shameful government pretends it is an attack on those dedicated men and women. It is not, and it never has been. This motion is aimed solely and simply at this government which has shown after more than a year in government that they have no idea how to do the job. They have shown themselves to be totally inept, totally incapable of making decisions, and totally unable to come to terms with the responsibility of government. Their failure is nowhere clearer than in the area of law and order.
In recent days we have seen the appalling manipulation of both the police service and the Office of Crime Prevention. We have seen a deliberate policy to mislead Territorians which has included the appalling situation of, first, the withdrawal of the Northern Territory Police, Fire and Emergency Services annual report and then its rushed release to coincide with the first figures from the Office of Crime Prevention. I would add, Madam Speaker, that at this point in time it still has not been tabled in this Assembly.
It is a conspiracy of manipulation that began with the axing of the Neighborhood Watch figures, continued with the issuing of selective statistics and culminated in the high farce of last week that purported to show that the crime figures were down.
This sham of a government could not even get that right. They could not manage a conspiracy, just as they could not manage a chook raffle, and they certainly cannot manage the governing of the Northern Territory. Their duplicity in issuing two sets of statistics last week only confused everyone. Then yesterday, we had the police revealing that, notwithstanding anything that those statistics showed, break and enters have increased over the last few weeks.
This Assembly is owed an explanation as to what happened to the annual report of Police, Fire and Emergency Services. It has been the long-standing convention that annual reports are tabled in this parliament and then become public. It was known to the media that this annual report was to be tabled in the last parliament. There were strong suggestions that copies of the report arrived in the parliament in preparation for that tabling. Why was it mysteriously withdrawn? Why? What has been changed? What was wrong with the old report? What has it cost to print two versions of the report, and how much has it cost to pulp the copies of the original one? Who decided on this unprecedented act? Who demanded that the Government Printer produce a new version of the police annual report in time for last week’s farce, no matter what it cost? Who decided that the report would still be made public, rather than the time honoured convention of tabling it in the parliament first?
Members of this Assembly and Territorians deserve and demand answers. Both this minister and his predecessor are implicated in this conspiracy. The former minister was in charge when the first report disappeared and the new minister presided over its resurrection and the decision to bypass parliament. Even if one or other of these ministers can come up with a plausible explanation for what has happened, they are deserving of censure, simply for allowing it to happen.
They have made a mockery of the whole process and they have further embroiled the commissioner in the political process by forcing him to go public and suggest somehow that he recalled the report. No matter what the explanation, if there is one, it is these two ministers who are responsible and who must be held responsible. That, Madam Speaker, is our system of government. No matter how much this mockery of a government would like to shift the blame to past governments, to the public service, to the federal government, to whoever they can find, the simple fact is that the buck stops with them. It is their fault, no one else’s. Sadly, it is form now for this government, not just these ministers, to try to pass the buck.
They stand ready to take credit for any good news and in fact this new minister for police has already demanded of his other department that they must pass on to him any good news and report each and every contact with the media. He says he is happy to report the good news his departments produce. I have absolutely no problem in believing that statement from the minister. He and his colleagues are so incapable of producing anything themselves, of making any substantive decision, that they are desperate to find some good news somewhere.
They want total control of what goes out from government to the extent that any contact with the media must first be approved by the minister or his minders. If anything does go wrong, then this gutless lot of ministers turn immediately on the same public service and blame them for it. If they can’t manage that, then they claim total absolution by suggesting that the attack is not on them, anyway, but on the department and the public service. The former police minister is a past master at it. The two motions brought to this parliament on police matters were met with feigned outrage from him, that somehow we were attacking Territory policemen and women. We were not and we wouldn’t. We do not blame our police men and women for the problems that we have. The only people to blame are those sitting opposite.
For once, Madam Speaker, I hope that they take this censure for what it is intended. It is against them and they should not try to deflect it on to the public service or to the police service. They are responsible whether they like it or not. They are responsible whether they are capable of taking that responsibility or not.
Let me first turn to the new boy. On Friday last week, the member for Wanguri, the new police minister, said that at the end of June, we will have 80 new police officers on the beat in the Northern Territory. Let me quote him:
He is the only one who is comfortable with that situation. The police are not, and Territorians are not. Of course, this minister did not take into account that on the police’s own figures, 50 police will be lost through attrition in the same period. So at best, there will be 30 extra police which will take the numbers to 968 including police auxiliaries and Aboriginal Community Police Officers. That is still 17 fewer than were on the beat almost 18 months ago, 30 June 2001, before this disgrace of a government got its hands on providing for the safety and good order of the Territory.
This minister even admitted it in his press release last Thursday, and I quote:
and this minister is comfortable with that! This minister is comfortable that by June next year, we will have fewer police than we did two years earlier. I am not comfortable with that, nor are Territorians, nor are the police. Just after the minister had made his outrageous statement, the President of the Police Association had his say, and I intend to read into the Parliamentary Record exactly what Vince Kelly said.
He told the ABC the 80 recruits the government is planning to get this financial year will really put the government in a position it was in 1994 when, according to Mr Kelly, police numbers were falling far behind what was needed. That was before the CLP government promised and achieved a 150 increase in police numbers. Mr Kelly went on:
The government’s own figures predict attrition this financial year will see at least another 50 experienced officers leave the service. Mr Kelly went on:
Well, I haven’t been yet…
He continued:
We should begin, not with the spin various ministers have tried to put on the figures, but rather the document itself. On page 1 of the report comes the first qualification, and I quote:
I guess the ministers forgot to read that paragraph. Also, they must have slipped by the supplementary notes on page 69. There it is stated that:
We have all heard and seen the media reports and know of instances that have been reported, but no further action is taken. The complaints about this have risen noticeably since this government allowed police numbers to decline. Now we know how this translates into statistics. Not enough police means not enough action is taken, which means the incident is reported but not recorded, and that means that this government then fraudulently claims that crime is declining.
When this present Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services made those comments, did he know police were saying at the same time: ‘Break and enters have increased substantially in the last few weeks’? Did he know, and did he deliberately lie to the media and Territorians, or is he so incompetent, so out of touch and incapable of doing his job, that he had no idea that his comments about declining crime rates would be blown out of the water within days by the police themselves?
Last night, we all saw the police say how crime had increased and how they were stretching their meagre resources to meet this rise in break and enters. Didn’t the minister know that last week? Isn’t he kept up to date with what is going on? You might throw this disdain at the opposition, but on the day your justice figures were released, the opposition knew what the daily figures for crime in the Northern Territory were, because it is very easy to get that information. Not only could we tell him, but any Territorian could have told him that crime was on the increase. So why did you have to lie to us?
Let us go back to those statistics and see what they do say. In Darwin, property offences, including break and enters, did increase in the 12 months to September 2002, when compared to the 12 months to September 2001, and they increased markedly in the three quarters following the abolition of mandatory sentencing. In Palmerston, they allegedly fell, but I challenge you to find anyone in Palmerston who agrees with that.
In Alice Springs, the figures for both break and enters and all property crime was up in the comparison between the year to September 2001 and the year to September 2002. We might just ask why no murders are recorded for the September quarter in Alice, when the contrary has been reported in the media?
In Katherine, there has been a noticeable decrease in all reported crime, whether against the person or property, which begs the question: why has this occurred? Or is this just another flaw in the process? Because if the statistics are true, then doesn’t it suggest that the Katherine police are doing something right? If the stats in Katherine are right, where is the analysis that tells us what it is that they are doing that is so right? Hasn’t the Office of Crime Prevention been set up to prevent crime, not just to report what crime there is? Can’t this government even get that bit right?
In Tennant Creek, according to the figures, they are incredibly volatile. In the September 2000 quarter there were 140 property offences; in the same quarter last year it was 347; and then in the latest September quarter, the figures have dropped almost to the 2000 level at 168. The Minister for Justice and Attorney-General has already admitted that the figures for Tennant Creek are skewed by the fact that some of its crime is reported in the Alice Springs figures because it is investigated by Alice Springs police.
In Nhulunbuy, a 17% decline in reported property offences is more than matched by 35% increase in crimes against the person. Indeed, across the Territory there has been a general increase of some 6% in crimes against the person, and that is the truth of the matter, when comparing the reported offences for the year to September 2001 to the similar period for 2002, which has led the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General to make the extraordinary statement that he is happy to admit that crime is unacceptably high.
So he told Territory radio last Thursday, and I quote:
So we have the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General saying he is very happy that crime is high, and the new Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services is very comfortable with the situation. Well, I am ashamed of it. I am ashamed that our two most senior law and order ministers should take such a cavalier attitude to the dreadful situation Territorians are facing day in and day out, a situation that this government’s own figures reveal is getting worse; a situation that this government admits is not going to get any better because they are intent on cutting the number of police on the streets, not increasing them.
This new police minister has continued the spurious arguments of his predecessor, the member for Nhulunbuy, that somehow, having fewer police is an increase. The former police minister was caught out when he admitted in September that police were at their critically lowest level. Much to his own embarrassment, he tried to retract that statement a few weeks later in early October. But it was too late; he had already made the figures public during the Estimates Committee hearings.
At least the member for Wanguri has picked up and learnt that lesson. In his press release last week, he admitted police numbers had fallen since the change of government as I mentioned earlier. He also admitted to the media that the reason the government was cutting police numbers was to save money. He told ABC radio his government’s commitment was to a ‘deficit reduction strategy’ and to bring the budget back into surplus so they could not afford any more police at this time. While his government is playing that tune and cutting police numbers, Territorians are suffering an asset reduction strategy. While they have to pay more taxes and charges, they are seeing more of their hard earned property being ripped off by criminals. I am sure Territorians will be pleased that while their budgets are going through the roof as they struggle to pay these new taxes and charges, and struggle to replace the goods stolen from them, the government is pursuing its deficit reduction strategy.
That is the situation, and that is the reason why we are in this situation. The government cut a recruit course in 2001-02 simply to save money. That has put them behind the eight-ball in trying to increase police numbers and their penny pinching has meant that they have not even replaced those who left in 2001-02. The Estimates Committee process revealed that in 2001-02, 78 police personnel left and only 52 were recruited to replace them. This minister and his predecessor are incapable of working out how to overcome that wretched decision.
The annual report of Police, Fire and Emergency Services shows up the lies of this government and in particular the two ministers who have been and are responsible for the Northern Territory Police, Fire and Emergency Services. The annual report reveals that there are 54 fewer police on our streets since the Labor government came to power. The annual report showed that the numbers have dropped from 862 in June last year to 808 this year of police including ACPOs but not police auxiliaries. Crucially, most of the drop, 38, is at the level of senior constable and constable, the very ranks that do the basic work of protecting Territorians, and these are the figures at the end of the financial year, three months, I would remind you, before the former minister of police said that police were at their critically lowest level.
Madam Speaker, how on earth can these people claim that they have increased police numbers by 10 in their first year in office? Either the annual report is false or this government and its ministers are continually lying to Territorians. Only last week, the new minister issued a press release stating bluntly, and I quote:
Nowhere does he say that they will be replacing the 50 senior and experienced police men and women who will leave the services this financial year. Nowhere does he say that they will be replacing the 23 senior police men and women who were not replaced last financial year. He brags that 13 Aboriginal Community Police Officers graduated earlier this month but he does not say that they replaced the 13 who left last year. He says that with the increase in police auxiliaries, there will be a total of 109 additional police personnel this financial year but the attrition rate across all personnel will total between 70 and 80, meaning numbers will increase from 938 in June 2002 to between 967 and 977 in June 2003.
Let me remind members that the figure for June 2001, when the CLP was in government, was 985 according to both this year’s revised annual report and last year’s Northern Territory Police, Fire and Emergency Services’ annual report. Yet this minister and his predecessor have the gall to tell Territorians that they are on track to have 50 more police by the end of this government’s first term in June 2005.
If you believed their election promises, then they have failed totally to achieve their target of 10 extra police in their first year. They are not even hoping to achieve their target of an additional 10 extra police in their second year. They have lied to Territorians about their intentions and now they are lying to Territorians about their achievements or their lack of achievements. In the meantime, the hard working dedicated men and women of the police service are having to cop the brunt of the blame from their fellow Territorians for not being able to deal with the rising levels of crime. No wonder the clear up rate is decreasing and Territorians are complaining that they get no action when they report a break-in. Who was it who told Territorians that:
This government has totally failed to implement its policy and promises, and has contributed to a declining level of safety for Territorians. The blame belongs to all of the Cabinet from the Chief Minister down, and particularly the two ministers who have been charged with implementing these policies through the police service.
Let me put on the record exactly what the CLP intended to do had we been re-elected: we promised Territorians, and I made the pledge at the Police Association Annual Conference in August last year, and I quote from the report of my speech in the Police Association’s journal:
I told the association and Territorians that if the recommendation was for more than 60 extra police, then we would provide them What did the Labor Party do? It promised 50 new police and then bagged what the police were doing at the time. Labor’s policy said:
Labor said:
Ironically, this suddenly turned up yesterday as a new idea to combat the increasing level of crime. Labor also said there are simply not enough police on the road. Remember, that is when there are about 811 police, not including police auxiliaries and the ACPOs. Right now, there are about 772, some 39 fewer police on the road. So much for Labor promises and so much for feeling comfortable.
The President of the Police Association said last week that the situation was critical. In a rare moment of honesty, the previous minister for police said it himself on September 19 and the new minister confirmed it last week, but the new boy then added that he was comfortable with this crisis.
Let us look at the other wonderful initiative of this government’s law and order policy. In October last year, the government abolished mandatory sentencing which had meant, until then, that those caught for breaking and entering went to gaol. They claimed that mandatory sentencing was not reducing crime and has had no effect on the stats since it was abolished. If you look at the Territory-wide figures, after mandatory sentencing was abolished, property offences increased for the next six months. In Darwin, the high figures persisted until the end of the June quarter, as they did in Alice. Labor said their regime would also send people to gaol unless there were exceptional circumstances. The facts are since October 2001, an average one in three convicted criminals have walked from the court without any gaol time.
Dr Toyne: Nonsense! Absolute deceit.
Mr BURKE: Without any gaol time. One in three have walked from the court without any gaol time and I …
Dr Toyne: Gaol time, community work orders, home detentions.
Mr BURKE: … urge you to try and dispute that simple fact. Between July 1 and September 30 this year, only 65% of people convicted of aggravated property offences received an actual term of imprisonment. So much for Labor’s claims that serious crime means serious time. So much for the claim that people would only walk away in exceptional circumstances. I tell you what: Territorians and I find nothing exceptional in more than a third of the people convicted for trashing Territorians’ homes, for stealing their hard-earned property, for invading their homes walking away from the court, but this government finds that totally acceptable.
Madam SPEAKER: Your time has expired, Leader of the Opposition.
Ms CARTER: Madam Speaker I move that so much of Standing Orders be set aside as would allow the member to conclude his remarks.
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: Before you go on, Leader of the Opposition, I acknowledge the presence in the gallery of school students and adults from a government school in Ambon, SMO Negeri S, accompanied by their teacher Mrs Elizabeth Pattiruhu. They have been visiting Darwin as guests of the Darwin City Council. On behalf of all members, I extend a warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, Leader of the Opposition. I am sorry to interrupt.
Mr BURKE: Madam Speaker, I am happy to be diverted. As our visitors come from Ambon, may I say from the opposition’s point of view, welcome to the Northern Territory and we hope that peace reigns in your country in the very near future. It is something we certainly hope occurs as soon as possible. It has been a tragic series of events.
If I may get back to the remaining comments I have, it is an indictment on this government when they say that serious crime means serious time, when their own figures show that their version of exceptional circumstances now means in the Northern Territory that for every three people convicted of a property offence, one in three is considered to be an exceptional circumstance and walks from the court. That is the end result of the Labor strategy. That is what Territorians know is happening, and that is why Territorians have no faith in this government’s law and order strategies. That is only the tip of the iceberg. Territorians do not have faith in this government because of economic figures and other things.
But government is happy. Government is very happy to look at the statistics and say: ‘I’ll just keep flicking through my books and get the statisticians to put disclaimers here and there, and make sure those figures look good and then we can go out and shout it from the roof top’. Shout you may, but Territorians don’t believe you.
Madam Speaker, I know, you know and every member of this Assembly knows, that break and enters are the scourge of Territorians. Every Territorian knows that they may be broken into, every Territorian knows someone whose home has been invaded. Yet this government and these ministers have tried to tell us otherwise. Every Territorian knows and respects the job our police men and women do, but they also know they cannot be expected to do the impossible. Without sufficient police, the spiral of break and enters will continue. Every Territorian knows this except this government and these ministers. Every Territorian knows that our hard working police men and women need all the support and all the help that they can get. Everyone knows that except these ministers. Every Territorian knows that crime is on the increase, every Territorian would support a government that truthfully said: ‘We are doing our best. We are doing all we can to increase police numbers and help make your home safe.’ But this government and these ministers are saying: ‘Crime is coming down, we don’t need any more police and we don’t need to punish the people who trash your homes.’ More than that, the minister for Justice says: ‘I’m happy!’ and the new Police minister says: ‘I am very comfortable’.
It is only us poor sods, the rest of us, who think we have a problem. These ministers are saying to our police men and women: ‘Stop complaining about the overtime, the stress, the lack of numbers!’ They are lying to Territorians, lying to our police and lying to this Assembly. Unless the Chief Minister can offer some sort of defence for their actions, they deserve not only the censure of this House, but also they deserve its contempt.
Mr HENDERSON (Police, Fire and Emergency Services): Madam Speaker, we knew this was coming, it was telegraphed over the last few weeks. With all the ammunition, the supposed conspiracy theories, the fact that we have released all of this detailed information, if that’s the best that the Leader of the Opposition can do in a Censure Motion, the most important motion that can be brought before this House, then he is on thin ice. He failed to prosecute his point, and I will deal in detail with the issues he has raised, but if he is asserting that crime is rampantly increasing across the Northern Territory, he did not attempt to actually provide any critical analysis of the Justice quarterly crime reports. He went back to the annual report for the 2001-02 financial year, which is history. He did not touch at all on the information that is in the Justice report. He is either saying that those numbers in the report are lies…
Mr Dunham: Yes! We’re saying your lying.
Mr HENDERSON: I will pick up the interjection from the member for Drysdale. What the opposition is saying is that this report, produced by the new Department of Justice, is a lie, a fabrication. That is exactly what the member for Drysdale said by implication. That is an absolute insult to every one of those hard-working public servants who work in that office - an absolute insult. I am sure my colleague, the Justice minister, will state in his contribution to the debate that we have had these figures independently assessed, audited and analysed, not only on their accuracy, but the complementary nature between these and the police report and the assessment attests absolutely that these are the most comprehensive, accurate reporting of crime figures in the Northern Territory.
The member for Drysdale has an opportunity, if he is going to jump second in this debate, to prosecute his assertion here in this parliament that the statistics released by Justice are a lie. I challenge him to do that because that really is an absolute insult. If we are going to debate this issue, let us debate it on the facts rather than anecdotal evidence that can be walked in here …
Mr Dunham interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON: … anecdotal evidence and scare mongering that can be walked in here at any time. The Leader of the Opposition did not prosecute that fact. He went back to the police annual report and, yes …
Mr Burke interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON: …the police annual report did state that there had been an increase in crime across the Northern Territory over that time period, the 2001-02 financial year. For at least three months of that time period, the CLP was in government.
We do have to look at these crime statistics over an extended period and, as I said in Question Time today, we are releasing these statistics on a quarterly basis. They will be up and down, as crime is across the Northern Territory and across the world.
So the member for Brennan’s contribution really, in prosecuting the fact that we are peddling lies in crime statistics is intellectually moribund unless he can be rescued by his colleague, the member for Drysdale.
In terms of the conspiracy theories about the police annual report and the assertion that somehow either my predecessor or myself or my office or my predecessor’s office instructed the Police Commissioner – that is the assertions that are being run here - based on something that we apparently may not have liked in that report, that it should be pulped.
Members interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON: Again, it is easy to make those allegations and assertions, but not backed up by any shred of evidence - not one skerrick of evidence to support the conspiracy theory that somehow myself or the previous minister in this portfolio had instructed the Police Commissioner to pulp and shred and reprint a version of the police annual report that we were satisfied with. There can be absolutely nothing further from the truth. Again, it is an absolute insult to assert that the Police Commissioner would bow to pressure from a minister or minister’s office and pulp or order to be shredded a report that he was happy with. That is the assertion. I find it an absolute insult.
It goes back to the day this current Police Commissioner was appointed by the government and to the Leader of the Opposition’s constant undermining of his position here. We have had a censure motion run against my colleague, the previous Police minister, the member for Nhulunbuy, in terms of his selection for the position - an absolute insult to his integrity and to the officers who worked with him producing that report.
I can say that the report that will be deemed to be tabled in this parliament, that is such a secret, members opposite have already have it. It is so secret, they already have it because we released it publicly last week. It is such a secret, this annual report …
Mr Dunham: When was it tabled?
Mr HENDERSON: It will be tabled in …
Mr Burke: Why did you pull out all stops to have it printed on the same day as the Justice report?
Mr HENDERSON: … the reports …
Mr Burke interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON: … it is already tabled, so there you go. It is such a secret report, we actually put it out ahead of parliament. We had this wonderful political strategy to allow us to beat ourselves over the head with it, it was such a secret.
Members interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON: It was such a secret we put it out to beat ourselves over the head with it.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr HENDERSON: There was so much secret information contained therein, or not contained therein, as a result of this conspiracy allegation that somebody, be it myself or be it the previous police minister, that somehow we interfered with the production of that report. Well, we certainly did not.
We can say that to Territorians and …
Mr Burke: They don’t believe you.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr HENDERSON: … unless the Leader of the Opposition can provide one skerrick of evidence – there was certainly nothing put before this House - then he really does stand condemned because in terms of the importance of this motion, he has a responsibility, because he has interrupted the business of parliament, to provide some evidence to his assertions that somehow the police annual report was tampered with either by me, my colleague, the previous minister, or somebody in our office. There is absolutely nothing further from the truth.
The Police Commissioner is responsible for providing that report to me and a copy of that annual report is currently with members opposite. It is the first and only copy of that report that I have seen. What preceded it is a matter for the Police Commissioner.
Having dealt with that issue, most of the censure was taken up, a good 10 minutes of it anyway, with reading verbatim a transcript from the Police Association President, Vince Kelly, on the radio the other day, and it is good to hear.
Mr Burke: Don’t you think that’s relevant? Is that irrelevant, is it?
Mr HENDERSON: No, I don’t say it is irrelevant at all. But it is good to hear at long last, and it is amazing the transformation that has been made by members opposite since they became the opposition, that they are starting to listen to unions. We have been listening to unions for years and are very proud to stand up to support the union movement in the Northern Territory and Australia. They used to be derided by members opposite, but it is good to see that the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues - maybe not the member for Goyder who still talks about socialists and uses language that has been forgotten by the rest of Australia some 20 years ago; and I don’t think that he talks to union leaders very often - but the Leader of the Opposition is prepared to hear the views of people who represent workers in their various areas of responsibility.
It is the unions’ role, as the Leader of the Opposition and members opposite will understand as they get closer to and understand the importance and relevance of the union movement, that it is their role to advocate on behalf of their members, and all unions will advocate for more. You have yet to see any leader of a union advocate for less, for fewer resources, for a reduction in wages and salaries or conditions or numbers of people. We accept absolutely that we are going to have an ongoing debate with the union in terms of police numbers, wages and conditions, and we will continue to work through these things in a professional way.
As the Leader of the Opposition has forgotten, being in government is not about responding totally positively to every demand that every community group or union or business lobby would place on you and say: ‘Just because we say we need 150 additional police officers or an extra 300 teachers or an extra 500 nurses’. You don’t take that request on face value. Government is all about balancing competing demands and delivering infrastructure and services to Territorians including police services to Territorians. It is about that balance of competing demands and it will be an ongoing debate as to whether the resources are there to meet those demands.
It is good to hear that the Leader of the Opposition is basically falling in behind the police union and saying: ‘Yes, we agree totally with everything you say’. It is a pity that they did not do that when they were in government. They are falling into the role of it being very easy when in opposition, but in government, I remember many industrial disputes with the Police Association over the years about staffing numbers, wages and conditions, housing allocations and what have you. In fact, when we go back to one of the previous Commissioners, Mick Palmer, the cry very loudly and very strongly then was for more police resources and what was the then government’s response? It wasn’t to say: ‘Yes, we’ll give you everything that you want’. Their response at the time was to tell those police officers that they had to buy back their leave, that they weren’t allowed to go on leave, they had to …
Members interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON: They weren’t allowed to go on leave and we will buy your leave back from you. So they have priors, Madam Speaker. They have priors in terms of listening to the police union and bowing to every request that they make.
We will continue to work constructively. We will continue to have the debate, but we will do it in terms of competing demands across the Northern Territory.
If you look at commitments made prior to the election, yes, we did agree to 50 additional police officers - not to be delivered in the first year, but over our term of government, and we will deliver on that. The CLP at the time committed to 60. Okay, they upped the ante; they went 10 more than us and committed to 60. We were about at the same point in the lead up to the last election in terms of the additional resources that we believed as opposition of the day that the police needed. We are committed to delivering on those additional 50 police officers by the end of our first term of government. It was not committed that we would deliver on those additional 50 within 12 or 15 months of coming to government.
If we look at the police numbers as they stand today, we - as I have said repeatedly on radio - are on track for this financial year, and it is not for 80. The latest advice I have is for 81 new police officers. We have put through, this financial year, three recruit squads. We don’t have the capacity to put any more through; 25 new police officers graduated in October, 29 are in training to graduate in May and a new squad due to start in January with 27 recruits expected to pass out by June. So that is 80 new police officers coming into the system. Unless we build a new police training college, we cannot put any more through. If we compare that to the last full year that the previous government was responsible for, two police squads through with 54 police being passed through the academy. So 54 under the CLP; we are putting through 80 this financial year and we will work to meet our electoral commitment over the term.
It is easy to play with statistics. Yes, police do retire. They have always retired, and the attrition rate that I am advised, around 7% to 8%, has been constant for many years. Over a 12 month period there are peaks and troughs when people go. We have traditionally - and it is not something new - lost experienced officers interstate, particularly to Queensland who totally respect the capacity and capability of our police officers and do entice them over the border. That has been going on for years, and I acknowledge that it is still going on.
So 80 new police officers to be recruited over this financial year, and that puts paid to items two and three on the censure motion: failing to provide the 10 extra police they promised in 2001-02. Well there are 80 coming on board this financial year; and failing to put in place policies to recruit 10 additional police. Well, if three recruit squads and 80 new constables isn’t a significant effort, then I don’t know what is.
We then come to the issue of allowing police numbers to fall and we have cut police numbers. I acknowledge that it is publicly a difficult argument to sustain, but in terms of management of financial resources, it is the reality of what was inherited. When we came to government, the police were 33 positions over and above the approved establishment. It is a coincidence, but it is probably a pretty strategic coincidence, that the member for Katherine was the Treasurer and the police minister at the time. We could see how he couldn’t manage the Territory’s budget when we were running at a deficit of over $114m when he claimed it was $14m. He didn’t even know what was happening in his own department. Irresponsibly, we had recruited 33 positions over and above what was actually allocated in …
Mr Elferink: Irresponsible recruiting?
Mr Stirling: Well, why didn’t he adjust the bottom line?
Mr HENDERSON: …and he didn’t adjust the bottom line. He didn’t go back to his Cabinet colleagues. It was in the lead up to the election and we were just going to do everything we could to be re-elected, and we will see what happens afterwards. And heaven help us if they had been re-elected because who knows what the correction strategy would have been. We will deliver an additional 50 police officers by the end of our term.
In terms of outcomes, and the statement that we have misled Territorians in claiming there are sufficient police on the beat, no one has said that we have sufficient numbers. What is the definition of ‘sufficient’? A police officer on every street corner in every community across the Northern Territory? What we can do is to put in place operations and programs that are going to reduce the incidence of crime in our community. We believe that with the significant legislation that we have introduced since we came to government, in particular legislation to support our three-point plan on drugs and property crime, the police have significant extra tools to get out there and deal with people who are committing property crime and profiting from dealing in illicit substances, whether it is by manufacture or distribution. I am convinced that we will see, over time, police using that legislation and we will see property crime reducing as that legislation comes into play and is used more often and more effectively with the additional police resources we provide.
If, for some reason, the graph started going out the door at the other end of the scale, yes, we would look at it. But at this point in time, we have introduced significant legislation which members opposite certainly didn’t champion through this House. In fact, there were more arguments as to why we should not introduce that legislation rather than why we should. History will be a good teacher when people go back and read the contributions of members opposite in that debate, as well as the drug house and drug law, witness protection and money laundering legislation. Again, legislation that was never implemented under the CLP, tools for the police were never available to deal with organised crime and the distribution of proceeds of organised crime.
We can see by actions rather than inaction that we have given the police the tools that they need. At a briefing with the commissioner the other day, I told him to feel free to come to me at any time if he wants to see amendments, changes or new legislation that would give the police the tools needed to protect and serve Territorians. That was an invitation I gave the Police Commissioner at one of our first meetings. We are absolutely determined to give the police the tools that they need to do the job and to give them numbers they need to do the job, but we are not going to be able to provide the numbers that the union seeks.
If I go to the key findings in the first of a comprehensive series of reports on crime across the Northern Territory covering every region: Darwin, Palmerston, Alice Springs, Katherine, Tennant Creek and Nhulunbuy - information we called for during years in opposition, but would the CLP introduce it? No, because they knew exactly what was happening to crime under their regime and they didn’t want to be exposed.
We do expose ourselves as a government, releasing this information but we will release it, whether it be good, bad or indifferent and at the end of the day, we will be judged. If we look at the September quarter, that’s the quarter from June to September this year, the most up-to-date information - and I presume that the next series of data that will come out in three months time may pick up the figures the Leader of the Opposition alluded to when he said that in the last three weeks crime has gone through the roof. We cannot manage the police force on a week-by-week basis because some little ratbag out there has just done 20 breaks or whatever. What we have to do is get the little ratbag and deal with him within the system.
Rather than looking at the global statistics, let us move through Darwin and Palmerston. In Darwin, the total number of property offences fell by 22% in that quarter. It could go up next month, but it is a trend and a start, and I would rather see that number being down by 22% than up by 22%. All categories of property offences recorded a decline: unlawful entry with intent, dwelling, reduced by 37%; property damage by 22%; other theft by 21%; and motor vehicle theft and related offences by 21%.
If we go into Palmerston during that quarter, overall property offences fell by 6%, not as big as in Darwin. Property damage decreased by 13%; motor vehicle theft and related offences reduced by 25%; unlawful entry within dwelling fell by 7%; and so it goes on.
In Katherine, property offences rose by 6%, other theft increased by 27% - not a good figure. However, if there was some conspiracy theory out there to hide the bad news, well, we certainly would not put it in this report. But property damage decreased by 7%. So we are committed to releasing these statistics, good, bad or indifferent, and yes, the Police Commissioner …
Mr Burke: Some numbers!
Mr HENDERSON: Not some of them; all of them.
Mr Burke: Some numbers. Read your own disclaimers.
Mr HENDERSON: Obviously, the Police Commissioner has this information at his hands, and his officers on a daily/weekly basis use this information to deploy resources, to mount operations. I believe that over time we will start making a real inroad. If we look at Operation Gene Sweep that was run this weekend - where was the press release from the Leader of the Opposition congratulating the detectives who ran this operation? We never hear the Leader of the Opposition as shadow police minister saying: ‘Well done, guys, and people who were on that operation, a fantastic result’.
Mr Burke: How many went to court from the last one?
Mr HENDERSON: A fantastic result. No, we don’t hear that. All we hear is the negative whingeing, whining and knocking. I will read from the media release from Operation Gene Sweep which ran over Thursday and Friday last week and which focussed on arresting outstanding offenders using fingerprints and DNA from crime scenes:
So, a little support, a pat on the back for a job well done would certainly help morale. It does not hurt the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow police minister to say: ‘well done’ when it occurs. I do not have the press release with me in terms of Gene Sweep #1. That led to an apprehension of 40 people in three days.
To say that crime is going through the roof and there are no efforts being made to clear up crime is nonsense when operations such as Gene Sweep continue, when we have an ongoing series of reports provided by Justice to this House - such is the conspiracy that we are running and hiding the true facts from Territorians! We are releasing figures every three months to beat ourselves around the head. It does not stack up.
What is more disturbing - and it will be interesting to see whether they put it on record – is that the Leader of the Opposition, by implication - and again he has the facts wrong, claiming that since mandatory sentencing was repealed, property crime has gone up. He has not prosecuted that and as I said he has not dealt with the Justice statistics. Does that mean that this is a commitment here, now and today, Leader of the Opposition, heaven forbid, if the CLP are returned at the next election, that you will reintroduce your absolutely failed, discredited and ridiculed policy? It was ridiculed nationally, not only by governments of all persuasions around Australia, but certainly your Liberal Party colleagues with whom you are affiliated. I would really like speakers opposite to come out and say that if we are returned at the next election, we will re-introduce the mandatory sentencing regime that Labor has repealed.
That is the challenge and I think there will be enormous tension amongst those members opposite. It is all right to say and run the line - a false line - that since that legislation was repealed, crime has gone up in the Northern Territory because that is not the case. By imputation, the Leader of the Opposition is saying that if I am re-elected as Chief Minister or the CLP is elected to government again, we will re-introduce that legislation. Territorians would like to hear that commitment and make an assessment of it. I am sure their Liberal Party colleagues across Australia would be interested to hear that policy position of the CLP. I was aware that that policy was under review. But maybe by statements here today - I know they have just had a Central Council meeting - that is their new position.
We are a government about reducing crime across the community. We will continue to work as hard as we can to do that. We will continue to introduce legislation into this parliament to give the police the tools they need to deal with all crime in the Northern Territory - organised crime, drug-related crime, property crime - whether it is supported by members opposite or not. I would encourage students of debates in this House to go back and read some of the comments of members opposite on the drug house legislation that we introduced because there certainly was not full support. One has to question why there was not full support for that legislation in this House.
The prosecution of the motion before us has totally failed. The member for Drysdale has - and I will make sure that it is on the Parliamentary Record and Hansard has picked it up - said yes, he believes the statistics that have been put out by the Department of Justice are lies. He has an opportunity to prosecute that assertion, an absolutely outrageous allegation against the people who have put those statistics together.
Mr Burke interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON: We will continue to have the debate in this House. We are convinced that over time, when we come to the next election, our sentencing and legislative regime will be proven. Our police continue to do a great job. They have the support of every member of this side of the House. I wish for once, the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow police minister may give them a pat on the back instead of ridiculing their efforts every time he stands up in here.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, the defence of this censure has been poor. We have a narrow and discrete focus. We charge that Territorians have been deceived as to the true nature and level of crime in the Northern Territory. That is evident …
Dr Burns: By your press statements.
Mr MILLS: We believe that the assertion that the government has failed to provide the 10 extra police they promised the Northern Territory stands. In fact, we had a decrease in police numbers from 985 to 938. We may talk of 80 recruits without acknowledging an 8% attrition rate. It won’t make it, minister. Your promise will be an empty one, and Territorians will respond when they have the opportunity to do so.
To assert that things are fine with the level of policing in our community doesn’t stand up to scrutiny by anyone. Any local member who has walked through our community and touched closely the concerns of our community – it is out there; it is known. To pat police on the back for work well done, no reserve from any member on this side for the contribution that they make. But to serve the public with depleted ranks, we only have to track it back to find why there is this underlying and fundamental concern within the community. If you do not adequately resource, you cannot deliver, and you end up with the police as a harvesting machine canvassing statistics.
But when these statistics do not record all crime, no wonder our community resonates with an underlying concern about what is actually going on, hence this censure. This censure is well and truly justified. You may well throw out arguments to the left and right, but it sits at the centre. We have an issue that has been raised in this Chamber and we are addressing specifically these two publications that have been presented to us. In fact, one of them has not yet been formally presented to us, and I will get to that a little later.
What have we learnt? We have learnt, significantly, that not all crime is reported. In the face of Darwin having property offences in the sum of 24 345 which is an 8% increase, according to the police report: 24 000! We also have the admission of the Attorney-General that not all crime is reported. What on earth is going on? We have a discovery that there is a one in 10 clear up rate. That means that my house will have to be broken into 10 times before I have a likely chance of having the perpetrator brought before the courts: one in 10!
We see a 14% increase in Central Australia. We see a drop in police numbers. We have little attention given to the attrition rate, no substantial consideration by the previous speaker. We have 54 fewer police on the streets since the Labor Party came to power heralding rhetoric, saving the day, tough on crime and the causes of crime. I will tell you what that means: it means you are very sympathetic and caring and concerned about those who commit crime. Let us see if we can develop some kind of scenario whereby we can excuse you from complete responsibility for your actions. While you have that of the core of this, we can’t have any effective strategy that makes any noticeable difference.
We have the revelation: of those 54 police who are not on the streets since the Labor Party came to government, we find that 38 of them are from the senior ranks. We have a revelation from the Police Association - and I can tell this from my own experience and my work as a local member in Palmerston – that at Darwin, Casuarina and Palmerston police stations, staffing is at critical levels. We have an understanding that the level of sick leave, anecdotal though it be, is an indication of morale and malaise within the force. No reserve for the hard work that our police officers provide, particularly a couple of weeks ago when we had an operation in Palmerston that was very well supported by the community, and although we may not have issued a grand press release – and I pick up the cheap shot from the other side - at the grass roots level where it genuinely means something, appreciation has been solidly extended to the local police station in Palmerston by residents.
It is a real response to a real situation, and we in Palmerston really do appreciate the work of our local police station. But we all understand and accept that they are having difficulty meeting the demand owing to lack of resources. That is a fact.
We have uncovered anecdotal evidence that senior police are saying they simply cannot keep up with the farewell parties. Statistically, the attrition may even be higher - I don’t know, but it is a reality that there is this under current of concern about the morale and the capacity of our police service to meet the rising demand in the community.
That is what we have learned and that is just a snapshot. However, I want to centre on one very important aspect of this issue, that being these questions that come to mind: Why was the police report not tabled in parliament? Why wasn’t it tabled here first as a matter of protocol? That is a question I fairly ask. Let’s go a little further. Another question comes to mind: Why was the first one withdrawn? We have had nothing from the previous speaker to give any clarity, or any sense as to the reason behind the withdrawal of the first report. All we have seen is a distancing, pointing towards a senior public servant. We have had no revelations or insight as to why the report was withdrawn.
By instinct, any person on the other side of the House who is able to think fairly, clearly and honestly, would have the same question: Why would it have been withdrawn? Why was there a dual launch? Is that why it has not been presented formally here in the Chamber? Why was it that there were two at the one time? This fair, honest, open, transparent and accountable government called the media in for this grand announcement which breached protocol in terms of not presenting it here for parliament to have a look at. Instead of letting this Chamber operate as it should, what do we have? We don’t have the provision of these reports to the media – withholding it from the media, and the assertion they were actually in the room at the time the message being delivered to them was that the report has not been printed, or something to that effect, when it was in the room and in a jiffy it appeared through the door.
Why would this occur? We have to start to work on some answers. We have to make sense of this. You may well say doom and gloom is heralded by this side of the House and we are trying to down play the role of the public service, and we’re trying to talk up crime and all this sort of rot. We are dealing with a real issue here and you must be held accountable to the facts of the case. I can’t see how you could operate by slipping and sliding and adjusting your position to where you are politically comfortable. If you did what you said, I would have supported you. I am more than happy to give my support to the publication of these crime figures. The issue isn’t so much these crime figures. I understand and accept that from quarter to quarter, we will be able to look at and compare these crime figures. I am comfortable with that. I accept your intent to provide these figures. I have heard the Attorney-General refer to them in like manner. I have no problem with that; I am looking forward to their release. However, I am uncomfortable when you find the opportunity, by this strange coincidence or combining of events, to emerge - surprise, surprise! - with the amplification of an aspect of this report that crime is decreasing.
I tell you what: you would have gained a heck of a lot of credibility if you had announced the facts and did not put the spin on it - just were plain honest with the community. I reckon they would have stood right with you. But when you have this botched comedy of errors, or a strange set up - well we still have not received it here - it just does not look good. If you were serious about making a difference to crime and about being honest, open and transparent, we would not have any of this. We would not have a censure motion.
It gets worse. I cannot abide by dishonesty and mucking around with facts. There is some very important information we just do not know. I tell you what: it is worth finding out. I do not care whether I am in government or opposition. It is my duty to scrutinise this. Why was this first report withdrawn? What was the nature of the withdrawal? How was it effected? That is the answer that anyone who is looking at this wants to know. It will all be cleared up if we can get the facts of this. I tell you what: the ultimate way to clear this up is to table it so that we can see it, so that we can read it, so we can have a look at it.
Mr Stirling: You’ve had a copy of it for a week!
Mr MILLS: The first one, the one that was withdrawn. Then all things would be clear. Then we would understand. Then we could say: ‘You are honest, open and transparent’. But we do not know why it was withdrawn. We do not quite know how it was withdrawn but I am going to make some allegations in a moment …
Members interjecting.
Mr MILLS: I am going to make some allegations, and I would invite the next speaker to make clear to this parliament the nature of that withdrawal, and how it was effected. I managed to get hold of one of these which is the second police report and I notice …
Mr Kiely: It was posted to you, wasn’t it?
Mr MILLS: No, it was not posted to us! It should be tabled here in this place so we can debate it properly. I tell you what: anyone who has had a look at this will see - you will find at the front page of any annual report - a lovely letter from, in this case, the Police Commissioner - this is in the second one; I would presume it was in the first one - where we have the letter to the minister. In this case, in the second one, it is addressed to the Hon Paul …
Mr Stirling: It is not the second one. It is the report, you goose.
Mr Henderson: It is the report.
Mr MILLS: You will have your opportunity.
Mr Stirling: It is the report that came from the commissioner. If you want to undermine the integrity of the commissioner, go for it.
Mr Baldwin: You pulled it!
Mr Stirling: We don’t interfere in annual reports like you blokes must have.
Mr Baldwin: You have to sign off on it!
Mr Stirling: You blokes must have been up to it every day of the week!
Mr Baldwin: You pulled it!
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Daly and the minister, you are both on a warning. We have had outbursts a number of times today. The member for Blain has the floor.
Mr Baldwin: You pulled it.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Daly!
Mr MILLS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The point I am making, to which the next speaker will have an opportunity to respond, is this: in this annual report we have a letter written to the Honourable Paul Henderson and it outlines the introduction of this of this annual report. Once that is received, away we go to the printer. It would have to go to the printer after the minister has seen it. It is our understanding that the original annual report would had to have gone through the same process; it would had to have been read by the former police minister and then authorised to be sent off to the printer. To assert that the Police Commissioner was the one to do so - how could that be when the minister was the one who signed off on the report? Otherwise, it is not an annual report. Why would it have gone to the printer? Would the Police Commissioner send his own annual report to the printer under his own authority or would it come from the hand of the former police minister?
Therefore, we have the allegation of political interference. How could this have arrived here in this Chamber to then be retracted and then we have the annual report? I tell you what: this whole thing will be cleared up if we can get the facts of that case sorted out. How did that actually occur? More importantly, you could provide this Chamber with the original and then we can stand with you, perhaps, and say: ‘Fair, honest, open, transparent’. Otherwise, we have a situation that causes us to have very little confidence in the integrity of this report and the Crime Prevention NT Report.
We spit on this. If you want to do the job properly, you clarify this because the questions still stand: why was the first one pulped, withdrawn, shredded? Why was there a dual launch? Why did you withhold the report from the media when you made the big announcement? Why on earth did you not table it here first as a matter of protocol to honour and respect this Chamber?
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Madam Speaker, it is curious; the Burke and Mills Show has come to the fore.
Mr Mills: Don’t be distracted. Get on with the issue.
Mr STIRLING: It is the Mills Show more often than the Burke Show these days. In fact, it was the member for Blain who was out there recently complaining bitterly about so many ACPOs having left, ignoring the fact that more than had left had actually come on stream, been recruited, been trained after he was making some complaint about me being responsible for indigenous people leaving the work force. The Burke and Mills Show in search of the Big Tree. That is what we have, except it is only the Mills who seems to be around these days.
The Leader of the Opposition has really been stung by the member for Wanguri’s offer to fund him a trip interstate. I think it is obscene that this clown over here has spent $30 000 of taxpayers’ money on a freebie to New York with his wife and kids. Last year it was South Africa.
Members interjecting.
Mr STIRLING: What did the Northern Territory get in terms of value added for you going off to South Africa?
Mr Baldwin: Tell us why you pulled the report.
Mr STIRLING: What did the Northern Territory get the year before when it was America? What did the Northern Territory taxpayer get the year before that when it was America? Look back at the trips: US of A three out of the last four years, South Africa the exception, and this year it is New York with mum and the kids. You beauty! Mum and the billy lids off to New York compliments of the taxpayer, and what will we get? What will the taxpayers of the Northern Territory get for $30 000?
It is obscene. It is a gross waste of taxpayers’ money and you stand condemned for it. That is why you jumped to your feet to try to censure we two today …
Mr Burke: No. That’s why you have played the man!
Mr STIRLING: … out of embarrassment over your own largesse, and you say you have to spend it. You have to use your entitlements or no one will sign up to be a member.
Well, I tell you, that is not the motivation of the nine members on this side of the House as it is for you, you grubby little capitalist. That’s what it is, except capitalists spend their own money.
Mr BALDWIN: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Mr STIRLING: Capitalists have the decency to spend their own money …
Mr BALDWIN: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Mr STIRLING: … not Tories like you because you want to get in there …
Mr BALDWIN: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Mr STIRLING: … and backpad it up the front. Order! Madam Speaker, I have the floor.
Mr BALDWIN: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: I think I might just throw you both out, that behaviour is so disgusting. I don’t know what you are on about. There is no need for the minister to stand up and scream as loudly as that, and there is no need for the member for Daly to do likewise.
I am considering whether to tell you both to withdraw because you are being quite ridiculous. You are both over the top and you know it.
Mr STIRLING: Thank you …
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, don’t you dare speak while I am! Sit down.
There was a point of order called on you because you did use a most unparliamentary term, but we are in a censure motion and we have had many phrases of unparliamentary language that we have allowed in censure motions. We have had people being accused of lying throughout this debate, so I am going to ignore it at the moment and say there is no point of order, but I will put you both on notice: one more outburst from either of you and you are out, and you will probably be out for 24 hours, not just one hour.
Mr BALDWIN: Just to clarify, Madam Speaker, if I may, my point of order was going to be that the member direct his abuse through the chair.
Madam SPEAKER: I find that offensive.
Mr BALDWIN: No, I mean his abuse …
Madam SPEAKER: I find that offensive.
Mr BALDWIN: … in terms of – well, his comments through the Chair rather than directly at the member, which he was doing across the Chamber, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Be careful with the way you phrase things.
Mr BALDWIN: I didn’t mean abuse against you, Madam Speaker, I meant against the member.
Madam SPEAKER: Well, that’s the way it sounded to me. Minister, I would suggest that you calm down.
Mr STIRLING: Thank you, Madam Speaker, I will because …
Madam SPEAKER: This is twice I have said this today, and I won’t say it again. Continue.
Mr STIRLING: I apologise to the worthy name of capitalism, Madam Speaker, for being provoked into that remark, but the fact is that capitalists do spend their own money where this guy spends tax payers’ money, and the fact remains neither this government nor the Police Commissioner, nor the police force of the Northern Territory will benefit one iota from Mrs Burke, the billy lids and Mr Burke off on Qantas to New York for a little swan song. Probably, come February, it will be the Mills side of the Burke and Mills story that …
Mr Burke: Why don’t you address the debate rather than playing the man?
Mr STIRLING: Both speakers, Madam Speaker …
Mr Burke: Just address the debate!
Mr Elferink: Are you going to deny pulling the report? Deny pulling the report, go on!
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Macdonnell, you are baiting the minister. I know what you are doing.
Mr STIRLING: I don’t listen to him, Madam Speaker, it is all right.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, would you turn and speak to me?
Mr STIRLING: Both the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Blain seem to be particularly taken with some form of conspiracy theory that either myself or the member for Wanguri, when he became Minister for Police, interfered in some way with this Police, Fire and Emergency Services Annual Report.
I don’t know what they as ministers used to do in relation to annual reports, but I have seen this behaviour on other occasions where it is quite obvious that they were very close to the action and they intend to accuse us of doing the same thing. Let me assure them that neither myself, and nor do I believe anyway, the member for Wanguri, had anything to do with the trashing of the initial report.
You want to see how many drafts are made in making one of these reports: it is probably five or six. Do you want to see them all from day one when it started to be drawn up? This question about the minister signing off, the minister does not sign of on the printing of the annual report. He signs off on receipt of the report. It is the commissioner who orders it to go to print. Now, my recollection is that the Police Commissioner was still away at the time that it was to go off to the printer and on his return, it was his decision, no one else’s. It was the Police Commissioner’s decision, and I recall it was on the basis of inaccuracies in the report …
Mr Burke: We want to know why he pulled out all stops to have the second report printed in two days. Now, answer that.
Mr STIRLING: …which he picked up on his return. No conspiracy, no interference. It is the commissioner’s decision all the way. Now, you just wonder how close some of these CLP ministers did get to the action when they are so quick to accuse us. I think they were probably used to it on a fairly regular basis.
The leader, every time he gets to his feet, attacking the Police Commissioner, does undermine the integrity and morale of the police force in the Northern Territory. He well knows that it is a dangerous activity that they undertake on behalf of the community. Every time he pursues this line of action, he damages …
Mr Burke: You’re the one misleading people.
Mr STIRLING: … the Police Commissioner, and he undermines the integrity and morale of the police force. It is a difficult and dangerous job and they need the support, above all else, of members of this Assembly.
The member for Blain ought to pay attention to this. It is not something that we got into in opposition. We were always pretty careful to ensure that the police were kept out of the political action as much as possible. This Leader of the Opposition wants to be into the police, boots and all, every time parliament gets together.
The police force of the Northern Territory deserves the support of every decent member of the community and, above all else, that of members of this parliament, government and opposition included. The leader never considers the ramifications of his actions, and he never considers how that undermines the very difficult and dangerous role that they perform on behalf of all Territorians.
It is interesting, and I think the member for Wanguri picked up on this, to see the Country Liberal Party run on an issue behind a union. You know, they discovered blackfellas early on in opposition, they discovered single mums.
A member: Greenies!
Mr STIRLING: They discovered that there were things like unions. It never happened in 26 years of government that the CLP ever invoked the name of a union on any policy or initiative that they proposed – not once! In fact, the only time unions were ever mentioned in this House was to give them a bagging from the roof tops. Twenty six and a half years! But now they come in waving the flag of the Police Union.
I will give you the inside as to what they think are unions: when the member for Wanguri referred to it as the police union, they said: ‘That is not a union; it is an association’. Well, they hate unions as much today as when they were born all those years ago in Alice Springs, and there is the fact of it because when he said it was the police union, they said: ‘No, it is not a union. We would not quote a union. It is an association’ as if there is some little difference. It is okay to cuddle the police union because they are not a real union; they are an association. We can still keep the divide, we can still hate unions as much as ever, and that is the only reason they used them today. It is interesting. The net gets ever larger under the CLP in terms of what they will use in here.
The police spokesperson has gone on again today and he has raised a number of issues, I will give him credit for consistency, on this question of an independent review into police numbers as if the government is afraid of it or we will not go there because of what it might tell us and the resource implications. Well, there is no fear or anxiety on behalf of government in terms of an independent review. My position was this when I was Minister for Police, and I have not asked the current Police minister what his view is, but in terms of …
Mr Burke: Well, that would help, wouldn’t it?
Mr STIRLING: Well, I am no longer the spokesperson …
Mr Burke: Well, don’t speak for the government, then. If you do not know the answer, do not speak for the government. We want to know the government’s position.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr STIRLING: I am no longer the police minister. I will tell you what my view was: that the Police Commissioner had embarked on a comprehensive continuous improvement strategy for the police force, in a way for himself as CEO getting a feel for the whole of the police force, where it was going, directions, strategies, the whole thing. I would have thought, as the CEO, he would be entitled to see that process of continuous improvement strategy through. A big part of that continuous improvement review or strategy was the deployment of resources.
At the conclusion or at any time through the implementation of that strategy, if the commissioner found a case that he wanted to prosecute to government that there had to be greater police numbers, he knows where to go: straight to government and tell them, demonstrate the case for it. He knows the budget cycle, he understands how government works. That option is there, as it is for any CEO but particularly for the Police Commissioner given that he is having a very close look at the deployment of resources inside the continuous improvement strategy.
You can ask a question of the Police minister tomorrow to see what his view is. Not opposed in principle at all to this question of an independent review. It is a few years since the McAulay Bowe Review went down. It served government well in its time. How often you have these reviews is a moot point. However, I would have thought that following that implementation - the continuous improvement process that the commissioner has embarked on - that he himself may go to government. If he did not, the government itself may say: ‘We thank you for all the work but maybe it is time for an independent review’. It is an open question; government is not closed on it, government is not saying no, except that I was at this time referring to the commissioner’s continuous improvement strategy.
If we can get to some of this rubbish peddled about the level of crime and be clear about what the first Quarterly Crime and Justice Statistics Report did put before the people of the Northern Territory. For recorded robberies, the trend line is stable. The trend line for motor theft rose in January 2002, but has remained stable over the last two quarters. Recorded other theft has remained stable since September 2000. This word stable is: s-t-a-b-l-e. It means a flat line, not what you put horses in. This is not crime going through the roof when I am talking about being stable. Stables are what we are building – we are building new ones for the police horses. However, this is stable.
Property damage has remained stable since November 2001, but there have been two increases in the trend line since September 2000. The trend line shows recorded assaults are down, recorded sexual assaults are down, break-ins to other premises are down. Importantly, residential break-ins are down across the Territory. House break-ins: the Leader of the Opposition insists they have risen. Well, he is wrong and he should stop misleading Territorians. The facts show that house break-ins are down across the Territory, and that has been the trend since January of this year.
Mr Elferink: The time frame that suits you - that is the deception that you guys are getting censured for.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Macdonnell, order! You will have your say in a minute.
Mr STIRLING: Throw him out, Madam Speaker. My voice is going.
House break-ins are down across the Territory and that has been the trend since January of this year. In Darwin, the trend line is at the lowest ever over the two-year period covered by this report. In Palmerston, house breaks-in have been dropping since November 2001. In Alice Springs and Katherine, the same as for Darwin and Palmerston, the trend line shows house break-ins going down. What does the commissioner say? The Commissioner of Police confirms these trends. He said:
Property crime continued to rise under mandatory sentencing, and started to drop when it was repealed and replaced by this government’s aggravated property offence regime. The aggravated property offences target the right people: those who commit serious crime, property crime, those who are repeat offenders and those who have committed multiple offences.
We are not going to waste taxpayers’ money locking up young kids who stole a packet of biscuits. That was the reality, and it did not solve anything. In fact, what it did - apart from the tragedy of a suicide - it probably put a number of juveniles on to a life of crime that they may not otherwise have become involved with. We are very careful about taxpayers’ money, unlike these people opposite. The government knows enough about crime to know that any single strategy - mandatory sentencing or any other so-called magic wand - is not the answer; it is not going to work. It simply cannot work when you have multiple factors behind these episodes. One answer solutions are never going to get you there.
That is why this government has a six-point plan to combat property crime and a three-point plan on drug crime. We focus on all three levels: protection, punishment and prevention. We have strategies and programs across government: law enforcement to target the offenders, targetted new laws for property offences, home or business invasion, and drug dealers and manufacturers. Of course, that was something that the opposition never wanted to hear about - minuscule. ‘Minuscule’ was the word on one occasion, and ‘infinitesimal’ - I can’t spell it, but I can say it - was the description on another.
We and Territorians well know that there are strong links between illicit drug use and crime, particularly property crime, in the Northern Territory as there is across this country. The establishment of drug courts during this financial year may help to break that drug/property crime cycle through prevention programs and education, health and family services. That is why this government made that commitment and has gone ahead to establish the Office of Crime Prevention, to coordinate and evaluate those programs right across the face of government, to work in partnership with the people of the Northern Territory to tackle crime in the community together. That is why you are starting to see some of these crime levels go down.
We are not cocky about this - far from it. One break-in, one assault, one car theft, whatever the crime, is one too many, but we are also realistic that you are never going to do away with it completely. What you have to do is minimise it as far as you possibly can and minimise the impact on people. We have a long way to go, and we need to keep a real focus on law enforcement and crime prevention programs. We know the crime rates at any time are difficult to bring down but we are committed to continuing to work to try to achieve that.
Some of the other misinformation from the Leader of the Opposition, and I quote him in one radio interview last week:
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, your time has expired.
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the member be granted an extension of time to allow him to conclude his remarks.
Motion agreed to.
Members interjecting
Madam SPEAKER: Members of the Opposition, order!
Mr STIRLING: You have to wonder about the Leader of the Opposition and his message here to Territorians. Was it the same? Did it go down? Did it go up? We’re not sure.
It is important, though, that we do all understand the true situation; if you look at all property offences at the beginning of the two year period, then they are at a similar level to the end of that period, but it does not tell you very much. Property offences cover a vast array of offences from break-ins to shop lifting to breaking a window in a car. You need to look at the individual types of offences. If we take residential break-ins, because that is the offence type in which we are all very interested, if you look at the September quarter of 2000 there were 861 break-ins compared with 605 in the September just gone, a reduction of 256 offences. Even that does not tell you so much. It hides the fact that house break-ins steadily increased from September 2000 through to 2001, but have been decreasing since the December 2001 quarter, a decrease of 43% from the September quarter of the previous year. It is difficult, even for the Leader of the Opposition, to suggest that that is an increase.
Police not recording offences gets a bit of a run occasionally. The Attorney-General passed me an ABS document, the Australian Bureau of Statistics Crime and Safety Australia, April 1998, estimated under-reporting rates by jurisdiction with an Australian average total at the bottom, crime and safety reporting rates. I will try not to be too selective, but if we took motor vehicle theft, generally jurisdictions are pretty high in the reporting rates. Tasmania and the ACT are down towards the bottom at 85.2% and 86.2% estimated reports, Northern Territory 100%. Robbery: New South Wales 47.9%; Victoria 46%; Queensland 52.4%; South Australia 42.5%; Tasmania 56.5%; Northern Territory 79.8%; ACT 56.3%. Only the strongest reporting by a factor of 20% at the lowest.
I will table this. It is not all good. For unlawful entry with intent, the Territory is at the bottom at 66.4%, but it goes through the 70s to 83.2% as the highest, so we are not that high off the pace considering we are the highest in a number of other categories including right up there with assault, but I will table that for the benefit of members, Madam Speaker.
The Opposition Leader has tried to suggest that the police data system PROMIS is not reliable because police are not recording offences and I quote him. He said that a crime report to police
That is plain wrong. The police are far more professional than that and I want to make it clear that procedures used by the police for recording offences are exactly the same as were used when the Country Liberal Party was in government. They are exactly the same procedures that were used when the Country Liberal Party was in office. There has been no change to the way these matters are handled or recorded under this government, as is quite proper in relation to a matter which is clearly operational. I think the Leader of the Opposition gets a little desperate when he seeks to score cheap points at the expense of police and criticises a system which was set up in the first place to ensure that these offences are recorded properly.
To set the record straight, I will explain briefly how it works. The government has been advised by police that offences are recorded on the PROMIS system when police have sufficient information about the offence to enable them to say it is reasonably certain that an offence has been committed. The actual timing of when police do or do not form that view is a matter for the police using their professional discretion. The type of crime, the nature of the offence, the information which is provided during the initial contact are some of the factors that come into play when the police exercise this discretion.
Crime statistics are generated from a field in PROMIS that records the offences police believe have been committed in a particular incident. It is the best way to ensure an accurate record is made of the actual offences which have been committed. It is not correct to claim, as the Leader of the Opposition has, that the recording of an offence is dependent on a patrol car being dispatched or not. It is irresponsible to try to undermine the integrity of our police in this fashion, but it is something that he is becoming pretty used to doing.
The Opposition Leader also suggests that these statistics are flawed because not all crime is reported. The Quarterly Crime and Justice Statistics do not claim to represent every crime committed in the Northern Territory. No report anywhere in any jurisdiction in any part of the world would make that claim, and any government would deserve criticism if it tried to do so. The report only claims to present recorded crime statistics. In fact, the report refers to unreported offences, noting the ABS reports that in the Northern Territory some 33% of house break-ins and 71% of assaults are unreported. The ABS has found there are a number of reasons for not reporting crimes: they consider too trivial a broken window or a break-in where nothing is stolen; the victim did not want the offender punished; or the matter was seen as personal and the victim had taken care of it. That is nothing new. It was exactly the same situation under the Country Liberal Party government as is the case right around Australia.
‘One property offender in every three walks free’, says the Leader of the Opposition. He claims that under this government’s aggravated property offence regime which replaced mandatory sentencing, for every three people convicted of a property crime in the Northern Territory, one of those people walk free from court. Wrong, wrong, wrong. A deliberate misinterpretation of the quarterly report and a deliberate attempt to mislead Territorians again.
The report actually says between 22 October 2001, the date when mandatory sentencing was repealed - that was a proud day, Attorney-General, and I was pleased when that act was repealed and replaced with our regime of aggravated property offences - to 30 June 2002, 425 aggravated property offences were dealt with by the courts. The results of these 425 cases were: in 73% of cases or 311 offences, an actual term of imprisonment was ordered. Not quite one in three going free, I would have thought. In 11% of cases or 45 offences, a Community Work Order was imposed. In 16% of cases or 69 offences, other orders were made. The offenders received home detention, sentences of imprisonment which were suspended but would be reactivated on any further wrongdoing, the imposition of a fine or good behaviour bond. No one walked free. One hundred per cent of those convicted of an aggravated property offence received a term of imprisonment, a Community Work Order or some other type of order.
You have to ask: when is the Opposition Leader going to stop pretending that mandatory sentencing had any effect, and when is he going to stop trying to deceive Territorians over this failed, useless policy? If there is anything he might find out when you go to New York that is any use, ask them if it is still in place, the old zero tolerance and mandatory sentencing.
Mr Burke interjecting.
Mr STIRLING: I will tell you what or what I saw in Los Angeles: a guy doing 20 to 25 years hard labour for stealing a pizza. That is what I saw in America, in Los Angeles. Twenty to 25, hard labour for stealing a pizza. A three strike policy. Gee, that’s justice. That is justice US style.
Mr Dunham: With a gun.
Mr STIRLING: With a gun! He stole a pizza and got 20 to 25, hard labour! You might ask when you are over there, if you get to ask any police officers or the judiciary any questions.
We do ask when the opposition is going to stop perpetuating this myth that it made any difference. The things we are talking about here, crime in our community and how to bring it down, are too important to play petty politics with and so is our police force and so is our Police Commissioner. Every time you launch into one of these little escapades, you undermine the integrity, the morale and the great, hard work that our police do out there in what is a difficult and dangerous job.
I call on the opposition to move on, to stop bagging the Police Commissioner, to stop bagging our police and start to contribute to this debate in a positive way. I will be listening when you come back from New York, New York, just to see what you have come across. If there is anything - and I very much doubt that you will have anything to contribute to the way our police force is run or the way that we are organising policy around law and order, but I will be listening. I will be listening just to see what does come back.
If the opposition cannot bring itself to get out of the gutter and stop attacking our police force, then the least it can do is stop peddling this misinformation and mythology that they want to perpetuate.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I rise to engage in this censure debate. I wasn’t going to at the outset, but I have heard a tirade of abuse which had absolutely nothing to do with the issues at hand. The issues in this censure debate are nothing more complex than the incompetent way that this government is handling crime in the Northern Territory and, much more importantly, the rising crime rates in the Northern Territory.
What we have heard is a battle of the statistics, and that really is what the Northern Territory News was complaining about in its editorial when it said that the attempts by the government to deceive the media in an effort to cover up the crime situation in the Northern Territory was what this government was trying to do. I was struck that week because two newspapers are produced in Alice Springs. The cover of the Alice Springs News in that week said that crime rates had dropped. I opened up the Centralian Advocate, and property crime had soared.
What I saw was a product of what this government was attempting to do, and that was to deceive Territorians. They talk about 16 month periods and September quarters, and blue moons under the ancient Babylonian calendar to make their statistics fit. Unfortunately, there are reporting periods: annual reports come out over particular reporting periods. I rely on those annual reports because they give you an accurate report over those periods.
The annual report of the police, which I finally got hold of today through the Table Office - the second attempt, I might add - lists as offences against property in the Northern Territory ‘Total crime reported’. I point out for the Minister for Police, it is in the big blue line, the big blue one, that says ‘Total crime reported’. For the period 2000-01, 33 986 – well, that is bad enough, 33 986, which tells me there is about a 20% chance that every Territorian in that period was a victim of crime.
What is more astonishing, the period when these guys were in government, the reporting period 2001-02, has gone up to 36 351. That is an increase of 7%. Big blue line, your report, the one that was finally approved and signed off by you guys - the second one that was approved and signed off by you guys shows a clear rise in crime. It is your report, your numbers, and it is a trustworthy reporting period. This is the problem I have: I heard the minister for - whatever he is the minister for at the moment, they change that often - the former minister for police stood in here and told us that their new system of locking up villains is working so well. Then it talks about aggravated property crime.
What about simple property offences? Let us look at the full picture, not starting to put those little disclaimer-type words in there, which then have the effect of muddying the waters and changing statistics to look like what we want them to look like. I am surprised they have not heard it yet, but it is certainly worth quoting. Benjamin Disraeili once said:
This issue of what was in the initial report - the one that ended up in the Table Office, ready to be laid on the Table before this House - could easily be sorted out. If the minister goes and grabs a copy of that one - the one that was in the Table Office before it was dragged out of here, the one that he had no involvement in interfering with, or the one that he says: ‘No, nothing to do with it, I had nothing to do with having that annual report pulled’. At what point does he take control of an annual report? It was sitting in the Table Office ready to go, and he had nothing to do with it? That is really what he expects this House to believe. ‘I have had no involvement,’ says the minister, ‘It is just sitting there in the Table Office. I will not read it, I will not peruse it, I will not get any advice on it. I will simply let it flop onto the Table. I had nothing to do with it. No, no, no. I am putting this distance between myself and the report’.
That is unbelievable. It is a lie. That is what this censure motion is all about. The minister is either saying: ‘I am either so trusting of my staff and everything that is happening around me that I am prepared to let it all happen. I am going to be totally oblivious to that and I do not care’. Well, that is incompetence. The much more likely answer is that the minister was fully aware of what was in that report; was also fully aware of the report coming from the Minister for Justice and thought: ‘Holy cow, gee whiz! I had better rock and roll on this’. Through a very improper process, he went to great lengths to have that report pulled - pulled it out of the Table Office and then sat on it. The whole report is pulped, and then the Minister for Justice says: ‘I am going to release this wonderful report with all these crime statistics. We are going to slip this one in underneath’.
So that places the Commissioner of Police in an invidious situation where he suddenly has to get a new report printed up as quickly as he can, whatever the cost. So the minister is trying to convince every person in this Chamber that he had nothing to do with the pulling of that report; says it was in a draft form. Exactly when does the minister anticipate that a report ends up in its final form? I would hope and consider that a report which is in the process of being developed is not published, stuck into boxes, does not get disseminated to everybody who needs to read it, or nearly disseminated to everybody who needs to read it - and it is still considered to be in a draft form? That is what the minister is expecting us to believe. Any person with an ounce of common sense would realise how incredulous that claim is. A draft form? It defies common sense. The minister knows it defies common sense, but the point is that the minister is still trying to cover his tracks in some fashion; and whatever he was trying to cover was buried in the first report that ended up here in the Table Office.
Mr Henderson: Rubbish!
Mr ELFERINK: Whatever he was trying to cover, and I pick up on the interjection from the minister for police; if that is the case, all the minister for police has to do is take the old report …
Mr Henderson: There was no old report!
Mr ELFERINK: The first one that ended up sitting in the Table Office here. That is all he has to do; bring it into this Chamber, lay it on the Table, so this argument finishes; it evaporates. It surely cannot be that hard. Has every copy been destroyed? What about the one that was holding up the overhead projector?
Mr Henderson: I’ve never seen it. I don’t know what you’re talking about.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, the point is that they have tried to deceive the people of the Northern Territory and tried to do it twice with this annual report: in the first instance by pulling it out, and in the second instance, by trying to slip it out under another set of crime statistics which more suited the government’s position.
I trust the annual report of the Commissioner of Police, and when I try to find out what is happening in my community in the southern region - 2000-01, Offences Against Property, Southern Region, page 95, it tells me that there were 6986 offences against property. The next year, the year of the first Labor government, property offences in the southern region went to 7983; an increase of 14%. I direct honourable members to page 95 of the annual report …
Mr Henderson: Have you read this one? Read this one!
Mr ELFERINK: This is your report, minister!
Mr Henderson: This is our report, too. Read this one! That is an old one; this is the new one.
Mr ELFERINK: The big blue line. If you require some sort of literacy training, then go and get some. 14% increase, and still you come into this Chamber and say that there is no property crime problem, there is no increase occurring in the Northern Territory …
Mr Henderson: I did not say that. Wrong!
Ms Martin: Never said that.
Mr ELFERINK: You are trying to develop a picture which is deceptive. That is the thrust of this censure motion: this government has no credibility, is deceptive, and lies to the people of the Northern Territory. When it fails to see its policies working, rather than reviewing those policies as it promised to do, what does it do? It tries to muddy the waters, obfuscate, and lie. That is the thrust of this government’s intention. The Northern Territory was promised a government which was open, honest and accountable and what it gets is a shifty, shady government which pulls annual reports for unknown reasons, pulls them out of Table Office, and then denies having any knowledge. ‘Never saw it,’ says the current minister for police.
Mr Henderson: No, I did not.
Mr ELFERINK: Well, what did the former minister for police do? How was he involved? He says: ‘No, I never gave any instructions’. What did he actually do? He has not told us that. He had more than 20 minutes to stand up and explain himself in this Chamber, and what did the former minister for police do? The thing that he always does when he feels that he is under the hammer and there is some pressure on him. He hurls into a tirade of abuse, blaming everybody else under the sun, other than himself or bringing himself to any form of account. That has been the thrust of the government’s response: ‘That is you mob over there. You guys had all the wrong policies’.
Well, you can blame anybody you like but what succour is that to the extra 14% of people who live in the southern region of the Northern Territory who have had their property stolen, their houses broken into, their cars stolen? What succour is there in that? What sense of openness and honesty, can the people of Alice Springs have when there is a newspaper saying one thing one day, and literally two days later, at the very first opportunity, the next newspaper in Alice Springs publishes exactly the opposite result? That is a level of inconsistency which can only be sheeted home to the people who are in charge of delivering those statistics, and that is the government of the Northern Territory.
I can only be guided by the report that I have in front of me in relation to this. That report has a set reporting period, as annual reports have every year.
Mr Henderson: They are quarterly now; four times a year.
Mr ELFERINK: They have a set reporting period. It does not introduce other aspects, like the words ‘aggravated property crime’ so the former minister for police can slip in here and say what a wonderful job they are doing by simply using a few qualifying nouns. The fact of the matter is that this government has been seen by the people of the Northern Territory, including the journalistic community, as perpetrating a fraud. That fraud is that if you can’t baffle them with brilliance, you bury them under bull.
Madam Speaker, that is why this government is the target of the censure motion; it is the total mistrust that I and many other Territorians now feel in a government which has dealt with them in a manner which is dishonest, unreliable and basically full of lies.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, it is a very predictable reaction from the opposition. There is more data in these two reports than in the entire period of the CLP government in the Northern Territory; 10 000 pieces of information in there, all with analysis and all with proper rigour in the way that it has been put together. It would never have happened under the previous government. It has happened under our government because we said it would happen as an election promise.
Why did we release two reports at the same time? I can probably best give an idea of that through the words of Police Commissioner Paul White on Thursday 21 November: far better to produce the two reports at the one time to indicate that the crime analysis is based on the same information that is interpreting the data over two different time periods.
We put a lot of faith in the media here in the Northern Territory by releasing a large body of information at once, and I am happy to say that a number of the media have now done their homework and have come to terms with the statistical framework that these reports are going to be following. They will be right, then, every three months as further reports are released; they understand the structure and they can comment on it and have whatever opinion they want of it.
But here we go with the opposition trying to muddy up the waters with: ‘Oh, yes, we had this conspiracy theory about releasing the police stats’. We were so secret about it, we called all the media together and we released some 10 000 pieces of information with briefings and with commentary. If that’s being secretive, I would love to see what we would be doing if we were trying to be public. The problem we have here is that the data, in the area that has had a lot of the discussion, has gone over a hill, and I think that you can see from this graph that it has gone up and over a hill.
The police comparison of the two financial years are on the uphill bit, and that is where the crime rates of this offence, house break-ins, were increasing. So obviously, if you compare that part of the graph with that part of the graph, you are going to find an increase in the crime.
Mr Dunham: Are you going to table that so we can have a look at it? That is going to be tabled, is it?
Dr TOYNE: Yes, I am quite happy to.
Mr Dunham: Good, thank you.
Dr TOYNE: This report from the Office of Crime Prevention is dealing with the last three months, so you are capturing this downhill part of the graph. They are both perfectly true pictures of that area of crime and the trends in that area of crime. There is no rocket science in this. There are exactly the same figures in the two reports; you are just looking at two different time periods and drawing conclusions about what the trend of that crime was in that time period.
It is quite dishonest to claim that the Office of Crime Prevention report deals only with a three month period. It deals with a two year period and compares the last two quarters of that period. There is a complete time line of data back two years and so it is actually a more comprehensive report than the police annual report which deals with a financial year.
I want to clear up, partly for the sake of the statisticians who work within the Office of Crime Prevention who have been very badly demoralised by the ill-informed comment that has accompanied the release of these statistics, they are professional people with a professional reputation which they happen to care very much about. They have been thoroughly insulted by the types of comments that have been going on. Informed comments, fine, but when people don’t even bother to get the facts together, then I think that that is a disgrace.
Ernst & Young, a very reputable company, has done an independent assessment of the two reports for the accuracy of the data, for the appropriateness of the presentation and for the reconciliation between the two reports of the data used. I can say that the Ernst & Young report has found that the data has been calculated and presented accurately, that comparison with prior quarters is a common, widely accepted means of analysing changes in data over time, that the report is presented without undue bias, and that the data of the quarterly report is consistent with the data in the police annual report. Let me quote from the conclusions of the Ernst & Young report, which I will table:
In summary, that data is presented in a way that is appropriate for the stated intended audience, using
techniques and measures that are reasonable, applied in a consistent manner, and without giving undue
bias in data presentation.
So Territorians can be very confident that the crime statistics prepared by the Office of Crime Prevention are both accurate and unbiased in the picture that they produce of these very important areas of crime that are being dealt with. What I say to the media and to the general public, and particularly to the opposition, is: do your homework and come to terms with this framework because you will be seeing it four times a year well into the future. We want some informed debate on this, not manipulated, ignorant comments about what these documents are portraying.
I hope now that we can move on to a discussion of the picture that these crime statistics are presenting. These are incredibly important issues for the Northern Territory. We have to deal with these patterns of behaviour in our communities. We cannot deal with that through public policy if we have one side of politics constantly trying to muddy the waters and discredit any information that is released. We will release this information every quarter; and every quarter there will be a test of this House and the members of this House, along with the media and public interest groups within our community that have a role in doing something about levels of crime.
I am very proud of Issue One of the Office of Crime Prevention’s Quarterly Crime and Justice Statistics. It implements one of our key election commitments of our six-point plan. It is an election commitment that I have personally been very committed to: the production of regular, independent, comprehensive crime and justice statistics. Providing full disclosure is something I believe is very important because of my background in science, and I can certainly give a personal guarantee as to the unbiased and professional nature of this information, and it will remain that way.
These Quarterly Crime and Justice Statistics have been produced by Mr Stephen Jackson, the Director of the Research and Statistics Unit of the Office of Crime Prevention, and I would like to thank him and his team for their dedication in producing such an informative set of figures for the people of the Northern Territory.
As I have already said, the Office of Crime Prevention has adopted the ABS Australian Standard Offence Classification. The data used in this report comes from the police PROMIS system, the Integrated Justice Information System, or IJIS, and from the records maintained at Northern Territory Correctional Services. The Quarterly Crime and Justice Statistics from the Office of Crime Prevention provide Territorians, for the first time, with a broad range of crime statistics at the Territory-wide level and down to Darwin, Palmerston and other regional towns.
What did the CLP leave on its record in terms of providing information to the people of the Northern Territory? I had a look at the last annual report of Police, Fire and Emergency Services tabled under the CLP government in the 1999-2000 financial year. In total, it has one table Territory-wide on selected offences reported to police; one table, again Territory-wide, on reported unlawful entry of a dwelling; one table on reported unlawful entry of a building; and one table on drug-related infringements and apprehensions, again only on the Territory as a whole. We have 4000 items of information in here on top of an equally extensive volume of information in the police annual report.
There is no information in the CLP version of public disclosure on Darwin; there is no information on Palmerston; on Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Katherine or Nhulunbuy. There are no trend lines, there are no analyses, there are no court outcomes to refer to.
I would like to again state that, according to an independent study by Ernst & Young, the two reports are completely compatible in terms of the use of the police data, and the way in which that data has been interpreted within the two respective time lines. One of these is not trying to cover up the other. They are basically two different views of what that particular database can tell us about crime in the Northern Territory.
The police annual report is just that: an annual report covering the financial year 2001-02. In other words. it provides statistics on crime from the period 1 July 2001 to 30 June 2002, and makes comparisons with the previous financial year. On the basis of that, it is not comparable in its conclusions with the report from the Office of Crime Prevention which is a report that provides statistics from the September quarter of 2002; that is, from 1 July to 30 September 2002. It makes comparisons with the preceding quarters. There is no contradiction, just different time periods. The crime statistics from both reports are based on the same data, and I have stated the origins of that data.
This national standard of the ABS characterises crime using a uniform classification structure that we have adopted from the ABS. It is used all over Australia. The Office of Crime Prevention’s Quarterly Crime and Justice Statistics is a more comprehensive report than the police annual report. It provides information over a two year period that will be added quarter by quarter in all major urban centres in the Territory as we go forward. So at the moment, we know about two years of trends in crime. Every quarter we will add to that time line so we will have a much more stable view of what is happening with these various offences.
I urge Territorians to look at this government report and to make use of it, to both interpret what is happening in their neighbourhoods and what is happening in areas of their workplaces and the issues in which they have a particular interest. That is why it has been released and, with the trend data, will give a much clearer picture over time than the percentages which can vary enormously in times that periods are compared. The release of this information ensures that Territorians can see for themselves what the crime trends are, and they will not be as vulnerable to the sensationalist statements of the opposition, or the less informed comment in the media.
Two year trends are the most helpful when you are looking at the way crimes occur within our community. We know that the crime statistics of the Territory can be volatile. Because we are working from a smaller population base and, therefore, a smaller sample than other parts of Australia, the percentage changes can be big. Hence, the member for Blain’s noble effort of using an increase of 14 offences in a part of Palmerston as proof that there is a crime wave. It was probably one offender who cut loose there for the purposes of their own habits and created a one-person crime wave in a very small part of Palmerston. So we have to get beyond that volatility if we are going to see how those crimes are generated in the community and what our public programs are doing to change them.
What do the trend lines show about major crimes in the Territory? As my colleague, the member for Nhulunbuy has already said, for recorded robberies, the trend line is stable. The trend line for motor theft rose in January 2002 but has remained stable over the last two quarters. Recorded other theft has remained stable since September 2000. Property damage has remained stable since November 2001, and there have been two increases in the trend line since September 2000. The trend line shows recorded assaults are down; recorded sexual assaults are down; break-ins to premises other than dwellings are down. Importantly, residential break-ins are down across the Territory and that is right across the Territory. We are finding in every regional centre some significant downturn.
We have to find out what has caused that, in detail. My colleague, the member for Nhulunbuy, has already indicated that there are a number of elements in our policies in these areas of crime prevention that would have impacted along with changes in police work.
I want to focus on some of the crimes, the house break-ins. There is quite clearly a significant downturn since last January and we obviously will be working very hard to see that is consolidated and continues. Looking at Darwin, we have exactly the same downturn. I will table these as I go along.
Members interjecting.
Dr TOYNE: Palmerston, not so clear and in fact quite volatile and it has been on the same fluctuating average now since December 2001. So there has not been the same sustained downturn as has happened in Darwin. Mostly, the overall Territory levels of house break-ins have shown that sustained decrease since last January. All we are taking those to mean is some encouraging early signs of a sustained downturn. The first sustained downturn in the two year period that these statistics deal with. The Commissioner of Police has confirmed these trends during the interview that he had last Thursday.
We know that crime fluctuates. It goes up and down, but in the last six to nine months there has been a downward trend, that is pretty clear to me. He has also said:
I wouldn’t be bewildered about cynicism on the part of the opposition because this is not good news for them politically. It might be good news for the Northern Territory community, but it is certainly not good news for you mob because you are still parading around saying there is an increase in crime when in fact the figures are showing these decreases. The commissioner said:
Mr Henderson: Never been provided before!
Mr Elferink: In a way that’s never been provided before. I’m sure about that. It’s a whole new way.
Mr Henderson: Four times a year instead of once a year!
Dr TOYNE: That is the Police Commissioner saying the Northern Territory has never had a better picture of crime in the community. Property crime continued to rise as shown in those graphs …
Mr Elferink: Why is the commissioner reporting an increase?
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Macdonnell, enough!
Dr TOYNE: Property crime continued to rise under mandatory sentencing. You have to come to terms with that. Mandatory sentencing, over the three or so years it existed in the Northern Territory Sentencing Act, resulted in a very consistent rise in the very crimes that it was put into counter. In fact, some 4% or 5% per year over the period that mandatory sentencing was in place. Mandatory sentencing had no beneficial effect in countering those types of offences in our community. The only decrease in these types of offences in the community have occurred under a Labor government. They have not occurred at all under mandatory sentencing or under the CLP.
So, we have to find out exactly what elements of police work, of crime prevention work, of community mobilisation has contributed to those early signs of improvement. We have to try to consolidate those initiatives in our government. We will be working very hard to do that. I want to reiterate what has been said many times since the day that we released these figures, that we are not getting cocky about this. We have a big crime problem in the Northern Territory, we continue to have a big crime problem in the Northern Territory and we are not taking any foot off the pedal on action to counter that crime.
The difference between us and you is that you just popped out to your one shot in the locker, the mandatory sentencing, and went to sleep on everything else. We are working very strongly now through our community crime prevention groups. We are working very strongly to support the police as they apply the more focussed laws that we brought onto the Criminal Code and we are seeing the early impact of the body of law reform that we have introduced and the improved operational arrangements within the police force. I think all of the people who have achieved this early improvement should be congratulated for it, but counselled not to get cocky or apathetic about it. We have to keep working, and working very hard, to try and get these figures down further still.
In summary, there is no merit in this censure motion. There is no substantiation of the conspiracy theories, the unsubstantiated criticisms of the documents here. We all have to move on from this. We have thrown them the challenge. There is the information. That is what is going on in crime in the Northern Territory. This is what you have to address as the opposition, as we have to address it as government. We will all stand or fall on how the pattern emerges in the future.
Madam Speaker, I move that the motion be now put.
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: The question now is that the Censure Motion be agreed to.
Motion negatived.
Continued from 16 October 2002.
Mr BALDWIN (Daly): Madam Speaker, we move now to an amendment to the Liquor Act that deals with objections as well as the provision for complaints. I will say at the outset that the opposition will not be supporting this amendment to the bill on quite a few grounds, and I will go through them, but particularly that this now starts to prescribe who can and who cannot make a complaint or objection to a liquor license application. Because it is becoming prescriptive, it therefore becomes restrictive in our view. It certainly does limit a person or a group by description that is contained in the amendment and by the location in which those people or groups operate. It also flies in the face of community concern about alcohol in general and alcohol in the community. It does nothing to let people have an open say in how many licences are granted by way of application.
It is a bandaid attempt to fix what has been happening in Darwin of late, particularly in Mitchell Street. To that end, I believe that there needs to be some clear policy articulation in respect of the number of licences that should be allowed in various precincts. Mitchell Street is a good example of that.
Going to the second reading speech, the minister started by saying that the Liquor Act is a very important instrument of legislation designed to protect the community from the harm associated with the abuse of liquor and to ensure that the amenity of the community is maintained. That is a very strong thread throughout the Liquor Act: protect the community from harm and to ensure the amenity of the community is maintained.
This amendment goes to that very aspect: protect the community from harm. This amendment bill actually restricts those Territorians who can have a say in objecting to an application. They are restricted to talk only in terms of amenity. In fact, the fourth paragraph in the minister’s statement says that the act, that is the current Liquor Act, allows any person to object to the granting of a new liquor licence unless it is made on commercial grounds. Commercial grounds have never been allowed, obviously, as a reason for an objection but this amendment bill will restrict a lot of people from being able to make objections.
The second reading speech goes on to say that this bill aims to bring certainty to the liquor licence application process by defining who can object. Further down in the same statement, the minister talks about the amenity of the neighbourhood and then says the term ‘neighbourhood’ is a subjective term. That is quite correct. On the one hand, we are trying to have certainty in the process, and on the other, we have a subjective form of words in the legislation. It will be up to the commission, one would assume, to make a decision. This is going to be very difficult for commission members.
The bill provides that any objection can be made by a person who resides or works in the neighbourhood of premises the subject of an application, who is an owner or lessor of premises in that neighbourhood, a member of the police force, a member of the fire and rescue service, an agency or public authority that performs functions relating to public amenities, and community based organisational groups carried on for the purpose that they are connected with the amenity of the neighbourhood.
As I said, that is now a prescription as to who can object whereas before there was facility for anyone to object.
The neighbourhood part that is mentioned in both the individual who resides or works in the neighbourhood of the premises, or the community based organisation that, as I said, has been mentioned by the minister is a subjective one. He goes on to say:
The area affected will of course be determined by the type of licence applied for and the nature of the vicinity of the application. For example, the neighbourhood around a proposed city tavern will be, at most, a matter of a few blocks while the neighbourhood surrounding a takeaway liquor facility in a remote place may encompass an area of hundreds of kilometres, and in each case it will be a question of fact to be determined by the Licensing Commission.
That is going to create quite a bit of ambiguity, not certainly, as the minister claimed in his second reading speech. It will limit those individuals who can present an objection to a licence because of where they live within this subjective neighbourhood. That is a critical mistake to make, one that will be seen as a restriction on freedom of expression and will limit the ability of Territorians to have any input in a fair and open process. I note, on that point, that the minister has already circulated an amendment schedule to the amendment bill, to omit that part of that last point of a person who will be able to make an objection, and that is a community-based organisation or group carried on for the purposes that are connected with the amenity of the neighbourhood. He wants to now amend it to omit ‘carried on for the purposes that have a connection with the amenity of the neighbourhood’.
I know, and the minister knows, that this came about because of the briefing he gave to members of this parliament - and I was not one of them, I did not seek a briefing. I am sure the minister will raise that. I did not need a briefing. I have canvassed the views of others. I can understand what the minister is trying to achieve here, but he has admitted that some groups and/or organisations are going to be restricted in their ability to comment on an application for a liquor licence. So, to overcome that - a concern raised by members of this parliament - he now wants to omit the neighbourhood section of that and just leave it to community-based organisations or groups can object. That leaves it open, if there is a liquor licence application being made in Darwin, for instance, and there is a community group or organisation that is generally concerned about liquor in the community, be they based in Alice Springs, Katherine or wherever, then they will be allowed to object, the same way that they are allowed to object now. Any person can object now.
He was going to restrict them, it was raised as an issue for those community groups, so now he is going to let them have that right to objection. Good thing: they already have it; he was going to take it away; he is now giving it back to them. Poor community groups. So if you make that logical step, that you have let the community groups back in, why wouldn’t you let the individual back in? Why restrict Territorians’ rights to have a say on any application?
If it is bogging down the system, change the system, but do not restrict the rights of Territorians to have a say. That goes to the heart …
Ms Martin: That is a totally inconsistent argument that you have just put.
Mr BALDWIN: Sorry?
Ms Martin: Sorry, I should not interfere.
Mr BALDWIN: I will pick up on the interjection of the Chief Minister. If this is introduced like this, the Chief Minister, who once objected to a licence in an electorate that was not hers, who lives more than a few blocks away from where the licence application was being made, objected to a licence. She went before the commission, a concerned Territorian acting on behalf of other people as an individual, laid an objection, appeared before the commission. She did not get the result she wanted, fair enough, but had the right to have her say.
In this instance, that was an application for a licence at the Woolner subdivision. I assume the Chief Minister still lives in the Narrows, or, what do they call it? Fannie Bay West or something, is that where you still live? It is more than three blocks, that is my point, isn’t it?
Ms Martin: Under this legislation, I would still be entitled to do that.
Mr BALDWIN: Wrong! Show me.
Ms Martin: No, it is not.
Mr BALDWIN: Show me where! These are the only people …
Ms Martin: But I am flattered that you know where I live.
Mr BALDWIN: I will pick up on that interjection. The only people who could make an objection are ‘those who reside or work in the neighbourhood of premises the subject of the application’. Are you one of those? No. ‘An owner or lessor of premises in that neighbourhood’. Are you one of those? No. Because we will get to how neighbourhood is described. ‘A member of the police force’. Are you one of those? No. ‘A member of Fire and Rescue Services’. Are you one of those? No.
Ms Martin: A member of the Parap Residents’ Association, Timmy.
Mr BALDWIN: You as an individual, I am talking about.
Ms Martin: A member of the Parap Residents’ Association. I could still do it.
Mr BALDWIN: Don’t muddy the waters.
Ms Martin: I could still do it, you see. You are not smart enough.
Mr BALDWIN: That is what is the matter here.
Ms Martin: Thinks he’s too smart. It can be done.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, Chief Minister!
Mr BALDWIN: They are going to let groups in but restrict the rights of individual Territorians. That is what I am talking about, the same right as the former Leader of the Opposition had in a former application for licensing. That is what they are restricting.
I will continue. Are you a community-based organisation as an individual? No, you are not.
Ms Martin: I’m part of one, I’m part of one, proudly part of one.
Mr BALDWIN: And how is neighbourhood described? How is it? Albeit the minister has said very subjective, but we want to create certainty here, he said in his second reading speech. In terms of a licence in a neighbourhood, not more than three blocks away.
Members interjecting.
Mr BALDWIN: The Chief Minister lives more than three blocks away. Had the right to go forward, in a transparent way, acting on behalf of concerns that she had had put to her, to address the commission. She is on the Hansard in August 2000 saying it was with the experience of all this antisocial behaviour, concern about antisocial behaviour, as they are, as we are, very much in the forefront of my mind, I put in an objection to the provision of yet another licence in the area, and so on and so forth.
Mr Dunham: In my electorate, not yours!
Mr BADLWIN: And that is the whole point here, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker.
Ms Martin: You didn’t care.
Mr Dunham: I did care. I wanted the licence. I supported it.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! No cross-Chamber chat, please.
Mr BALDWIN: So, that is a crucial element of why we will not support this amendment. I would have objected on the basis that only community-based organisations and groups which were connected with the amenity of the neighbourhood could not object. They were ruled out. Now, it has been raised by members of the parliament in a briefing with the minister, that that is not on. Okay, so we have an amendment. That is here. I hope it gets up. But it does nothing for the rights of the individual, and it is paramount that those rights are not curtailed. That is one of the main issues.
Then it goes to a point of limiting the grounds of an objection. First we limit who can object, with some variations now. Then we are going to limit the grounds of objection. Currently in the act, the only grounds of objection that can be limited are grounds that are based on a commercial argument. You cannot argue an objection on a commercial basis. That has worked very well over the years. But now we are going to limit the grounds upon which an objection may be made to that of ‘adverse effect of the licence application on the amenity of the neighbourhood’. That is the only ground you can object on, the amenity of the neighbourhood.
It goes on to say that it is the intention of this legislation that the term ‘amenity’ be read narrowly. It does not appear anywhere in the legislation, but the second reading speech has made it very clear that ‘amenity’ will be read narrowly. The minister goes on to say:
That is what ‘amenity’ means, obviously. But unfortunately, the pleasantness and facility, particularly the pleasantness, is again very subjective. It is a bit like looking at a painting. Do you think that is pleasant? ‘I do’; ‘I don’t’. It is a subjective area. It has again limited the way that you can place an objection before the commission.
We have another step which is being formalised in this bill, and that is that objections will be subjected to a pre-hearing process by a member of the commission appointed by the Chairman who will determine the standing of the objector and whether the grounds upon which the objection is laid are of sufficient substance to be considered further.
I can see that what they re trying to do with this provision is streamline the effect and make sure no frivolous objections arise. In fact, sort them out before they get to the commission. But it does concern me that one person, rather than a quorum or the commission, will have the power to determine whether or not an objection should proceed.
The other part, of course, is that no new evidence can be introduced once an objection is taken on board, is then presented – the whole process can take quite some time to a full hearing - that no new evidence can be provided or introduced other than that which was in the initial objection lodged.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, the minister responsible then goes on to say:
I say that this is a much more restrictive way of doing it. The upshot, really, is that restrictions are being placed on the public, and this is a government supposedly that is going to introduce – what? Third party appeals for the planning process, more people to have their say, you know, that sort of thing. More inclusive.
Here we have legislation - I am surprised it got past the Chief Minister, that the Chief Minister actually supported this, given her …
Ms Martin: Wholeheartedly.
Mr Dunham: She has not even read it. She did not even understand it.
Ms Martin: Wholeheartedly. We’ll get business moving in the CBD.
Mr BALDWIN: Here is the freedom of individuals to have their say on an issue that has always been a concern to all Territorians, and that is alcohol in the community, that fewer people can have an influence on that licence being granted or otherwise. It is a ridiculous notion that they would come up with something like that.
What they should be doing if they are concerned about the Mitchell Street wars, as reported in the paper, is to provide a clear policy direction to those licencees and to those investors who may want to enter into some sort of a business with liquor available in that precinct or any other precinct for that matter. Provide a clear policy guideline as to how many licences in the current population, allowing for some increase, can be sustained in a precinct such as Mitchell Street. That is what the licencees want. That is what the investors want. That is probably what the AHA would like to see, some clear definition. Even if it will allow open slather - if they know that, then at least they have been told. Or is it a number of licences, or whatever? A clear policy from this government would fix these problems.
Those who have done any talking to the licencees all know that by letting extra licences, an open slather approach, limits the number of people who can have a say against how many licences go in there. So you are aiding and abetting an open slather approach such that we will end up with the same sorts of issues here in the CBD as they have in the CBD of Cairns. Justin Coleman has been quoted in the paper as saying that this is about protecting the public. This is why he was objecting to another licence. This is about protecting the public. We do not want to see Darwin become like Cairns where there are so many bars that there are alcohol price wars which lead to social problems. Seven nights a week in Cairns you can buy $1.00 drinks and between 11 pm and midnight on Monday nights, there are free drinks in two different venues.
Mr Stirling: Tell me where that happens in Darwin! Tell me where that happens.
Mr BALDWIN: You know why this happens? Do you know why this happens?
Mr Stirling: Where does it happen? It doesn’t.
Mr BALDWIN: What the authorities said in Cairns was: ‘Let’s just step away from this. We don’t want anything to do with inhibiting licences. Let’s just have open slather.’ A multitude of licences opened up in that precinct.
We all know – they are pretty easy sums – you only have so many people to buy so many drinks from so many venues. The more venues you have, the more drinks you have to sell, the less viable you become. They get into price wars to attract customers. If we are going to have the same thing here, an open slather approach by limiting how many individuals ...
Mr Henderson: It was happening in Cavenagh Street years ago! It was happening in Cavenagh Street.
Mr BALDWIN: … how many Territorians can have a say on the applications that might be made, then we are going to end up the same way.
When Justin Coleman pulled out from this war against Christo, he said: ‘Here’s the truce in the battle of the bars’. He goes on to explain the circumstances. In his letter, Mr Coleman said to the commission:
And good on him for that.
What is he asking for? A clear indication from this government about some direction, some intent of how many licences may be permitted in that precinct. I will ask the minister responsible to tell us how many licence applications, future ones, does he know of that are going to go into that precinct? I know a figure. I want to hear him tell this parliament. We have had a war about the current licences …
Mr Stirling: How do you know how many there are going to be? I don’t direct the commissioner.
Mr BALDWIN: If you were on top of your job, you would know how many are going to be made. You would know because you should be getting briefed on how many are expected. If he is any sort of a minister, or is he the same sort of a minister as he was as a police minister, totally hands off, totally incompetent, and I would suggest that that’s the case. I can tell you that I know of a number, and I want to know if he knows how many are going to be forthcoming.
Ms MARTIN: A point of order, just for a point of clarification. The member for Daly said he knows how many are going down.
Mr Burke: No, he didn’t. You weren’t listening.
Ms MARTIN: Yes, he did.
Mr Burke: No, you weren’t listening. Too busy talking, you weren’t listening.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, he didn’t say that. There is no point of order.
Mr BALDWIN: I would like to clarify for the Hansard’s sake, that I have a number, that I am aware of, of applications that are coming forward in the future. This is going to increase the pressure on viability of existing licences, it is going to create bar wars, and fewer Territorians are going to have a say on whether they want those licences there under this amendment. There should be some sort of policy directive, a vision, given by this government, to create some certainty. The minister reckons that this is what is going to create some certainty. This is going to create so much ambiguity that it is not funny. They are not doing anything about providing the vision, providing some policy statement, there is nothing on extra powers for the commission to deal with some of the issues.
We have heard from some jurisdictions down south about some of the other instrumentalities that have to deal with some of the problems where, for instance, the Australian Hotels’ Association has launched a five-point plan calling on government to introduce minimum sentences for violence at licensed premises. Mt Isa is to become the test area for new liquor laws which are being trialled. Wollongong City Council has reaffirmed their commitment to alcohol-free zones in the Wollongong CBD.
What the minister should be doing, rather than a knee jerk reaction like this and a bandaid attempt trying to find the solution for a one-off issue here, is have a complete review. That would be something that we would support: a complete review, including looking at very important precincts like this in our area and the people of Darwin, including those who live outside of the neighbourhood, those who come into this precinct from suburbs, out of town, the rural areas and so forth, who would like to have a say on the extent of licences that may be granted in the future in that area.
The opposition is all for cutting costs to businesses, and we would do anything to ensure that there is a streamlined process. It is sad that these monies have to be spent by applicants and objectors - up to $700 000 is quoted there - to be heard. Anything that cuts those costs we would support. However, if the government was serious in that, you would have some process that involved the whole commission looking at objections and sorting them out in a non-adversarial way before you allow the applicants and objectors in with their legal representation to a full hearing, so therefore not involving a cost to the business until you are ready to hear all the evidence that you have allowed to get to that stage. Not one person is allowed, but the full commission is allowed, something of that nature.
But that is going to come about, obviously, with a much more detailed look at the whole act, rather than just in this way of amendment for restricting who can make an objection and on what grounds.
When the one member, as I have stated, gets to see the objection, they then make a determination whether it is in or out. I note that in the amendment bill there is an appeal process then to the full commission for the objector who has been ruled out to make an appeal. That goes, again, to the point that I made. Why not deal with those processes as a full commission, rather than leaving yourself exposed to having one member do that work and therefore speeding up the process rather than getting an objection knocked back and then an appeal process? Why not take it to the full commission, anyway?
The complaints area is much the same except that, where a complaint is lodged with the director - so this is now with the director under this section of complaints - they inform the licensee of the substance of the complaint and give them an opportunity to comment in writing. The director then conducts the investigation of the substance of the complaint, as he or she considers appropriate, and then forwards the comments, if any, he or she receives pursuant to those investigations to the commission. Then a decision on consideration of a complaint is made. The commission must consider a complaint, the report or reports of the director, and any comments forwarded to the commission under section 48(6) and must, if the commission is of the opinion it is frivolous, they dismiss it or they direct the director to inform the person who made the complaint that the complaint has been investigated and no further action is warranted; or they conduct a hearing in relation to the complaint. So they do that for complaints. You would think that they would have the same sort of process for objections.
My colleagues will have more to say on this, but from where we stand, we could not support this. We would support development of a complete review, particularly in order to address the issues that the minister is trying to address, but we do not see that this is the correct way of doing it. We think this is going to restrict the ability for Territorians, like the Chief Minister who had the opportunity to object. We would like to see that ability continue so that people can have input as has been realised by the minister for those groups or organisations which would like to have input, albeit that they do not live or operate or have anything to do with the immediate neighbourhood. Anything that cuts costs to businesses and those wishing to invest in the hotel industry, we would like to see and be involved with and certainly do our best to limit the costs. But in this case we won’t be supporting this bill on the basis of the points that I have made.
Mr HENDERSON (Business, Industry and Resource Development): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise to support my colleague’s statements on the proposed amendment to the Liquor Act to streamline the processes for objections to liquor licence applications.
I will leave it to my colleague, the member for Nhulunbuy, to address a number of the issues raised by the member for Daly. I will pick up on one point made by the member for Daly. He was suggesting or implying that these amendments will lead to an open slather approach to the granting of liquor licences in the Northern Territory. It will be interesting to turn back and look at the act over which the previous minister had carriage, the current act. One could argue that this act has delivered an open slather approach if he is so concerned about it. I will take honourable members to one specific example. I am particularly aghast at how this particular business could have been granted a liquor licence. I am not going to name the enterprise directly, but in Alice Springs, I am not sure if it is on Todd Street or Gap Road, there is a service station probably within a couple of hundred metres of licensed sporting clubs, supermarkets in the centre of Alice Springs within the town boundaries, a service station that has a liquor licence. Now, if we are talking about community amenity and the problems associated with having too many liquor licences consolidated in small parts of the community, well, that licence was granted under the act that the previous government administered.
To say that what we are doing is going to provide for a more open slather approach than already existed, I would think that there is a very strong argument to suggest under the previous government, we already had an open slather approach. I pulled into that service station one day when I was down there and just could not believe that they were selling grog. That is not implying anything about the people who operate that business, but in terms of a statutory regime that grants approval to sell liquor in our community, how that one got over the line in terms of being a benefit to the amenity of the community, I really don’t know.
What this series of amendments is looking at is streamlining the process for objections that will benefit business people who seek to establish a licensed business in that they will be relieved of a costly objection process that had, over past years, become a tool of delay used by existing licencees to restrict new entrants and competition. That is what we are seeking to do here; we are seeking to support new licences that meet the threshold criteria and to ensure that existing licence holders cannot use spurious arguments that essentially are commercial arguments, denying and delaying competition in the market place.
I believe that is where we are at the moment. Everybody is guilty of the same game. To come in here and say: ‘I am okay, Jack, I got in early. I have my licence’. But based on some spurious argument in regard to amenity, we do not want to see any more licences issued in this part of the world really is restricting business opportunities. It really is restricting competition. It really is restricting a growth in social amenity. I do not think there is anybody in this parliament who would not say that over the last five to 10 years or so that Mitchell Street has been a significant enhancement to the social amenity of Darwin. It is a recreation area that is populated and enjoyed by residents and tourists alike. It has generated significant new business opportunities and employs hundreds of people. Given that the consumption of alcohol is so much a part of our lifestyle and, provided it is done in moderation, it can have beneficial effects for the community.
Anybody would say that Mitchell Street has benefited over the years in terms of the social amenity, the contribution that that series of businesses provide to our community. Yet we had previously, every time somebody wants a new licence in that strip, this totally unseemly and very costly legal exercise which is essentially aimed at denying the rights of people who want to establish a business to grow the market and to employ Territorians.
The issues of public amenity, safety, crime and the police are part of that process. The police make a submission when they believe that an additional licence in the area is going to be detrimental to community safety and community amenity. They will continue to make submissions based on those criteria under these amendments.
So what we are trying to do is to streamline the process for objections. One of the initiatives is the introduction of a pre-hearing process, and this should provide a cost effective means for the commission to quickly determine whether an objection falls within the spirit and the intention of the law, or something that has an anti-competitive or other basis. It could be assumed that the amendments to streamline the process for objections will be welcomed by the industry as a whole and the broader community.
If alcohol is responsibly and comprehensively managed, then we can see that this does benefit the community. As a Territory resident for 20 years, I can remember as a young bloke coming to the Northern Territory and working in my trade and enjoying a beer at the end of a hot day’s work. Some of the beer barns that were in the Territory at that time certainly were …
Mr Stirling: Blood baths.
Mr HENDERSON: Well, they were blood baths, picking up on the member for Nhulunbuy. I am not going to go through them, but I had my fair share as a young fellow in those places around town. To argue that Mitchell Street is something that is not a vast improvement in terms of licensed premises that existed 20 years ago in Darwin, I really do not think that anybody in this place believes that.
The changes should vastly reduce the cost that both objectors and applicants have incurred in past years. Without going to names, like the member for Daly, I have spoken as business minister to a number of those operators in Mitchell Street, and they all complained about the litigious process and the fact that it has cost tens of thousands of dollars. What we are trying to do is introduce more certainty and knock out the spurious objections which are essentially based on a combative nature, if you were to be honest about these things, and denying competition.
I am interested that members opposite have decided to oppose this measure. This measure really is about streamlining the process. I do not believe it will lead to an open slather approach. I am pretty sure if you were to do any analysis of the number of liquor licences in the Northern Territory per hundred thousand population, or ten thousand population, you would probably find that compared with other jurisdictions, under the previous regime we already had an open slather licence approach. We need to look at the whole issue of how we licence premises, and the number of premises that we do licence. On the other side of the coin, we really do not want to have a regime that is anti-competitive, that restricts new entrants into the market place, restricts competition; and provide some certainty within the process. We believe, on this side of the House, in what these amendments seek to do and I strongly support the amendments.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, whenever an application for a licence occurs, be it in Darwin, Tennant Creek or Alice Springs, it always creates a huge amount of community interest. We all admit in Alice Springs that we have an alcohol problem. The Minister for Central Australia has been quite active in the work that he has been doing to address that problem. He knows full well that an application for a licence would be severely looked at and perhaps criticised by the local community. We know we have too many licences in Alice Springs. We know the one that the minister referred to is something that we would not like to have. But I remind him that that licence was there before self-government and, in fact, the former government did think about buying it out but it is too expensive. I am sure the current government would like to get rid of it but you cannot. It is as simple as that. It is far too expensive to buy out.
We do have too many licences. Whenever you get an application, there are a number of groups that oppose it. I am very pleased, after discussion in the briefing we had, that the minister has agreed to allow community groups - which according to that definition, in my mind, was far too restrictive. There are many community groups which object, which perhaps do not live within the neighbourhood. I will give you some examples. When the Peter Severin’s road house at Curtin Springs was seeking further extension of their licence, it was the women from the Pitjantjatjara lands who objected. You know, they are a long way away. When the Tyeneretye Club wanted a takeaway licence, it was the MPY Women’s Council that objected. In the way it was phrased before, they would not have been allowed to.
We have had a number of cases in Alice Springs where I believe people may not have been, under the terms of this amendment, allowed to object. I am grateful and thankful, minister, that the amendment has resulted because it allays my fears that some of the community groups I am referring to can now make an objection.
What I found when I rang around last week though, and this concerned me, is that community groups do not know about this amendment. DASA, which is one of our most prominent drug and alcohol services, has a sobering-up shelter, and Nick Gill, who is on one of the federal boards, did not know about this amendment.
PAAC, the People Against Alcohol Coalition, whom I do not always agree with, did not know about it. The Alice in Ten Quality of Life Group, who work together with a huge representation of community interests, did not know about it. That is why I asked you not to put it through at these sittings. I believe there is a need for the community out there to be able to respond to this amendment, to know what you are suggesting, and for them to have a say.
Community consultation was one of the platforms that you were promoting. Yet this amendment was introduced last sitting and is going through now, without the people who are most involved in the alcohol debate knowing anything about it. That is why I said delay it. At least leave it until February so you can get some feedback from the community rather than just from us. I am disappointed that you have not delayed it accordingly.
I feel as though you are making amendments to address a problem in Darwin. This sometimes happens. You may think you are fixing the problem you had in Darwin, but you are creating a problem elsewhere. I see it with the taxi industry. You had a problem in Darwin; we did not have one in Alice Springs. However, by introducing some of these changes now, you have given us a problem in Alice Springs. That is what you have to be careful about: you are introducing legislation, and you do not see the ramifications on a broader scale. You are only looking at the immediate problem in Darwin and you have not thought of the consequences of these amendments and how they will affect other parts of the Territory.
I am concerned that you have narrowed the grounds for objection. You have heard the member for Daly quote from the second-reading speech which says clearly that it limits the grounds upon which an objection may be made. The second-reading speech is the official Hansard record of what this bill is all about. The second-reading speech is what people will always refer to in order to know what was the government’s intention with this legislation. There is no point saying to me, as was suggested, that perhaps we had been a bit harsh on ourselves by writing the second reading speech in those terms because it is the official explanation of the bill. Some of the points that have been raised are quite valid in that it says:
One of the things that I am concerned about is the way the amenity of the neighbourhood restricts peoples’ areas of objections. Many of the things that we have had in the past - and I just quote the Tyeneretye Club: when they asked for a take-away licence, Congress objected. It is very hard to know what you mean by ‘amenity of a neighbourhood’ because it is not defined at all. It is so loose a term, you are never quite sure how to interpret it. Congress said: ‘
That was their objection to a take-away licence: education and responsible drinking. I do not think that objection would be allowed under this definition. They also said they were concerned about the number of deaths that occurred on the railway line, if you recall that. That is a safety issue. Under this definition of amenity of a neighbourhood, I do not believe the safety issue would be allowed. They also said it would adversely affect the women and children using the Women’s Health and Birthing Centre near St Mary’s. That is a health issue. Under this definition, it would not be allowed.
So you have narrowed it so much that you have forgotten the broad view of the effects of alcohol and why we do object. You have not taken into account that it is not just commercial operations, as we have heard from the member for Daly. You have not taken into account that the effects of alcohol raise for us health, education, safety and social issues. The majority of objections in Alice Springs are based on those issues; they are not based on commercial grounds. Competition will sort that out eventually, anyway. But you have narrowed it so much that you are excluding the very principles the Minister for Central Australia has come up with.
It is almost, in my mind, a contradiction of philosophy of the government that, on one hand, they are saying: ‘We have a great alcohol problem. We will bring in alcohol restrictions to help eliminate that’. But on the other hand they are saying: ‘If there is a licence application, we are going to restrict those people who can object and we will restrict the grounds on which they can object’. You really have a contradiction of philosophy from this government. I am surprised it got through Cabinet, I really am. I don’t know what your process is, but if this amendment went through Cabinet, I cannot believe that the Minister for Central Australia would allow it to go through knowing that it runs quite contrary to what he is promoting in Central Australia. He is saying: ‘We want to control this alcohol problem’ and the best way he has seen to do it has been to consult with many community groups to make sure they have had their say, but on the other hand you are now saying: ‘I am going to restrict those people from having a say. I am going to restrict the grounds upon which they can object and it will be up to the commission to decide whether they accept those objections or not.’ That is my concern: that it is far too restrictive altogether.
I feel that you need to think carefully about this. I would like to have had more time to test this in a legal sense to determine whether I could lodge an objection and have it sustained under this amendment. Unfortunately, I do not think it would have been. You have rushed into it, I don’t think you have realised the ramifications of what you have introduced. You have tried to fix a Darwin problem and created one for us in Alice Springs. It goes against the philosophy of your government in terms of what you are trying to do. Community groups will be quite dismayed when they realise what you are introducing. I would imagine the reaction is going to be quite a backlash from those groups who have in the past supported what has been happening, certainly in Central Australia, and the way the government has been handling the alcohol problem. Remember the alcohol problem stems from the premises, the number of licenses, and how many licenses are granted.
What I would like you to do, minister, in reply, is to give me some comfort. If the intent of your amendment was to stop frivolous objections from commercial interests, the intent is not clear in this amendment. The second reading speech does not mention it at all, if that is the intent. What is the spirit of this amendment? What are you really wanting to do rather than just streamline and provide a better and more streamlined system for liquor licence applications? If it is only about streamlining the system, then surely you might say to the Liquor Commission that they need to get their act together and streamline the process better themselves in the way they go about hearing these applications.
Is it really sensible to pass an amendment that may disadvantage many community groups and many people in our community just to make sure you have a more streamlined system? I would like you to state quite clearly to me when you reply, minister, that any objections to an application that are based on health, social implications, education, safety will be accepted by the commission and won’t be overruled. If you can give me some guarantee that those areas of objection will be sustained and will be taken fully into account, that they won’t be overruled and thrown out because they do not comply with this amendment, perhaps people out there in the community when they hear about what you have done today will have a bit of comfort.
The reaction I have had from the chairman of PAAC was one of dismay when she realised what you intended to do. From Nick Gill, who unfortunately has not been well, his first reaction was: ‘Why is this happening?’ He contacted the office of the minister for health and apparently the response from that office was: ‘We don’t know anything about it’. I was a bit surprised, particularly as this is an area that the minister for health should be greatly involved in, and I really believe that you are setting us up to make it harder for us object to application.
Minister, you really need to look at the wording of this amendment.
If you can reassure me that my women’s group who object on the grounds of health or safety to their family, who live in a remote community a long way away from town, whether their objection will be sustained, fine. But if you are saying to me this has nothing to do with the amenity of the neighbourhood where the premises the subject of the application is located, then we have a problem, and you have a problem.
Minister, do you really need to go ahead with this today? Why couldn’t you leave it until February to get some feedback from the community? Why can’t we test a few of the examples we have given of groups that have objected on grounds other than amenity for which is hard to get a definition from you.
Mr Baldwin: Pleasantness and facility, it means.
Mrs BRAHAM: Well, that doesn’t cover health, education, safety and social grounds
Mr Baldwin: I agree.
Mrs BRAHAM: That is my point. They are the main grounds on which we have objected to licence applications in Alice Springs. Finally, I just bring you back to the point that I believe it is in complete contradiction to the policy and philosophy that I have heard from the Minister for Central Australia and the member for Barkly espouse as wanting to make sure that they have a safer community.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, there seems to be no doubt on a close perusal of this proposed amendment that the Labor government does not have a real handle on the issues which confront the liquor industry, nor do they understand the true effect the legislation will have on the regime.
It is supposed to be a Territory initiative by the Labor government, however it is pretty obvious that the text of the legislation confirms once again that they are serfs to their southern masters when they have taken what is effectively Victorian legislation and presented it to this parliament.
The Northern Territory enjoys a vibrant and youthful tourism industry. Unlike members on the other side, the CLP quite genuinely has a vision for the Territory, a vision for Mitchell Street and the tourism industry which relies so heavily upon striking that important balance between having a good time, the consumption of alcohol and making sure that precincts like Mitchell Street are not dominated by liquor outlets and continue to maintain a safe, caf, food-oriented outdoor environment.
The one thing which even the government had managed to flag and work out is that the availability of alcohol is a crucial issue which affects people in every town, in every metropolitan area of the Northern Territory. Of course, it affects people in remote communities.
If I could just touch upon something the member for Wanguri talked about, he didn’t name the service station in Alice Springs, but I suspect he is talking about the one that secured its licence pre self-government, well before he was anywhere near the Territory. That was a licence that existed before the introduction of the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act. To deal with that problem, if it is in fact a problem, it would involve the acquisition of that licence on just terms. So to suggest for a moment that this legislation goes any way toward resolving that problem demonstrates that he hasn’t done his home work. It is untrue …
Mr Stirling: He wasn’t suggesting that at all. You weren’t listening to him.
Mr MALEY: That was certainly the argument he was running.
Mr Stirling: Oh, rubbish!
Mr MALEY: There are effectively two options. Having identified the fact that the availability of liquor is an issue that has to be addressed, there are two options for any government. These include dealing with the matter in a kneejerk and piecemeal fashion, introducing band-aid amendments such as the one that is to be considered today. I suspect some of the motivation behind some adverse publicity in a local newspaper was the work of one particular protagonist. Alternatively, the government can adopt a more global view and deal with the matter in totality.
The government, intends by this legislation, to restrict both the class of person and ground upon which an individual or corporate entity may object to an application to the Northern Territory Liquor Commission for a licence. As the member for Braitling quite properly pointed out, the only ground for objection is now to be, according to the amendment, whether or not the licence may or will adversely affect the ‘amenity of neighbourhood’. The only guidance the Liquor Commission will have, of course, is the poorly written second reading speech which said:
Not only is the term ambiguous and narrow just in a literal interpretation, we have the added interpretive tool of the second reading speech saying that it should further limit the type of matter which can fall to be considered under that category. It is now going to be a matter with which the Liquor Commission is going to have to deal. What does that term mean? Does it include, for example, the long-term economic effect that too many liquor licences will have on a particular tourist precinct? While the amenity of the area may be sustainable, what if the proliferation of liquor licences has an adverse health effect on a portion of our community? Those health problems won’t affect the amenity of the immediate liquor area but, of course, will be dealt with at another time, in another place - perhaps a town camp may feel the effects, albeit several kilometres from the liquor outlet. There is no attempt by this Martin Labor government, or, it seems, their interstate puppeteers, to create a policy which would make places like Mitchell Street an area where a business can reliably invest.
It is important to put this on the record: the Liquor Act is important social legislation and not only deals with who can make an application for a liquor licence, it also deals with those who can object to that application. There are a number of things that the government could do if it was serious about dealing with the problem of liquor availability. A common sense approach would be to properly resource the Liquor Commission, which has a number of very experienced and qualified people, a number of inspectors who have dealt with the industry, who know what has to be done. Properly empower these people to enforce the stringent conditions of liquor licences. Make clear that if someone makes a complaint, then those matters are going to be properly investigated. Give the Liquor Commission the resources to go out into the pubs and clubs and to prosecute people who breach the Liquor Act by selling liquor to intoxicated people, that is just an example.
There are lots of things that quite genuinely could be done to deal with the problem, rather than this fairly pathetic band aid which, I suspect, will have the opposite effect - if you could infer that the government has a good motive; that is dealing with the liquor industry, this is not the way to do it; it is not going to resolve it.
There has not been any real and constructive consultation with the industry. There has been no real attempt to deal with the problem of alcohol availability because, ultimately, this government has no real vision for places like Mitchell Street and for other places where, of course, the availability of liquor …
Mr Henderson: Rubbish! What about your vested interests in Mitchell Street? Isn’t your partner a Liquor Commissioner?
Mr MALEY: That is interesting. The member for Wanguri has interjected with another typically rude …
Mr Henderson: Do you have a vested interest in this?
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, member for Wanguri!
Mr MALEY: The people who are in the industry are precisely the type of people who know what is going on. They are precisely the type of people who should play an active role in the process of new liquor licences, and in dealing with the complaints. They are precisely the types of people who are properly resourced, who bring important material before the Liquor Commission. I am talking about comprehensive surveys about the effect of liquor; about the number of people who regularly go out into the Darwin CBD …
Mr Henderson: You are all right. You do not want to see competition.
Mr MALEY: … on any one weekend.
Mr Henderson: That is your vision. I am going [inaudible] competition.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Wanguri, order!
Mr MALEY: Look, I am happy to take that interjection as well from a man who is very poorly qualified to make any comment on this. If you talk about competition, then yes, competition is certainly an issue. In almost every industry, it seems that competition and competition reform is important. The thing about the liquor industry is that it is in a unique position; there are genuine, valid and powerful arguments why there needs to be very careful consideration of the legislative framework within which people are allowed to sell alcohol.
The examples my colleague, the member for Daly, cited are absolutely spot on. These are facts. In Cairns, the government, through their various Liquor Commissions, said: ‘If you want a licence, you have a licence. If you want one, you can have one. We will let competition decide who is going to survive and who is not going to survive’. What happens is that, in competition with the fellow across the road, there are ‘dollar drinks’. Then you have fewer bouncers on the premises because they cost you money. Then your competition will do exactly the same, and they will fight each other for a finite market. There will be more grog, there will be more social problems, and it becomes worse, and worse, and worse. Now they are saying: ‘Okay, we are going to reduce the closing time from five’ and they are pulling it back to three. That is what has happened. What happens is you have a whole heap of these people who come into town, they move into a licensed premises because the previous licensees failed to make any money, and then they go completely mad. There is the cash till which is for the boys to split, and there is the till you pay your tax with. Then, of course, the tax department get involved. Then they collapse, they all go, and then someone else steps in and you have this boom/bust scenario.
In Wollongong, they are considering having portions of the CBD alcohol free. There is a real social effect. If you talk about competition, well, competition is healthy, but you have got to balance it. With respect, you know absolutely nothing about this. Perhaps your background …
Mr Henderson: We know about your commercial and vested interest in this debate. I’m making a quid, but nobody else can.
Mr MALEY: Perhaps being a minister for a few months has suddenly empowered you with God’s gift on everything. Of course, we expect to be steamrolled and no matter what we say it will be the vote of 13-whatever. That is all part of the process, and all I can do is put something on Hansard and supply that to as many people as I can to let them know that someone is speaking rationally and with a bit of common sense about this as opposed to the very rude and arrogant member for Wanguri.
One thing that did surprise me, given all the hallmarks of classic Martin Labor government polices, is there is no five-point plan. Usually they have some sort of plan and there is usually a review. Be that as it may, there is really nothing of substance to this amendment.
The liquor industry - and I can say from my previous involvement in not the management of it, but seeing how it runs economically and doing the books - fluctuates like every other industry. In my previous life when I acted for various applicants and also objected on behalf of people, apart from one or two, almost all matters are resolved eventually. If you want to make reforms to get this process happening, really it is about …
Mr Henderson: Yes, the lawyers make money out of it.
Mr Stirling: $4m dollars later!
Mr MALEY: That is a gross exaggeration about the money spent on these liquor objections, but the role of the objector is to put the material before the Liquor Commission which is an independent statutory authority which makes the decision. If you want the process sped up, that is an understandable request from industry or one particular protagonist, there are certain mechanisms you can put into place to speed it up to set a time frame which has to be resolved before the commission. But to restrict the type of people who can object and to restrict the grounds upon which they can object does nothing to assist in the process of having these matters resolved quickly.
I do not have the exact words, but I think there was some sort of rationale behind these amendments articulated by the government that they wanted to save money for the person who makes an application for a licence. It is not going to save them money and ultimately, all it is going to do is affect the rights of Territorians, real people who live in the real world, quite genuinely objecting to what they think is an inappropriate application.
I will make the point again: the very people you want to be involved in this process is very much the industry, the hoteliers association, and albeit there is a deal of suspicion about the motivation behind other licensees when they object, but quite frankly, they are the very people in the driving seat who know exactly what is going to occur. I am not making this up. This has happened down south. If you want to make Mitchell Street a liquor dominated place which will not be safe, this is the process where you keep handing out liquor licences. But if you want to make it a place to which tourists want to go, where liquor is not the primary attraction, then you need a bit of a vision and you have to deal with the problem.
Ms Lawrie: You are going to shut down Discovery, are you?
Mr MALEY: Of course, there will be insults. You can save them. All I am asking is that this goes on the record. If the government had a scintilla of common sense they would take on board some of the comments I have made, along with the comments from the members for Braitling and Daly. They are certainly motivated with the best of intentions.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I use to laugh at the member for Goyder’s comments that the government was a Chardonnay swilling party. Now I believe it, because this legislation is going down that path. Some of the comments I have heard tonight really shocked me, coming from the Labor Party. I will get back to that later. This legislation should be returned to the manufacturers as unsafe. It is not up to standard, it has been poorly thought through and it is devoid of vision. Before the government introduces any changes to the Liquor Act, it needs to set out exactly what its policy is regarding liquor licences. I do not believe the previous government had one, but here is an ideal opportunity for this government to set the standard.
Ms Carter: I am.
Mr WOOD: That just astounds me. I have heard the police say that 70% to 80% of their involvement in crime and call outs relates to alcohol. We have got people running around saying: ‘We need more police’, yet I think that is the wrong end of the stick. We should be looking at the problems of alcohol. We are trying to patch up the end. Yet here, government seems to be sending out the message: ‘Look, we are going to restrict to how you can object to liquor licences. We do not want to be anti-competitive and business has to be moving in the CBD’. This is not the Labor party I thought I would see in government. I might have thought it from a Country Liberal no regulation or low regulation type party. I would say: ‘Well, that is their philosophy’, and I could probably accept that. But on the other hand, I see a Labor Party which has always promulgated that it is there to protect …
Mr Burke: No, they are trying to be like the CLP. They’re a carbon copy of us, only a pretty bad copy.
Mr WOOD: Well, they may be. Sometimes I struggle to see the difference, but in this case, I see the philosophy of the Labor Party to help the community to regulate, where appropriate, for the betterment of society. Yet I think this is not the message that this legislation is sending.
May I suggest that the government publish a draft set of policies, invite comments from the community, the Substance Abuse Committee, alcohol rehabilitation groups, church and welfare bodies and the industry alike? The government might like to enunciate its thoughts on harm minimisation, on how many more licences there should be or should not be, and on the future of the industry.
You cannot start making changes to the Liquor Act which relate to objections until you know why we should have liquor licences, how many people should have liquor licences, and what the objective of allowing liquor licences is. There are some fundamental issues missing here. Would the government, for instance, support and promote the idea that a liquor licence is a privilege and not a right? Should there be regular testing and checking of licences to see whether they have been working towards harm minimisation and, if not, should a licensee lose their licence? After all, if the government has objectives, the way for those objectives to be actioned will, in the end, be by the people who have been given a liquor licence.
So if your policy is: ‘We believe in harm minimisation’, then that should be reflected in liquor licences by making sure that those licensees are, for instance, not serving people who are drunk or not serving people who you know are going to drive home in a little while, well over the limit. That is the way you promote your policy, through control of liquor licences.
Speaking directly about the changes that government is proposing to the Liquor Act, I believe, as I said previously, they are sending the wrong message. On one hand, the government has established a Substance Abuse Committee and the Minister for Community Development has told this House about how dysfunctional many communities are in the Territory. We have concerns about the number of itinerants. We have actually done quite extensive reports about our concerns about itinerants in the urban areas. Again, I think we are sending the wrong message.
I know the reason the government is saying it wants to change the law, and that is because of the recent proceedings relating to businesses in Mitchell Street. But this was put to me recently: whilst one could say that much of that debate was really about one commercial business trying to stop another one having a licence, it does raise an important question. Did the complaints by these commercial interests by default mean that at a liquor licence hearing, there was a devil’s advocate or contradictor? In other words, there was someone outside of the Liquor Commission testing to see whether it was proper for the licence to be granted. Although some of these people might not have wanted competition, by default they might have been put in the case that no one else had bothered to put the case as to whether there should have been liquor licences there in the first place.
If we are going to have some changes, perhaps we could start with an independent contradictor who is required at all hearings, even if there are no objections to a licence. So you have someone there who goes out and tests whether there should be a licence granted.
Second, the people or groups who can object should be broader than what is proposed, and the grounds on which they can object should be broader than the ‘pleasantness and the facility of the neighbourhood’. I know the amendment has allowed community based organisations or groups to object, but, as the member for Braitling said, they still can only object on those very narrow grounds, amenity of the neighbourhood, which is now defined as ‘pleasantness and facility’. If you talk about having a field day in court, that is making a field day. If someone is going to define the ‘pleasantness and facility’, they have enough trouble with the word ‘amenity’ - and I presume that is the reason why, in planning, they haven’t bothered to try to define it. So when it comes to defining pleasantness and facility, the lawyers are going to be enjoying themselves.
The issues we are dealing with here are not just about amenity. As the member for Braitling said, there are issues of health, social stability, and crime. According to this, as a member of the Substance Abuse Committee, I am not sure whether I would be heard because I do not belong to a community group. Second, if I wanted to talk on what I believe are health, social or criminal issues relating to alcohol, I don’t believe I would be heard. That is wrong. Even if I didn’t belong to a group, I believe I have the right, as a Territory citizen, to object. Any informed person should be allowed to object. I have objected to land clearing in the Douglas Daly. If you applied this system to the Planning Act, how many people down in the Douglas Daly are going to worry? They are probably all the people who are clearing. Sometimes you need people outside to raise issues that otherwise wouldn’t be raised.
I raised the issue at the briefing - and I thank the minister for the briefing - of a wayside inn somewhere on one of the highways, way out where no one lives within cooee. Where is the neighbourhood? What are the issues? The issues might be road safety, nothing to do with the amenity, the pleasantness and facility, at least not of that neighbourhood - 100km up the road, where they are picking up the pieces, it certainly might affect the pleasantness and facility.
A member: Very good point.
Mr WOOD: We have narrowed this down far too much. You have taken away people’s rights. The Labor Party, I presume, is a great advocate for people’s rights to get up and speak, yet it has cut that off and all because of some unknown person – I would love to know the name of that person - who objected to all the problems we had in Mitchell Street.
This bill has not been thought through, and the amendment was a last minute amendment - and I understand the reason for the amendment - but to me, it demonstrates that this thing hasn’t been thought through properly. That is why I ask the government to withdraw this bill.
The cost of court cases was raised. Maybe it is time that we took out the requirement to have legal representation. You have a Liquor Commission. Why don’t both sides put their case and let the Liquor Commission hear those sides and be done with it? As soon as you bring in solicitors, whether it is into planning or this sort of thing, you do make it costly, but that is not an excuse for changing these laws. Change that law; get rid of the solicitors. If it has to go to Supreme Court, you can bring in the solicitors then.
Now, on to competition. I am all for competition, but we are not talking about a lolly licence here. If you have 100 shops selling red frogs, kids might get a bit hyperactive from eating red frogs, but generally speaking we don’t have a problem, there are no great social problems. With liquor, surely this is a different concern. We are far in advance of every other state per head of population in our consumption of alcohol. We have enormous problems. I should have said my vested interest is that I don’t drink, but I am on the Substance Abuse Committee and we have enormous problems. The message the government is sending out is the wrong message. I would love to have heard other members of the Substance Abuse Committee say how they felt about this because this is not what I have seen when I have travelled around the Territory as a member of the Substance Abuse Committee. I have seen dysfunctional places. I have seen some terrible sights. I have said it before: I have a vested interest in a place called Daly River, where I saw so many young people die from alcohol because, in many cases, the particular licensee was able to sell alcohol without any restrictions, without anybody investigating the type of alcohol, whether it was hot or cold or who it was being served to. In the end, many of those young people died, and it does upset me.
We should be tightening up on who has a liquor licence. The member for Goyder said that we should have enough people to make sure that those who serve alcohol do it correctly. If we are serious - if the government is serious - about setting up a Substance Abuse Committee, if it has concerns about itinerants, about the costs alcoholism incurs in the Territory, then it should reflect that in its legislation. I do not think that is being reflected in this legislation.
It is poor legislation. I agree with the member for Braitling, and I would ask the minister that he delay putting this bill through until the next sittings because that would be far better. What the government has tried to do is fix up a problem that they perceive - and it may be a problem, but there may be other ways of fixing it. They have thrown the baby out with the bath water, and they have forgotten the rest of the Territory and their principles just because someone knocked on the door and said: ‘Oh, we have a problem here, can you please help fix it?’ That is a little disappointing.
I will make one comment on my amendment, just so people will understand. My proposed amendment is to remove the fire brigade as a party having the right to being an objector. You can only be an objector, according to this, on the amenity of the neighbourhood, which is the pleasantness and facility. What the fire brigade have to do with that, I do not know. The fire brigade will be involved in the design of the building; they will tell you whether you have to have sprinklers. They will probably tell you the maximum number of people you can put in that building. What they have to do with a liquor licence application beats me. They have their spot; they get it through the Building Code, and that is where it should be. To me, this is a bit of bureaucracy trying to interfere in another bit of bureaucracy. I do not believe they need to be in here; I do not see any point in them being here. Police, for sure, because they have other issues, but the fire brigade? It is involved at another stage, and that is where they should stay. I do not know why it has been thrown in - whether some people in the fire brigade think they should have a say - but it is over-bureaucratic.
I ask the minister to consider the concerns I have. The concerns are genuine. All right, I have said what I believe a Labor government should be concerned with: they should be concerned about making sure members of our community can have a say - not restricting that say, but can have a say. That is what I thought the Labor Party was about. They are protecting the community from abuse of substances which do affect us, and we know that. Have a look at the crime caused by alcohol. I would have thought that any legislation the Labor Party introduced would reflect that philosophy. This bill does not. I will vote against it, and I would ask that it be deferred to the next sittings of parliament.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): I will pick up, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, exactly where the member for Nelson left off. I am surprised at the apparent philosophical inconsistency between the government’s and individual government members’ position on so many other things, and this legislation. The member for Stuart, the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General, was a member of a committee that I was a member of - in fact, I invited him on to the committee. To his credit, with some enthusiasm, he leapt onto the committee some years ago. This committee dealt with the importance of alcohol in the community. It was an ATSIC funded report. It cost a few bob, but it was one of the underpinning factor that he relied upon when bringing alcohol restrictions to the community of Alice Springs, which the Liquor Commission imposed shortly after the new government was formed. That trial continues as I speak.
I find it curious now that so many of the issues and justifications he raised during that process of delivering those restrictions were community welfare arguments. The community was suffering, the community has a problem, this is a whole-of-community problem. I am sure we have all heard the mantra before, yet, to my surprise, I find the minister now supporting a system where the community does not really get an effective response. I do also wish to, by way of example, support one of the things that the member for Nelson said, and that is in relation to the neighbourhood issue. It was not that long ago that I went to a motor car accident near Kintore where three people died, several others nearly died as a result of that accident, and I have good grounds to personally believe – I am not pre-empting any coronial finding which is outstanding - that alcohol was a major contributor to that accident. I may be wrong; the coroner may find otherwise, but I believe that is the case. I believe that a community like Kintore, Papunya, Mount Liebig, Daguragu, Lajamanu, Milingimbi, Ramingining or any other community should be allowed to demonstrate some sort of interest in who gets a licence and who does not get a licence.
There are many stores in the bush which are way, way, away from other places that do have liquor licences, that do sell liquor, and that liquor finds its way hundreds of kilometres away from the licensed premises. These people are not neighbours, they are not close, they aren’t in any fashion close to even meeting the criteria set down at the proposed legislation, so I have some concerns about that. Another concern I have is that it disempowers me from objecting or otherwise in respect of a liquor licence. I am not entirely sure that I would qualify under any of the proposed criteria. It is a little concerning. One of the reasons that I am elected is to represent the population and public of the Northern Territory. I appreciate the system and how it works and those sorts of things, but I have been involved in liquor applications, I have even supported liquor licence applications in the past, and I have spoken against others. I am concerned that my ability to respond to these issues might be removed. I am very surprised by the philosophical approach that this government seems to be taking because the word consistency does not spring to mind.
The member for Nelson referred to competition and how important it is. It sprung to mind that there something called the National Competition Policy. Even the National Competition Policy says that there are certain criteria and guidelines where you will not have to pursue competition policy for the sake of competition, and one of those exceptions, of course, is public interest. There are certain things that the National Competition Policy accepts having to be regulated. I have always been a believer that drugs, no matter whether they be legal or illegal, should be regulated. I look upon alcohol as a drug and, in many instances, a drug of addiction. I believe that there is good room for regulation. I have made it clear in the past that the regulation has to occur for no other reason than the public interest. As a member of the public and a member of this Chamber, my disempowerment by this legislation would be a very poor outcome indeed, because I represent the interests, from time to time, of people who do come to me with their fears about liquor and liquor licences. Normally I help them to nobble together some sort of an objection, and say to them: ‘This is how you go about lodging an objection’, or I become involved at one level or another. I am unconvinced that I will be able to do so in the future.
Mr Stirling: I am sure you will.
Mr ELFERINK: Well, that is interesting because I would like to know exactly. I pick up on the interjection from the minister. I would like to know exactly how I will be able to do so, and I look forward to his explanation in due course.
I have the fear that because we do not have an Administrative Appeals Tribunal in the Northern Territory, and we are not covered by any sort of Administrative Decisions Review Act, this all then relies on the common law process of appeals from executive decisions to the judiciary through the courts. I have the feeling that we could be loading ourselves into a position where we will see more things ending up in court because those people and groups who are removed by the classification system we be in a situation where they will not be able to front the Liquor Commission but may still very well find that they have standing in a court.
Those people and organisations may very well feel that their only possibility is to then go to a lawyer and say: ‘I cannot get access to this decision and as a consequence, I have to then take it into a court’. All of a sudden you will find the first thing that happens after a decision is taken by the Liquor Commission is that people make applications to court and then you have injunctions happening and then you have to go through that whole process. By disempowering objectors, the government may be actually pushing the Liquor Commission into court more often rather than less often. When they end up in court, the expenses are going to be enormous.
I suggest to the government that perhaps one of the things they may consider is that the simple common law rules of standing apply rather than a very prescriptive list which is proposed in this amendment. It is a very prescriptive list. Not being a legal expert nor a lawyer, I understand that the rules of standing are broader than this and perhaps that could be used by the government as a means to deal with these issues.
I have the feeling that this is trouble for the government. I am surprised that they are heading into this arena because I think there is going to be a lot of disenfranchised people out there, and they are going to respond very negatively to the government. In the words of Sir Humphrey Appleby, I think of the government as being extremely brave.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I cannot support this. I have a real problem with it. However, I put my objections on the record and assure the minister that I will dredge those objections out in due course when people find that they are disenfranchised, and I will be pointing out to the community who has disenfranchised them.
Mr STIRLING (Racing, Gaming and Licensing): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, it has been an interesting debate right around the Chamber, even from some who disagreed with the context and the point of the bill. I am struck by the primary spokesperson’s attitude. There are two traits that exemplify a closed mind: one is arrogance, that you know it all; the second is laziness, that you cannot be bothered to find out or you assume you know it all.
Mr Baldwin: This is on the briefing, is it? It is funny how the others agree with me.
Mr STIRLING: Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, he is so arrogant, he knows it all and he does not need a briefing or he is so lazy. I think they are both together. He is a contemptuous person in his arrogance. He was known to be the laziest minister in the previous CLP government administration. He might have understood something that was touched on by the member for Macdonnell, and I noticed that the member for Goyder did not go anywhere near it. It is a question - I do not pretend to be a lawyer, but I do know this much. It is a question of administrative law and it goes to the question of standing. What this clown would have the parliament and the people of the Northern Territory believe is that prior to the advent of this amendment tonight, anybody, anywhere could jump in and object to a liquor application. Somebody living in Essex in England wants to oppose a liquor licensee application in Parap, Darwin had the right to do so and we are taking that right away. A person in Moonee Ponds in Melbourne wanted to object to a licence in Alice Springs had the right – no such thing! Never did and still does not under this bill. So do not mislead people for a start that we are taking away the rights of individuals. We are not!
Mr Baldwin: You are misleading.
Mr STIRLING: We are not!
Mr BALDWIN: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! The member is inferring that I misled the House. He knows he can only do that by substantive motion, and I ask him to bring on that motion if he wants to make that allegation …
A member: Or withdraw.
Mr BALDWIN: … or withdraw it.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, the is a point of order.
Mr STIRLING: Oh, be joking, there is a point of order!
Mr Burke: Have a bit of respect for the Chair, or leave.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have made a ruling, Deputy Chief Minister.
Mr STIRLING: What do I have to withdraw?
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Withdraw that you allege that he was misleading parliament.
Mr STIRLING: If I made an allegation he was misleading parliament, I withdraw it.
Mr Baldwin: You did.
Mr STIRLING: I withdraw it. What the member for Daly did, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, was put out there that prior to this amendment, any individual anywhere has the right to object to a licence application. Now, that is simply not true. It was not the case then and it will not be the case now. The commissioner always had the right, always had three grounds to rule out an objection to an application: vexatious, frivolous and relevance. Now the person in Moonee Ponds …
Mr Baldwin: What about location? Never had that ability …
Mr STIRLING: The person in Moonee Ponds - is that a question of location? The person in Moonee Ponds who wants to object to a licence application in Alice Springs would have had no standing then, and has no standing now. Nothing is being done to diminish, to reduce the right of the individual; it is a question of arrogance and laziness.
If he had a briefing, he would have found that an individual seeking to object to a liquor licence that does not affect that person in any real way could never in the past object and have that objection heard because it would have been struck out on the grounds of irrelevance. It is a simple matter of administrative law relating to standing, something that the member for Goyder, I sense, understands - because he did not get into this; he did not want to go anywhere near it – and something touched on by the member for Macdonnell who has a reasonable basic understanding …
Mr Baldwin: Frivolous or vexatious, that is right.
Mr STIRLING: … far better than you. You would have been better placed - and I tell you this: even in all the years in opposition as shadow Attorney-General, with the exception of one occasion, I always went to the briefings to find out at least what the bill was about and the intent of the bill from the government and try to understand it from the government perspective. Then, and only then after the briefing, have a view as to whether we, as an opposition, should oppose, support or try to amend the bill which are the three options open to you. However, at least we always went to the briefing to understand where the government was coming from, what they were trying to do, and whether there was a better way to do it.
This shadow minister fails his role as opposition spokesperson by not availing himself of the briefing because he is too arrogant, thinks he knows it all and, because he is too lazy - and I think even laziness overtakes arrogance as the greatest deficiency and the poorest trait that this member displays. He says: ‘Commercial grounds have never been grounds for objection’. He knows when he was the minister - and it has certainly continued since we have come to government – that the most thinly disguised objections were sometimes not even an attempt at thinly disguising them, other than the fact that they had to get them into the Liquor Commission. If they were exposed as commercial grounds, they would have been ruled out But very thinly disguised in a lot of cases. What we have had are protracted cases costing probably many thousands of dollars with the Liquor Commission resembling something like the High Court.
Now I do not think that was the intent of the Liquor Act, nor do I think it was the intent of the objection process when it was first laid down. It is something that evolved over time: you get a lawyer, I get a QC. It just blew out over time to no one’s benefit. The thinking behind what the opposition is saying tonight is that in some way, we want to blow the system open so that every licence application gets through. Far from it. All of the same grounds will be there, but the process will be tightened up. We will get away from these excessive and expensive delays and these incredibly lengthy hearings.
I listened very closely to the member for Braitling because she spoke with some passion on this situation. I was very interested in her perception of government - no doubt, not just this government, perhaps even her own – that if they saw a Darwin problem they want to legislate on it to fix that Darwin problem without a view for the ramifications beyond the Berrimah line; and what may be a fix for Darwin could in fact be creating a problem for Alice Springs. I have some awareness of that, and we have often seen it from the Commonwealth in respect of the Northern Territory overall, and certainly from Nhulunbuy’s perspective, because I have often thought that sometimes things fixed at the Darwin level by the previous government were no fix at all for the regions. In fact, it could be the reverse.
However, I want to assure her that it is not the case here that this is simply about a Darwin fix that is going to make things worse for Alice Springs or for any other region in the Northern Territory. It has been thought through from that point of view. People will still have the opportunity to object, provided, of course, that they have relevance and standing in the hearing.
Mr Wood: Pleasantness and facility.
Mr STIRLING: The question of amenity and the lack of a definition was touched on by a number of speakers. I cannot remember the example, but I can remember some years ago, arguing vociferously from the opposition benches about the need to have some clarity and meaning behind the particular term. It already had some meaning at law, anyway. It might have been the former member for Sanderson who was convincing me that, whenever you go to put a tight definition you, in fact, rule things out. By trying to define it as broadly as possible - however broadly you define the particular term that you are attempting to – you, in fact, make it tighter and rule other things out that may otherwise have been considered under amenity. It is far better in terms of neighbourhood, because the neighbourhood would go with the merits of the case.
The example drawn to me, if it has not been made in the House tonight, I think the member for Daly might have mentioned it, that in the case of a rural or remote location, ‘the neighbourhood’ to be affected could be 500 km. In the event of an individual whose family members may travel that 500 km to access that alcohol, the individual would easily have a case to say they are affected despite the fact they live 500 km away from the premises subject to the licence application. Less likely in an urban concentration, although there still could be the case of that community having an argument that they still could be affected by what is going down in that particular area. So you are better off with the commission deciding on the merits of the case coming before it as to what ‘neighbourhood’ constitutes in that case and for the objector.
In the same way, this question of amenity: if you tie it to a particular dictionary definition, then anything that does not appear in that tight definition would have to be ruled out on the basis that the act provided a tight definition.
The other point I wanted to make was in relation to the member for Goyder almost accusing that we have been motivated by ‘one particular protagonist’. He made this allegation twice. There is an underlying assumption behind an allegation like that, that this government is motivated by particular individuals at any one time, as if that assumption is how the previous government operated so, presumably, this government operates the same way. Well, nothing could be further from the truth. However, it is interesting that this mindset prevails with the member for Goyder, that it is one particular protagonist that is pushing us along this line as if the previous government always operated on hidden agendas or secret favours. They never told you what they were doing it for, but there was always that assumption and, of course, he assumes that this government only acts on behalf of a particular person who is pushing us along that path. Well, it ain’t true. It ain’t true. There is a problem with the objection process. It takes too long and it costs the earth. The amendments themselves do not rule out the ability of either individuals or organisations to object. I mean, if they are relevant, they get in.
Mr Wood: I can’t. No, not if they don’t live in the neighbourhood. I can’t. You have to be a community based …
Mr STIRLING: I will explain: if they were not affected before, they were not deemed to have standing, their objection would not be heard. If they are affected in this case, they have standing, they will be heard wherever they live. If they are affected and they come under the relevance ruling …
Mr Baldwin: They could make an objection beforehand.
Mr STIRLING: It would have done you good to have a briefing, and perhaps this was not tested in the briefing in relation to the member for Nelson, but it is very much a question of standing and relevance as seen by the commission at the time. If that person is deemed and can be seen to be affected in some way, they will get a hearing. But if they are deemed irrelevant, they do not.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, in relation to the committee stage amendment to clause 6, some concern is expressed over the wording of the proposed new section 47F which deals with the categories of persons and groups who may object to a liquor licence application and in particular section 47F(3)(f) presently states:
Now, the concerns raised were that the current wording could prevent some groups with a real interest in liquor licencing issues from objecting to a liquor licence application because they are unable to establish the requisite connection with the amenity of the neighbourhood to which the liquor licence application applies. It was never the intention of this bill to impose any limitations on community minded groups; never the intention. In order to allay any concerns raised in that area, I want to amend the wording of the bill by deleting the words ‘carried on for purposes that have a connection with the amenity of the neighbourhood,’ from that section 47F(3)(f).
Other concerns were raised in relation to the intention of the bill and the concept of amenity, whether it should be defined; the second reading speech said it should be read ‘narrowly’. Any concerns over that definition should be allayed by stating there is no intention to prohibit any objection based on social, health or lifestyle issues and it is those kind of issues that it is envisaged would be captured in the public amenity ground. The position was set out clearly in the Victorian Supreme Court in the case of the The Returned and Services League of Australia (Victorian Branch) Inc (Pascoe Value Sub-Branch) & Anor v Liquor Licensing Commission & Anor [1998] VSC 87 in which it was stated that the amenity of the area would include such things as traffic movement and density, noise, nuisance, parking facilities and any other matters which may interfere with the enjoyment of the area by members of the local community. It is hoped that the proposed amendment and that further explanation of the intention may allay concerns. I doubt it would in relation to the member for Daly because generally, he has a closed mind. He knows it all. He will not be told. He has a view and, whether it is right or wrong, he will stick to that view and it does him no justice at all.
I would urge support of the committee stage amendment, and I would urge support of the bill. It will make for a clearer, cleaner and less onerous process on all involved. It will not lead to an explosion of licencees around the Territory. It is interesting that the government that really walked away from the Living With Alcohol policies proposed by former Chief Minister Marshall Perron, the light beer initiatives. There was some very good work done in the latter stages of Chief Minister Perron’s stewardship of the Northern Territory and it was a pity that a lot of that work fell away because I think there were signs that that strategy was working.
It is interesting tonight that some of those concerns about alcohol in the community and what this may or may not do are back on the agenda with the opposition. I can assure the opposition that it hasn’t left our horizon at all and that is why we have the Substance Abuse Committee up and running.
The member for Nelson is absolutely right. I can sit in my local court in Nhulunbuy and I know that probably 85–90% of the court cases simply wouldn’t be in court except for grog. That might be break and enter, it might be assault or whatever the situation; 85–90%, and I have sat in that court many times over 13, 14 years. I have seen it time and time again. We know that is the case and there is a great deal of work that has to be taken on by this government, we would hope that with the support and cooperation of the opposition. Some of the things that they said tonight encouraged me in that line.
This is not an inconsistent amendment in terms of how we as the government may go in the whole substance and alcohol abuse question. I do urge support of the committee stage amendment and the bill.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Clauses 1-5, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 6:
Mr WOOD: Madam Deputy Chairman, I move that the whole of paragraph (d) in proposed section 47F(3) be omitted.
That paragraph refers to a member of the fire and rescue service within the meaning of the Fire Emergency Act as being one of the following persons, organisations or groups that may make an objection under subsection (1) which relates to the granting of a liquor licence.
I can see no reason why the fire and rescue service should have anything to do with a liquor licence. As I said previously, if it is relating to safety, that, surely, would be a matter for the fire and rescue service to look at in the construction of the building or when a building is being modified as a premise for public use. I do not believe the fire and rescue service have anything to do with the amenity of the neighbourhood when you are talking about the pleasantness and facility of the neighbourhood. I am basically asking that it be omitted because I think it is a body which is irrelevant for the purposes of this act.
Mr STIRLING: Madam Deputy Chair, the fire service plays quite a critical role in assessing a building in respect of access and egress points, the safety and design of a building and how it would cope in terms of fire. How safe is it? When you are proposing to sell alcohol, you have to take that into consideration in terms of normal use of a building compared with one where people might be less than fully sober in the event of a fire or an explosion or any other reason which might necessitate vacating the building in a hurry. There are eminent and sound reasons why the fire services ought to be able to inspect the location of premises and fire in an objection if they saw that there was a real danger, an aggravated risk to public safety in the event of a less than safe and ideal premises being licensed for the purposes of selling alcohol.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, minister. I am under the impression that this can be done under the Building Code and that is exactly where their role lies, under the Building Code. That is where all those things that you mentioned would be taken into account, and that is why I see this as a duplication of their role. I am not saying that they shouldn’t be involved in those matters you spoke about, that’s most important, but they shouldn’t have to duplicate that role.
Mr BALDWIN: I’ support what the member for Nelson is saying because those issues are taken up in the Certificate of Occupancy of a building that is administered by the Building Board. The other issue is, if you are going to let the fire authority have a say, what about the work health authority and all the other agencies? Couldn’t you fix this issue by the Licensing Commission distributing for comment to all government agencies concerned, to solicit comments and views on a particular application. If there are other concerns and inspections are needed, you could do it as an internal mechanism. It doesn’t have to appear in here as one of the groups that can be a certified objector.
Mr STIRLING: We have heard nothing on this bill from the opposition except for the fact that we are trying to reduce, restrict and tighten the eligibility of people to object, and here we have the category of objector, fire and rescue service, and we have to knock them out. Now, I don’t know how inconsistent you can get. If the member for Daly wants to jump up and suggest this amendment now, he has had weeks to have a briefing, he has had weeks to bring it to me as an amendment. He could have written to me, he could have circulated it this morning, and he could have spoken to the government and sought a briefing. You are not going to jump up here with your smart alec ways! One, you are too arrogant because you know it all, two, you are too bloody lazy to go for a briefing, and you walk in here and expect me to fall over and accept your amendment. No!
Mr Baldwin: I will answer you this time. You don’t have my amendment because it is not my amendment, you goose! It is not my amendment.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Order!
Mr Baldwin interjecting
Mr STIRLING: Because it is ill conceived, ill thought out! You haven’t bothered to work it through, you haven’t bothered to seek a briefing and you haven’t come in here and elaborated your argument.
Mr ELFERINK: Just on the tail end of what the member for Daly was saying, one thing I would like to point out to the minister is that the member for Daly hasn’t brought this amendment before the House; it was the member for Nelson.
Mr Stirling: He was proposing another amendment.
Mr Baldwin: No, I wasn’t. I was supporting omitting it. You are an idiot.
Mr ELFERINK: Well, I pick up on the interjection. The minister is more than happy to be critical of members opposite him on these technical issues, and then launch into a tirade of abuse when he does not even know who is bringing the amendment. The amendment is being brought by the member for Nelson …
Mr Stirling: I know what the amendment is. He has proposed another one.
Mr ELFERINK: … and that is what we are discussing.
However, I would like to hear from the minister why - in detail, rather than just a tirade of abuse - the Work Health Authority, town councils and the Health Department have not been added to this list. Maybe the Health Department should be added to this list of potential objectors as well.
I do not want to see this narrowed down any further; I would like to see it expanded. So why don’t we expand it to government departments plural? That, I believe, was the member for Daly’s point.
Mr BALDWIN: Madam Deputy Chair, I will say that the minister is reverting back to his old arguments of laziness by me. I have to go for a briefing for all my knowledge now, that is what he is saying. I am not allowed to have an opinion of my own without first having a briefing. Well, that is utter rubbish!
I am not proposing another amendment. The amendment comes from my colleague, the member for Nelson, as it is distributed under the schedule. I am saying I support what he is doing in trying to omit the fire and rescue service from this, suggesting that they could be dealt with in an administrative manner by the commission, just like the Planning Act does. When a planning application comes in, the application is distributed to all agencies for their comment. That is easy; that is something that goes on in government now. But here, what we are doing is making them a certified objector if they so choose when they can put forward their views, their comments, their objections even, by way of submission when asked by the commission - as could the Work Health Authority or the local community council or the municipal council and so forth.
For the minister to say that I am trying to move another amendment is quite false, and he knows it. The fact that he thinks any amendment I propose should be in writing, should give him notice and write to him three weeks before - we have had this argument before. He knows full well - and he used to do it on this floor, where he would propose amendments to the government of the day from the floor. I do not have to follow his processes.
Mr WOOD: Madam Deputy Chair, I would like to say a couple of things. One is that it is my amendment. Two is that the intention of the amendment was not to restrict the fire and rescue service from having a say in the suitability of the building because that, I presume, is why they have been put into this section. It is just that they can do it already. I am not trying to say that they should be taken out of the equation, I am just saying this is a duplication of bureaucracy. You have one method in which they can comment on the suitability, the safety, of a building. That is where it should be. I have not been convinced that, if that is the case, then why should we duplicate it under the paragraph (d)?
Amendment negatived.
Mr BURKE: Madam Deputy Chair, dealing with clause 6, section 47(F)(2), it reads:
I ask the minister: does he have - because I do not have it in front of me - a copy of the principal act, and does that principal act describe the definition of ‘amenity’? What is it?
Mr STIRLING: In terms of the definition of neighbourhood and amenity?
Mr BURKE: On amenity.
Mr STIRLING: Amenity? I dealt with this in closing debate on the second reading, and the question of once you define the object - in this case amenity - that you do immediately narrow it and restrict it. It is better, in terms of the definition, dealing with it case by case on merit before the Liquor Commission.
Once defined, whether you select whatever dictionary definition you choose, or once you put it down in the legislation, this is it, it cannot mean anything else, anything that does not fit that definition obviously does not get a guernsey. Well, we don’t want that; we want the widest possible interpretation and definition of it and that is best left on a case by case basis with the commission. That is the view that we have.
Mr BALDWIN: Just on the amenity definition, the minister made some reference in his closing remarks that ‘amenity’ would include all of those things that the member for Braitling raised in her contribution to the debate, that is health, social and safety issues. Would the minister agree that all of those things were included in the terminology of ‘amenity’?
Mr STIRLING: It might be easier, and the member for Daly can jump again I have not answered his concern here. I will reiterate what I said in the second reading: other concerns have been raised on the intention of the bill that the concept of amenity should be read narrowly. I would like to allay any concerns over that definition by stating that there is no intention to prohibit any objection based on social, health or lifestyle issues. Indeed, it is these kind of issues that are envisaged would be captured in the public amenity ground. The position was set out clearly in the Victorian Supreme Court in the case of The Returned and Services League of Australia (Victorian Branch) Inc (Pascoe Vale Sub-Branch) & Anor v Liquor Licensing Commission & Anor [1998] VSC 87 in which it was stated the amenity of the area would include such things as traffic movement and density, noise, nuisance, parking facilities and any other matters which may interfere with the enjoyment of the area by members of the local community.
Mr BALDWIN: But that ruling does not, obviously, include things like health, social and lifestyle issues. You have said they include it; that definition by the law that you just read includes things such as traffic which goes to the amenity, of course, in terms of pleasantness which is the definition of amenity. What I am saying is if it includes health, social, safety, lifestyle, as you say, what doesn’t it include other than commercial aspects? Why is it in there? If it includes all things except commercial things, why have it in there? Why not just leave it as subsection (1) that says:
Why go on to say that it must be on the grounds of amenity when amenity, by your interpretation, is going to include everything?
Mr STIRLING: I go back. The concerns that the member for Braitling had were: what if the person was concerned about their health or a lifestyle issue, I think it would be included. By reading that position that came out of the Victorian Supreme Court, I do not intend that would restrict our definition or that the commission should see amenity as restricted to that. I quoted that by way of example. In that case, it included those things and in ours, the government certainly does not have any intention to prohibit any objection based on those other matters. The member for Braitling raised social, health, lifestyle matters, and they are important issues. The member for Braitling was concerned that they were ruled out on the question of amenity being affected. I do not know how I can make it any clearer that it is not government’s intention that they be ruled out.
Mr BALDWIN: If that is the case, can you tell me what the term ‘amenity’ does rule out? If it doesn’t rule out anything, why have it in there in the first place? That is the whole point. What does it rule out? You have said in your second reading speech:
Give us the wide interpretation that leaves things out, that ‘amenity’ doesn’t include. Tell us what it doesn’t include. That is what I am after. It is simple.
Mr STIRLING: I will tell you what it doesn’t include: commercial grounds. It doesn’t include commercial grounds.
Mr BALDWIN: That is my point. Why have it in there?
Mr STIRLING: Go again.
Mr BALDWIN: I hope the minister accepts this point because I make it realistically, and this is one of the big concerns with the industry: if it doesn’t preclude anything other than commercial grounds which is already unavailable in the primary act, why have it in there as a description? Why not just leave it as it is or, indeed, leave it as the minister’s subsection (1) of 47F that says:
May make an objection - instead of going on in subsection (2) saying, under that subsection, the only sort of objection that they can make has to do with anything that would adversely affect the amenity of the neighbourhood. There is an issue with neighbourhood, but let’s stick with amenity. You can only make objection on the basis of amenity, and to confirm that, the minister has said ‘amenity’ will be read narrowly. If it is read narrowly, give us the wide interpretation of what is not included in the term ‘amenity’.
Mr Wood: What are we sitting here for?
Mr BALDWIN: Exactly! So drop it out, take out subsection (2) – I am sorry, I don’t have a written amendment to that effect, but it would then make sense.
Mr Wood: Drop the bill. You are back to where you were. You are back to the status quo.
Mr BALDWIN: Does anyone else want to speak while the minister …
Mr WOOD: Thank you, member for Daly. Madam Deputy Chair, I agree. Even if the minister wishes to get up and say this is now the interpretation of ‘amenity’, I am of the presumption that what is written in the second reading is the interpretation that is given to ‘amenity’. That is what is taken into account. Now, if we are changing what was said in the second reading, how can that be interpreted if this word is challenged?
What will happen now, if we have a different interpretation and not a narrow interpretation, not pleasantness and facility and we have a big picture amenity definition? This act is now flawed, and if that is the case, then this bill is just a circle; it went round and round and ended up in the same place. If that is the interpretation, this bill should be dropped and we think about it in the February sittings where we suggested it be in the first place.
Mr BALDWIN: I would ask the minister to answer the concerns of both myself and the member for Nelson - me on behalf of the opposition, CLP, and the member for Nelson - to explain to us why the necessity for that interpretation if he cannot provide an explanation to this House as to what will fall outside of that description of amenity. If nothing falls outside of it and everything can be joined in as an objection, why have it? What is the purpose? He really needs to explain this to Territorians because this is one of the single biggest issues of the amendment to the Liquor Act.
Dr BURNS: Minister, isn’t it true, that there is a wider definition of ‘amenity’ other than a physical or environmental amenity? There is a social amenity, which I think is quite well recognised and really covers the aspects that you are talking about. It covers things like the health and wellbeing - amenity is the use, amenity is the wider definition of a place and the people who live within it. You can’t recognise it. I propose that as a definition of amenity; it is not just the physical definition of amenity, it is also the social definition.
Mr BALDWIN: I thank the member for Johnston because he is actually supporting my argument. That is exactly what I am saying. It is exactly what the member for Nelson is saying: amenity does have a wide interpretation, as the minister just said. So it includes everything.
Members interjecting.
Mr BALDWIN: Why read it narrowly, and why have it in there? If you can make an objection anyway, why limit it to amenity, when even the member who just spoke agrees that it could be all things.
Mr STIRLING: I think the member for Daly made the point himself earlier in debate that there was that question that although the original bill did not allow commercial objection, there were cases that floated through the system on fairly thinly disguised commercial grounds.
Mr Baldwin: I hope not.
Mr STIRLING: You know yourself, when you were minister, it certainly happened in recent times. You have to provide scope for the community to have their say, and the grounds under amenity do that, at the same time retaining the prohibition on objection on commercial grounds.
Mr Baldwin: I agree.
Mr STIRLING: That gets there.
Mr Baldwin: No, it doesn’t.
Mr STIRLING: How does this allow an objection on commercial grounds? Alternatively, how does it not allow the community to have its rightful say? It is there.
Mr BALDWIN: At the moment, Madam Deputy Chair, commercial grounds are not allowed under the principal act. We are not changing that. This is currently how it is. That is how it is going to be after this abomination goes through, if it does. You can object on any grounds currently. Now, this is purporting to limit it to a narrow interpretation of the word ‘amenity’. So if it is being narrowed, I am asking: what is it that will be knocked out as an objection that does not fit into that interpretation and that description of ‘amenity’? If there are no things except commercial, then my point is that we do not have to …
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Deputy Chair. I draw the Chair’s attention to the repetitive questions from the member for Daly. This is the same question that he has asked on three previous occasions and I would urge you to remind him that he cannot keep asking repetitive questions. The minister has answered.
Mr BALDWIN: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Deputy Chair. It is all right for a minister to waltz in here half way through a debate to try and give some sort of support to this minister, but the point is we have raised the issue; we have not heard a response that can be described as having any understanding from the minister. I am asking him to give us his interpretation because I think he knows full well that this does not have to be in there; he just will not give up on the point. If he is not going to give up on that, well the whole thing is flawed in my view. This is a very important issue that is concerning the industry.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: On the issue of the point of order, I will disallow it. The minister can make the call on whether or not he answers the question.
Mr WOOD: Just picking up on what the member for Johnston said. He is highlighting what I believe amenity should mean. He is also highlighting the fact that they are the concerns that I had where, if you use the narrow interpretation as specified in the second reading, then the issues that the member for Johnston has just enunciated could not be used. That is the very concern I have. Now the problem is, as I have said before, the minister is saying: ‘Oh, it is the wider interpretation; it does basically include those issues that the member for Johnston has said’. But that is not built into the second reading. So if someone decided to challenge, for instance, a community group getting up and saying: ‘Well, we would like to object to this application based on health grounds, we think it might increase the itinerants up the road there somewhere’ - maybe that could be regarded as pleasantness of facility - but if the objection was based on something that did not fit within those narrow grounds, and they said: ‘Well, the minister said in his speech in parliament on this particular day that it did’, what would really happen? Who would anyone believe? Is that interpretation of ‘amenity’ under the second reading, the interpretation that a court would take ‘amenity’ to mean if it were ever challenged?
Mr MALEY: Madam Deputy Chair, my question is to the minister. Regarding the phraseology ‘amenity of the neighbourhood’, no doubt you are aware - and this can be confirmed through you advisors - that if a commissioner or a court is in the position where it has to determine the scope of the term ‘amenity of the neighbourhood’, it not only looks at the literal interpretation, it goes straight to the second reading speech. All of this debate will not be used by that interpretative authority to determine the scope of the word ‘amenity’. So, all the court or the commissioner is going to have is, really, the words contained in the second reading speech. ‘It is the intention of this legislation that the term ‘amenity’ be read narrowly’. That is what they have.
The precise concern or the ambiguity raised by the member for Johnston about: ‘Oh, it could mean social or whatever type of amenity’ illustrates the point. The current term, read in light of the second reading speech, genuinely narrows it down. If the government cannot decide which interpretation is the correct one, isn’t this the ideal time to genuinely take a step back, take on board the suggestion from the member for Johnston and insert the words ‘social or physical amenity’? Perhaps there can be an amendment made to broaden it out to include some of the examples you say are covered during the course of their debate.
Minister, I want to make it clear that, as this debate evolves, you are aware that none of the things you say during the course of this committee stage of the debate will be taken into account. It is only what is in the second reading speech, and it is only what is written in the legislation. So the concerns from your colleagues and the other members on this side of the House, unfortunately, will not bear weight in the interpretation. You realise that any assurances that you attempt to give the Northern Territory community and honourable members in this House will not account for anything unless you are prepared to stand up, do the right thing and amend this legislation, amend the amendment.
Mr STIRLING: I appreciate the legal advice from the member for Goyder. There are two points that I want to make. In relation to the member for Daly, that the industry has anxieties or concerns about this, well, the AHA does not. The Australian Hotels Association is the voice of the industry in the Northern Territory, and they have spoken with us about this amendment.
Mr Maley: You are saying they are happy?
Mr STIRLING: Exactly. The AHA do not have a concern.
Mr Baldwin: They have spoken to you and said they are happy?
Mr STIRLING: I accept that the AHA is a strong representative and a strong voice for its industry.
Mr Baldwin: Who told you that? The member for Wanguri, did he?
Mr STIRLING: Who told me that? No, no, the AHA. So, if there are concerns in the industry, why aren’t they telling the AHA?
Mr Baldwin: What, are they all members of the AHA, the industry?
Mr STIRLING: That seems to be the problem. It seems to be a problem if the industry is not telling its own representatives.
On the other points that the member for Goyder made, the commission will exercise judgment on the facts of the case before it. I do not think it strengthens the case at all to add wellbeing or different words that you want to use. Allow the commission to exercise its judgment on the facts of the case before it in relation to neighbourhood. If it goes wrong and people are unfairly knocked out in any of these categories or they do not have the opportunity to put their objection where previously they would - I don’t believe that is the case - if it turned out to be the case, we would very quickly have another look at it if it didn’t settle the whole objection procedure down.
You don’t change a law and turn your back and never look at it again. If there were concerns that this had not met the need in getting the process much more back on the rails than it has been, we would be back there to have another look to see what is needed. We are not convinced that this is not going to work and adding those words I don’t think strengthens the case one little bit. You have to allow the commission to exercise its own judgment in these matters.
Mr BURKE: Madam Deputy Chair, I started this area of the debate by referring to this subsection 47F(2). It is clear the minister cannot provide the definition of ‘amenity’ in this Chamber so we have no comfort from that and it is one of the reasons that we will not be supporting this bill. Just in terms of the word amenity, and I am certainly no lawyer, but I would have thought that given the debate in this Chamber this evening, and given the comments of the minister as to what he thinks this word amenity could mean, that if in a subsequent application to the Liquor Commission an individual is ruled out of being able to have their objection heard on the question of amenity, I suggest to you that simply by the debate in this Chamber they will move quickly from the second reading speech to the debate in the Chamber and would have grounds for the objection from that debate.
Certainly from where I sit listening to it, the minister himself in describing this bill has basically said that amenity can mean any and everything except ‘on commercial grounds’. Therefore, if the Liquor Commission now rules against an application on the grounds of their interpretation of amenity and defines that narrowly, I suggest that you will defeat one of the objectives of your bill and that is to keep the costs of litigation down because it will immediately go to appeal and it will be appealed on that provision, and it will be costly. But I will move on.
I assume also, minister, that you cannot define the word ‘neighbourhood’ other than the way you have described it in the second reading speech. You have said it is a subjective judgment. You have also said: ‘For example, the neighbourhood around the proposed city tavern will be at most a matter of a few city blocks’. In that context I would ask you: if there was an application for a new liquor licence at the Stokes Hill Wharf, where would you consider the neighbourhood of that facility to be?
Mr STIRLING: That would be a matter for the commission to decide. Okay, there is a licence application being made down at Stokes Hill. The commission, in that case, would decide what constituted the neighbourhood. I am not going to stand here and say it ends at the top of the cliff or it ends just past Parliament House. The commission would make that decision at the time.
Mr BURKE: Minister, you said in your second reading speech, and this is the way I interpret it, that the neighbourhood around a proposed city tavern will be at most a matter of a few city blocks. Now, do you think that Stokes Hill Wharf falls outside of those parameters? If so, to what extent does it fall outside those parameters? If we are arguing whether it is the cliff face, let me put another example to you: the same example, but let’s describe neighbourhood. An application for liquor licence is at Stokes Hill Wharf and the objector lives in Palmerston. Would they be considered within the definition as being part of the neighbourhood?
Mr STIRLING: Well, I mean, you can use these different examples. That was used in the second reading speech as an example of what may be, in an urban situation as opposed to a rural or remote area which could involve hundreds of kilometres. If it is an existing outlet, and it is the only outlet there, it could conceivably have an effect over a far greater radius, area, distance from the proposed location compared with the urban situation where if you have a number of outlets on different city streets, how far can you go in drawing the bow to say: ‘That is going to affect me’, particularly if the person lived at Palmerston and there are 27 outlets between Palmerston and Stokes Hill?
I am not trying to hide behind the semantics here. I just think that the commission would make that ruling on the facts before it.
Mr BURKE: You are not trying to hide behind the semantics, and I am not trying to be mischievous, but I am saying that people are looking for clarity in the intent of this legislation. Surely, with the advisors in the Chamber and yourself as the minister, we have a simple proposition that a new application for a liquor licence is made for Stokes Hill Wharf and a person in Palmerston wants to object to that application based on amenity. Would that person, in your opinion, be eligible to object? Surely you can answer that question.
Mr STIRLING: Sorry, the last point?
Mr BURKE: Would that person who lives in Palmerston who wishes to object or perhaps support the application for the licence at Stokes Hill Wharf be considered eligible, in your opinion, based on your interpretation of ‘neighbourhood’?
Mr STIRLING: No, it is not my opinion. It is the Chairman’s, based on the question of relevance. We have had this argument. Now I understand what you are talking about. It is based on the question of relevance as to whether they have standing in that particular case. The commission makes that ruling, not the minister standing here who knows nothing about the individual in Palmerston or what particular ties or standing that person might have in relation to that case. Now, I can’t make that call. The commission would on the facts before it.
Mr BURKE: Yes, okay minister. But we are the ones who are elected here, and we are the ones that make the law. The fact that we hand those laws down for others to interpret, administer and rule on our behalf is a separate issue. This is the point at which we decide the law. It is not a matter of saying: ‘I don’t know what he is going to do it; it is a subjective judgment of his’.
Mr STIRLING: No, it is not a subjective judgment …
Mr BURKE: We are prescribing the parameters within which he will work. Now, I am not giving you a difficult situation. Would you or don’t you accept that a person who lived in Palmerston under this legislation would have a valid opportunity to object or support an application for a liquor licence at Stokes Hill Wharf?
Mr STIRLING: They live at Palmerston, if they work up here, yes. That would be clear under the bill.
Mr Baldwin: What if they don’t work up here?
Mr STIRLING: If they don’t work up here, then it is on the facts before the commission. We are talking about a person you are making up. I don’t know the facts behind that person and whether they are relevant or would have standing in the case before the commission. Only the commission could make that call, and it comes down to those grounds of vexatiousness, standing and relevance. Relevant or irrelevant, how is this person affected? What is the impact on that person?
I am trying to think of a case in which they could be strongly affected, and I can’t, but, clearly, if that person could demonstrate that before the commission, then they are relevant to the case, then they have standing, then they are a valid objector. But for me to try to fill in your imagined person, I don’t see the need to. The commission will make that call on the facts before it. Is the person impacted upon, how is the person affected? Yes, they are relevant to this case; they can object. I don’t see what the problem is.
Mr BALDWIN: Maybe if we can approach this in a different way, the minister can give an explanation. If a person wants to make an objection to a particular licence and they live some distance away, more than three blocks as you have suggested in that scenario, how do they know whether they are allowed to make an objection? Do they ring the commission and say: ‘Am I in the neighbourhood?’ Oh, they do? The minister nods.
So this is what is going to happen: your person in Palmerston who does not work in the precinct, but wants to object to a licence on the wharf, rings the commission and says: ‘Do I qualify as being in the neighbourhood of the applicant for the licence?’ And the commission is going to say: ‘Oh, no, you are outside of the neighbourhood.’ Does the person actually get the chance to lodge an objection?
Mr STIRLING: Yes, of course they do.
Mr BALDWIN: Oh. And then they get knocked out.
Mr STIRLING: This is the problem when you are lazy and you do not read the bill, you do not understand. You have to read a couple of clauses. I know you are too lazy to do that.
Mr BALDWIN: No, I have read it. I want you to explain it because you do not know. You can not even explain what ‘amenity’ is going to cover. Now we are trying to discover what ‘neighbourhood’ means. So you get on your feet and try and explain it.
Mr STIRLING: How do they get in? They simply object. They make their objection.
considers appropriate.
nature, or does not describe circumstances that may or will adversely affect the amenity
of the neighbourhood - dismiss the objection; or
forward the objection, reply to the objection and his or her findings in relation to the
objection to the commission.
Mr BURKE: Minister, we now have the situation whereby you cannot describe ‘amenity’.
Mr STIRLING: I do not intend to.
Mr BURKE: That is a subjective judgment that is in the hands of some person who is passed this bill to implement. You cannot describe ‘neighbourhood’. That could be anything, depending on the subjective judgment of the person to whom you pass this bill. You cannot describe the person who is going to make the application whether they have a chance of being successful in their application or not and who may spend long hours in effort and at some expense, preparing an application which could be knocked out in the first instance. Does it not beg the question, minister, of what on earth this bill achieves that the current bill does not achieve in terms of an application by an individual to apply to the Liquor Commission with some change of success that their application will be heard under this new legislation that was not there in the past?
If you say, as you said in your reply to the second reading, that vexatious and frivolous applications are knocked out under this legislation in the same way as they were under the previous legislation, this legislation falls down on this issue of amenity and neighbourhood, neither of which you can describe and, in trying to describe them, you have only confused the members of the opposition. It does not achieve anything of substance. The only thing it achieves in its intent is the way it is stated in the second reading speech and that is that it is to be narrowly defined and it only allows certain people the criteria in order to make an objection. No wonder then, minister, you are going to have trouble out there selling this to the community.
You can say what you like in this Chamber. We have tried to advise you that what you should do is withdraw this bill and do more work on it, and then, if necessary, seek support from the House. If you want to blunder ahead and ram this bill through - I do not intend to labour the point any more, but certainly, you are going to have a great many problems with the community because you simply cannot explain away the terminology that is in your second reading speech, enunciated clearly in the bill. The average Territorian is going to ask the simple question: why?
Mr BALDWIN: Same section, different issue, for your information because, as the Leader of the Opposition said, we have made our point on that and we will not go further.
I would just like to ask for clarification, and I know the minister will say: ‘Well why didn’t you go to a briefing?’, but it is very important that he answers this question. In section 47F(3) the only persons allowed to make an objection are:
My interpretation of that is that it does include licensees and/or owners of hotels and other establishments that already have liquor licences. That is my interpretation, and I am sure you will clarify that for me, minister.
Mr STIRLING: If this covered a licensee, they could still object if they were working in the area or living in the area, on grounds of amenity not on commercial grounds.
Mr BALDWIN: Yes, I know not on commercial grounds. You have just said if they are working in the area. Some owners of hotels are not there working in the vicinity. So can they, as an absentee landlord who owns a company that owns a licence, for instance, lodge an objection? Not on commercial grounds. Under this section 47F(43)(b), you are allowing anyone who owns a piece of land in fee simple or a lessee. So does that include licensees in that?
Mr STIRLING: Landlord, leaseholder, those types of …
Mr BALDWIN: Licensee, liquor licensee?
Mr STIRLING: Yes. On grounds of amenity, as per the grounds above. That is all.
Mr BALDWIN: Yes, I am not worried about that. They will be allowed to. Just to clarify in the instance of the newspaper cuttings I showed the minister before, you know ‘bar wars’ and what have you. You have the Coleman family, Christo, so on and so forth, the McNamee family who own various establishments. One would assume then, under this as owners and lessors and what have you, that they would be allowed to lodge an objection other than on commercial grounds. Yes. Thanks.
Clause 6:
Mr STIRLING: I move amendment 34. The amendment is to omit ‘carried on for purposes that have a connection with the amenity of the neighbourhood’. That is to give comfort that those community-based organisations and groups still have the ability to lodge an objection.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: The question now is that the bill stand as amended.
The committee divided:
Ayes 13 Noes 11
Mrs Aagaard Mr Baldwin
Mr Ah Kit Mr Burke
Mr Bonson Ms Carney
Dr Burns Ms Carter
Mr Henderson Mr Dunham
Mr Kiely Mr Elferink
Ms Lawrie Dr Lim
Mr McAdam Mr Maley
Ms Martin Mr Mills
Ms Scrymgour Mr Reed
Mr Stirling Mr Wood
Dr Toyne
Mr Vatskalis
Motion agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
Bill to be reported with amendment.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Mr STIRLING (Racing, Gaming and Licensing): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 13 Noes 12
Mrs Aagaard Mr Baldwin
Mr Ah Kit Mrs Braham
Mr Bonson Mr Burke
Dr Burns Ms Carney
Mr Henderson Ms Carter
Mr Kiely Mr Dunham
Ms Lawrie Mr Elferink
Mr McAdam Dr Lim
Ms Martin Mr Maley
Ms Scrymgour Mr Mills
Mr Stirling Mr Reed
Dr Toyne Mr Wood
Mr Vatskalis
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Continued from 16 October 2002.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I indicate that the opposition fully supports this legislation. It would be foolhardy to try and interpret the second reading speech any more clearly than it has been interpreted. I would be the first to say that the terminology is such that one has to read it three or four times to understand it but, essentially, and I invite the minister to correct me if I am wrong, we have Commonwealth legislation that deals with all of those submerged areas outside of the three mile limit for which they have an act, the Commonwealth Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act.
The Northern Territory government is responsible from the three mile limit back to the low water mark. Notwithstanding that there might be other projects around the place, we are dealing with an imminent project which is the Bayu-Undan pipeline to shore. That pipeline will traverse both areas and therefore it is essential that the Northern Territory legislation is consistent with Commonwealth legislation and the intent of this amendment bill is to achieve that end.
I also understand that the amendment is phrased in such a way that the Commonwealth itself is reviewing its act, but the way our amendment bill is constructed will be consistent with the eventual amendments that come from the Commonwealth.
One interesting aspect of the bill is that the proposed term of the pipeline licence will remain in force indefinitely, which is a provision of this new amendment. However, there are caveats that, whilst the term is indefinite, a provision is included to terminate the pipeline in the event of things like no work being undertaken for five years to, on the one hand, reduce certainty but on the other hand to prevent them from warehousing.
Amendments in the bill also relate to a new coordinate datum system that has been adopted by the Commonwealth called GDA 94, which replaces existing geodetic datum ADD 66 and this amendment bill achieves consistency with that new datum methodology. Third, the opportunity has been taken to construct the penalty units consistent with the way penalty units are applied in other legislation of the Northern Territory.
I understand that is the essence of this new amendment. It is sensible. It appears to be well drafted, and the opposition fully supports it.
Mr HENDERSON (Business, Industry and Resource Development): Madam Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his comments. I can say that he has it in one. It was a very concise summary of the intent of the amendment bill. It is a fairly complex set of amendments, but essentially to bring us into line so that the three nautical miles where we have legislative jurisdiction for pipelines complements the Commonwealth’s legislation. The Commonwealth, as a result of administering areas outside of the three mile limit around Australia, has amended legislation over the years.
The fact that we haven’t had an onshore pipeline has meant, in terms of legislative requirement, anyway, that we haven’t amended our legislation to complement the Commonwealth legislation, as was the intent of the two statutes. That is what we are doing now. We are, through my department, undertaking a review of all legislation to prepare ourselves for what we all hope is an imminent announcement on Bayu-Undan. We are ready to go. There are no legislative hurdles in place that could cause problems in terms of getting that project up and running.
I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the people in my department who really do magnificent work. This is very complex legislation and, certainly, when I was presented by the department with the committee notes and the second reading speech, I, too, had to read it three or four times to try and get across it.
We have very competent people in the department and I am confident that we are well placed to grasp this project with both hands once the Commonwealth parliament and the Timorese parliament ratify the Timor Sea Treaty. This is just a piece of housekeeping legislation. I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his support and put on record my thanks to the people in the department who have tidied up this legislation and other legislation over the last few months to support this project.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr HENDERSON (Business, Industry and Resource Development)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Continued from 16 October 2002
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I first must declare an interest in this matter, being a non-smoker. There is great difficulty in this debate in that many people who engage in the debate on one side or another have an addiction to this substance, albeit a legal addiction, and many of them are in denial about it. This makes it a very difficult thing to discuss at some times.
I can foreshadow at the outset that the opposition will support this bill, and we applaud the government’s moves in this direction. We believe, like the government, that there is a necessity to bring further restricting legislation into this arena. Had the election result been different, I would have been sitting here with a similar act, so I do applaud the government.
I will make one caveat on that; I thought it was arrogant for the minister to appear on television tonight and assume that parliament had passed this. I had indicated that she had the support of the opposition, but it is probably a little premature to go on the television and say that parliament has done one thing or another when that is patently not the case, given that the news was an hour or so ago, and the bill has only just come on for debate. With that minor caveat, I do support the legislation.
It is not my intention to run an excursion through the various portions of it, suffice to say that there has been extensive community consultation, including with probably the most affected industry and that is licensed premises. Any health minister who does not see this as one of the critical issues on their desk is deluding themselves and there is probably some way to go.
I would like to thank some staff in the Department of Health and Community Services, including Di Rayson - probably to her embarrassment given that she is present tonight – Peter Zeroni, Shirley Hendy and Gloria Markey. All of these people advised me as a minister and, while they would probably not like to carry the title ‘zealot’, they are very passionate people about matters relating to tobacco and the ill health that arises from it. They were very persuasive lobbyists from within. I have seen Di in full flight at places like the Fred’s Pass Show with this cunning little machine that does the drawback in a little plastic tube. There has been a very powerful and persuasive educative campaign which augurs well for this legislation because there is a sense of expectation in the community.
Certainly, people who have travelled to other places or who have come from other places realise that there is a necessity to make a more rigid regime here in the Northern Territory. Likewise, the industry members who talked to their counterparts in other places realise there is a necessity from a work health, staff safety and, certainly, from a health point of view, that this legislation is necessary and relevant in a contemporary society.
As a young child, I grew up in licensed premises. Not only did we sell tobacco, but it was consumed on the premises and, in those days, given that I am a fairly old person, chewing tobacco was still very common, and commonly used by mostly Aboriginal people, but certainly station people in Katherine where I grew up. I would suspect that the reason that many of those people are not around is because of that product.
We have to move decisively on this. I believe the community is with us and, in this case, the opposition is with the government. The data released by very noteworthy and indisputable commentators and research institutions would have us look at this substance and the necessity to control it in this way. So, I applaud the government and note that this is probably the first of several actions over the next several years, but it is certainly a very good start point.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I also support this Tobacco Control Bill. It is legislation that has been a long time coming. Looking at the costs that tobacco causes to public health in the Territory, it is a very good bill and I believe it will be supported by most people.
I thank the minister for the briefing. I should also mention to the member for Arnhem that I am supporting the bill, just in case he thinks I never support bills from the government. I support this bill because I think it is an excellent bill. I hope that when I do vote on things, that is the reason I vote for them.
Again, I thank the minister for the briefings I received. There were a number of issues that I raised and I need to raise them here in parliament because that is where my concerns should be raised. I noticed in the second reading a number of times, the issue about children being discouraged from smoking is raised. It is raised regarding school areas and the possibility of selling individual cigarettes. It mentions how the licensing scheme provides a key economic disincentive to sell tobacco products to children; the offence of selling tobacco to a child is retained. Of course, the objective of this bill is to reduce the harm to people’s health and the consumption of tobacco and other smoking products by discouraging people from smoking.
The issue that I raised at the briefing and would like to raise tonight is of course the issue of whether smoking should be allowed on school premises. School premises are government property. Even though there is an allowance for a discrete area to smoke in, I think if that is allowed to happen, it is still sending the wrong message especially to the very people who are mentioned in the second reading, that is children. They probably can’t see it, but they will certainly smell it. So to some extent, it will send the wrong message in a place where you would hope that we are going down the best path, the more positive path. So if it is possible to remove smoking from school premises, I support it. I know there are some issues involved in terms of whether school councils would allow it, and I know there are some difficulties if teachers have to go out and smoke outside the fence line.
But, really, if we are to make an effort to show children that smoking is not something that is good, then the school is probably one of the most important places to show that. Having discrete areas really does not hide anything; it just tends to show kids that you can do it behind the tree or down behind the bicycle shed as long as we don’t see you. I know this might change, but I think it needed to be raised tonight because it is important. I certainly do not want children smoking. I have a daughter who took up smoking when she became a ringer because being a ringer, if you did not smoke, swear and drink you weren’t a ringer. Thankfully, when she fell pregnant she gave up smoking, so she had the sense to do that and she hasn’t smoked since.
It is so easy to get into the habit. You see so many young people, especially around the supermarkets. In some of the supermarkets it is nearly a tradition to be a smoker so you can go and knock off work and sit around the back there and have a fag. The more we can do to discourage people, especially young people, the better. If that means some of us have to put up with a little bit of pain in doing it, well that is the way it should be.
I raised this under the section 11 exemption areas which deals with the regulations that may permit the occupier of premises or the occupier of a class of premises to designate an area within a premises to be exempt. I think that related to schools as well. I did raise the question as to whether children are the occupiers. I know it was said that they were not, but I just wonder whether perhaps the word ‘occupier’ in this case should be clarified as to who is the occupier, particularly of a school. Is it the owner, is it the teachers, the janitor, the children or the parents? That needs more clarification.
The other issue I raised for which they did not quite have an answer at the time was that section 17 relates to price discounting not to be advertised. It says:
Whilst there was an explanation, all that means is that there would be a permitted size; you could not have a big sign out the front saying ‘our cigarettes are this cheap’. I am not sure if that is clearly spelt out. I have some concerns about the way it reads - not concerns, because I support people selling cigarettes, but I did not know how it related to competition within a free market. We are allowing people to sell cigarettes. Can you go and tell them that they cannot advertise the price discounting of a tobacco product? Would there be any ramifications under the Competition Act in that respect?
I know there will be one caf in Casuarina that will be very pleased to see these laws come into place, and you might know yourself, that Casuarina Shopping Square introduced a smoke free zone quite early. The problem was that it was not introduced for the whole of Darwin, just Casuarina. There were cafes that did allow smoking within Casuarina shopping centre that immediately lost trade because their smokers all went out to a caf in another shopping centre. They will be very glad to see that now we are starting to have uniform rules in respect of smoking. They had quite a drop off in patronage and as these people had only just bought the business, it certainly hurt them for a while. So I know they will be very pleased to see these changes.
I applaud the government and the minister for introducing this bill. It makes common sense.
There is only one other area, which I nearly forgot, an area where I think there should have been restrictions, and that is the casino, not just in the Aqua area as the smoke-free zone, but we should take a leaf out of the Victorian book where the Crown Casino will be smoke-free. One reason is to try to get people out of the place because a lot of the people just stay there smoking and keep spending their money. It does force them to go outside and get a bit of fresh air, and perhaps break away from the poker machines. So besides the health issues, there are also issues of encouraging people away from the poker machines.
I do not know whether the gaming tables of the casino are smoke-free, but I would have thought that is an area that should be smoke-free. I do not know how the casino covers itself from the point of view of workers suffering from passive smoking in those areas. Anyone who has been to the casino knows that you come away with clothes that just smell of tobacco.
Mr Bonson: Quite often.
Mr WOOD: That’s right. Thank you, member for Millner. So I thought there really was an opportunity for more restrictions on places like the casino, not just from the health aspect, but there were some real social spin-offs, as has been found in Victoria.
Once again, minister, I applaud the introduction of the Tobacco Control Bill and I will support it when it comes to the vote.
Dr BURNS (Tourism): Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to support the Tobacco Control Bill. As the health minister stated in her second reading speech, the aims are to: reduce the impact of smoking on the Territory community; discourage the uptake of smoking, particularly by children; support those who wish to quit smoking; and reduce exposure to environmental tobacco smoke.
When we look at the overall cost of tobacco to the Australian community, we find that, first, it is the largest form or cause of preventable death in the nation. It causes over 19 000 deaths in Australia each year, and smoking kills more people than the combined total killed by drink, drugs, drowning, murder, suicide, motor vehicle accidents, poisoning, infectious diseases, and AIDS all combined.
Importantly, I would like to reiterate the burden that tobacco places on the Northern Territory community. One in five deaths in the Territory is tobacco-related. The overall smoking prevalence rate in the Northern Territory is somewhere around 27% to 30%, the highest in the nation which stands at about 20%. I made a calculation a few years ago, admittedly based on old figures of a 1992 study done by Collins and Lapsley, into the cost to the Australian community of drugs. In that study, they found that tobacco cost the nation about $12bn a year. That is not only in direct costs like hospitals and medical treatment, it is also time lost through illness or someone dying from cancer and the spouse, or family, having to give up time to nurse that person. There is also the loss of productivity and the loss of life. Many people lose years of life through tobacco smoking and if you pro-rate that out to the Territory population which is about 1% of the Australian population, that works out to $120m per year in the Northern Territory, which is a substantial amount. As I say, it is an estimated cost that I once calculated, but it is astounding.
Many of the provisions of this act relate to reducing exposure to tobacco smoke in the environment. The effects of exposure to tobacco smoke in the environment are well known. These include, first, a 20% higher risk of lung cancer, a 25% higher risk of cardio-vascular disease, higher risk of stroke and breast cancer, and in relation to children, low birthweight babies, as well as increasing bronchitis, asthma and cot death among children exposed to environmental tobacco smoke.
This act comes before parliament after considerable consultation with the community, particularly since the release of a public discussion paper in March 2002. As the health minister reported, this discussion paper attracted 190 submissions with approximately 90% attracting support for the measures outlined in this act. Furthermore, I am aware of successive polls over the years that have indicated similar levels of public support for enclosed public places legislation, in relation to tobacco smoke.
I heard what the member for Drysdale said. It is late at night and probably not the time to dig the political spurs in. I believe the member for Drysdale was and is sincere about this type of legislation and its potential contribution to the good health of the Territory. However, I believe that the member for Drysdale, when he was health minister and probably the opposition leader, when he was health minister before him, were somewhat landlocked within their own party about moving forward on these issues. Both of them basically had good will, but for whatever reason, they didn’t move forward. We are a government that has come to power, this was on our agenda, and we have done something about it.
I still have the very strongly held belief that if we can address tobacco issues in the Northern Territory, particularly amongst Aboriginal people, and reduce smoking prevalence there, that will have a profound beneficial effect on Aboriginal health, both in the short, medium and longer term. It is very important. Even a 5% reduction would have profound effects. That is why I have always been a supporter of tobacco control legislation - I will come to that a bit later, because in my speech I will be trying to acknowledge those people over the years who have worked very hard and made a big contribution even when things seemed impossible, they ploughed on. Today, we have the results. There is still more to do in the tobacco area, but this is a mighty step forward. I take on board what the member for Nelson said about more things could be happening, but for the Territory, and given that the Territory has a very extensive tobacco culture, for want of a better word, this is a mighty step for the Territory. Let’s look at the next steps further on down the track.
I would like to set out the provisions of the act which I believe will reduce exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and those deleterious effects I mentioned previously. On 1 January 2003, smoke free areas will include restaurants, cafes, shopping centres, public transport, and commercial child care centres.
It is important to remember that the Property Council of Australia and major shopping centre proprietors are 100% behind these changes, and they have been for some time. This is a responsible view for the Property Council and the shopping centre proprietors to take. There’s also an occupational health and safety issue there, and an issue in relation to maintenance of air-conditioners in shopping centres because we all know the tar infiltrates air conditioners to some degree.
From 31 May 2003, licensed premises will be required to provide a non-smoking area of equal amenity. To quote the Health minister in her second reading speech:
It is my firmly held belief that there are a lot of people in the community who want to go about these everyday activities and not be exposed to passive smoking. You may be trying to enjoy a meal and someone lights up on the table next to you - or they light a cigarette up, anyway - and you are overcome.
Mr Wood: That is banned, I think, member for Johnston.
Dr BURNS: No, I just meant spontaneous combustion actually, member for Nelson. I was not thinking the other stuff but, obviously, you are.
Mr Wood: Oh, sorry!
Dr BURNS: Another important area that this act seeks to address is to reduce smoking amongst young people. Penalties and licensing provisions under this bill create a major disincentive for retailers to sell to children. Point of sale advertising and distribution of promotional material are part of the marketing activities of tobacco companies. They are all designed to increase sales, recruit new smokers and to keep smokers smoking. Provisions under this bill restrict these activities.
I do not believe we should ever underestimate the cunning, guile, deception, deceit and lies of tobacco companies. They are all words that were used today in our censure debate, but we know there is a history there of denial, coming to terms with the truth, and letting the public know the truth about their activities. Their marketing over the years has become very subtle. You only have to look at some of the film clips of modern music on the television, or just movies generally, to see the way that smoking is portrayed – certainly, I believe, to try and promote smoking to young people. These are very subtle things, and in some cases it has been shown that money has changed hands for this to be portrayed as a desirable activity for young people. That is a big issue. I am not sure whether we can do anything about that tonight.
Finally, it is important to acknowledge the work for well over a decade of a number of individuals and organisations in making this legislation reality. I have a potted history from 1993, and I thank Graham Opie from the Heart Foundation and Melissa Farrington for helping me with this and a few other speaking notes that I have used.
In 1993, the Tobacco Interest Group was formed and it ran until 1996. The goal of TIG, as it was called then, was to push for the establishment of what was known as the Tobacco Action Project. It comprised - and right up the top of the list - the member for Port Darwin, Sue Carter, who was at that stage with the Women’s Health Unit. I can remember the member for Port Darwin being at the foundation meetings of this group. Obviously I was there as well. Dr Jo Wright, who was a DMO of what was then Territory Health Services, was a prime mover in establishing the TIG. Jo - he tells most people; he has given presentations on it -- was a member of a group called Buga Up. I am not sure it has any other connotations. But they were the groups that defaced tobacco billboards quite some time ago, and many of them went to court. Jo was a bit of a subversive in this way. He got a group of people together and he was a moving force in this.
Peter Thorn, a well known DMO, was involved. Bart Currie was involved; Vicki Krause from Territory Health; Anne-Marie Leutwiler; Dr Kate Evans; Jenni Judd, known to a lot of people from the Health Promotion Unit within Territory Health; Peter Lindsay; Gloria Markey; Louise Brown and Barbara Flick from Danila Dilba were also involved. Jo Frampton, well known to a lot of people from Allied Health, and I have the name Margaret Vatskalis from the National Heart Foundation from when Margaret was working there. Sue Smellie from the Cancer Council; Hinton Lowe from Batchelor College; the Asthma Foundation and the AMA. Robyn Cahill certainly had and still has a very active interest in this issue and has pushed it for a long time.
Out of that grew the Tobacco Action Project that was announced by Minister Dunham in 1995 - I am not sure whether that is right, but this is the note that I have. That is right? Yes, for a five year period subsequently made recurrent funding to $0.5m per annum. Out of that I know Di Rayson and others have been working in this Tobacco Action Project for some time, preparing briefs and preparing a case as to why this legislation that we are considering tonight should go through.
The Tobacco Control Coalition ran from 1996 to 1999 and the goal of this coalition was to increase awareness of the dangers of smoking tobacco and to gain community and political support for tobacco control initiatives. Once again, Dr Jo Wright was involved. He was Chair; the core members were the Heart Foundation, the Cancer Council, the AMA, the Asthma Foundation - somewhere in the Cancer Council I have forgotten to mention the name of Janice Barr who was involved very closely. The AMA once again, Robyn Cahill, the Asthma Foundation, the Top End Division of General Practice, Amity Community Services, Danila Dilba, and at that stage, the Public Health Association of the Northern Territory became involved. I think that is where Rowena Ivers might have become involved.
That went into stasis. I think people became a little bit discouraged at the end of 1999 and it was revived in 2001 to the present, the Northern Territory Tobacco Control Coalition, and at that stage Rowena Ivers of the Public Health Association was the convenor until July 2001, and from then on the National Heart Foundation has been the convenor. The Northern Territory Tobacco Control Coalition currently includes a wide range of organisations including health organisations, NGOs and consumer groups interested in the area of tobacco control. I will read out this list, it is quite extensive; I have 15 minutes. It shows how this movement has really grown from just a few people like Jo Wright, the member for Port Darwin and a few others back in 1993 to a coalition of organisations, some of them very powerful. This added to the impetus for government to move on this issue. I will read the list:
Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) - a lady by the name of Anne Jones is a superb lobbyist, she has lobbied all around Australia and she made a visit to the Territory, really gave us a bit of a push along at one stage and gave us a little bit of direction about lobbying and taking the legislative steps; the Asthma Foundation of the NT; the Australian Council of Health, Physical Education and Recreation, also known as ACHPER; the Australian Health Promotion Association; the Australia New Zealand Thoracic Society; Australian Faculty of Public Health Medicine; the Australian Medical Association; the Australian Nursing Federation; Body Health NT; the Cancer Council NT; Central Australian Division of Primary Health Care; Danila Dilba Health Service; Diabetes Australia; Menzies School of Health Research; National Heart Foundation; Northern Territory Cardiac Support Group; Public Health Association of Australia (NT Branch); Royal Australian College of Physicians; Royal Australian College of Surgeons; Sudden Infant Death Syndrome Association of the NT; Top End Division of General Practice; and a number of interested individuals, organisations and industry groups.
This is where the Australian Property Council became involved - they were very keen to see things move forward - and major proprietors like Lend Lease out there at Casuarina. It had grown to a cast of thousands, but there was a lot of unity in the group and it is a very powerful coalition. Their activities were advocacy and lobbying government to introduce changes to the NT tobacco legislation; letters to and meetings with MLAs, relevant ministers, advisors and opposition members; support and recognition by business and sporting community organisations to become smoke free such as Casuarina Square, Darwin Netball Association, Nightcliff Aquatic Centre. That was a bit of a controversial one, I remember, as were Darwin City Council swimming pools at Casuarina and Parap.
They had a media strategy, media releases, interviews, advertisements during Quit Week; production and distribution of tobacco facts fliers for 2001-02. I have a few of them here. They were quite good. They had lots of facts and figures and interesting angles like going for tobacco control and smoke free environments would not affect business, in fact it could increase business. It would not turn tourists away. It was a very good lobbying exercise and I congratulate the coalition. They had regular meetings, and of course, they made a submission for the review of the Northern Territory Tobacco Act Discussion Paper 2002. I have provided a lot of names, it has been a long road, but there is more to go.
Some people have called me a tobacco zealot. I would have to tell the House that when I was younger, I used to smoke.
Mr Bonson: No!
Dr BURNS: Yes, I smoked from about the age of 18 to 22. It was very hard to give up, so I know how addictive tobacco is. A lot of people in my family smoke. I am not against smokers; I never have been. But, as you might have gauged from what I said previously, I am certainly against tobacco companies because I know over the years that they have marketed a very addictive substance; they have hidden the truth from people and a lot of people have found themselves hooked, and it has had a very bad effect on their health.
I do not class myself as a tobacco zealot. I have tried to work for change in this area, and tonight it has come. It gives me a great deal of pride to be part of a parliament which tonight, I believe, has acted decisively to pass this legislation, and to be part of a government that has developed and enacted this legislation in consultation with the public. It is an important public health issue.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to the House, and I urge all members to support it.
Mr BONSON (Millner): Madam Speaker, I rise tonight in support of long overdue tobacco law reforms. As a life long non-smoker, I support strongly the courageous actions of the Northern Territory government. Though long overdue, community, industry and employer consultation has led to a legislation regime that accurately reflects the best interests of the community as a whole.
This subject has been controversial in the past. Why was it controversial? For a number of reasons. There is strong community feeling in relation to the substance, tobacco, commonly smoked via cigarettes. I believe it was controversial for two reasons: first, tobacco is a highly addictive drug. Tobacco is accepted by the medical profession as an addictive substance. My immediate family unit contains five members, four of whom smoke - two for nearly 40 years and two for the last 15 years. So in my family there is combined 110 years of smoking. I touch wood every day that they will not suffer serious health conditions as a result of their long-term smoking addiction. As a non-smoker, but a long-term passive smoker, I also fear consequences of tobacco smoke on my health. That is the fundamental underlying reality of this legislation: to minimise the detrimental health issues surrounding tobacco smoking.
The second reason argued by many members of the community is that I, or the person might have a right to smoke argument. I would like to put on record today that this is not solely a debate on individual rights; this is also an attempt to reflect people’s community rights. Here we have a case of smokers’ individual rights to smoke in public areas versus those who are non-smokers who would enjoy smoke-free public areas. I believe this is an issue of public interest. There are many smokers and non-smokers, workers, business owners, etcetera, who recognise that this is a health issue that needs to be addressed for the sake of public health.
The Minister for Health and Community Services stated in this House on 16 October 2002:
I believe that summarises why we need to take the measures outlined in the Tobacco Control Bill, and to ensure that community health concerns are properly managed. The cost of smoking to the community must be addressed and properly managed. As a non-smoker, I feel the effects of smoking on passive smokers, who can suffer a number of illnesses as described by the Anti-tobacco Control Coalition in their publication Facts for NT Decision Makers. Adult passive smokers can suffer lung cancer, nasal cancer, increased risk of stroke and heart disease. Children can suffer bronchitis, cot death, asthma, low birth weight and middle ear infection.
I believe the legislation has gained widespread community support and is a result of great community consultation. Under the legislation, from 1 January 2003, smoking will be prohibited in all indoor restaurants, cafeterias and shopping centres. On 31 May 2003, hotels, clubs and casinos will also need to provide equal amenity areas in bar areas. Hotels and clubs will be required to provide equal amenity in gaming areas where they have more than 25 gaming machines and then only for machines in excess of 25.
Other venues where smoking will be prohibited on 1 January 2003 include halls and community facilities such as libraries, theatres and galleries. Confined areas of common access such as stairways, corridors, lobbies, waiting areas and ticketing areas will also be covered by the provisions, as will toilets and staff amenities in public buildings, taxis and buses, including ticketing and waiting areas.
Additional measures outlined in the bill will have particular impact on Aboriginal communities where smoking rates are particularly high. Restrictions on retailing and advertising tobacco products will help prevent young people becoming addicted. Licensing tobacco retailers will help control the substance.
I rose to speak on this issue because I am amazed by the amount of damage tobacco causes in the community. I know there is an argument raging at the moment about the effects of alcohol as well in remote areas. When I was first elected, I met with some health workers and the first thing they said to me was to address tobacco issues. I must admit I was one of the many people who, like the member for Nelson suggested, would go out to the Casino or go to a disco, or nightclub, and you always come home with your clothes and hair smelling of smoke. Obviously, that was very annoying. But because I grew up in a family where everyone smoked, it never bothered me at restaurants, etcetera, even though smoke was drifting all over the food. Because I grew up with it, I took it for granted.
There are probably whole generations in the Northern Territory, plus across the board in Australia, who have grown up in families where people smoked and have taken this for granted. But obviously, with the number of people adversely affected by smoking, it is important that this government and future governments of the Northern Territory take steps to control tobacco as a substance. That is why I rose to speak tonight.
Madam Speaker, I strongly support the bill and commend it to the House.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support for the Tobacco Control Bill 2002. I would personally like to congratulate the Minister for Health and Community Services for taking a responsible decision on this serious public health issue by presenting this bill. I am also heartened by the strong community and opposition support for the bill.
As a former smoker, I understand only too well the nature of this highly addictive and harmful product. Now, as a non-smoker, arguably my health is better, and I choose to breathe smoke free air. I hope my children will have smoke free lives. Their money will be better spent and they will not be put at risk of tobacco related illness. There are many ways in which I, as a parent, can encourage my own children not to smoke. Not smoking myself is a very important step. When I make the decision to eat at a restaurant, visit a club or other enclosed public place, my family and I, like so many other non-smoking Territorians are exposed to the environmental tobacco smoke of those who choose to smoke.
This bill is about protecting individual choice and public health. This legislation will assist in reducing the long-term health problems associated with tobacco consumption, as well as bringing the Territory into line with the rest of Australia in regulating smoking in public places.
Sadly, the Northern Territory has the dubious honour of having the highest rate of smoking in Australia. Smoking remains the single most preventable cause of illness in the Territory, being responsible for the deaths of one in five Territorians. Likewise, the economic cost to the community is extremely high. It is estimated that the direct cost of tobacco consumption to the Territory community exceeds $60m a year. The indirect costs through absenteeism, lost productivity and welfare could well double that burden on the community purse.
Despite the significant impact that smoking has on the lives of Territorians, existing legislation is the weakest in any Australian jurisdiction. A stronger approach was needed to combat the negative impact of smoking on the health of both those people who consume tobacco and those who do not. This approach is achieved in the legislation being introduced by this government. The legislation covers three important areas: the establishment of a smoke-free public environment; reducing the number of people who take up smoking, in particular children; and helping those who want to quit this highly addictive habit. Under the existing legislation, Territorians continue to be put at risk of tobacco-related harm from exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in public places.
In the last decade, evidence has mounted to confirm that passive smokers are put at risk of serious illness. Adults exposed to environmental tobacco smoke are at a higher risk of cardiovascular and lung diseases. A 2002 research review by the World Health Organisation’s International Agency for Cancer Research confirms that passive smoke causes cancer in non-smokers. In children, exposure to environmental tobacco smoke can result in bronchitis, pneumonia, asthma and other illnesses. The link between environmental tobacco smoke and SIDS is well documented. Beyond the risk of serious illness, passive smokers are subject to the unpleasant smell of tobacco smoke, not only while in the presence of smokers but also later, as the smell clings to their hair and clothing of which we just heard a graphic example.
This bill aims to reduce the harmful effects of environmental tobacco smoke on those people who do not consume tobacco. Provisions are designed to protect the non-smoker who has made the choice not to smoke. Even with our high current level of smoking in the Territory, non-smokers represent over 70% of our community. The majority of Territorians who choose not to consume tobacco have the right to be protected from the toxins of other people’s smoke. The proposed Tobacco Control Act will initially prevent smoking in enclosed public places such as shopping centres, restaurants, cafes, community facilities and public transport. These measures are particularly important in protecting children from exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. Smoking restrictions in licensed premises and enclosed workplaces will follow by 31 May 2003.
This is not all-out prohibition on smoking. The bill allows for smoking in outdoor eating venues, as well as provision of smoking and non-smoking areas, equal amenity hotels, clubs and casinos, striking a balance between the rights of smokers and non-smokers to use adult recreational facilities. A number of commercial facilities have already voluntarily put smoking bans in place. A total ban on smoking at Casuarina Shopping Centre has been successfully implemented, and I commend the shopping centre for going ahead with that.
In my own electorate of Sanderson, the Northlakes Shopping Centre and the Darwin Golf Club have moved to provide non-smoking facilities over the past years. The respective management and committees of these organisations are to be congratulated for taking these responsible and forward thinking steps to provide a non-smoking environment for their patrons. These steps have not diminished their business; the shopkeepers of these centres record no change attributable to the ban of smoking. The Darwin Golf Club has not had a mass exodus of members since prohibiting smoking.
Recently, I was at an awards night at the Darwin Golf Club and it was all happening in the non-smoking amenity area of the club. The table that I was sitting at with a lot of the committee members, they were actually smokers. But they would get up and leave the table and they would go down into the smoking area and have their cigarette and then come back. Let me say that as the night progressed - and, of course, everyone was becoming more convivial, as you can imagine, and they were all pretty chuffed with the prizes that they were winning - no one lit up a cigarette in the non-smoking area; they still maintained that. It is a good thing in pubs and clubs; people will respect the rule not to smoke in areas that are gazetted non-smoking.
Evidence from studies in the US show that the introduction of controls on passive smoking have little effect on the bar and restaurant communities involved. These findings have been backed up by studies in South Australia and Victoria, after the introduction of legislation banning smoking in restaurants.
Despite growing awareness in the Territory community of the harmful effects of ETS and the voluntary steps taken by some businesses to deal with it, there remain those businesses and individuals that continue to put at risk non-smoking members of the community. When the centre management at Northlakes brought in non-smoking, they consulted with the customers, and with the other tenants in the centre. Mr Tony Miaoudis did a marvellous job of public consultation and got the support and backing of all the shopkeepers and introduced the policy. I was pretty happy about that. I had a constituent come into my office and say: ‘Now that you have made this place non-smoking, how about doing it for Hibiscus?’ I had to explain to her that this is not legislation; this is people power. This is the centre management in consultation doing this. They were really at me then, saying: ‘Well, come on, get the government behind this and legislate. For those centres and those places that will not bring it in then we do need legislation’. Well, that has happened. That is the strength of this desire of the community to introduce this type of legislation.
The provisions in the bill will ensure that the owners and managers of public places are responsible for ensuring the observance of these regulations. This will be accompanied by an associated public awareness campaign, assistance from government on signage, and the allowance of sufficient time to prepare for the new regulations will greatly assist in ensuring our compliance.
One of the important aims of this legislation is to discourage people, in particular children, from taking up smoking. The introduction of a simple licencing scheme will strengthen the restrictions on the sale of tobacco products to minors which will go a long way to achieving the same. The provisions in this bill for the Director of Licensing to revoke the licence of a retailer if they are found guilty of selling tobacco to a child will provide strong disincentive to the sale of tobacco products to minors. This provision will not affect competition, nor will it be onerous on tobacco retailers. This licencing provision will in fact protect those responsible retailers who ensure tobacco products are not sold to minors by allowing for unlicenced and irresponsible tobacco retailers to be more easily prosecuted.
Changes have also been made to enable a retailer to sight approved photographic ID to verify the age of a buyer. No longer will it be a defence for the retailer to have reasonable cause to believe that a buyer was not a minor. A defence provision such as this would limit the capacity to ensure that those who continue to sell to minors are able to be prosecuted under the offence provision of the new bill. The licensing of tobacco retailers will assist in ensuring they maintain a responsible level of behaviour that meets community expectations. This also brings the sale of tobacco products into line with other dangerous drugs such as alcohol, kava and some pharmaceuticals for which the community accepts a degree of regulation.
The new legislation will help to reinforce the message to our future adult Territorians that smoking is not a smart choice. The prevention and equal amenities provision will not only ensure grandchildren are not exposed to ETS in public places, they will further assist in developing their understanding of the risks of smoking to their health. When the community sends a clear message on smoking by restricting where you can smoke and protecting those who do not smoke, younger Territorians will be assisted to make healthy choices as they develop into adults. By working to delay that choice until they have reached adulthood will further encourage them to make a more reasoned and healthy choice on smoking as an informed and mature adult.
Changes to point of same advertising regulations in the bill will be beneficial to those who are yet to smoke and for those who have made the decision to quit. The bill will remove those forms of advertising that are designed to encourage the consumption of tobacco products specifically when the consumer’s primary reason for entering the retailer was to buy products other than cigarettes. It is all too easy to say that this is a person’s choice. This type of advertising, as the member for Johnston stated, is not designed to help the prospective consumer make an informed decision. It is there to persuade them to buy. For those people who have stopped smoking, the desire to smoke does not magically disappear. It is a long term battle of will not to return to old habits that we as a community should make every attempt to encourage and support.
Unlike specialist tobacconists where different regulations will apply, the local supermarket, corner shop or petrol station is visited more frequently to purchase the necessities of life. It is a necessary part of ensuring the efficacy of this bill that point of sale advertising is limited to those retailers whose primary product is tobacco. This will mean that tobacco advertising is directed at those who have made the choice to smoke and have freely entered such premises. Other restrictions on advertising are complementary to Commonwealth legislation and are specifically targetted at those forms of advertising that appear to be directed towards the younger members of the community.
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have had the opportunity to speak in support of this bill. It is important as a community to ensure that the rights of one group in society do not impinge too greatly on the rights of others. This bill ensures that the rights of smokers are not ignored, but they are subject to the need to protect the wider community from the devastating impact of tobacco consumption. This legislation will assist those who choose not to smoke to use public spaces without the health risks associated with ETS. It will help to make sure that the decision not to smoke made by the children of today will be made as informed, mature adults. It will assist in providing those people who are quitting smoking or those who may be encouraged to do so with a more responsible and less coercive retail environment.
I support remarks made by the members for Drysdale and Johnston in their thanks to all the Health team who got right behind this.
This law has been a long time coming. Like the member for Johnston, I only wish that the support from the other side could have been here in the Territory many years ago when it was introduced throughout Australia. When I was working in the Commonwealth back in the 1980s, we introduced non-smoking then. It has been a long time coming in the Territory. Many people have suffered detrimental health effects because of the lack of this legislation and the lack of will to introduce it.
Madam Speaker, I express my wholesome support for this bill. My thanks to the minister responsible. It is an excellent move by her. My thanks also go to the Martin government for getting behind this unanimously and bringing it on.
Mrs AAGAARD (Health and Community Services): Madam Speaker, I thank all honourable members for their contributions tonight. This is probably the most significant health legislation in the last decade, one which I know that, for the future, will mean better health outcomes for Territorians. It is a very sad state of affairs that we have one in five Territorians dying of smoke-related diseases, and at this stage, we also have about one in 20 hospitalisations as a direct result of smoke-related illness. This is far too high.
Tonight I was very pleased to hear that the opposition will be supporting this bill and I thank them very much for that. It is disappointing that over the years, they have not found it necessary to put into place a bill such as this, and you have to wonder about how many people have suffered because of that. So although I am very pleased that the opposition is supporting this bill, it is disappointing that it did not happen earlier.
The member for Drysdale commented on a television report tonight. What I was saying was in fact that the legislation would be passing today, not that it had in fact already passed. He obviously misunderstood what was happening at that media conference.
Once again, I thank the opposition for supporting the bill, and I would like to acknowledge the member for Port Darwin and her role in tobacco education over the years. I have heard that she has been very involved in this.
In relation to the member for Nelson, I thank him for his comments and for his support of the legislation. I, too, am very concerned about children, particularly children taking up smoking. One of the key aims of this legislation is to try to stop young people from taking up smoking. There are a number of aspects of the legislation which will, in fact, discourage people from both selling tobacco to minors and which will assist in minors not taking up smoking.
The member for Nelson picked up on the issue of schools. This is a decision where we are saying that schools are smoke free, but there is the possibility that staff at that school can agree to have a single place which is not accessible to people under 18 years and which is not in the view of children. Unlike other workplaces, teachers really do not have the capacity to leave the school very easily. Although I would have to say that it would be desirable that teachers were not smokers, unfortunately there are people who do smoke at schools and it was considered that if staff at a school agree that there should be a single smoking area, then that would be agreed to. Of course, this is something that will be looked at in the future as well.
The member for Nelson also referred to the issue of discounting. Price discounting will be permitted, but the retailer will not be able to advertise ‘discount’ or have a large sign with a low price on it. The member for Nelson may be interested to know that proposals were actually scrutinised by an independent consultant and they were found to be consistent with the National Competition Policy.
He raised issues in relation to casinos and a number of members mentioned going to casinos and various licensed premises and coming out smelling somewhat unsavoury. What we are talking about in relation to casinos is that there will be equal amenity at the casinos and there is a Code of Conduct being drawn up by the casinos and the Australian Hotels Association in relation to each licensed premises. It is expected that some of the gaming tables will be smoke free as well. I thank the member for Nelson for his contribution.
The member for Johnston is a very passionate supporter of non-smoking. I think his many years with the Heart Foundation have meant that he is, perhaps, a zealot in this area and it is a very good cause. I thank him very much for his support for this bill. He very rightly recognised the high levels of death from smoke-related diseases. It is salutary that so many people are losing their lives to smoking when it is such a preventable death.
One of the things that the member for Johnston raised was the depiction of people smoking in films. I must say that I agree with him. It is a very difficult area, though, not one that over which we have any control but it is, perhaps, something that we could look at as a separate lobbying issue in terms of federal legislation.
I thank the member for Millner for his contribution. The member for Millner drew my attention to something that has certainly happened to me since I have been the minister for Health and that is being lobbied about tobacco and its use. This has happened to me a lot and has obviously happened to him. I would have to say that of all the issues I have been lobbied on - and there have been an extraordinary number of those since I have been the minister for Health - that tobacco legislation and changes to it have been at the top of the list.
I thank the member for Sanderson for his contribution. I was very impressed with his point about the balance in the bill; balance between the rights of those people who do wish to smoke and those who don’t wish to smoke and who have rights in terms of clean air and I think that’s a very important point.
I pick up the points that he has made in terms of various businesses, organisations and shopping centres which have, ahead of this legislation of their own free will, taken on the banner of no smoking. He mentioned the BiLo complex at Marrara which has been smoke free for some time, also Casuarina and the Nightcliff shopping centre are among the few I would like to mention. For some of these, it was a particularly courageous decision at the time and it has paid off. A lot of people really enjoy the experience of going to shopping centres without having to face a wall of smoke.
This has been a very complex bill to put together and it has involved a lot of people. The member for Johnston mentioned a lot of people who have been involved with the smoking legislation, or the possible smoking legislation over many years and I would particularly like to thank a number of people in my department. Certainly, Di Rayson who has been involved with this kind of work for many years. Dr Shirley Hendy has also been a keen advocate of no smoking in the workplace. Two people from my own staff, Miss Tess Lee and also Bernadette Jago, who have been very involved in the legislation process and also Jeremy Kirby who has been involved in drafting the legislation.
In putting together this legislation, we couldn’t have done it without the kind of consultation we had with a number of organisations. I would really like to thank the Australian Hotels Association which, from the word go, have been extraordinarily cooperative. When there were more difficult issues to deal with in relation to the legislation they have at all times been cooperative and tried to work with us rather than be negative. I would particularly like to thank Greg Weller and Mick Burns for their involvement in the preparation of this legislation. I would also like to thank the Property Council of Australia who have been very keen on the legislation. They have seen the issues in relation to public liability and considered it was essential that this kind of legislation be introduced, so I thank them as well.
Of course, there has been, all along, a series of health advocates in relation to this kind of legislation: the NT Tobacco Control Coalition, which has been working on this for a very long period of time, as the member for Johnston has mentioned; the Heart Foundation; the Cancer Council; the AMA, particularly Paul Bauert and Robyn Cahill. I will be very pleased that I will not have to receive the Dirty Ashtray Award again, and sincerely hope that nothing like that ever comes into the Northern Territory again. I had a couple sitting in my office and they are quite disgusting things: glass ashtrays with butts stuck in the bottom of them; they smell something shocking. So, it will be great not to receive any more of those. I would also like to thank the Menzies School of Health, who have also been involved with this.
So, Madam Speaker, to sum up, I very much appreciate the support of the House in this legislation.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Mrs AAGAARD: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 28.1 as circulated. This amendment will enable the requirement for display of a warning notice about sale to minors at each point of sale to take effect on commencement of the act; that is, 1 January 2003. The requirement for display of health warnings, which is a new requirement for retailers, will be commenced on 31 May 2003.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 3 and 4, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 5:
Mrs AAGAARD: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 28.2 as circulated. This amendment will provide that a domestic premises used as a child-care facility will only be deemed smoke-free during the hours that it is operating as a child-care facility. The premises will not be deemed smoke-free at other times. This amendment will mean that a person who lives in a house that is used as a child-care facility can, if they choose, smoke after hours.
Amendment agreed to.
Mrs AAGAARD: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 28.3 as circulated. This amendment corrects a reference to the Private Hospital and Nursing Homes Act and the terminology in that act. The original clause (a) was drafted in the assumption that the Private Hospital and Nursing Homes Amendment Act 2002 would commence before the Tobacco Control Act, but this will not be the case.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 6 to 8, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 9:
Mrs AAGAARD: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 28.4 as circulated. This amendment alters the maximum penalty for the offence of smoking in a smoke-free area, from 100 penalty units, $11 000, to 20 penalty units, $2200.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10:
Mrs AAGAARD: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 28.5 as circulated. This amendment alters the maximum penalty for the offence deemed to have been committed by an occupier, being a natural person, of a smoke free area if a person smokes in that area from 100 penalty units, $11 000, to 20 penalty units, $2200.
Amendment agreed to.
Mrs AAGAARD: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 28.6 as circulated. This amendment alters the maximum penalty for the offence deemed to have been committed by an occupier, being a body corporate, of a smoke free area if a person smokes in that area from 500 penalty units, $55 000, to 100 penalty units, $11 000.
Amendment agreed to.
Mrs AAGAARD: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 28.7 as circulated. In clause 10(1), the bill provides that if a person smokes in a smoke-free area, the occupier of the area is deemed to have committed an offence. Clause 10(2) provides a defence to the occupier. However, the legal effect of subclause (c) of the defence is unclear. The defence may not, in its current form, be available to an occupier who did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to know that the person was smoking. This would be unfair to the occupier as it would require of him or her an unreasonable degree of vigilance. This amendment clarifies that subclause (c) of the defence is satisfied if an occupier did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to know that the person was smoking. This will reduce the occupier’s burden of vigilance to a reasonable level. The objective reasonableness requirement and ‘could not reasonably have been expected to know’ means that the defence will not be available to an occupier who wilfully turns a blind eye to smoking in his or her smoke-free premises. This is an amendment which the member for Port Darwin had brought to our attention.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11:
Mrs AAGAARD: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 28.8 as circulated. This amendment alters the maximum penalty for the offence deemed to have been committed by an occupier of an exempt area if a person smokes in that area in contravention of a condition specified in the regulations from 100 penalty units, or $11 000, to 20 penalty units, $2200.
Amendment agreed to.
Mrs AAGAARD: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 28.9 as circulated. This amendment alters the maximum penalty for the offence deemed to have been committed by an occupier, being a body corporate, of an exempt area in contravention of a condition specified in the regulations if a person smokes in that area from 500 penalty units, $55 000, to 100 penalty units, $11 000.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13:
Mrs AAGAARD: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 28.10 as circulated. This amendment alters the maximum penalty for a natural person selling cigarettes other than in packets containing less than 20 cigarettes from 100 penalty units, $11 000, to 20 penalty units, $2200.
Amendment agreed to.
Mrs AAGAARD: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 28.11 as circulated. This amendment alters the maximum penalty for a body corporate selling cigarettes other than in packets containing less than 20 cigarettes from 500 penalty units, $55 000, to 100 penalty units, $11 000.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 14:
Mrs AAGAARD: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 28.12 as circulated. This amendment alters the maximum penalty for a natural person selling loose tobacco other than packets containing 250g or more of loose tobacco from 100 penalty units, $11 000, to 20 penalty units, $2200.
Amendment agreed to.
Mrs AAGAARD: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 28.13 as circulated. This amendment alters the maximum penalty for a body corporate selling loose tobacco other than in packets containing 250grams or more of loose tobacco from 500 penalty units, $55 000, to 100 penalty units, $11 000.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 15 and 16, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 17:
Ms AAGAARD: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 28.14 as circulated. This amendment alters the maximum penalty for a natural person advertising price discounting of a tobacco product from 100 penalty units, $11 000, to 20 penalty units, $2200.
Amendment agreed to.
Mrs AAGAARD: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 28.15 as circulated. This amendment alters the maximum penalty for a body corporate advertising price discounting of a tobacco product from 500 penalty units, $55 000, to 100 penalty units, $11 000.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 18 to 28, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 29:
Mrs AAGAARD: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 28.16 as circulated. This amendment removes the references to the prescribed fee in relation to tobacco retail licence applications.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 29, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 30 to 34, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 35:
Mrs AAGAARD: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 28.17 as circulated. This amendment removes references to the prescribed fee in relation to tobacco retail licence variations.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 35, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 36:
Mrs AAGAARD: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 28.18 as circulated. This amendment removes references to the prescribed fee in relation to tobacco retail licence transfers.
Amendment agreed to.
Mrs AAGAARD: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 28.19 as circulated. This amendment corrects a typographical error: ‘with’ is changed to ‘within’.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 36, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 37 to 41, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 42:
Mrs AAGAARD: I move amendment 28.20 as circulated. This amendment alters the maximum penalty for a natural person selling tobacco to a child from 500 penalty units, $55 000, to 200 penalty units, $22 000.
Amendment agreed to.
Mrs AAGAARD: I move amendment 28.21 as circulated. This amendment alters the maximum penalty for a body corporate selling tobacco to a child, from 2500 penalty units, $275 000, to 1000 penalty units, $110 000.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 42, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 43:
Mrs AAGAARD: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 28.22 as circulated. This amendment alters the maximum penalty for a natural person supplying tobacco to a child from 500 penalty units, $55 000, to 200 penalty units, $22 000.
Amendment agreed to.
Mrs AAGAARD: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 28.23 as circulated. This amendment alters the maximum penalty for a body corporate supplying tobacco to a child from 2500 penalty units, $275 000, to 1000 penalty units or $110 000.
Amendment agreed to.
Mrs AAGAARD: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 28.24 as circulated. This amendment alters the maximum penalty for a natural person purchasing tobacco for use by a child from 500 penalty units, $55 000, to 200 penalty units, $22 000.
Amendment agreed to.
Mrs AAGAARD: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 28.25 as circulated. This amendment alters the maximum penalty for a body corporate purchasing tobacco for use by a child from 2500 penalty units, $275 000, to 1000 penalty units, $110 000.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 43, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 44 and 45, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 46:
Mrs AAGAARD: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 28.26 as circulated. This amendment alters the maximum penalty for a natural person selling children’s products resembling tobacco products from 200 penalty units, $22 000, to 20 penalty units, $2200.
Amendment agreed to.
Mrs AAGAARD: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 28.27 as circulated. This amendment alters the maximum penalty for a body corporate selling children’s products resembling tobacco products from 1000 penalty units, $110 000, to 100 penalty units, $11 000.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chairman, I am curious about why there is a whole raft of similar amendments to this, dropping the penalty in relation to these offences. I would like to hear from the minister as to why these penalties are being dropped.
Mrs AAGAARD: In fact, they were actually inaccurate in the first bill and we have just replaced them with the correct figures. When we picked them up, in going through the bill for these sittings, we realised that there was a mistake in the bill, and so it is simply correcting what was incorrect to begin with.
Mr ELFERINK: I find that that is a remarkable sort of answer from the minister, quite frankly, because we are talking about some 27 or 28 mistakes, as I understand it. These bills have to be trawled through in some detail. I would expect that 28 errors in a bill would be something that the minister would be very aware of. I hope it is something that the minister would be very aware of, and I would expect that the minister would notice an issue like that, where you are talking about a reduction in penalty of something in the order of 150%. Minister, how many other mistakes are there in this bill that we are not aware of?
Mr Kiely: Have you read it?
Mr ELFERINK: I am raising it now.
Mr Kiely: I said read it.
Mr Dunham: Of course, he has.
Mr Stirling: Well, if he had read it he would have picked it up himself.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Order!
Dr TOYNE: I can clarify that for the member for Macdonnell. Most of these amendments are just simply recalibrating the penalties that apply to the various offences throughout the bill. It is really only one mistake; it was a basically a reference to penalty units rather than to dollar amounts, so we had to recalibrate it. The current penalties now, if you are worried about the reduction in the penalty levels, have brought the bill very much into line with jurisdictions around Australia, and also with the relativities to the use of illicit substances.
We are not penalising a smoker of tobacco more harshly than, say, a smoker of marijuana. So we have brought this into a standard set of penalties that you would find match the situation right around Australia.
Mr ELFERINK: I thank the minister for health for his answer. I find this a little surprising that I posed a question to the minister for health, who seems to be unaware of what is happening with her own legislation. So much so that the Attorney-General takes it upon himself to answer the question.
Dr Burns: Well, because you will not accept the explanation.
Mr ELFERINK: I am not the person bringing the legislation into this Chamber; the minister for health is. I want to quiz the minister for health in relation to this, and the minister for health immediately has a wall of protection around her. All I want to do is get a straightforward answer. It is not a difficult question; it is not an attack on government. All of a sudden I find myself facing a barrier of people running interference when I cannot even get an answer out of the minister for health, and frankly …
Mr Kiely: You wanted an answer; you’ve got your answer.
Ms Martin: Oh, sit down. Make a useful contribution or none at all.
Mr ELFERINK: … the interjection earlier, that I had not read the legislation, therefore, I would not know what penalty units were – if it is written in the bill before the House, then we assume that that is what the minister wants to bring before the House. All I am trying to demonstrate is that there are 28 mistakes in the bill, and I am concerned enough to ask a question about it. What I get is interference being run by everybody, except the one person of whom I asked the question.
Dr Toyne: Nonsense!
Dr Burns: She already answered it twice.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 46, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill to be reported with amendments.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Mrs AAGAARD (Health and Community Services): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I table the November 2002 report of the Auditor-General to the Legislative Assembly.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the report be printed.
Motion agreed to.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the report and I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later hour
Leave granted.
Motion agreed to.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I table the Remuneration Tribunal Report and Determination Number 2 of 2002, Ministers and Members of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the report be printed.
Motion agreed to.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the report.
Madam Speaker, the then Leader of Government Business met with the Remuneration Tribunal chair on behalf of government on 3 October 2002 in relation to the government’s submission. The determination does not recommend substantial changes to members’ entitlements. We are pleased that ongoing financial restraint has been maintained. No increase in office holders’ salaries is proposed; the government supports that position.
Members will be aware electorate allowances have not been substantially increased since 1996. An increase of 2.12% equivalent to the Darwin CPI for one year has been recommended by the Tribunal to electorate allowances to help members continue to serve their constituencies.
As the Tribunal reports, the government has made the case that travelling allowances should not be able to be used to receive a windfall cash gain when staying with family or friends in non-commercial accommodation. The Tribunal has determined that a modified structure for travelling allowance should apply including the restoration of a flat Darwin rate for reasons of, in the words of the Tribunal, ‘costs, security and productivity’ where the members stays in their own accommodation. The Tribunal has recommended this rate be fixed at $145 per night as applies in the Commonwealth parliament. When members stay non-commercially with family or friends, they will continue to receive the meals incidental rate applicable to the NT public sector as determined by the Commissioner for Public Employment.
The Tribunal has also recommended that the capital city rate for travelling allowance in Hobart or Adelaide be reduced from $230 to $215 per night in line with Commonwealth members. The Tribunal has recommended the electorate of Stuart, due to its extraordinary size and population split between Alice Springs and Katherine, receive a part-time staff member in Katherine to perform a liaison role for the member. We note the Tribunal has changed the format of this determination to improve clarity and simplicity and we thank the Chairman for his efforts in this regard.
The report covers other matters for members and all should read it. The government accepts the Tribunal’s determination and I thank Otto Alder and his team for their work.
Madam Speaker, I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later hour.
Leave granted.
Mr VATSKALIS (Transport and Infrastructure): Madam Speaker, I know it is late, but it is better late than never because I am going to talk about something that is very close to your heart: taxis.
This government believes that the commercial passenger vehicle industry plays a key role in our community. It provides a transport service to residents that strives to be safe and reliable. It is also an important element of our tourism industry, offering visitors an opportunity to travel around our communities visiting hospitality services and tourism highlights. In opposition, the government held the view that reforms to the industry instituted in 1997-98 had detrimentally affected it rather than achieving a positive outcome.
Since November last year when I inherited the transport portfolio, I, my office and my department have undertaken an extensive consultation and discussion program with the commercial passenger vehicle industry with the aim of reforming and restructuring the operation. We knew then that reform and restructure of the industry would take time and would need careful consideration of its operations in a Territory-wide sense. To ensure that this was undertaken in an atmosphere where no advantage could be taken out of the eventual outcome, I capped industry numbers, initially for six months beginning on 26 November 2001, and then extended it for 12 months. That cap remains in effect until 1 March 2003. Discussions have been held across the Northern Territory.
In November, I published to industry the terms of reference of the proposed review. Those terms of reference were extensively distributed. The focus of those terms were first, the capacity of these three sections of industry - minibus, private hire car and taxi - to provide sustainable, high quality services to the public; and second, improvements that can be made to the operational framework and regulatory arrangements to achieve the objectives of sustainable, high quality service to the public. Letters were sent to industry representatives inviting comments. Extensive meetings were held to bring those comments directly to me. Thirty four written submissions were received, in addition to the numerous discussions held by my office and the department. What became clear from these discussions was that the industry was in serious trouble. Concerns were expressed about the quality of the service provided, the reduction in income suffered by many in the industry, especially drivers, and ongoing disputation between sectors of the industry.
Issues were raised which extended from ranking facilities and their restrictions through to numbers in the industry. In addition to industry comments, submissions were also received from tourism, restaurant and accommodation industries and consumer groups such as the Integrated Disability Action Group and Aboriginal organisations.
Submissions closed on 30 March and I issued a discussion paper following extensive work by my department and my office in May 2002. Copies of the discussion paper were sent to all stakeholders, including those who had previously made submissions. This generated another, perhaps even more extensive, series of discussions with the result of a further 40 submissions being forwarded to me.
In October this year, I announced the final outcome of the government’s deliberation. Extensive changes have been made to the way the industry in toto operates. The government has established an Interim Commercial Passenger Vehicle Board and will establish a permanent arrangement. The Interim Board consists of representatives of taxi and executive taxi operators, minibus operators, limousine operators, regional industry operators, tourism industry, disabled access advocacy, consumers and drivers. The board has an independent chair, and I am very pleased to advise that a respected Darwin lawyer, Ms Melanie Little, has agreed to take this job on.
As I said, the Interim Board has been established and has met for the first time. This board’s powers will be invoked with the passage of legislation through this House. Additional members of the board are Mr Ken Colhalan, taxi and executive taxi representative, Mr Julian Sharples from the minibuses, Ken Armstrong from the limousines, Tony Rooke, regional industry operator, Mr Paul Styles and Craig Catchlove from the tourism industry, Ms Mary Johnson from the disabled access advocacy, consumers Ms Clare Anderson and Leah Shacklady, and from the drivers, Bob Lockhart.
The board will provide advice to the minister on all policy and regulatory matters, will oversee reform of the industry, to guide future direction of the industry, to administer regulations of the industry, to ensure all industry and consumer interests are represented in ongoing industry development. In particular, the board will be responsible for overseeing entry standards for drivers and operators, training requirements, vehicle standards and age limits, provision of disabled access for wheelchairs, standards for network licences including complaint management and driver management processes, codes of conduct for drivers, operators and networks.
The board will also have the power to determine whether drivers, networks and operators meet fit and proper requirements for accreditation, accredit training providers and suspend drivers, operators and networks for breaching regulatory requirements and approved codes of conduct.
The importance of the establishment of this board cannot be overstated. The government, in taking this action, has established the first cross-industry representative body which has some power and a strong influence in the direction of the industry as a whole. It brings all players together in one room, something that has been much needed for some time. It is about the government having confidence in the maturity of the industry and giving it the opportunity to make decisions for itself.
All driver training will be extended from 24 hours to 78 hours. This will be effective from March 2003. New drivers will be required to undergo an initial training period of 24 hours which will lead to the issue of a temporary ID card. A further 54 hours will be required over the following three months. Training providers in Alice Springs and Darwin will be required to be independent of operators and networks. This to ensure that those people who undergo training are not pushed through and are properly trained to national standards. The board will also develop accredited training packages for operators, networks and dispatch clerks. The government is a strong believer in proper training. This training will ensure that we do not get people on the road who have not been extensively and rigorously trained in their job.
A review of the existing fit and proper standards will be conducted by the new board. All new drivers will be required to hold a licence for five years before they can obtain a licence to drive a commercial passenger vehicle. The board will also review the conduct standards for drivers to tighten application of the standards and impose strict penalties for those who break the code.
We have given the board the power to suspend drivers not just from one network, but from all networks. This will prevent a driver who has been suspended for poor conduct being picked up the next day by another network or operator.
Vehicles designed and fitted out for wheelchair access and fitted with meters will continue to obtain a 50% reduction in licence fees.
The board will also have the task of reviewing other possible incentives and ways to bring disabled access vehicles in to all industry sectors. In the interim, taxi and executive taxi fleets must have a minimum of 10% of vehicles that have disabled access.
CVLs will be regionally based. CVL fees will continue to be paid quarterly. Any new CVL issued for any category will require a full year, up front payment or the first year CVL fee. This will apply to new CVLs taken out by new and existing operators. For the second and subsequent years, the fee will revert to quarterly payment. Executive taxis will pay the same CVL fee as for a standard taxi. The fee for a new minibus CVL will be equal to that of a taxi, or for any taxi commencing on 1 March 2003. Existing minibus CVLs will be aligned with the fee for a taxi CVL in a stepped increase over the next three years commencing on 1 July 2003 including pro rata for the first 12 month period. The three year phase-in period for CVL fee alignment also applies to MOGs converted to minibuses, and that will also commence on 1 July 2003. The fee for a limousine CVL will be $1120 annually in all regions commencing in July 2003. The fee for a special function car will be $500 annually in all regions commencing also in July 2003.
A new regulation will require the registration of a taxi, limousine or minibus to be in the same name as the CVL attached to that vehicle. This will be phased in for existing holders over a 12 month period. The registration of a vehicle in a company or business name is permitted, provided all directors of the business or company have accreditation. Minibuses will continue to operate without meters. They will be able to be hailed by roadside customers. Fares will be set by operators, based on a zonal system. They must be registered with the board by 1 March 2003. Fares will be maximum fares, must be prominently displayed and must be agreed with passengers before they enter. The Motor Omnibus Gove category will be abolished and all existing MOGs will be converted to minibus arrangements by 1 July 2003. Where existing MOGs are greater than 15 seats, they will continue until their age limit is reached.
A new category, executive taxis, will be created to provide a luxury level of taxi services to the public. An executive taxi will be a higher standard than a standard taxi. The board will set the standards, similar to that of the limousine category. Executive taxis will pay the same commercial vehicle licence, CVL, fee as a standard taxi. Executive taxi maximum tariff will be higher than for a standard taxi, reflecting the higher capital and operating costs.
Private hire cars will be replaced with a limousine category and a special function wedding car category from July 2003. There will be no entitlement fee payable for a limousine or a special function car. The existing $10 000 entitlement fees for private hire cars will be refunded to operators from 1 July 2003.
Limousines will be required to be pre-booked only, and must return to base after every job. Where there is a schedule of work and where there are pre-bookings, the return to base may not be practicable in all instances. The government accepts that the work schedule can be maintained and this will not require return to base on all occasions. The CPV Board will be asked to examine this issue. From 1 July 2003, there will no longer be sub-bases to which a limousine can return after a job. Limousines cannot accept walk-up fares. Private hire cars and limousines wishing to ply for hire can convert to the new executive taxi category.
Madam Speaker, these are the changes the government has made. We believe that this will have a number of impacts. First, the industry will have a clear delineation between industry types. For too long, the lines of demarcation between each sector have been blurred. Now minibuses will operate as minibuses; private hire cars will be either executive taxis, if they wish to ply for hire, or they will be limousines, like in every other part of Australia; and taxis will operate as taxis.
Drivers, operators and network managers will receive more thorough and accredited training. The industry will be policing itself. Government will not be required to continue to referee disputes or become intrinsically involved in uniform wearing, etcetera, all of which occupies time which could be better utilised. The industry as a group, will have a say in the future direction of the industry. Drivers will be better qualified and standards will improve. They will also have better support from their incomes.
One issue that had to be addressed early by government was the impact of our decision on national competition policy. Predictably, the National Competition Council has kept a close eye on our considerations. I do not believe that the government has taken any action that can be seen to be anti-competitive. We have not capped or frozen numbers permanently. We have not placed limits on the population ratio. We recognise that having gone down that path would have incurred the wrath of the NCC. Instead, we have chosen to put the industry on a sensible, organised footing.
I am aware that some members of the industry are disappointed that we did not go down this path, but it has become very evident to us that should we have done so, the NCC would have imposed very severe penalties on us.
The NCC has indicated to us concern about our ongoing cap period, but this is the right and proper thing to do during the decision-making time. That cap will now be extended to 1 March 2003 to allow this House time to absorb the legislation I intend to introduce tomorrow. This will be the final extension of the cap.
This government inherited an industry that was in crisis. We have been faithful to our principles of public consultation and engagement. I believe we have produced an outcome that will benefit both the industry and the public.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Mr REED (Katherine): Madam Speaker, the presentation tonight of this statement is a demonstration of the gross incompetence of this minister.
The process of the review of the commercial passenger vehicle industry commenced in March this year. It has been a long and tiresome process for the industry. There have been a number of extensions in relation to the times; dates set by the minister on a couple of occasions have not been met. For example, we had a commitment from the minister, I think in the August sittings, that he would be tabling responses to the review of the industry before the end of those sittings. That commitment was not met and the industry was left dangling on a string. We are now at the ludicrous stage where he has delivered this statement the day before he introduces legislation. Tomorrow we will be in a position to read the second reading speech and to see the legislation.
The minister and his incompetence - and it is gross incompetence that goes beyond incompetence; it goes to taking this parliament for granted. It goes to treating this parliament with contempt because statements are not intended, in the parliamentary process, to be used by the minister as a means of being able to put something on the record, in this case, to demonstrate that he has consulted with industry. Statements are an important part of the parliamentary process. The intent of the statement is for the minister to deliver it, for all members in this House then to be able to contribute to the debate and, hopefully, for the minister to take on board some of the comments made by members, and then be able to incorporate those comments into the legislation.
That clearly was not the intent in this case. The parliament has been treated with contempt because the legislation and the second reading speech have already been printed for presentation tomorrow, so any contribution to any debate in relation to this statement will have no affect. No member who contributes will be listened to, in terms of having any input to the drafting of the legislation. It is an absolutely pointless exercise in terms of expressing the views of members of industry. I point out to the minister that, as late as 8.55 tonight, I received an e-mail from an industry representative seeking to have the effective date of the legislation deferred until 3 July at the earliest so that industry can be fully consulted in relation to this matter.
That is but one item of correspondence that I have received from industry over the last couple of days. It is all very well for the minister to say that he has consulted broadly. I came to Parliament House this morning by taxi, and the owner/driver of that vehicle did not have anything to say that was supportive of the government’s position or, in particular, the way that this matter has been handled. The minister must be aware of those concerns and the opposition that many members of industry have about the way he has handled this matter. They are also concerned about the lack of effective consultation.
This statement serves no purpose whatsoever because within 24 hours it will be superseded by the second reading speech, a legal document, and the legislation itself. That will serve to further confirm in the mind of industry the fact that government has not been serious about consulting with industry; it has not been serious about providing members of this House with an effective means of debating the government’s intent in relation to changes to the commercial passenger vehicle industry. That is treating this House with contempt.
In a further demonstration that the minister just has not known where he has been going with this legislation, I had a call last week from the minister’s office to my electorate office advising that this legislation for these changes to the industry was to be introduced and passed this week, and as a consequence I might want to avail myself, as the opposition spokesman, of a briefing on the legislation. Naturally, that generated some concern. The very fact that complex legislation of this kind was to be introduced and passed this week, and that was the intent of the government last week …
Mr Henderson: No, it wasn’t.
Mr REED: You say: ‘No, it wasn’t’. Why did the minister’s office ring? I refer, Madam Speaker, through you to the Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services’ comment that ‘No, it wasn’t’. The advice to me was that this legislation would be passed with urgency this week.
A briefing was arranged and I attended that, together with the member for Greatorex, yesterday afternoon, only to be advised: ‘Oh yes, well we were going to pass it with urgency this week. The minister intended to do that. However, that is not the case now. It will not be passed until the February sittings. The debate will take place after introduction of the legislation this week. The debate will not ensue until February’. So another demonstration of how sloppily this has been handled, how incompetent the minister has been in the business relating to this bill and to this statement. From that point of view, it is absolutely pointless contributing further to this debate. Any comment made will be blatantly ignored and the House treated with contempt because the second reading speech and the bill have already been printed.
The purpose of a statement of this kind has been overridden, very clumsily overridden. All members of this House should be concerned about that, whether they are on the government benches or not. The purpose of statements to the House is both advisory and to generate a two-way flow of information. It might be that the government does not accept any of the points made in relation to the debate, but the very fact that we have a parliament and that members have a right to participate in a debate knowing full well that it is to be an effective, open debate which has the potential to influence the minister. A full debate means that members may have points they raise at least considered by government. This government has become exceedingly arrogant in an exceedingly short space of time since it gained government in August 12 months ago. The delivery of this speech tonight by the minister clearly demonstrates that.
I have expressed concern on behalf of members of the industry with whom I have had contact. Indeed, the member for Greatorex has done a lot of work on this issue. The opposition spokesman for tourism has likewise had a lot of contact from industry, and very broad concerns have been expressed.
I say to the minister: stop being so arrogant, focus a little more in a way this House can benefit from the presentations that you make to it in the form of this Ministerial Statement, and provide members with at least the ability to participate in the debate with the knowledge, and indeed the intent of this parliament, that their participation will play an effective role. What you have done today is a dreadful demonstration and a blatant disregard for the rights of members of this House, for the rights of Territorians to have their representatives able to put the points that members of industry across the Northern Territory might bring to any member in this House. This is not restricted to criticism; there may be support for legislation.
It might be that a statement of this kind, had it been introduced at a more appropriate time, some expressions of support could have confirmed the views of the minister or further entrenched in the government’s mind a desire to take a course in relation to legislation they were going to introduce. The input can be both negative and positive, constructive at the same time, but the minister has forgone that opportunity. He should be ashamed of the fact that he has treated the House with contempt because in doing so, he has treated Territorians with contempt and in particular the industry.
Whilst he might be talking to some sections of the industry who are supporting the changes that the government is about to put in place - and I do not deny that there is support, but the minister must also understand that there is concern and opposition in sections of the industry to the proposed changes. I am not suggesting for a moment that everyone could be made to be happy because that will not be the case. There will need to be compromise, but I would have thought that the minister, in presenting a statement, would have been open and refreshing enough to be able to stimulate debate to enable members to contribute in a positive and constructive way.
The way that he has handled this has been deplorable. The industry is horrified by the attitude that demonstrates and all the members in this House should likewise be horrified because it is a sad day for the processes of this parliament, given that the minister has delivered this statement and that any comment that may have been made would not have been incorporated in the legislation or even considered because it is already printed for presentation tomorrow or the next day. The second reading speech has already been printed. It is all over, red rover in terms of any input.
This is nothing more than an absolute insult to members of both this House, to the industry and to Territorians generally who expect a far greater and far fairer process in relation to the business of this House and the way it is conducted.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to congratulate the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure for the statement he has delivered on the commercial passenger vehicle industry. I welcome the statement, and I can’t resist the temptation of responding to some of the comments made by the member for Katherine who is momentarily out of hiding.
I am not surprised that the minister’s office had to contact the shadow to offer him a briefing because he has shown, since the election loss by the CLP, that he is completely disinterested in representing constituents in the Northern Territory and has been very lazy in his shadow portfolio duties. If he truly was concerned about this matter he could have availed himself at any stage of the extensive consultation process that the minister and his staff have undertaken to provide some input into the consultation process.
The minister’s statement clearly identified that in November 2001, that is a year ago, the minister published to the industry the terms of reference of the proposed review. Those terms of reference were extensively distributed, spelling out the focus of the terms which were: the capacity of these three sections of the industry - minibus, private hire car and taxi - to provide sustainable, high quality services to the public and improvements that can be made to the operational framework and regulatory arrangements to achieve the objective of sustainable, high quality services to the public.
In context, a year ago the industry was very broadly consulted about what the term of a review into the industry would be. Thirty-four written submissions were received, and I take it from the response of the shadow minister that he didn’t bother writing a submission, that he was not one of the 34. I wonder whether any member of the opposition bothered to participate at all. I would hazard a guess not, because they have shown laziness.
In addition to the numerous discussions held by the minister and the department, it became very clear that through these discussions, the industry was in serious trouble. I have taken the time to do a bit of work, unlike members opposite, and to have a look at what the trouble might have been. I refer members to a Northern Territory News article of 8 June 2001.
At the end of reading these excerpts, I will seek leave to table them. Northern Territory News 13 February 2001 ‘Untrained taxi drivers risk lives’. Northern Territory News 14 November 2000: ‘Darwin taxi firm shuts shop’. Northern Territory News 10 September 2001: ‘Taxi service for disabled faces bleak future’. Northern Territory News 10 November 2000 ‘Cabbies may hit government for millions – buy backs ruling’. Northern Territory News 10 May 2000: ‘Cabbies earning only $35 a shift’. Northern Territory News 20 April 2000: ‘Taxi owners face ruin – levy blamed’. Northern Territory News 6 May 1999: ‘Cabbies now rank job too taxing’. We have the minibuses weighing into the chaos of the industry, 1 May 1999 ‘Minibus drivers in rank row’. Northern Territory News 17 August 1998: ‘Taxi Plan – the poor, elderly will suffer’.
I am using these examples to demonstrate that the minister inherited an industry in complete and utter shambles and chaos, an industry that had been previously imposed upon by the government. That is, the previous government had not worked with the industry and worked up industry reform; instead, it had taken the opposite approach and deregulated the industry which sent it into chaos. It sent many owner/operators into dire financial circumstances, adversely affecting minibuses, executive taxis, etcetera, at the same time.
This epitomises the previous experience under previous regimes. Northern Territory News 10 August 1998 ‘Taxis shut out of review talks’. Northern Territory News 20 May 1998 ‘$40m taxi licence buy out proposed’. So not only is there a shambles in the industry created by the CLP government, that shambles was affecting taxpayers and the government budget in terms of millions of dollars of payouts. Northern Territory News 6 June 1997: ‘Darwin cab co-op breach trade law’. 21 May 1997: ‘Co-op in court; taxi rules unfair’; 6 May 1997: ‘NT Cabbies hurting – too many hire cars’; 30 April 1997 – ‘”We’ll cook in cars”, say airport drivers’.
This the picture that our minister inherited. It is an absolute disgrace, a shame, and members of the CLP sitting here espousing hypocrisy, continue to discredit their own party. Really, some of them are far beyond their use-by date and should seriously consider retirement.
Going on to the consultative mechanisms that the minister very clearly put in place a year ago; of the 34 written submissions, concerns were expressed about: the quality of the service provided; reduction of income suffered by many in the industry, especially drivers; and ongoing disputation between sectors of the industry. These were the key broad concerns expressed, as the result of consultation, which the member for Katherine would have us believe did not occur. He has been referred to as the Harry Potter of accounting, so I daresay he could be referred to as the Harry Potter of the commercial passenger vehicle industry. The man seems to live in the realm of fantasy.
Issues were raised which extended from ranking facilities, to their restrictions, through to numbers in the industry. The deadline for submissions was 30 March this year, many months ago, and the minister issued a discussion paper following extensive work by his office and his department in May of this year.
I do not know whether members opposite have bothered to pick up and read that discussion paper but, yet again, there was an opportunity to engage and to provide their feedback and input into government about any concerns they had with the path government was heading down. Any representations they were receiving from the industry that they wanted to communicate to government, they would have been well served and well placed to have done the work back then. I guess they were still looking for birds in various exotic places.
The discussion paper, as I have said, was issued in May 2002. Copies of the discussion paper were sent to all stakeholders, including those who had previously made submissions. This generated another, and perhaps even more extensive, series of discussions - again, consultation - with the result being a further 40 submissions being forwarded to the minister. In October this year, the minister announced the final outcome of the government’s deliberation.
It is quite extraordinary for claims to be made in the House this evening by the member for Katherine that the minister is holding this House in contempt by making this statement tonight. Anyone undertaking due diligence as a member of this House would know that this process has been ongoing for a long time, and members have had ample opportunity to participate in this process. Certainly, I have met with members of the industry. As the member for Karama, I have many people in the industry living in my electorate. I have spoken to drivers, operators of taxis, owner/operators of minibuses, owner/operators of private hire cars, and each of those discussions have afforded me the opportunity to go and represent their interests and views to the minister. I cannot understand why I, as a member, am able to do that, whereas members with more years experience than myself have chosen to ignore the processes available to them.
I congratulate the minister for creating the Commercial Passenger Vehicle Board. This is groundbreaking in terms of the industry. We are finally seeing an industry that has been divided, that has been in chaos, that by the nature of the commercial aspect of their industry have been entirely competitive and in some cases, combative against each other, finally coming together. They are coming together to be mature and to control their own industry, rather than continuing to rely on government to control their industry which in the past, has led to chaos. So this government is saying to the industry: ‘We will facilitate a process - we have facilitated a process - whereby parameters are set, a framework is established, and you, as an industry, can determine the outcomes of your industry’. We have established the guidelines and parameters, as good government does, within the role of the advisory board, but we are clearly saying to the industry: ‘We have brought you all together as a result of consultations. There is a framework now in which you can all work together for the betterment of the industry, for the outcomes that taxpayers have sought from our government’. The drivers had been losing income. The owners had been losing income. There had been no clear delineation between minibuses, private hire cars, taxis and in far too many areas, all of these were overlapping.
The chaos created by deregulation imposed by the previous government after having locked out many sectors of the industry from discussions about that, cost the taxpayers about $20m to buy back taxi plates. And the outcome? Less income for drivers and owners. The big difference between the past and what this ministerial statement explains of the future is that the industry will be able to guide its own future. In the past the government imposed and created chaos.
I believe the industry is capable of looking after itself within the clear rules and guidelines that the government has established for the advisory board. We do want a quality industry, one that is mature enough to run itself, and the government is always here of course, to quite appropriately play its role in monitoring the health of the industry. I am relieved that the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure has not been idle. As of November last year, he has been working hard with his staff, both in the office and the department, to work through the consultative process with the industry, with all key stakeholders. As I said, I have met with many representatives from the industry who have felt very confident about participating in that consultation process. They have beaten a path, very quickly, to the minister’s door; they have met with the minister, with key advisors, with departmental people. They have never had any knock backs in terms of being able to engage some of the decision makers.
The time frame has been a reasonable time frame. As a government, we have moved as quickly as we possibly could, driven by the need - that is, we have an industry that was absolutely bleeding financially as a result of the deregulation imposed by the previous government. People’s livelihoods had been dramatically affected. It was no longer in many instances a viable way to work. So within the reasonable time frame of a year, we are driving it forward so industry can rebuild its health and vigour, see the opportunities come back into many small business people who operate in the industry. I believe the minister has done a tremendous job at driving this forward within a reasonable time frame but with the haste that it really did require, because of the financial suffering that people in the industry were feeling as a result of the previous CLP government.
The ministerial statement is very informative. It provides specific details to each member of this Chamber as to the role and nature of the Commercial Passenger Vehicle Board. It certainly gives each member enough information to form views and ideas on exactly how they want to participate in debate on this legislation in February.
Again, picking up on the comments of the member for Katherine who was complaining about the statement being presented tonight, so close to legislation being introduced, precluded members in this House from being able to participate in informative debate - I challenge that. That is not the case at all. We do have the debate in February. There is ample opportunity to prepare a cogent debate and arguments. You have had ample opportunity already to participate in a very broad ranging, year-long consultation process. I am sick and tired of the hypocrisy coming particularly from the member for Katherine. I challenge him to show us one example in his lengthy parliamentary career where any debate contributions from members of the opposition have altered any legislation that he sponsored. Stop with the hypocrisy. Get real. Either stop being lazy, stop being in semi-retirement, feeding off the taxpayer, and participate in a real sense, or retire.
Madam Speaker, I congratulate the minister for his tremendous statement.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, that is the most sanctimonious claptrap I have ever heard in this Chamber, honestly. The member for Karama really should play the ball rather than the man.
Today I understand that the minister gave notice that he was going to introduce the legislation tomorrow. He gave notice. Tonight, he rises and delivers a statement on legislation he will introduce tomorrow. Now, if that is not breaching Standing Order 68, Anticipation of Subject, I do not know what is. It is a blatant breach of standing orders. If the minister does not understand debating rules in this Chamber, he should not be in here. It is every member’s responsibility to understand standing orders.
This is a Minister of the Crown who does not understand his job. The opposition has spoken about this issue at great length for the last 12 months. We have quizzed the minister on many occasions during Question Time. We have made adjournment speeches about this issue on many occasions. We had no response from the minister except a lot of excuses. He kept deferring the issue, he kept extending the cap under the watchful eye of the ACCC, he admits.
All the minister has done in the last 12 to 18 months is procrastinate on this issue. I said last time that I do not think he is stupid; he is incompetent. To say that he has consulted industry is nothing but a laugh. He has hardly been in Alice Springs to speak to the people in the industry down there.
As you alluded in an earlier debate, Madam Speaker, they fix things in Darwin and as a result of that, disturb the equilibrium that has been in existence in Central Australia for many years. This is an incompetent minister who thinks only as far as his nose, and does not consider the impact on the whole of the Territory.
The minister said we should be writing submissions. He is in government; it is his job, and he wants us to do it for him! Come on. That is a laugh. If he does not know his job, then he should let somebody else do it. Maybe the member for Sanderson would like to have your job. It is about time that the minister, in his incompetence, walked away from this.
The minister said it before, and the member for Karama drew on it tonight: buying the licenses has produced a debt for this government. This is how non-business people appreciate finances. They do not understand it. I said in my last adjournment speech: you buy something, you have something. You buy a house with borrowed funds from a bank. Sure, you owe the bank a lot of money, but you have an asset. If you do not want a debt, sell your house and you do not have a debt. Easy as that!
So the government does not have a debt as a result of the buy-back. Not at all. You have an asset that you can do what you like with. If you choose not to do anything with it, that is fine. That is your choice. I am not going to argue about it. I say to the minister: I am not going to debate this statement of yours; it is not worth the paper it is written on. If you want to bring on the debate tomorrow, we will have a debate tomorrow. This is a hypocritical piece of garbage that says nothing. It promises the industry nothing at all. Now, if you cannot do your job properly, move aside and let someone else do it for you.
I am very disappointed with the way the minister has conducted this business for this industry. People in the industry have been screaming for the last 12 months at least. Sure, there are some sectors of industry that have benefited from this proposal and they are pretty comfortable with it, but for the majority, they are a lot worse off. Prior to a recent interview the minister had with Fred McCue, Greg Palmer was on air saying that it was all too hard; that this minister did not know what he was doing and is causing the taxi industry in Darwin a lot of harm. If the minister has not heard that, then obviously he has not been to the industry to discuss it with them. If his minders have been discussing the issue with the industry, they have not been giving the minister the right information from the industry.
It is a real pity that the industry that was doing - not exactly the best, and that is accepted. It has become so since the minister took over. His inactivity in the last 12 months at least has been detrimental to the industry, causing great confusion and uncertainty. Nobody knows where they are going. They cannot make plans to either expand the industry or expand their own business. They don’t know whether to sell out or not to sell out. The industry and its relationship to tourism is a long story. I will not embark on that because I am sure there are others who are closer to the tourism industry and who would like to address that. It is time the minister comes to a decision. Delaying it for another two or three months is really a pointless waste of time.
It is strange. I walked into a briefing yesterday with the member for Katherine, and into the office came two officers from the department of transport and one of the minister’s minders. The first thing we were told was the legislation is not going to be passed this week; it is going to be introduced only and will be debated in February. That was not my understanding. Then, at a briefing, we were told that. Either this minister knows what he is doing or he doesn’t. I suggest to you, Madam Speaker, that his performance over this last 12 months on this issue, with all the prompting that I have given him in the last six months, has indicated that he is not across it. The industry will show their dissatisfaction with him at the polling booth, I am sure.
Mr VATSKALIS (Transport and Infrastructure): Madam Speaker, I thank members for their constructive debate.
My understanding is that in a statement, the government is espousing a policy rather than forecasting legislation. Both members said that they cannot contribute when we put legislation before the House. They will have the opportunity to propose amendments, to make suggestions and if they are the right suggestions, we will take them into account.
But let us start at the beginning. A year ago we published widely that we were going to go back to the industry and ask the industry’s opinion on how we are going to fix the mess the previous minister had left, and the $20m debt for which we have nothing to sell to recover the money to pay the bank to extinguish that debt. What the previous government did was borrow $20m, bought the number plates back - and you can’t sell them again because the NCC will come down on you like a ton of bricks. You knew that very well.
We talked to the industry. We spoke to them widely. We received 30 submissions; none from any member of the opposition, certainly not from the members for Greatorex or Katherine. Not only that, we went back with a White Paper which we circulated widely. I travelled to Yulara, Tennant Creek, Alice Springs. I spoke to members of industry there. I spoke to the members of industry in Darwin because I use taxis very often, and I catch different taxis. I talked to people about the issues that concerned them. I had some people from Alice Spring complaining to me about some unfortunate events that occurred to members of their families. I highly recommend that the member for Greatorex speaks to a Councillor in Alice Springs about her daughter suffering an assault by a taxi driver. She was not the only person.
When they opened the market, suddenly we had another 80 taxis in the market. Of course, nobody was going to work for $3 or $4 an hour, so all the good drivers left. So what did we get? We got the riff-raff, we got people who were opportunistic, trying to drive taxis around town just to make some money, and these people did not have the proper training or they did not know where the suburbs were. My own experience is getting into a taxi at the airport, asking the driver to take me to Nightcliff. He told me bluntly: ‘You show me; I will drive’. That was the level of drivers that you brought to the industry because of your incompetence when you tried to sort out the mess it was in.
We spoke to the industry; we consulted with the industry. I wonder how many members of the industry did the then government consult before they freed or liberated the market. None! They did not speak to anybody; they just brought legislation to the Table and then God help everybody. The industry was in a mess for years before the election in 2001. One person in Alice Springs told me that, prior to the election, they came up here, spoke to the then leader of government, Denis Burke, and when he went back to Alice Springs he told the people: ‘This is what I was told by the government. I suggest you all vote for the opposition’. These are people who always supported the government, the CLP, but they saw what happened, what you did to them, and they decided to change the way they voted.
That is the reason why you are sitting on the other side of the House, members for Greatorex and Katherine. It is very easy to sit there and criticise, to say: ‘The minister is incompetent; he has not done anything in 12 months’. We have seen how far you took the industry when you acted in three months or in a shorter period of time without any consultation. At least we take the time to speak and consult with people, so what we are going to release is going to be something good, not something we just thought was a good idea, put it on the table and then the industry will sort it out itself. Well, it did not happen.
We took our time. Yes, I admit we took 12 months and I do not apologise for that because I wanted to speak to every single person who made a submission and every single person who responded to our White Paper. Had the member for Greatorex made a submission or responded to our White Paper, I would have been quite happy to speak to him in his office in Alice Springs or in my office in Darwin. But we did not receive a submission; all we received is criticism - all doom and gloom.
On the other hand, I was really encouraged to hear the member for Katherine admitting that he will support it. Yes, he had problems with the industry, but he also admitted there is support from the industry. He could not bring himself to say everything was bad. To his credit, he admitted that what the government has done was not obstruction of the industry. Sections of the industry are supportive. Quite rightly, he also admitted that not everybody will be pleased. I said exactly the same when I was interviewed by Fred McCue: you cannot please everybody. If I please only 80% or 85% I would be quite happy. There will always be somebody who will disagree. It does not matter what you do, there will always be somebody who says it is not right. Reading the Centralian Advocate recently, of course there was somebody there who disagreed with it, but at the same time, it is encouraging to see that a member of the industry takes the time to write to the Centralian Advocate, supporting what we are doing and really attacking the person who complained, and accusing him of not understanding the legislation.
There is support in the industry and there is big support. There is certainly support from the brother of the then minister for transport, Mr Greg Palmer, who came out and said publicly, on Fred McCue’s program that the industry support at least 80% of the changes that the government has instigated. So there is support from the industry. The industry and the staff understand what we are trying to do. We are tyring to bring back the owner/driver to the industry. We are trying to bring back some standards because the person who uses a taxi should feel safe about using a taxi. A man or a woman who takes a taxi in Darwin, Alice Springs or Tennant Creek should feel that they will arrive safe and well at their destination. The person who is driving a taxi, a respected member of the community, is going to respect the rights of the passenger.
We took our time, I have no apologies for that. We are going to introduce this legislation tomorrow and we are going to introduce further legislation in the future in order to fix the mess that you created and we are called, once again, to sort out.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
Mr HENDERSON (Business, Industry and Resource Development): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Madam SPEAKER: Deputy Chief Minister, I will give you the first call, but before you start, could I remind honourable members that the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs will be visiting tomorrow as part of their Inquiry into Capacity Building in Indigenous Communities.
The committee will be holding public hearings in the Litchfield Room and have invited members of the Legislative Assembly to have informal discussions with them about the reference during the luncheon suspension tomorrow. I just want to remind members about that so they can think about it. Perhaps they would like to appear before that committee at lunch time tomorrow.
Ms Carney: Could you repeat the reference, Madam Speaker?
Madam SPEAKER: It is the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs and they are inquiring into Capacity Building in Indigenous Communities.
Mr STIRLING (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, it is an opportunity for all members to appear before that committee, thank you.
Madam Speaker, there are a number of long serving employees from the Department of Employment, Education and Training who are retiring or resigning.
In 1971, Kaye Aldenhoven began her teaching career in the Territory as a pre-school teacher at Umbakumba. Students at the pre-school at the time, now assistant teachers and Aboriginal resource officers, still remember her fondly. Kaye moved to Yuendemu in 1973 and from there to Gillen Primary School becoming senior teacher in 1975. She continued in a senior teacher role at Millner and Malak Primary Schools. In 1988, Kaye became Assistant Principal at Jabiru Area School. She was Acting Principal in 1992 and during this time the school was awarded the National Landcare Award. Kaye was a moving force in the Arts Council and is remembered in the community for her cooperation with the indigenous community. In 1995, Kaye was Acting Principal of Alyangula Area School and in 1996, became Principal of Batchelor Area School.
Kaye’s continual drive for improvement in literacy and numeracy outcomes for all students resulted in the Batchelor Area School winning the Northern Territory section of the national award in literacy and numeracy and an indigenous education award - NT Literacy and Numeracy outcomes. The school was successful also in winning the Keep Australia Beautiful Award for environmental awareness. Kaye’s commitment to the welfare of students is paramount and her depth of empathy and understanding is reflected in the students’ sense of belonging and connection with the school environment. Kaye is resilience itself. Her level of stamina, energy and drive are envied by all. She is a dedicated teacher, educator and leader committed to improving outcomes for children of all ages. It was a great visit down to Batchelor Area School this year to meet with Kaye, and I wish her well.
Bob Hale came to the Northern Territory to Maningrida in 1974 as a post-primary teacher. In January 1975, he was appointed to Katherine Area School as Senior Teacher, Humanities. In 1978, Bob and his family went to Canada on exchange and he taught Year 7 at Nanaimo in British Columbia. The school, Brechin Elementary School was a French immersion school at which all students were taught in French. The principal received an exemption for Bob on the grounds that he, the principal, could not understand Bob’s brand of English let alone let him loose in French.
In May 1979, he transferred to Darwin office as Professional Assistant to the Deputy Secretary, Programs. It was the start of Bob’s office career and in July 1979, he became Senior Education Advisor, Staffing. In February 1980, Bob became the Northern Territory representative for the Commonwealth Teaching Service Commissioner. In July 1981, Bob returned to staffing and was promoted to Principal Education Officer, Staffing Operations. He returned to schools in January 1990, as Acting Principal at Malak Primary School. In 1991, he transferred to Anula Primary School as Acting Principal before settling down at Karama School as Principal in 1992.
At Karama, Bob has been instrumental in developing and expanding opportunities for indigenous students and their families. Indigenous staff have been employed in the school to provide positive role models for students. In 1999, Bob became chairperson of the Indigenous Education Portfolio Principals Group. In recognition of his efforts, he has won an award from the Australian Principals Association Professional Development Corporation for School/Community Partnerships in Indigenous Education. He has won the NAIDOC Committee Award for School/Community Partnerships. He is one principal in an urban situation who has gone absolutely out of his way in respect of indigenous education, and we certainly wish him well.
Wendy Murphy is currently a Year 1 teacher at Nhulunbuy Primary School with almost 40 years of teaching service. She came to the NT as teacher in charge of Rockhampton Downs School in the Barkly on 18 January 1988. Prior to that, Wendy taught in the NSW Teaching Service for almost 21 years with a focus on small schools and relief teaching. After Rockhampton Downs, she moved to Robinson River School and in 1989, to Borroloola CEC. She came to Nhulunbuy Primary School in January 1991 and has been there since.
For many years, Wendy has been the elected AEU NT Sub-branch representative for her school and more recently, on the AEU NT Executive representing Arnhem and she is recognised widely by her colleagues in this role.
Wendy, who is a highly respected teacher perceived by students, parents and colleagues as a caring teacher, establishes a warm rapport with all of her students. She has worked with dedication across all sections and levels of the school; she is held in high esteem in the school community. Her commitment to education over such an extended period is exemplary and her departure is seen as a loss. Nhulunbuy Primary School has had a great deal of stability over recent years, and Wendy’s loss will be felt all the more for that.
Joan Angeles is retiring this year from Nemarluk where she has been a Teacher Assistant for just over 20 years. Joan was first employed by DEET in July 1982 as an Indigenous Teacher Assistant working with severely and multiply disabled children at the hospital school in the Harry Chan Ward. She was transferred to Henbury School when Charlie Carter was the Principal and then to Ludmilla Special School, as it was known before it changed its name to Nemarluk. Not only has Joan advocated strongly for the indigenous disabled students at Nemarluk School, but she has supported their families to gain assistance from generic services and to come to terms with their child’s impairment. She has put much of her own time into visiting families and following things up for them.
Joan has also supported other indigenous workers at the school and has been a mentor for the Aboriginal and Islander Education Workers, Chairperson of the ASSPA Committee at the school for the past four years and was on the committee several years prior to that. In 1999, Joan attended the World Indigenous Educators conference in Hawaii and was able to bring back much invaluable information to the school.
She is a life long learner and recently completed her Certificate IV in Disabilities at NTU. She attended many other inservices related to her job, as well as gaining certificates in Information Technology at Casuarina College. In her own time, Joan has completed advanced hand signing courses and is a conversationalist signer. Joan is a quiet achiever and a much respected member of staff whose gentle but assertive manner enables her to communicate with people from all walks of life in an effective and meaningful way. Her communication style allows her to move from government minister to young disabled child with consummate ease. Joan will be missed from Nemarluk School and not easily replaced.
Lucy Tinley is retiring from Employment, Education and Training after 22 years. Lucy joined the Northern Territory Department of Education in 1980 and has had varied education experience across the Territory in both schools and office based positions. For 11 years, Lucy worked in schools in the Top End, in the southern region, including Alawa, Bradshaw, Karama and Ross Park. Lucy has had an interest in the area of literacy and numeracy throughout her career. From 1991 to 1995, she worked in the Katherine region, Katherine School of the Air and as a group support mentor. Following this, Lucy moved to Darwin to work for five years as the Education Officer on Aboriginal Curriculum Development, and made a significant contribution to culturally appropriate education materials for indigenous primary school students, Years 4 to 7.
From 1999 to February 2002, Lucy has worked both as an advisor and manager of Commonwealth Targetted Programs. This involved working closely with schools for the planning and management of Commonwealth programs, and for their strategic plans and initiatives at the systemic level. In her role as a manager, Lucy’s contribution to the work of the department was substantial. She always made herself available to schools and was often sought for her advice. Lucy is recognised for her dedication, commitment and motivation in the delivery and management of the programs in which she has been involved, and we wish her well in her retirement.
Doreen Wright is a teacher whose career spans 36 years of which 27 have been spent teaching in the NT. Doreen has taught in a range of teaching contexts: north, south, mainstream and remote. She is a Teacher of Exemplary Practice Level 1, and is currently teaching a Year 1,2, 3 class for above average children who are independent workers. Apart from her teaching duties, Doreen has devoted a huge amount of time and energy to curriculum development at Karama School. She is seen by the staff as an expert in all areas of curriculum, but particularly in literacy and numeracy. She was one of the main architects involved in the development and implementation of Karama School’s school-based curriculum document during 2000-02.
She has been heavily involved in the revision and modification of this document to reflect the requirements of the NT Curriculum Framework. She is an acknowledged leader in the implementation of the Lindamood strategy of phonological awareness which is used at Karama school to supplement its reading program. She is a highly respected educator and has been a mentor for many less experienced staff. She gives freely of her time to assist others in the profession which she so passionately believes, and to which she has made such a magnificent contribution. She has taken a leadership role in the Perceptual Motor Skills Program, integral to the Early Childhood Program and she deserves full recognition for its success.
Around school she is affectionately known for her speed of movement from one place to another. In the playground, the children all know about the notebook in which she writes the names of those who break the rules - in particular ‘running on the concrete’. A wonderful career of dedication, sincerity and caring. Well done, Doreen. We certainly wish you well.
At the end of this year, Maningrida CEC farewells a much loved and respected teacher, Marie Matthews. She has worked at Maningrida CEC for 18 years, coming from Darwin in 1985 where she taught for six years in Catholic schools. Marie began her teaching at Maningrida in the Burarra Preschool, moving to the Burarra Primary section before becoming involved in the English as a First Language class.
For 12 years she has undertaken the difficult role of being the lead teacher of English as a First Language class known at Maningrida CEC as Garlarrk class. This is a multi-level class. Students are catered for from Transition to Year 7. Recognition of her teaching excellence has been through the Teacher of Excellence Program and the conferment of Level 2 status. She is an extremely well prepared and highly organised teacher. She has, over the years, enhanced the learning programs for students by providing appropriate learning in English, whilst acknowledging and teaching about the language and culture of the community in which they live. A focus of her teaching has been the promotion of harmonious relationships between the students in the Garlarrk class and all peoples from different cultural and racial backgrounds.
In her time at Maningrida, Marie has undertaken considerable fund raising, and is well known for cakes and goodies. This has seen a lot of money raised for the Garlarrk class which has largely meant these students have access to computer technology long before the advent of system-wide initiatives. As a teacher of many years’ experience, she has not let the learning of something new stand in the way of providing her students with current best practice teaching methods. She has been a quintessential lifelong learner. Maningrida CEC will miss Marie. She will be affectionately remembered by the people of Maningrida, and by all of those families whose children were fortunate enough to have experienced her teaching.
Peter Ivinson commenced employment with the former Commonwealth Department of Works, NT Branch in February 1965, where he commenced as an Electrical Fitter/Mechanic apprentice. He was named NT Apprentice of the Year - I did not know that - before commencing his long career in the Territory public sector electrical industry. Since that time, he has worked as an electrical inspector, union organiser - or association organiser, Hendo, either one. They were mostly unions, I think, with Peter. More recently, Peter worked as an electrical safety officer.
Mr Ivinson is a long-time Territorian, having undertaken schooling at St Mary’s Primary School and later at St John’s College. He has been very active in community affairs: a member of the NT Waterski Club; a volunteer bushfire member for his region; Scouts, Humpty Doo and Taminmin High School Councils, as well as prominent in local Territory politics, having stood as a candidate on three occasions. He has done a great job, Mr Deputy Speaker, and we wish him well.
Margaret Stehouwer taught in the Northern Territory from the early 1970s until her retirement in 2002. She taught at Darwin and Stuart Park Primary Schools. For the last 20 years of her teaching career, she taught at Anula Primary School and Anula Preschool. She is remembered by staff as having a natural ability to communicate with deaf Aboriginal students she taught at Stuart Park despite their hearing impairment and the fact that they spoke little English. She was admired and respected by colleagues for her unique ability to identify student interests and their learning needs, and to develop programs that enabled students to blossom. Staff who worked with her and the parents of the hundreds of children whom she taught regarded her as an exceptionally gifted, creative and dedicated teacher. She was frequently described as a ‘born teacher’, or ‘a natural’.
She provided timely and sensitive support to both inexperienced and experienced teachers by being an outstanding model, and by conducting interesting and challenging workshops for both parents and teachers. Many people still remember the innovative family maths evening she conducted for the Anula Primary School community. Despite her obvious talents, she steadfastly refused to seek promotion or to apply for Teacher of Exemplary Practice, a status she richly deserved. She was an inspiration to all who came into contact with her – students, parents and colleagues alike.
Don Ross is retiring after 28 years in education in the Northern Territory. His first position in the Territory was senior teacher at Angurugu on Groote Eylandt in 1974. He left Groote after three years, and from 1977 to 1982, held positions of senior teacher and assistant principal at Bagot Reserve Transitional School, Kormilda College and Ludmilla Primary. Don moved to Berrimah Primary as Principal in 1982. The transition of the teaching service from the Commonwealth Teaching Service took place while Don was Principal at Berrimah. His assistance during this demanding exercise was recognised by Commissioner A N Stewart, who wrote that Don’s personal contribution was immeasurable in terms of maintaining standards and professional continuity.
Don later went on to be principal at the Don Dale Correction Centre; Acting Principal at Parap and Berry Springs; and from 1998, Principal of Alawa Primary. While Principal of Alawa, the school was commended for its supportive learning environment and students were congratulated on their outstanding achievements.
In recent times, Don has become an outstanding sporting competitor, taking five medals for swimming at the most recent Masters Games held in Alice Springs. Don is recognised by his colleagues as an extremely practical person whose main objectives, greater successes and primary focus have centred on the educational, social and cultural enhancement of students.
On behalf of the many Northern Territory students and staff with whom he has been associated as a Territory educator, we wish Don a long, happy and fulfilling retirement., as I do for each of those long-serving individuals within Education and Work Health over those many years of service. I wish them long, happy and healthy retirements. I am sure everyone joins with me.
Members: Hear, hear.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise tonight to raise again, but in more detail, some concerns which I raised during the last sittings about the possible closure of the Women’s Information Centre in Alice Springs.
To my surprise, after raising the matter on 16 October, the government did not respond. I thought that after raising the matter the Chief Minister, who is the minister responsible for women’s policy, might have come into the parliament the next day to allay my concerns. Unfortunately, that did not occur so I followed the matter up with a letter to her. Members will remember that my concerns were that the position of Coordinator of the centre had been left vacant since April and, therefore, the service had not been operating in any effective way.
I duly received a reply from the Chief Minister to my letter on 23 November and, not withstanding its contents, I and other women in and around Alice Springs, remain very concerned. In fact, the concern is so widespread that earlier today I tabled a petition on behalf of women with an interest in this area.
The letter I received from the Chief Minister was an extraordinary one and fell well short of placating me and the other women I have sent it to for comment. She wrote - and I will table the letter at the conclusion of my speech - and I quote:
Let me tell members why that part of the letter, in particular, is extraordinary. First, the Alice Springs Women’s shelter was not established in the last 10 years. In fact, it was established in 1983, almost 20 years ago. The Central Australian Women’s Legal Service is the only legal service for women, a service which, incidentally, I helped to establish. So I do not know what the Chief Minister meant by ‘services’ because there is, in fact, only one women’s legal service in Alice Springs. Second, as for the Chief Minister’s comment that there are a ‘range of counselling and support services’ for women in Alice Springs, it is simply wrong. It is the Women’s Information Centre that provides a range of services and there are no others. What are the ‘other services’ the Chief Minister talks about, I do not know what they are, and the other women I have consulted who work in the relevant areas do not know what they are either.
The relevant services that do currently exist in Alice Springs for women are: the Alice Springs Women’s Shelter - it has a full-time domestic violence counsellor but the position is only for victims of domestic violence; second, the Domestic Violence Service which is only a legal service and does not provide counselling; the Central Australian Women’s Legal Service, which also does not provide counselling; the Sexual Assault Referral Centre which is co-located with the Women’s Information Centre and that only provides counselling for victims of sexual assault; and, finally, Relationships Australia which provides counselling for couples.
So, there are no other counselling services except for private phycologists who, of course, cost consumers money. The Women’s Information Centre is the only provider of free general counselling in Alice Springs. It provides free counselling, group work, meditation workshops, education and workshop sessions on health and welfare issues such as menopause, postnatal depression, parenting information sessions and so on, as well as a library for information and referral. It also services women from all over the Territory. It has a key role - and traditionally always has had - in the organisation for Reclaim the Night events, International Women’s Day and other public events.
Clearly, the information the Chief Minister provided to me in writing was wrong. Whoever wrote the rubbish in this letter really has no idea, and the Chief Minister should not have signed it. The letter goes on, however, to refer to the fact that the position of Coordinator had been left vacant since April and I quote:
This, of course, raises more questions which must be answered. What are the issues, and what is meant by ‘appropriate planning’? This government prides itself on consulting, but no one I have spoken to who works in this area has any idea about deferral of the recruitment of the Coordinator’s position.
So I ask: who is being consulted, who made the decision whether or not to recruit, and who is going to make it in the future? Another question arises: what is the time frame? When will the decision be made, and, if changes are going to be implemented, when will they be implemented? The position of Coordinator is pivotal to the operation of the service, and no one knew why the position was deferred. No announcement has been made, no announcement of a review has been made, and nothing has been done to assure women in Alice Springs that the service is even being looked at by government.
It was only when I started asking questions that any explanation was given by the government. The explanation given is not in any practical or intellectual sense satisfying, and it arouses suspicion that the service is at risk. However, there are even more worrying matters that arise from the Chief Minister’s letter of 13 November. The Chief Minister seeks to assure me that the Women’s Information Centre will not be lost, but is likely to have, and I quote: ‘a broader, more relevant focus’.
This comment was linked somehow to the famous, or should I say infamous, health review that has been stalled for some months. I looked at the Health Department’s web site and could see no mention whatsoever of the Women’s Information Centre. So I ask: is the Women’s Information Centre part of the health review or is it not? If it is, then I want to know who has been consulted because out of the key stakeholders I have spoken to in Alice Springs, none of them have been consulted. I also want to know what is meant by the comment ‘is likely to have a broader, more relevant focus’. Is it intended that it will no longer be a women’s information service? Will it become part of the mainstream, that is, a service for all? Where are the women of Alice Springs supposed to go if they want information about something that is not domestic violence or relationship based?
I was interested to see, from a perusal of the budget papers, in particular the one entitled Building our Community. At page 3, under the rather virtuous heading of ‘Meeting the needs and aspirations of women’ that among the government’s guiding principles was this statement:
It is my view that closing or seeking to limit the women’s information service or simply not having it operate for months and months and months is not the way to achieve information provision to women in the Northern Territory.
The government has been caught out on this issue. It admits that the position of Coordinator was deferred, yet no announcement was made about it at all and the situation simply goes from bad to worse. I will table, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, a document called Newsround which is published by the Health department. This edition was published in October 2002. It is an information tool, I gather, for people who work in the health system, but from a cursory reading of this document, it is abundantly clear to me that it seeks to really cover up the Minister for Health’s ineptitude, but I digress.
In any event, at page 6 of this document there is an article about the Women’s Information Centre. The article mentions that Family Planning has been co-located at the Women’s Information Centre and it describes the co-location with the Women’s Information Centre and the Sexual Assault Referral Centre as providing ‘the women of Central Australia with increased convenience’. It goes on to say:
This document was published in October this year, only last month, in the full knowledge that there had not been a Coordinator appointed since April, and in the full knowledge that the decision to recruit one had been put on hold for an indefinite period and without publicly announcing that decision.
Nowhere in the article on page 6 is there any reference to the decision having been made to defer recruitment of a Coordinator. Nowhere in that article is there any mention made of a review and nowhere in that article is there any mention made of the so-called issues that need to be identified or the appropriate planning that needs to be made. So it is abundantly clear to anyone having regard to the facts that the article in this Northern Territory Government Department of Health and Community Services publication is a deceit in light of the facts and it should never have been published.
In essence, none of it makes sense. The plot continues to thicken and the women of Central Australia in the Northern Territory deserve much better. The Chief Minister should know that I will walk across hot coals to ensure that the Women’s Information Centre is not closed or in any way restricted in its operation, and the Chief Minister should know that many women will come with me on that walk.
In conclusion, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I think that many Territorians would never have thought they would see the day that this Chief Minister, the Territory’s first female Chief Minister, would be the worst Minister for Women’s Policy that the Northern Territory has ever had. That is a shameful thing. It is tragic that many Territorians are increasingly holding that view, and the Chief Minister’s conduct and, for that matter, the health minister’s, are nothing short of shameful. They have been mysterious, to say the least, in covering up what is happening to the Women’s Information Centre, and both of them should be ashamed of their conduct.
I am hopeful that at some point over the next couple of days of this parliamentary sitting, the Chief Minister, the minister responsible for women’s policy, might come clean, provide something in the way of an explanation. I, along with many other women, wait for that explanation with bated breath. I seek leave to table the documents to which I have referred.
Leave granted.
Mr AH KIT (Arnhem): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, that was a woeful contribution from the member for Araluen, but one comes to expect that of her when she participates in debates in the parliament.
Ms Carney: Please don’t say something interesting and useful, which would be a bit of a change.
Mr AH KIT: I rise tonight to speak about the 2002 Alice Springs Masters Games. From memory, the member for Araluen, along with the members for Greatorex and Macdonnell talked the Masters Games down. When I gave ministerial reports, they talked about not being able to get the competitors there. They were worried about whether Alice Springs would do well. It was a success story.
Dr Lim interjecting.
Mr AH KIT: Stop talking it down! It was a very big success story. In fact some $5m was pumped into the Central Australian business community through that week of the Masters Games in 2002.
Alice Springs people once again showed that they are great at playing host to the 3500 people who travelled from all over Australia to participate in some 38 sports during the 9th Masters Games. There were some 300 or 400 others who travelled with them as partners. This biennial event has the reputation, as we know, of being the friendly games and this is in part due to the spirit in which the competition is played. Old friendships are renewed while new acquaintances are formed.
The Alice Springs Masters Games was the first multi-sport competition for mature aged athletes to be held in Australia. Since its beginning in 1986 when just 1000 competitors participated, the concept of Masters Games has spread nationally and internationally. Last month, as I said, some 3500 registered for the Masters Games, the most popular sport being golf with 406 participants.
The youngest competitor was Robert Eandi who is 25. He is from California and he participated in swimming. The oldest competitor was Ruth Frith. She is 93 from Wahroonga, New South Wales and she participated in the field events at the athletics. Some special performances include Steven Blake’s third consecutive win in the Optus Masters’ Mile. Alice Springs runner Anne Kidman’s gold medal performance in each of the seven events she entered, and Sydney’s David Moore’s nine gold medals in pistol shooting.
I would also like to congratulate my ministerial colleague, Peter Toyne, on his two athletic gold medals. In addition, I was successful in competing in the darts teams competition and was presented with a silver medal in those team events.
Perhaps the story of South Australian shearer, David Miller, from Streaky Bay, demonstrates how much the Masters Games in Alice Springs mean to some participants. David, fresh from shearing sheep drove 1000 km or more to Alice Springs with just 55 minutes sleep along the way to arrive at about 5.45 in the morning, 15 minutes prior to the half marathon event in which he had entered. Dressed in an Adelaide Crows football socks and jumper, David blitzed the field, winning his age group in 1.31.39. This certainly shook up a few locals who had loaded up on carbohydrates the night before and gone to bed early.
Events of a magnitude of the Alice Springs Masters Games require a huge team effort. I wish to thank a great many people who were instrumental in making the 2002 games such a highly successful event. To the Patron, Dawn Fraser, and the special guest and medal presenter, Darryl Somers, the advisory committee chaired by Peter Hoey, the Masters Games office staff headed up by Bob Corby, the directors, the 500 volunteers, 40 ambassadors, 42 sports co-ordinators and the dedicated Office of Sport and Recreation staff. I sincerely thank them for their outstanding effort and contribution.
I would also like to acknowledge the sponsors who provided more than $500 000 worth of cash and in kind support. Special thanks go to Peter Kittle Motor Company, Alice Springs Town Council and Lasseters Hotel Casino, Imparja Television, CSC, Coke-a-Cola, Carlton and United Breweries, Optus, TIO, Tattersalls, Coleman’s Printing, Rydges Hotels and Resorts, Thrifty Car Rental, Trainways, TAB, Beringer Blass Wine Estates, Centralian Advocate, Hamilton Sunscreens, Alice Plaza, McCaffertys, and Greyhound Pioneer.]
Finally, I want to congratulate the people of Alice Springs. They opened their hearts and their town to the competitors and showed them a fantastic time. The sporting facilities in Alice Springs rival those in towns similar in size throughout Australia in regards to the quality and location of the facilities. The new wet turf pitch for hockey at Traeger Park has been a significant improvement and the effort from the Alice Springs Town Council and the Northern Territory government certainly benefited hockey players at this year’s Masters’ Games. It was great also to be present for the finals where I witnessed the Brown-Eyed Girls from Darwin winning the gold medal.
The Traeger Park Master Plan is another of this government’s initiatives to improve sporting facilities in Alice Springs. At the end of the fun-filled week, the committee announced the slogan: ‘Come back for more in 2004’ at the closing celebrations. Promotional work is already under way for the Masters Games 10th Anniversary.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I look forward to competing again and hope that my parliamentary colleagues will talk up the challenge.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, yes, I concur with the Minister for Sport and Recreation. We look forward to the Masters Games, and I challenge him to work harder in two years time to promote the event more, so that we can have more competitors in Alice Springs, as we once had when we had over 5000 competitors when we had the Masters Games compared with the 3500 we had this time.
It is, indeed, the community of Alice Springs that made it so very successful with their unselfish contribution to all the sports that were held in Alice Springs. The volunteers were there in their hundreds, working every day for the duration of the sports. Myself and the members for Blain and Macdonnell were equally involved in many of the sports including athletics, football, table tennis. We also took part in medal presentations for many of the sports, along with the member for Araluen.
Tonight, I want to speak more about a couple of other things that I believe are worth mentioning. First, I will quote quite extensively from an e-mail I received, indirectly, from GecOz Pty Ltd, a company with the other name Geospacial and Environmental Consultants Australia. In the e-mail the CEO wrote last Saturday, 2 November, GecOz won the Australian Research and Development Award in the Asia Pacific Information and Communication Technology Awards held at Jupiter’s on the Gold Coast. GecOz will represent Australia in the finals of the International Research and Development category in the coming months. This is the second award of this type that the company has won, the first being the AIIA Innovation Award in November 2001.
The company has developed a patented system for measuring salinity content of soils, using a synthetic aperture radar that is far faster, cheaper and accurate than existing systems. GecOz is now conducting due diligence with a major government organisation with the intention of providing quality information to farmers and irrigators of their salinity hot spots so that they can assist in rehabilitating land to an arable state. Obviously, the company is very proud of this achievement as it puts not only the company but Northern Territory research and development well and truly on the map.
I was the Chair of the Environment Committee of the former CLP government which looked into salt water intrusion into the Mary River Wetlands region, and I can understand how this technology would be useful in monitoring the salt water intrusion in the Territory.
I believe scientists in the company such as Dr Darren Bell, Josh Fawner and Renee Botalo were the ones who were intimately involved in the program. Their invention may really help solve problems on the land, and to the benefit of the Territory. I congratulate Mark Christie, the CEO of the company, and his crew, and I look forward to hearing from them further about their developments. I encourage them to continue to work cooperatively with companies like DMR Consulting and the Northern Territory University. The Minister for Business, Industry and Resource Development might be interested that his department are also involved in the development of this technology.
I now want to move to a happy event that occurred recently at Farrer Boulevard, Farrer. This was the opening of Garner Court. Garner Court is named after Harold and Peggy Garner, two very prominent Central Australian residents who started their lives in the Territory up here in Darwin when Harold was engaged as the Principal of the Adult Education Centre.
The Farrer development, or Garner Court, came as a result of an application from the HPA to myself when I was the Minister for Housing, to provide them with land to develop supported accommodation in the new subdivision. I agreed with that and provided them with land and money, and was pleased to find out later on that the present government also gave them extra land and money to develop a total of some nine units. Peggy Garner was there to take part in the opening of Garner Court. This is what she had to say, and I quote from her speech:
Peg continues to live in Alice Springs and now resides in a self-contained cottage at the Old Timers. She lives a very productive, fruitful life with her children all still living in Alice Springs.
In the short time left available to me, I would like to report on a meeting that I attended during the week of the Australian Local Government Association’s National Conference, held in Alice Springs three weeks ago. The meeting was, as you all heard, opened by the Prime Minister. It turned out to be a very successful meeting at the Convention Centre. Some 860 delegates turned up for the conference; the first one, I am told, held outside Canberra. It was held in Alice this year to celebrate the Year of the Outback, and what better place to hold it but in Alice Springs? It demonstrated their support for the outback, and many of them, for the first time, saw what the real outback is all about.
As I said, the Prime Minister opened the conference and, three days later, the Deputy Prime Minister came to wind up the conference for the local government delegates. He also attended quite a few other functions. The Prime Minister, while he was there, visited the School of the Air. In fact, we discovered that he is the first Australian Prime Minister to visit the School of the Air in Alice Springs. I think the Prime Minister was pretty chuffed that he was the first to consider visiting the School of the Air when previous prime ministers never bothered.
The Prime Minister then had a long session on the two-way radio with the children of the School of the Air in Alice Springs and he was so visibly enjoying himself, talking to the kids through sometimes a very poor connection over the two-way radio, at times hardly able to discern what the children were saying on the other side. At other times, it was very clear and his conversations were about what he thought about the remoteness of Central Australia and the types of education that these kids can achieve through a lot of self-motivation and a bit of assistance from teachers at the School of the Air.
Staff discussed with him implementation of the use of the Internet for the School of the Air so that the children could be on real time, seeing their teachers on a two-way video conferencing set up via the Internet. That is quite an achievement for our little community in Central Australia. The Prime Minister has requested that he be invited back for the opening of that program.
Another part of the conference was about the outback highway development where the Development Council discussed the issues of funding and political commitment that they may receive from governments in Western Australia, the Northern Territory and Queensland to help seal or develop that outback highway between Western Australia and Queensland.
One of the topics of discussion was what the Territory did and then reneged on in respect of funding the Territory section of the outback highway. In the papers that the Outback Highway Development Council provided to the meeting was an extract from the Centralian Advocate which showed a picture of the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, the member for Casuarina, with the headline: ‘Territory forced to shelve road plan’. The article detailed the commitment that this Labor government had made prior to the election to fund some $40m of Territory money without any proviso, then how quickly, once they won government, emerged a proviso that Western Australia would show their money and Queensland would show their money. So you show me yours, and I will show you mine.
But you will all recall at the election, that was never the case. Labor was going to commit the money. If I can read from the article of the Centralian Advocate of 4 July 2002 written by Glen Morrison:
Now, that is definitely not true. It was never said before, but somehow this rewrite of history has come about and now the government conveniently reneges on a promise that it made prior to the election. How convenient is that?
Mr KIELY: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker!
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Do you wish to speak to that point of order?
Mr KIELY: I was going to, but he sat down.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a few preliminary comments on the government’s Northern Territory Quarterly Crime and Justice Statistics that have just been released.
I congratulate the government on this document. I was one of those who supported the repeal of mandatory sentencing. I have not supported the repeal of mandatory punishment. One of the reasons that I did support the repeal was that I would rethink what was happening after we were able to look at some statistics to see whether the government’s promise earlier in the year that the new sentencing regime would reduce crime. I think that was the statement made at the time, and the only way to determine that is to have some detailed statistics.
It is a pity that the minister announced this report today in a Ministerial Statement because that allowed very little debate on what is a very important document. Of course, it is a document that can be used politically, and, being a document of statistics, it can be used in many ways depending on how you want to interpret those statistics.
I hope that this and subsequent reports can be used to evaluate exactly what is happening with crime and whether the government’s legislation package, especially the changes to the sentencing regime, are having an effect. If they are not, then we should be looking at whether that or other things are the problem.
It is a very interesting document. As I said, statistics can say anything, and when you go through statistics - I have been through some of these and done my own averaging. I have been using an averaging formula for between September 2000 and September 2001 which includes the period before the new government came into office and when mandatory sentencing was operating. I have looked at the period after the government was elected and mandatory sentencing was repealed. I have done some averaging there. I know there are some graphs in this paper, but I would like to look at the numbers.
If you look at property offences for the Northern Territory overall, and you average the period before September 2001 and the period after that September quarter, up to September quarter 2002, there is an overall increase in the Northern Territory of property offences.
But when you divide up those statistics, you find that unlawful entry with intent for dwellings has gone down; unlawful entry with intent for other dwellings, I presume that is business, but it does not explain that, has gone up; motor vehicle theft and related offences have gone down; other theft has gone down; property damage has gone up quite a bit; and other property damages have gone down.
Of course, that is for the whole of the Territory. Those rises in the statistics tend to be reflected in the Darwin figures. In Palmerston, for instance, you practically have, overall, from property offences, a status quo, things have hardly changed. In Alice Springs, there appears to have been an increase in property offences over that period, and in a place like Katherine you have a downturn in property offences. These figures need a lot more assessment and analysis before you can say where we are going. People might claim that the repeal of mandatory sentencing has, therefore, increased the number of property offences. One could argue that, but then if you look at the Katherine figures, you could argue that it has had no impact at all.
We need to be very careful that politics does not get in the way of good judgment. We certainly need another set of quarterly statistics to compare them with so that we can make a rational decision about what the effects are. When it comes to the mandatory sentencing issue, I suppose what you are looking for is found in section 2.4. It relates to court outcomes for property offences. It says these included imprisonment 65%, community work orders 13%, and court orders for the remaining 22% of the unlawful entry with intent offences, including fully suspended terms of imprisonment, fines and good behaviour bonds.
I have always believed that unlawful entry is a serious offence, and I argued that there should be some form of punishment. I do not think that people should be walking away scot-free. Again, there is a problem in this document about what certain offences mean, but I will come back to that later. The only way to see what those figures means is to have an analysis of (1) the crime matched with (2) the punishment. Unless you can see that, then it is very easy to make a bland statement that those 22% got off scot-free. I do not know, and I will be asking the Attorney-General for a more detailed analysis of the crime matched with the punishment because that is important if you are to make an intelligent analysis of these figures.
I would be concerned if 22% of offenders were getting off with a slap on the wrist. Some form of punishment is required but, again, until you analysis those figures by seeing the actual facts, it is very hard. As I said, these are preliminary comments on the figures. I was due to have a briefing today at 5 pm, but other matters in the House got in the way, so I have not had a briefing on these figures for an explanation of some of the methodology.
Another issue is that these figures show recorded offences in the Northern Territory. You will find that offences can be a series of matters carried out by one person. What we really need is the number of incidents. If one person, in breaking into a house, committed five offences in the process, how are we to tell from these figures? For instance, the total number of property offences for the Northern Territory in the September quarter is 6342. Does that mean that there were 6342 individual crimes, or were they committed by 6342 individuals?
Until you have that analysed, we have a set of figures that can be interpreted any way you want. What needs to be extrapolated from these figures is how many incidents do they reflect? How many people who offended repeated the offences? Surely, there were not 6342 individual criminals. We need to know how many individual incidents, and how many of those were repeat offences if we want a proper analysis. It has been said that it is a very small number of people who commit these crimes. Well, the way to find out is to see what the statistics show. I am told that the Crime Prevention Unit should be able to provide those figures. Again, if we are to make a balanced and rational analysis of the figures, then we certainly need that sort of information.
A further issue about which I have concern is that these documents present statistics under the headings of property offences, unlawful entry with intent - dwelling, unlawful entry with intent - other. There needs to be an explanation as to what ‘other’ is. I presume it is a business but it is not explained. They also deal with property damage. But if you go back to the glossary in this book, there is a definition page, but I do not think you will find ‘property damage’. You will find ‘home invasion’ and ‘business invasion’. They are regarded as separate criminal acts, yet nowhere in the statistics does it show how many offences of home and/or business invasion occurred.
There seems to be a mismatch or inconsistency of terms which makes it hard to understand what these figures actually reveal. I remember that in the debate about home invasion and business invasion, there were statements by the government that this was quite a serious offence. The offences of aggravated home and business invasion and car trashing as well as robbery, unlawful entry, assault with intent to steal and aggravated criminal damage were regarded as serious offences.
If we have these two acts which created the home invasion and the business invasion offences, we need to ensure that these figures reflect the nature and number of offences. How do we know who has been charged for those offences?
I raise these issues because this adjournment debate, sadly, appears to be the only platform by which one can discuss a very important set of statistics. Sadly, in all the law and order issues, politics gets in the way: my law is tougher than your law. I do not believe anyone in this House wants criminal activity to increase, nor do they want people bashed or people’s properties smashed up. We need to work with a more bipartisan approach. It is just a pity that these things becomes headlines all the time. When I go around my electorate, people do not talk in Labor or CLP terms; they talk about what we can do as a community. They have set up a Litchfield Safe Group; they talk to the police. It would be really good to see a more bipartisan approach toward finding ways of reducing crime. I have said before that the reduction in crime is not just about more police on the beat or more security patrols; it is about trying to do things at the other end of the spectrum: helping families, trying to get kids off the street and into more productive activities, sport and technical schools and all that sort of stuff. We have to do a lot more in that area.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I ask the government for an opportunity for these figures to be debated, perhaps away from some of the political hype. I will avail myself some time of the briefing that has been offered. At another stage, it would be good to get an understanding of how the police report, which I have only glanced at. I have had difficulty, though, matching the figures in the police report with the figures in the CPU quarterly report. It would be interesting and useful to have an explanation of how the two match together.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, first this evening I would like to inform the House of the success of the Menzies School of Health Research in the recent round of National Health and Medical Research Council grants.
As the House would be very aware, these are very competitive grants. You have the cream of medical researchers from all over the country applying for these grants and usually there is a success rate of about 20% or even less. This year, the Menzies School received seven grants that were signed off by the National Health and Medical Research Council which represents just a bit under 50% of the grants that they originally applied for. This is very successful. It is well beyond the national average, and the Menzies School of Health Research is to be congratulated, and that is what I am doing this evening.
Dr Lim: Hear, hear!
Dr BURNS: We know that under John Mathews’ stewardship, he established and developed the Menzies School of Health Research. John was there from 1995 until probably about three years ago. In recent times, the directorship has been taken over by Professor Kerin O’Dea, who is a noted health researcher, particularly in the area of diabetes, in Australia. The Menzies School is once again flourishing under Dr O’Dea’s stewardship and direction.
I would like to detail the success of the Menzies School, and I will read out the successful projects. Dr Alan Cass is being funded for about $425 000 over three years for a project that he calls IIMPAKT that is Improving Indigenous Patients’ Access to Kidney Transplantations. Renal failure is a substantial issue in the Aboriginal population, and this is a very important project.
Dr Ross Bailie has been funded for just under $400 000 over three years to study the impact of household infrastructure improvements on child health in remote Aboriginal communities and, given the extent of NAHS funding and NAHS investment - for which I give the current federal government all praise; I think it is a great project - it is very important to try and measure the impact of that infrastructure development on child health.
Dr Joan Cunningham is a very well known epidaemiologist who was funded for between 2003-07 inclusive for $1.6m for the DRUID study, which is Diabetes and Related Disorders in Urban Indigenous People in the Darwin region. That, once again, is a very important project. There has been some work done outside the urban area in diabetes, so this is really a first.
Dr Graham Maguire has been funded for about $430 000 over three years to study selective use of long-term antibiotics for chronic lung obstructive disease in Aboriginal adults. Graham is a respiratory physician and I am sure he will do a great job on that very important project.
Dr Heidi Smith-Vaughan, who has recently become a mother, is a relatively young researcher. She has a two year grant of about $330 000 for research on implications of bacterial load for vaccine efficacy and antibiotic treatment outcomes in a high risk population, which is a very clinically orientated research study, but nonetheless very important.
Bart Currie is well known to most people here in the House. He has $340 000 over three years to look at the molecular epidaemiology of meliodosis in Australia. Bart, as everyone knows, is a world expert on meliodosis which is a particularly savage disease and prevalent, unfortunately, here in the top end of Australia.
Heidi Smith-Vaughan received another grant for three years of just over $515 000 looking at pneumococcal surveillance in the Northern Territory: implications of vaccination and mass treatment programs.
Nick Anstey received a Practitioner Fellowship. Nick is an infectious diseases physician and he is an expert on malaria. Nick and his family are currently in the United States, and he has this Practitioner Fellowship which is about $450 000 between 2003-07.
Matthew Stevens - I don’t know Matthew - has a training scholarship for indigenous Australian health, and Louise Maple Brown also has a scholarship with the NHMRC. Julie Brimblecombe, who I know as a nutritionist, has a scholarship; as has Emma Kowal. Jonathon Carapetis has a project to look at skin infection with group A strep causing acute rheumatic fever. That is $569 000 over three years. So the total NHMRC funding for the Menzies School between 2003 and 2007 is something like $5.3m. That is very successful, indeed.
Outside the NHMRC, Menzies researches have a number of funding sources including some of the drug companies like Pfizer. Dr Louise Maple Brown has a very important grant. It is a starter, I think, at about $50 000, for non-invasive assessment of vascular function in the remote indigenous community, impact of diabetes and dyslipodemia. Louise has more money from Eli Lily, $19 000 for the project, and Diabetes Australia Research has given Louise $30 000 to further support this particular project.
Ross Bailie, from PHERP, which is the public health research projects, has $116 000 over three years to look at the development of a course on social determinants and indigenous health. Kerin O’Dea has a number of PHERP project grants, one totalling $493 000, looking at public health and nutrition; the next one looking at chronic diseases, $300 000. Nick Anstey, once again with malaria, has a NIH project, which is $1.25m between 2003 and 2007 to look at nitric oxide and severe malaria, which is an area that Nick has specialised in. Following along with the DRUID study I mentioned previously, Kerin O’Dea has grants of over $400 000.
The total other grants for the Menzies School represent $2.26m over the years 2003 and 2007. The total funding over this time of NHMRC and non-NHMRC is just over $8m. I congratulate the Menzies School. This is a fantastic result for them. The projects are very focussed. They will have great outcomes, particularly in the area of indigenous health in the Northern Territory. I congratulate Kerin O’Dea, all the researchers and the board at the Menzies School. I know that the member for Greatorex served on that board for a number of years. Menzies is a great organisation and all credit to them. They are leading the way in Australia in indigenous health research.
I have some adjournment notes related to my electorate, and I would like to start on that tonight and probably carry on tomorrow night.
On 11 October I attended the NTU Graduation Ceremony, representing the minister for education. It was great to hear Don McKinnon, the new Vice-Chancellor, speak. I hear already that the NTU is changing direction, and there is a lot more confidence. It is a hard road but he is a great leader. I was proud to see Anne Ortlipp, who is a constituent, receive a Certificate II in Spoken and Written English; Angus Cameron, also from my electorate, from Jingili, received a Batchelor of Visual Arts with Second Class Honours; and Norma Giannikouris was conferred a Certificate III in Hairdressing.
On Saturday 12 October, I attended a concert to commemorate the 30th anniversary of diplomatic relations between Australia and the People’s Republic of China at the performance theatre at the Northern Territory University. I was warmly welcomed by Howard Chew and the Patron of that association, Austin Asche. There was a performance by the Darwin Youth Orchestra and a speech by Adrian Walter, Associate Dean of Music; also a speech by Chinese Consul, Wang Shigang. I cut a cake with Bill Van Der Veen, President of the Australia China Friendship Society and Consul Wang. There was a junior dance group, performances by Chinese musicians, solos and ensembles, a vocal solo by Madam Wang Ning, a very accomplished artist, with Ms Andrea Ngai on the lute and a Cantonese opera by Louis and Winnie Wong and the choir.
On Sunday the 13 October, I attended the Australian Hellenic Education Progressive Association 48th National Convention, and the Minister for Ethnic Affairs addressed the throng in Greek. It went down a treat. They really loved it and they loved Darwin.
On the 18 October, my life changed a bit in that I was appointed to the ministry. I have become very busy, but I am determined to properly service my electorate; to doorknock and to stay close to the very people who put me in this place.
On Saturday 19 October, the Pinoy Aussie Society of the Northern Territory held their 12th anniversary at St Mary’s Football Club. It was compared by Mary Ann de Guzman. There was a welcome address by Arsenio R de Guzman, President of the Pinoy Aussie Society. It was a huge program, including Freddie Esguera, the ‘Tom Jones of Sydney’ who sang the Frank Sinatra ‘I did it my way’ and a new Tom Jones song called ‘Sex Bomb’.
Mr Bonson: It’s about two years old!
Dr BURNS: I was very taken by Freddie’s performance and I would like to see more of Freddie; I think he is great.
There were great dances by Shauna Ricardo Dance Studio, a song by Reanna and Cody Grant, and the fantastic Kalymnian Aegean Dance Group of Darwin, consisting of Niki Kathopoulils, Katerina Trikilis, Themelie Trikilis, Michael Fitirikos, Vicki Fitirikos and Pedro Rigas. A surprise number by Maria Gabunsoz - who goes to school with my daughter Amy – of the YFC-CFC Dance Troupe, under Gil Ninonuevo. Pia McElroy, who is a great artist, also sang on the night.
On the 24 October, I attended a meeting of the Wagaman Residents Committee, and that was attended by Lord Mayor, Peter Adamson. It was a very important meeting. There were opposing points of view but I really have to give credit to the Wagaman Residents Group and their Chairman Asad Mohsin. The issues were canvassed and there was agreement reached about locking and unlocking the gates by the residents, and people taking charge of their local environment to address issues related to antisocial behaviour. I believe that the Wagaman Residents Group is showing the way in this regard.
On the 25 October, I represented the Chief Minister, who was also able to come along, at the NT Council of Churches in the Litchfield Room. It was great to meet the ministers of all the different denominations who raised various issues of concern. There was very good flow of conversation and understanding between the Chief Minister and the ministers of the major churches in Darwin.
Also on the 25 October, I was able to show students from Nungalinga College around Parliament House. They are doing a Family and Community Services course, and we had a dialogue about political life, political structures and how politics actually works. I commend that course to the students, and I know they will do very well.
Mr Deputy Speaker, that is all I have for this evening, but I will give stage two tomorrow evening.
Mr McADAM (Barkly): Mr Deputy Speaker, I adjourn tonight in memory of Theodorus Adrianus Hendriks, who passed away on 9 November 2002.
Theo Hendriks was born in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, on 21 July 1921. Theo was the son of Peter Hendriks and Anna van Noort. Theo took pride of place in the Catholic family of nine children, four of whom were his brothers.
Young Theo witnessed first hand the sweeping political changes in Europe leading up to World War II while completing his technical education, and was later placed directly at the mercy of the fierce global conflict from the outset in his native Holland. After the war, Theo travelled to Indonesia as part of his military service and experienced a vastly different lifestyle compared with a depressed post-war Europe.
Theo enjoyed the freedom, the country and the exotic lifestyle of the Dutch colony. He returned to the Netherlands for his armed services discharge and preparation for the new chapter in his life. Like so many others returning home after war, Theo was greeted by dire economic circumstances in his beloved homeland. The country Theo once knew for its renowned and celebrated culture and economy was now characteristic of high unemployment, a critical shortage of housing and a population in both physical and emotional shambles. Theo departed Europe in the early 1950s to start a new life in Australia with his brother, Leo, who accompanied him. Leo chose to settle in nearby New Zealand and later married and raised his children in that country.
Theo never married, choosing to live in a number of small towns throughout Australia before finally moving to Sydney. Upon the death of his father, Theo’s mother, then 70 years of age, travelled to Sydney to visit her son and it is noted by one of his sisters as a time that Theo enjoyed very much. From Sydney, Theo moved north to Tennant Creek in 1968 where he worked in both the Orlando and Warrego mines as an electrician. Theo chose a true celebration of his life in the outback town of Tennant and made many friends in both his place of work and the mining community. Theo became the focus of the southern media on a number of occasions, featuring in both a magazine publication and a television documentary keen to portray his flamboyant lifestyle on the last frontier of our rugged Australian goldfields.
Some of his sisters travelled to Tennant Creek over the years at the invitation of their brother. In the words of his niece, Angelita:
Theo became a successful businessman in the community of Tennant Creek, concerned mainly with real estate that included financing and building a number of flats and houses for the growing population of the town in addition to his original trade as an electrician.
On weekends, Theo could often be seen at the football grounds volunteering his services in the local St John Ambulance brigade, at Labor party meetings dealing in Territory politics, or sharing a cold drink with friends in one of Tennant’s hotels.
Theo established Theo Electrical, his own contracting business in Tennant Creek after his extensive employment period with Peko Mines, renewing his relationships in a professional sense with the Catholic Church in the form of its restoration project as a heritage listed building in 1988. Theo often spoke with pride about the electrical work he completed as part of the project that restored this famous little church to its former glory on the rocky hill overlooking the town of Tennant Creek.
Time marched on in the extraordinary life of Theo Hendriks and, after a brief illness in the early 1990s, he underwent an operation that brought him back to full health and, ironically, to the deep Catholic faith of his Netherlands childhood. During Angelita’s visit to Tennant Creek in January 2001, Theo complained of the incessant inland heat to which his niece suggested a move to the coast and the cool ocean breezes. Theo calmly responded with: ‘No, I will stay here in Tennant Creek where I have my friends, my church, the sisters and my two faithful dogs’. Theo did leave Tennant Creek, however, under the orders of his doctor when he was transferred to the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Adelaide in October 2002.
Upon admission his brother Piet phoned and was told by Theo that the ‘end was nigh’, giving the family due warning of his imminent death as he felt his time had come. Theo reached the age of 81 years and spent his life the way he wanted it. He was a good man, a wonderful, kind person who will be missed by us all. Unfortunately, his brothers and sisters will not join Theo for the final journey from his cherished Catholic church as they are elderly and resident in distant lands. However, their hearts will be with him as his friends and colleagues return his body to the earth at his chosen place at the Tennant Creek cemetery.
Mr Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the people in the Tennant Creek community, Theo, rest in peace, our dear friend.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to speak about a couple of wonderful events around my electorate that I have had the pleasure of attending. Both are great community events for the people of the Sanderson and Casuarina area. The events I refer to are the Casuarina Junior Football League competition and the FAANT KCC grouping together of a local Filipino group with a community school in the Filipino community.
First, the Casuarina Junior Football League. I have the pleasure of being the Patron of the league. Its goals are to train up juniors into AusKick and junior football league. It is a bit of a bridge between 8, 10, 12 year olds before they start playing more senior football. It was started off by local families around the area, until it reached a point where there are over 200 registered players, lots of kids and parents involved. It is held on a Saturday afternoon and it runs for about 12 weeks. AusKick is a program in which kids learn Australian Rules Football skills as well as having pretty good competition itself with the under 10s and under 12s. There are six to eight sides in the competition - the Crows, the Swans, the Eagles, the Blues, the Dockers, and the Power - made up of kids from around Leanyer, Wulagi, Wanguri, from all over the place. All these kids get together and they have a great competition. This would not be possible without the support of the parents and the committee.
I will single out a couple of important people on the committee. One of those is Paul Wyatt. He is the President and has been for something like three years now. I have been the Patron for two years. Paul has really put in. He has a young family himself, but he works tirelessly for the Casuarina Junior Football League. He was press ganged into being the president this year. He has made it pretty clear that next year he wants to focus more on working with the Swans because his young fellow is running with them. On behalf of other members of the Casuarina Junior Football League, I thank Paul for his tireless and selfless contribution.
The league could not go on without the help of so many supporters, so many individual parents, as well as some corporate sponsorship. I was there at the presentations for AusKick and for the under 10s and the under 12s at the grand finals, presenting the medals to players. Great skill levels, but these kids just would not be where they are unless they had their parents in there helping them, and there are other supporters helping drive the league.
I am talking in particular about Jenny Elliot, Gareth Lewis, Bill Shepherd, Gavin Johns and Adam Walding. There is Leigh Bujunowski, Shane and Jenny Dignan, Nick Malone, Paulina Motlop, Lesley Collins, Craig Pollock, Brittany Hughes, Mark Kirby, Peter Clarke, Glen Stanford, Glen Nicholson, Paul Kirby, and Steve Glennon, and all the other parents who help. These are the people who, for the joy of helping their own children, and children of other parents, get in there and contribute every week.
The league also has a very strong sponsorship and community following from business houses around Darwin, particularly from Casuarina Shopping Square who help a fair bit, but there are a couple of special sponsors whom I would like to single out: Aurora Frontier Hotel; Springfield Butchers are great, they provide meat at very, very good prices for the league and they have a sausage sizzle every week; InFocus NT who take the photos each year, and as part of the presentation all the kids get a photo and that is quite good for them; Halkitis roofing, NT Fastners; General Roofing Products; Silko; ITW Buildex, Top End Sounds Pro Shop, who have donated guitars and all sorts of things over the year to raffle off and help raise money; and Murray Pest Control.
As Patron of Casuarina Junior Football League, I thank those business houses for their contribution. The parents and the committee of the league appreciate all the sponsorship that they have provided, and they are hopeful that these organisations will provide ongoing sponsorship for them.
I would now like to talk about a visit to Darwin of the Kabankalan Catholic College study tour group. They were in Darwin between 25 September and 6 October as guests of the FAANT and Mr John Revis. He works tirelessly for this particular Filipino community group, and he comes from the Kabankalun area and so he has very strong roots there. John has a strong desire to foster a relationship between Darwin and the place of his upbringing.
The study tour was an initiative of the Filipino Australia Association of the Northern Territory Incorporated. The Chief Minister is very supportive of this group and, where possible, she has assisted with that initiative. The KCC study tour was a project organised by John Rivas, the President of the FAANT, and he was strongly supported by his study tour committee.
He wanted to work with the Kabankalan Catholic College study tour to provide students from the Filipino community in Darwin and those at Kabankalan Catholic College with an opportunity to learn about each other’s way of life. He hoped to provide students with a learning experience in travel and tourism which can be achieved best through study tours, to expand existing links between the NT and the Filipino governments in the area of consul education, to pave the way for more cultural development between the two participating Filipino communities,: one in Darwin, and the other in the Kebankalan city of Negros Occidental, the Philippines.
Eight students, five girls and three boys, who came from KCC. They were accompanied by Mrs Nomy Muhal, College Principal and Mr Dennis Christian Martir, the tour coordinator. I met these people at a function over at the Filipino Complex in Baton road and, like a lot of shows over there, it was really enjoyable.
I met the students. There was Charlene Cuenca who stayed with Lito and Josie Ocampo and their children, Joann, Joey and Angelo. The visiting students were billeted with Darwin families. There was Anna Lorraine Geirza, who stayed with Julfredo and Mrs Lourdes Valles and their children Julianne and Jules. Leozelle Gatoc stayed with Apolonia Craufurd, and their daughter Joy Lyndale Craufurd. Apol is a great person; I have had many a chat with Apol. I reckon she is a great member of the community, and she is in so many other cultural groups. Emmanuel Sabay stayed with Ron Greaves and Eunice de Ramos and their boy Christopher. Roshen Quanico stayed with Peter and Charisse Boase and their children Minone, Vanessa and Gavin. Katherine Saloria, another student from KCC, stayed with Danny and Virginia Sharpe. Then there was Miguel Marcelino, who stayed with Rolando and Macrina Abril and their children, Roly Jr and Jane. John Rupert Montinolo stayed with Michael and Fluer Morrissey and their children, Luke, Scott and Nicole.
These eight students, by the way, put on a great show. They performed contemporary youth dancing from the Philippines as well as something a bit more traditional. They enjoyed their stay here in Darwin and I believe they have done a lot to strengthen the ties between us. As a matter of fact, the Kabankalan Catholic College study tour group did take home a piece of Darwin memorabilia: the FAANT presented the KCC High School Library with three video tapes of Darwin and the Northern Territory, two albums containing photo shots of the students in Darwin, tourism books about Darwin, information about NTU, information about the Port of Darwin and the railway, and magazines produced by FAANT.
Now, Mr Rivas is a forward thinking man. He is a great asset to Darwin, and I believe that he is going to make his mark on this town in the years to come - not that he has not already made it already. However, he has got some future plans; he hopes that the Kabankalan Catholic College study tour is the beginning of a long study tour tradition. The KCC wishes to reciprocate. The FAANT study tour committee will chaperone the children of the hosting families to Kabankalan City in the first two weeks of July 2003.
The FAANT plans to do a PowerPoint presentation of Darwin and business opportunities in the NT in line with the new sea port and the forthcoming rail link during their visit to the region of the Philippines in 2003. Mr Rivas is always thinking ahead. He sees the benefits of strengthening the ties between our community here and the community that he came from in the Philippines.
To Mr Rivas, the children from Kabankalan Catholic College, the hosting families here in Darwin who showed these children so much of the fine hospitality that we have to offer here in our diverse and multicultural city, I wish a very merry Christmas and a safe and happy new year. I wish them the best of luck for the reciprocal visit to the Philippines. I am sure that such cultural exchanges between us and other countries are something which will create a strong bond for us and take us all forward into the 21st century.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
ADMINISTRATIVE ARRANGEMENTS
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I would like to let the House know of new ministerial arrangements. As the House is aware, there was an eighth minister introduced into the government, and I welcome the member for Johnston.
Madam SPEAKER: Chief Minister, do you have a form of words?
Ms MARTIN: No, I don’t. I do not know where they got to.
Madam SPEAKER: Is leave granted for the Chief Minister to make the statement about administrative arrangements?
Leave granted.
Ms MARTIN: Madam Speaker, I wish to inform the House of the new ministerial arrangements: myself as Chief Minister, Minister for Young Territorians, Minister for Women’s Policy, Minister for Senior Territorians, Minister for Arts and Museums, Minister for AustralAsia Railway, Minister for Territory Development and Minister for Indigenous Affairs.
The member for Nhulunbuy is the new Treasurer, Minister for Employment, Education and Training and Minister for Racing, Gaming and Licensing.
The member for Stuart continues in his previous portfolios: Minister for Justice and Attorney-General, Minister for Corporate and Information Services, Minister for Communications and Minister for Central Australia.
The member for Wanguri is now Leader of Government Business, Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services, Minister for Business, Industry and Resource Development, Minister for Asian Relations and Trade and Minister for Defence Support.
The member for Casuarina is the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, Minister for Lands and Planning, Minister for Ethnic Affairs and Minister for Parks and Wildlife.
The member for Nightcliff continues in her previous portfolio responsibilities of Minister for Health and Community Services, without Minister Assisting on Women’s Policy.
The member for Arnhem is the Minister for Community Development, Minister for Housing, Minister for Local Government, Minister for Sport and Recreation, Minister for Regional Development and Minister Assisting the Chief Minister on Indigenous Affairs.
The new minister, the member for Johnston, is the Minister for Tourism, Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries, Minister for Environment and Heritage, and Minister for Essential Services.
Madam SPEAKER: Would you like to table the administrative arrangements as published in the Northern Territory Gazette on 18 October 2002?
Ms MARTIN: I shall, Madam Speaker.
MOTION
Committee Membership - Changes
Committee Membership - Changes
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, in relation to the parliamentary committee membership, I move that:
(a) the member for Johnston be discharged from service on the Public Accounts Committee and that
the member for Karama be appointed in his stead;
for Casuarina be appointed in her stead;
and that the member for Sanderson be appointed in his stead; and
Stuart be appointed in her stead.
Motion agreed to.
WARRANT
Deputy Chairmen of Committees
Deputy Chairmen of Committees
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, pursuant to the provision of Standing Order 12. I hereby revoke all previous warrants nominating members to act as Deputy Chairmen of Committees. I lay on the Table my warrant nominating members to be Deputy Chairmen of Committees. I nominate the following members to act as Deputy Chairmen of Committees: Ms Lawrie, Mr McAdam, Mr Bonson, Mr Elferink, Mr Maley, Mr Mills and Dr Lim, when requested to do so by the Chairman of Committees.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Gilly Mathieson. Gilly is a journalist from the BBC Scotland visiting Darwin as part of the Winston Churchill Fellowship, conducting interviews for her project on political journalism in Spain, Canada and Australia. Gilly would like to take the opportunity to interview some members and the interviews will take place in the small room behind the Chamber. On behalf of all honourable members, I extend a warm welcome to you, Gilly.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: I also draw your attention to students in our gallery. These are students from Katherine High School accompanied by their teacher Mr Chris Shaw. On behalf of all honourable members, I extend a warm welcome to you.
Members: Hear, hear!
PETITION
Women’s Information Centre
Women’s Information Centre
Ms CARNEY (Araluen)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I present a petition not conforming with standing orders from 378 petitioners relating to the Women’s Information Centre. I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
- To the honourable the Speaker and members of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory:
We, the undersigned, respectfully showeth the Women’s Information Centre assists women throughout the
Northern Territory, and in particular women in Central Australia, by providing free and confidential
counselling and information and referral service, library resources, facilities for mothers to breastfeed
and change their babies, meeting facilities for community groups, and a number of other services for women.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Northern Territory government not close the Women’s
Information Centre or limit its ability to provide services to women, and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
MEDIA ARRANGEMENTS
Madam SPEAKER: I advise the honourable members that I have given permission for various media to broadcast with sound and vision the Chief Minister’s motion relating to the plight of the East Timorese asylum seekers in Darwin. The motion will occur after ministerial reports. I point that out for the benefit of the camera operator.
MINISTERIAL REPORTS
Development of Timor Sea Gas Province
Development of Timor Sea Gas Province
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I rise to provide a ministerial report on the recent activities in respect of the development of the Timor Sea gas province, an area with a potential production value of at least $100bn and, in particular, the Sunrise and Bayu-Undan projects.
Last week, I received a preliminary briefing from the Woodside team, the operators of the Sunrise project, as they approach the end of their gas market study conducted on behalf of their joint venture partners, Shell, Phillips and Osaka Gas. Members of this House would recall that this study arose following a concerted campaign by government and Team NT to demonstrate the economic viability of the alternative domestic gas case, and the nett benefits to Australia of such a development.
The preliminary briefing was provided to me on a confidential basis. I understand the Leader of the Opposition has received a similar briefing from Woodside. My discussions with Woodside were frank. Our position is clear as far as this government is concerned: FLNG, a floating LNG was and is simply not on, full stop. A multi-billion dollar development on our doorstep that does not generate jobs for Territorians is patently unacceptable.
In this regard, our own analyses, and that of many industry experts, confirm that the so-called United States markets for LNG from a floating barge in the Timor Sea simply is not there. The gas price in the US needed for the project is uncertain, and this would continue to undermine the project given the capital expenditure and associated technology risks.
In relation to the domestic gas case, we understand the complexities involved in negotiating prices, terms and conditions and aligning the timing of customer needs and the joint venture’s ability to deliver gas. However, I indicated my bitter disappointment that some representatives of Woodside had chosen to continue to promote FLNG publicly in the middle of what was supposed to be a genuine attempt to market domestic gas. If matching the project to the varying timetables of main Sunrise customers is not enough, it becomes very difficult when two disparate projects are placed side by side in the market. This can only undermine customer confidence, a fact confirmed directly to me by key customers. So we are still waiting on the outcome of the study by the joint venture. For our part, we will continue to work with them to develop the customer base, but I also urge them to drop the FLNG proposal once and for all. It was not, and never will be, in the national interest, let alone viable.
I urge them to cooperate on the development of the gas fields in the province, for example, with Bayu-Undan, pursue the domestic gas case option only, and focus on building the customer base that is clearly there. For example, one option could be to develop a brown fields LNG project. Most importantly, I urge them to put a proposal to the Commonwealth government clearly articulating the level of support required to make this multi-billion dollar project happen.
Members of this House would be aware that I recently met with the Prime Minister to discuss many of these issues. As part of that discussion, I presented him with the formal NT government submission outlining the national interest case for Sunrise gas onshore in Darwin. This was a major submission, drawing on the collective work of our officials, private research organisations and, of course, Team NT. The Prime Minister acknowledged this work and will consider a Sunrise proposal once it is on the table. While Sunrise is still in its formative stages we continue to advance quickly to the realisation of our vision for gas onshore with the Bayu-Undan development. It is extremely close to the final investment decisions that will deliver the $1bn offshore pipeline and the $1.8bn LNG project at Wickham Point.
Given the publicity of the recent $25bn LNG sale to China from the North West Shelf, it often goes unnoticed that the combined liquids and gas export value of the Bayu-Undan projects exceed $26bn. The Wickham Point LNG project will be our passport to enter the worldwide energy market.
The final hurdle for Bayu-Undan to overcome is the ratification of the Timor Sea Treaty by the Australian and East Timorese governments. Both governments remain confident that their self-imposed timetable of 31 December can be met, allowing the Phillips board to make the momentous final investment decision in February 2003.
Importantly, the combined offshore and onshore developments under the Bayu-Undan umbrella provide the spine or skeleton for the overall development of the Timor Sea Gas province. They herald the green fields development of the province, providing tangible evidence to investors and downstream customers that it really is Australia’s second international gas hub.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, this is the second occasion that I have refrained from commenting on a report by the Chief Minister with regards to Sunrise gas because of the clear sensitivities that are involved with those discussions at the moment. I worry that the Chief Minister has presented this report today because of the sensitivities that she knows will become apparent to everyone over the next few days.
So, I can only put Sunrise aside for one moment and talk about Bayu-Undan. The Chief Minister is aware that this week, Minister Macfarlane and Minister Downer are in East Timor to negotiate the final outcome of the ratification of the Timor Sea Treaty, and the fact that the unitisation agreement will be agreed for both Bayu-Undan and Sunrise from those discussions or, at the very least, the unitisation agreement decided for Bayu-Undan alone.
If that is the case, that is a major hurdle with regards to Bayu-Undan reaching its next milestone in being able to be developed for bringing gas onshore to Darwin for processing at an LNG plant at Wickham Point.
I agree with the Chief Minister; I believe the outcome of those discussions will be positive. Maybe a decision will not be made this week, but hopefully a decision in principle to agree on those issues will be made this week, and Bayu-Undan will inexorably pass through having that treaty ratified. I hope the unitisation agreements for both fields are decided at the same time.
For Sunrise, I am concerned that the government is positioning itself in the wrong direction. It seems to me that the outcome of the investigation by the three producers - Phillips, Woodside and Shell - will be such that they are aligned completely. They will agree with the outcome of that study. I was of the understanding that if that is the case, the Northern Territory government would also be aligned with the outcome of that study. That outcome will be notified to everyone, I understand, by the end of this week and at that stage I will make further comment.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, this House and Territorians should be very disappointed by the Opposition Leader’s comments. I very clearly stated in my report what we should be loudly and strongly saying to joint venturers is that FLNG is not on. Finished, dead, over. They should be working together; they should not be telling gas customers on one hand that they are pursuing a domestic gas option and on the other hand making public statements about floating LNG. They were very clear statements. I would like to have heard them supported by the Leader of the Opposition. Silence on that. Also, very importantly, to say to the joint venturers that the gas case - the domestic gas, the onshore case - is not finished until you have been to the federal government, put your figures down to the Prime Minister, who is waiting for them, to see what kind of fiscal incentives are needed to make this important project work, just as fiscal incentives were put in place for the North-West Shelf 25 years ago. Yet from the Opposition Leader: nothing.
Crime Statistics
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, with the release last week of the Territory’s first quarterly crime adjusted statistics, the Territory has moved out of the dark ages and into a light of the new, information rich era. This government has implemented its election commitment to provide Territorians, for the first time, with information on crime in our community. Overall, we have found some areas of early improvement. We will not be getting cocky. Levels of crime are still too high in our community, but this is an encouraging start.
Look at the snapshot of the trends that have been revealed in the first report: reported assaults down Territory wide, reported sexual assaults down, break-ins to commercial premises down and, importantly, residential break-ins are down across the Territory.
What response did we get from the opposition? What did they say about some encouraging signs and about the most detailed information that has ever been released in the Northern Territory? They got desperate; they were a bit like cockroaches running to hide from the light. They claimed police were not recording crime properly, that quarterly statistics were different from police annual statistics, that break-ins had gone up and that one in three property offenders walked free. All absolutely wrong. The opposition should stop trying to deceive Territorians. This area is too important in terms of the public interest.
Let me place some facts on the record. Police reported crime incidents after determining exactly what offences have been committed, the same system that operated when the CLP was in government. Every offender charged under our new aggravated property crime offences is penalised. Most receive a term of imprisonment. Others are subject to community work orders, fines or other orders. The police annual report and quarterly crime statistics are not inconsistent at all; they just report on different time periods. The Commissioner of Police has confirmed that some important areas of crime are trending downwards.
To remove any doubt, we have had the quarterly report independently scrutinised by Ernst & Young and it has been given a clean bill of health. Ernst & Young have found that the data has been calculated and presented accurately, that comparison with prior quarters is a widely accepted and common means of analysing changes in data over time, and that the report is presented without undue bias.
It is time to move on and start looking at issues of substance in this debate rather than arguing back and forth about figures. Let us see the opposition come clean and talk truthful about what is in this report, not play politics with this absolutely crucial issue on behalf of our community.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, the Labor government came to power heralding a deficit reduction strategy. What we have seen is that, whilst you have been conducting your deficit reduction strategy, Territorians have had an asset reduction strategy. The asset reduction strategy is that more and more Territorians go to their house and find that it has been cleaned out because crime is on the rise.
The Minister for Justice and Attorney-General has been dribbling on in this House about how he is going to fix crime. In fact, I understand you have put your whole career on the line, on how you were going to fix crime. Well, we look forward to seeing how your career goes on, Minister for Justice and Attorney-General.
I would imagine that if the Chief Minister was not involved in that enormous botch up that occurred a few days ago, she would have asked some questions like: ‘I have an enormous propaganda unit up here that I pay enormous amounts of money to try and get propaganda out to Territorians to say we are doing well …
Dr Toyne: No, we got rid of that. That was yours.
Mr Stirling: That was yours! We got rid of it.
Mr BURKE: The previous minister for police, the current minister for police and this dribbling Minister for Justice and Attorney-General cannot even get their act together to bring out a story to Territorians - well, you have had about 14 months to get yourself prepared - without failing on every count.
You could not even convince the media who were sitting in that room. After listening to you for about 20-odd minutes, they walked out of there and said: ‘Right, we are going to give it to this lot’. Do you know why? You have been misleading Territorians. That is what the media said, and that is why you got done in. ‘We do not have the report prepared so, therefore, we cannot give it to you; it is being printed’. It was holding up the OH projector. The report they would not give the media was holding up the OH projector so that the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General could give out and show his crime graph that said: ‘Dib, dib, dib, up, up - sorry, I cannot reach that far. But, our new statistics - the last three months - show a really good figure. We are down here for the last three months’.
This has been an appalling botch-up. The opposition is sick to death of listening to the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General dribble on about how he is going to fix crime. You have some questions to answer that will be posed to you later in this day and, at that time, we will have a full chance for a full debate.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, this is a sign of a desperate man trying to defend the indefensible. Yes, I would be very happy to answer your questions later on today if you want to pose me some because there is a picture here that you cannot hold back any more …
Mr Burke: One in three walk. Since mandatory sentencing was abolished, one in three walk. You answer that one.
Dr TOYNE: Every three months, every quarter, you will have to answer to the facts of crime in our community, not some construction that you take out there and use to manipulate a political agenda.
Territorians deserve to know the truth about crime in the community. They are getting the truth about crime in our community, and they will continue to get the truth about crime in our community. That was our election promise and that promise has been kept.
Bush Fires
Mr VATSKALIS (Lands and Planning): Madam Speaker, as all members are aware, this year has been a terrible year for bush fires in Central Australia. Today I wish to report on the fire problems we have experienced over the last few weeks. However, first I would like to place on record the thanks and appreciation of the government and all members of this House for the work and determination of the people who have fought these fires and, undoubtedly, saved us from millions of dollars of damage and possibly loss of life.
I record my thanks to Bushfires Council members, Police, Fire and Emergency Services members, members of my department and the volunteers from the public who have helped make our communities and us in Central Australia safe. They are first class, genuine Territory heroes; we owe them a lot.
Bush fires present a huge problem for the Territory at this time of year. Central Australia has experienced its worst bush fire year for many years. Twenty-two pastoral properties have reported fires, some with up to nine fires each.
On 9 and 10 November, a 50 km fire was stopped at the Arltunga tourist road. Erldunda, Idracowra and Mt Ebenezer stations had huge fires which have burnt out thousands of square kilometres. On Friday 15 November, Kulgera had to use graders to keep out fires that had spread from Umbera Station.
At Yulara, a fire was pulled up on Friday, 15 November, just before it consumed the recently installed luxury tents. On 16 and 17 November, bushfires blazed to the north-east of Alice Springs along a 25 km front, from Bond Springs Homestead through to Undoolya Homestead, and as far as the Garden Station boundary. To the east, four separate fires had been burning in the vicinity of Ross River Homestead over the weekend of 16 and 17 November, while to the west, some people living in the Iwupakata Land Trust self-evacuated as fire burnt through there as far as Honeymoon Gap on one front, into Pine Gap on another front, before bolting on Monday afternoon through to the already devastated Owen Springs Station.
On Monday, 17 November, seven metre high flames leaping the road forced the closure of Namatjira Drive at Ellery Creek Big Hole. On Tuesday, 19 November, three volunteer grass fire units and six personnel out of Darwin arrived, as well as a Bushfires Council command vehicle and officers, to relieve exhausted local staff and volunteers.
This is merely the recent history. In the couple of months leading up to this last awful month, fires have been fought in the Yulara area and across Owen Springs Station and Palm Valley. This government has stopped the declining budgets provided to the Bushfires Council over the years, with an injection of and additional $75 000 this year. This will be examined in our budget deliberations in the near future.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I have to say that the government’s response has been very poor indeed in relation to these fires, and it was not until last week when I started agitating for some assistance to cattlemen that the new minister responsible for this area was even aware that these fires were occurring.
I spent two days driving around in the bush, talking to cattlemen from many of the stations that the minister has spoken about today, and I am wondering how many he has spoken to. In terms of the behaviour of the new minister, his response was: ‘I jumped in a helicopter and I had a flight over it’. There were other people on the ground, people from the Bushfires Council and those sorts of organisations, who were working very hard to try and fight these fires. It was not until there was some sort of public agitation that this government would even respond.
I congratulate Neil Phillips and the work of the Bushfires Council, as I congratulate those cattle stations that put in a lot of time and effort into supporting the battle against the fires. Some of these guys were working up to 20 hours a day fighting these fires with no support other than what they were receiving from the Bushfires Council.
I have called upon the government to make every effort and endeavour to support the cattle stations which have been affected by these fires - I am aware of one which has lost well over $100 000 worth of equipment as a result - and throw its weight behind them. It is this government which has upped the rents of pastoral leases by 100% since coming to government, and it is about time they started putting something back in.
They are more than happy to leach it out, but when it comes to making the effort of putting something back in, they are saying at the moment that it is the Commonwealth government’s problem. This government has to put in $4m before the Commonwealth comes to that party, as I understand it, and I urge this government to reach into its very deep pockets with its very short arms and find some money and ways to support those cattlemen who have had their pastures destroyed. Up to 80% of their pasture has been destroyed in some of the worst fires in the Northern Territory’s history. The fact that this government has had to respond to pressure from myself – and the minister flying over the area to have a quick look - is not good enough.
Mr VATSKALIS (Lands and Planning): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his kind words, but I have to advise him that during my recent visit to Alice Springs, I received a full briefing by the Bushfires Council about the problem with the fires.
This government supports the Bushfires Council and all the volunteers. After many years of neglect, we increased the budget and we are going to do that again next year. We supported the new technology, the satellite imaging technology, that the Bushfires Council is using. We are also cooperating with the Central Land Council to produce and screen television advertisements on Imparja and other television stations, and I have called for harsher fines for people who light fires.
What happened before? Nothing. Nothing happened. Not even higher fines - $800 if you light a fire. Now they have the audacity to call for tougher action. We will give tougher action, we will help these people. The departments will now assess the damage and if there is significant damage, this government has promised to help the pastoralists. We will do it – we do not pay lip service; we deliver on our promises.
Airline Capacity into the NT
Dr BURNS (Tourism): Madam Speaker, since becoming Minister for Tourism some four weeks ago, I have had a series of meetings and constant dialogue with airline companies about increasing airline capacity into the Northern Territory.
In late October I travelled to Singapore where I had a number of meetings with Qantas, with Mr Stephen Thompson who is the Singapore Regional Manager of Qantas, and, as a new minister, I needed to find out more about regional tourism in the Asian area, particularly the crucial Darwin-Singapore sector. I also met with representatives from Silk Air in Singapore, Mr Goh Boon Hwee who is manager of Singapore’s Silk Air.
Silk Air, as most members would be aware, is a low cost carrier with the potential to service Darwin. It is a subsidiary of Singapore Airlines. It is essential in all of these meetings that I lift the profile of the Northern Territory as a destination and start building relationships with these carriers in the South East Asian area. On that topic, most members would also be aware that engaging the airlines is a top priority of the government and Northern Territory airports. Mr Peter Roberts commenced on 18 November as the Airline Development Director. He has considerable experience in the airline industry, and part of our strategy is to engage the industry with someone who is very experienced to put a business case, because it is a business case that will appeal to the airline operators.
I also met with senior executives of Singapore Airlines in Singapore on 1 November. Of course, it is the parent company of Silk Air. As most members would be aware, Singapore Airlines withdrew its service in 1998, and the case that was put to me was that they had endeavoured, over a period of about a decade, to make that route work, and they asked what was different with Darwin; what was the different case we could put to them, particularly in relation to business travel and freight. That is another issue in which this government and Mr Roberts will be engaging very closely with Singapore Airlines.
There has been a lot of talk about potential air charter from Singapore into Darwin to try and open that route up a bit. We did meet with an operator who was expressing some interest. In terms of a positive business case, in some ways it was difficult to ascertain what was being proposed by this operator, although it remains true that such operators don’t link up with global reservation systems, so it is very hard for them to tap into the European market. They also would have to secure CASA approval and overcome some regulatory restrictions at Singapore airport.
On 13 November I met with Mr John Borghetti who is the Executive General Manager of Sales, a very senior executive with Qantas. Qantas is reconfiguring some of their aircraft which will have the same effect as producing three new aircraft. This increased capacity will be distributed across their route network by May 2003. Once again, we have Mr Roberts engaged at a very high level with Qantas on this issue, and putting a case for increased capacity into the Northern Territory.
In relation to the Sydney-Darwin-Singapore service, forward bookings on this additional service look good, although it is true to say that the extra flight has initially only been scheduled for two months, from 1 December 2002 to 31 January 2003, so there is one additional aircraft. It is also true to inform Parliament that following 31 January, Qantas will reinstate one direct Darwin-Denpasar service per week and the current Sydney-Darwin-Denpasar service will cease.
Now, while that does obviously have some negative effects for Darwin in terms of the Singapore route, it is good for local outbound tourism. We are all aware that there are quite a lot of tourists, particularly backpackers, that come from the Bali route or have come from the Bali route into Darwin. We wish the Balinese people well, and we know how crucial these links are to our economy and to theirs.
Madam Speaker, what I have said before, that airlines constantly reassess their network scheduling to maximise their use of assets is very true, so we need to ensure that we continually put the Northern Territory case, and we are doing that on a constant basis. I have also met with Virgin Blue about increased services into Darwin and, once again, Mr Roberts is in constant dialogue and negotiation with them.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I will start with the good news first. I welcome the appointment of Mr Peter Roberts. I met with the Board of the NT Airports Corporation last month and, although they didn’t disclose this man’s name at that point because it hadn’t become public, he is obviously held in great esteem and appears well qualified for the position. I look forward to meeting with him in the not too distant future.
However, as for the new minister’s trip to Singapore, what a joke! That was five minutes of drivel and apology. We want to know what the new minister put on the table in order to entice airlines here. We want to know what the result was because anyone listening to that diatribe will know that this new minister, just like the other two, has done nothing and have …
Mr Ah Kit: You are never happy.
Ms CARNEY: At least this one bothered to travel overseas. Many members of the industry were pleased to see that. Nevertheless, he came back with nothing - a bit fat zero in his first six weeks as a new minister. Well, I hope, on behalf of the industry, things get better.
He said that he was going to lift the profile of Darwin. I am pleased that he did actually bother to pick up his passport and go for a trip because his predecessor did not, to his eternal shame. I am pleased that this minister at least gave it a go. However, I am distressed on behalf of members of the industry that he came back with nothing.
As to the appointment of this new minister, the tourism industry is appalled and aghast. Had the minister bothered to move from his table at the Brolga Awards on Saturday night, members of the tourism industry would have told him that the appointment is a joke. He is not taken seriously. Not only does he have no experience, but he is the most junior minister in this Cabinet. He has trainer wheels on; he is wearing a yellow L-plate on his back and his front and, for the first time in years, I suspect a decade, tourism is at the bottom of the pile.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, your time has expired.
Dr BURNS (Tourism): Madam Speaker, it is hard to know where to start to respond to that. I think I will strip away the bad feelings and the negativity.
What did I lay on the table? I am trying to lay a business plan on the table for these airlines because that is what the respond to. I would be very interested to hear what the shadow minister for tourism would do differently.
Ms Carney: You are in government, you goose!
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Araluen! Order!
Dr BURNS: Maybe she would go over there and be nasty to them and they would do what she wants. I do not think so because they do not want to hear whinges; they want to hear positive things; they want to hear a business plan. That is my response to what you said.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: It is not often I have to stand; in fact, this is the first time. I am pretty disgusted at that outburst. You have visitors in the gallery whom you invited this morning. I am sure they are most impressed with your behaviour. Just settle down. I know it is the last week of sittings, but be warned: there are a few of you on a short string.
Reports noted pursuant to Sessional Order.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: I acknowledge the presence in the gallery of our visitors, the senior members of the East Timorese community and representatives of the asylum seekers. I apologise for the behaviour of the members that you just saw. It was most disorderly and dishonourable to you.
On behalf of all members, I do extend a warm welcome. I hope that you will be interested in the next debate during which I hope members will behave with a little more decorum.
Members: Hear, hear!
MOTION
Plight of East Timorese Asylum Seekers
Plight of East Timorese Asylum Seekers
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that this Assembly:-
(a) acknowledge the substantial contribution members of the East Timorese community have made
to the Northern Territory community over many years;
of being served with deportation orders by the federal government;
(c) extend its support to those affected families, some of whom are facing having their family permanently
separated because of the federal government’s decision to deport individual members in some instances;
- (d) supports the Northern Territory government and its agencies in assisting these East Timorese families
in their efforts to remain in Darwin;
(e) commends the individuals, businesses and community organisations that are supporting the East Timorese
people affected by the deportation orders;
- (f) calls on the federal Immigration Minister to grant a favourable assessment on each application,
considering the unique and compelling reasons that this group of East Timorese Territorians have
for remaining in Darwin;
(g) calls on the Territory’s federal parliamentary representatives to actively support this motion and the
applications of the deportees to the federal Immigration Minister; and
(h) request the Speaker forward the terms of this motion and associated debate to the President of the
Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the Australian Federal Parliament.
Madam Speaker, the Territory leads Australia in many respects and most important among these is our cultural diversity, the way in which people from many parts of the world and many parts of Australia live together in relative peace and harmony.
We often hear people pay lip service to multiculturalism in other parts of the country, but here in the Territory, it is really working. It is readily seen in our schools, on our sporting fields and in our workplaces. We are a small community and tightly knit one. What happens to one family can affect us all, and that is why the plight of 80 or more East Timorese, who have made this Territory their home and are now facing deportation, has raised so much concern in our community. These people are known to many of us. Some have spent up to 10 years or more living here and many have had children here. They have opened businesses, many are studying or working. They are good neighbours, good friends and good immigrants.
Many of them once faced very grave fears for their safety in East Timor, some fleeing for their lives and losing family and friends in the outbreaks of violence leading up to and following the independence vote. They have found peace in Australia and a haven in which to bring up their children.
This is why it was so devastating to hear that the federal government has given them a short deadline before planning to send them back to East Timor forcibly. Many of these people will lose everything if they leave now, and they face a very difficult time of dislocation, language problems for children and unemployment. Our small Territory population needs building up through good immigrants like the East Timorese, not the loss of families like these.
We note that the federal government does not consider these people to be refugees following Australia’s involvement in restoring peace in East Timor, but we do not accept the federal government’s ruling. We believe they should be considered as a special case because of their great contribution to the Darwin community and the widespread support and respect that they have won. Unfortunately, our attempts to get the federal government to agree to special purpose category visas has failed. Nevertheless, we will continue to work tirelessly on their behalf, assisting them through Legal Aid and other means to stay here.
I want to let honourable members know that there will be an evening event on 8 December at the Italian Club near Marrara Stadium to raise funds for our East Timorese families. St Vincent de Paul, St Vinnies, has kindly offered to be the collector of monies for this appeal, and I hope as many honourable members as possible will attend this event. I recognise the presence in the House today of St Vincent de Paul’s Mick Fox. It is good to have you here, Mick.
St Vincent de Paul’s long involvement with the East Timorese community makes it the most appropriate organisation to carry out this work. Government has agreed to make a significant contribution and I also want to thank the many individuals and businesses that have pledged their support. These funds will assist the East Timorese to secure legal advice for their cases in support of skilled migration application or costs incurred through the appeal process. There are other expenses incurred by the group for which this money might also be used. We believe there are compelling reasons on a case by case basis for these East Timorese Darwinians to be successful in their applications to the federal government, as I have told Immigration Minister Philip Ruddock. It is a very difficult process and we know that not many asylum seekers have been successful in their appeals so far.
I want to inform the House today of some of the steps we as a government have taken to keep these families in the Territory. On 4 January this year, the then Acting Chief Minister wrote to Philip Ruddock to advise of the valuable community contribution of East Timorese asylum seekers. In light of anticipated changes to the East Timorese immigration status, we requested the federal minister to give due recognition to the suffering already endured by the East Timorese asylum seekers. We asked him to take into account the community ties developed, and to the local and historical importance of relations between the Territory and East Timor.
On 1 February this year, along with the Minister for Ethnic Affairs, I met with the Immigration Minister to discuss this matter. On 14 May, the minister responded, forecasting the return of the asylum seekers to East Timor in the absence of compelling compassionate circumstances. Since then, the minister has announced that no special treatment will be given to the East Timorese in the assessment of their applications for asylum. However, Mr Ruddock has given an undertaking that each case will be looked at individually under section 417, which is where the minister has discretion.
Earlier this month, I spoke and wrote to Minister Ruddock to persuade him to consider the compelling reasons on a case by case basis for the Territory’s East Timorese to be successful in their applications. On Sunday 17 November, a public meeting was held at Nightcliff Markets in support of Darwin’s East Timorese asylum seekers, and called on the federal government to declare a new visa class to enable the East Timorese to remain in Australia. My colleague, the member for Karama, addressed that meeting. The members for Sanderson and Millner were also in attendance.
The Office of Ethnic Affairs, with support from the NT Legal Aid Commission, organised a meeting on 19 November to provide advice and assistance to the East Timorese in preparation of their case to the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, DIMIA, the Refugee Review Tribunal and the federal minister. The Office of Ethnic Affairs acts as a contact point to assist the East Timorese in obtaining legal advice and assistance. It is clear that the East Timorese asylum seekers will require legal assistance in providing the additional information to justify their claims and to assist them to work through the processes of appealing to the Refugee Review Tribunal and to the federal minister, if applicable.
Government is committed to looking at all potential visa categories, for individual East Timorese affected, within the regulations of the Commonwealth Migration Act. The Office of Ethnic Affairs will assist East Timorese asylum seekers with the provision of interpreters to enable effective communication in processing their applications and will act as a contact point to assist East Timorese to obtain legal advice.
The Multicultural Council of the NT has received funding to establish a Community Migration Agent Service for the Top End, aimed at assisting the East Timorese with their applications for asylum. A locally based operator accredited by the Migration Agents Registration Authority is currently conducting a training course in Darwin and the service should become operational in February. In the meantime, the needs of the East Timorese asylum seekers will continue to be addressed through the NT Legal Aid Commission.
I take this opportunity to thank the Red Cross and the trade unions of the Territory; both groups have done a great deal to assist during these difficult times.
We will continue to do all we can to assist our East Timorese Territorians who are a very valued part of our community. Darwin has been an important point of contact for the East Timorese in their struggle for independence and freedom. We forged very close links with this small nation in 1999 when Marrara was turned into a tent city to house thousands of East Timorese seeking temporary asylum when violence broke out after the vote for independence.
Going back further, many Territorians gave aid and comfort to the East Timorese in the dark years when it seemed that there was no hope for a separate existence. Some thousands of Timorese have made their permanent home in Darwin and other parts of the Territory through the immigration system over the years, and we are very much hoping that our East Timorese can take their place permanently here as well.
My government has been on the friendliest of terms with the East Timor government and the large Timorese population here has helped forge closer and stronger links. It is good for both our countries, reminding us of their kinfolk, telling us of their stories, assisting their families back home and each other here. Our links go right back to WWII when the East Timorese did so much to help Australian soldiers. We call on Philip Ruddock to look carefully at each of these applications and let the humanitarian impulse rule.
I ask that if and when this motion is passed, the terms of the motion and the debate be sent to the House of Representatives and to the Senate to inform their deliberations. We also note that the Senate has passed a motion in similar terms to the one we are debating today.
Madam Speaker, these people, these East Timorese Territorians, deserve our help and our support, and I commend the motion to the House.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I thank the Chief Minister for this motion because it gives us an opportunity to express our point of view with regards to the dilemma that faces these Territorians today. I say the word ‘Territorian’ and acknowledge our Territorian visitors to the House, because that is the sentiment of the opposition: as far as we are concerned, you are Territorians. You are part of the tapestry of the Northern Territory, your family is integrated into the Northern Territory. You have been an inspiration and a benefit to Territorians, and Territorians will not let you leave. If some people call other than the Northern Territory home, that is for only you to decide. The sentiment of our new Territorians is that they want to remain in the Northern Territory; they have made their homes in the Northern Territory. That is a sentiment the opposition supports strongly.
We have a dilemma in terms of how this issue is dealt with because it is clearly a federal issue and the limitations of the Northern Territory government to deal with it are clearly defined. We need to understand that from the outset and, in doing so, from a legislative base, not raise false expectations in terms of the capacity of the Northern Territory government through its powers under the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act to affect this issue. The Commonwealth legislation has been in place for many years. The Commonwealth legislation was put in place by a Labor government. I do not say that as a criticism; I simply say that the Commonwealth legislation, in terms of how it operates for all people who seek protection visas and refugee status in Australia …
Mr Stirling: Don’t stand up for your constituents. Don’t say anything.
Mr BURKE: … are dealt with under that legislation which is supported by both sides of parliament.
Mr Stirling: Don’t do anything.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr BURKE: I am sorry about the interjection that the Deputy Chief Minister makes, Madam Speaker. The reason I am sorry is that we listened to the Chief Minister in silence, and I would have thought I would be accorded the same privilege. But it also points to the fact that - and I hope it is not the case - if the Deputy Chief Minister interjects and says: ‘You want to do nothing, you are not interested’, it makes cheap politics out of people’s lives. That is not the aim of this motion and we will not be party to it.
Unfortunately, we are not in government. But if the CLP was in government, it would be a stronger motion than you have on the Table today, I can tell you. If the CLP was in government, this motion would not be one of sentiment; it would be one of action. It would be a motion that said these people are Territorians and that the Northern Territory government will use all of its endeavors and all of its powers to ensure that these people remain in Australia and remain as Territorians.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr BURKE: We are but the opposition, and we can only provide our comment. In terms of this motion, the statements are self-evident: we acknowledge the substantial contribution members of the East Timorese community have made in the Northern Territory over many years. We acknowledge that unequivocally and support that sentiment entirely. It expresses its support for the East Timorese asylum seekers living in Darwin who are in the process of being served with deportation orders by the federal government.
Only for the point of accuracy, we need to understand that all of the East Timorese people in the Northern Territory, at this point in time, have not been served deportation orders by the federal government. I understand 41 applications for protection visas have been processed out of an extant total of 76. It is not true to say that they have been given deportation orders or are in the process of being given deportation orders. In that regard, I will table for the benefit of members the letter that comes from the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs to every person who is going through this process at the moment, which not only lays down the primary decision that is given by the federal government in terms of the refugee status on the initial benchmark application, but also lays down the options that the applicant has in terms of the review of that application as it proceeds through processing. I seek leave to table that document.
Leave granted.
Mr BURKE: It is also important to put on the record the Commonwealth’s view on this issue at the moment. It is clearly enunciated in one part by a question to Senator Ellison from Senator Bartlett in the Senate on Tuesday, 12 November 2002. The questions and answers are worth reading into the Hansard so that people understand where the Commonwealth government is at this point in time. The first questions is:
- Can the minister explain the extraordinary long period of time, up to 10 years in some cases, that it has
taken the Immigration Department to determine the claims for asylum for well over 1500 East Timorese
asylum seekers?
This question was dealing with all East Timorese applicants in Australia. The answer by Senator Ellison to that question:
- Decision making on protection visa applications lodged by East Timorese asylum seekers had been delayed for
several years because of litigation over nationality issues and, more recently, due to the need to ensure that the
situation in East Timor was clear enough, and our information sufficiently sound to enable the Department of
Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Indigenous Affairs to finalise these cases reliably.
The allegation that the government has sat on its hands on this issue is wrong. It has been the subject of litigation that I understand was commenced, in fact, initially by the Federal Labor Keating government which believed that their responsibility for these people initially remained with Portugal and it was in dispute of that point of view that the court case and the litigation led to significant delay in the processing of the initial applications.
The second issue was the instability in East Timor and, clearly, whilst that instability was there, it was wrong to consider these people as anything other than those who required protection visas, and they had bridging visas too, whilst that situation existed. The situation has now been clarified in terms that we now have a new national government, and those protection visa applications are now being processed.
The second question that was raised was:
- Can the minister inform the Senate how many claims from East Timorese have now been rejected, and when
the decision on the remainder will be made?
The answer was:
- As at 12 November 2002, 235 cases covering 564 people have been decided. All decisions so far have been
refusals.
Now, you have to understand, refusal is refusal for refugee status. It is not refusal to remain in Australia, and we have a responsibility to ensure that everyone understands that. It is the refusal for the initial application for refugee status.
The third question was:
- Is it the case that these people who exercise their right to appeal these decisions to the Review Tribunal will be
plunged into poverty as a consequence, relying solely on charity to survive for months, if not years, to come?
Then answer was:
- No. East Timorese applicants who seek merits review will continue to be able to access asylum seeker
assistance support, and continue any access to work rights and Medicare until their application is finally
decided.
The fourth question:
- Can the minister detail what the economic and social impact will be if hundreds of families are unable to work
and are ineligible for government assistance?
And the answer was:
- As stated in answer to question three, applicants will continue to be able to access asylum assistance support and
any work rights and Medicare until their application is finally decided by the Refugee Review Tribunal.
The fifth question:
- I note the minister’s comment that these are being assessed using standard criteria. Does the minister acknowledge
that these are not standard cases?
And the answer to that question was:
- No. East Timorese protection visa applicants are claiming the need for refugee protection. The tests applied for the
grant of a visa are set out in the Migration Act and are binding on decision makers and must be met by all applicants.
East Timorese applicants are being treated fairly and equitably, as are all protection visa applicants. DIMIA has,
however, taken comprehensive steps on ensure that East Timorese applicants have been notified of the processes to
be followed in the processing of their cases and have been given a thorough opportunity to advance any new
claim or information they wish to have considered.
The sixth question was:
- Is it the case that out of all these people who have received negative decisions, over 564 already, that is
235 separate families, any who seek to appeal to the tribunal will not be eligible for assistance, will not be
able to work and that the children involved in these cases will not be eligible to go to school?
The answer to that question was:
- Like all protection visa applicants, East Timorese applicants have access to independent merits review if they are
found not to be refugees by the Refugee Review Tribunal. The minister for Immigration, Multicultural Affairs and
Indigenous Affairs has the power to act in the public interest to substitute the Refugee Review Tribunal decision
with a more favourable decision.
Now, that is very important. There is a decision made in terms of refugee status. If the refugee status decision is a negative, the minister has then the power - and I would emphasise to you, this is unfettered and unconstrained power on the minister. There are guidelines, but the power itself is unfettered - to make a decision which is non-compellable and discretionary. The minister, this is Minister Ruddock, has made it clear that he is keen to hear of cases where there may be public interest grounds warranting the use of this power. In that regard, I refer to a comment the minister himself made on 20 November 2002:
- If somebody had substantial connections with an Australian citizen, husband or wife, and children of that
relationship who are children who have Australian citizenship and they had settled well in Australia, were
in reasonable employment, I might well come to a view that because of the interests of the Australian
citizen, the East Timorese would be able to stay on humanitarian grounds and that would be a fairly
straightforward case.
That is what is important to understand:. We have a process that is moving through the federal parliamentary system. It is the process that, whilst our East Timorese Territorians continue to apply for refugee status, will move inexorably on through that process in that there will be an application for a Protection Visa under refugee status. If that application is denied, the applicants can then appeal to the Refugee Review Tribunal.
I applaud the efforts that the Northern Territory government is making through the Legal Aid Commission to ensure that every resource is provided to muster that case, and to put the best case to the Refugee Review Tribunal. I also understand that the Refugee Review Tribunal is constrained in terms of the issues it can deal with in the review.
If the review on refugee status is still negative, then it is the responsibility of the applicant, supported by the government and the Northern Territory, to ensure that the application is then made to the minister to use those non-compellable and discretionary powers to grant status to remain in the Northern Territory.
So let us get something very clear: it is not true, I don’t believe, that these Territorians will move through a process that will see them having to go back to East Timor. They are moving through a process that has to decide whether or not they can continue to have permanent visas in Australia as refugees. That process will decide whether refugee status is supported by the federal government. The real issue is that we have to then ensure that every applicant in the Northern Territory is successful on all the other grounds on which the minister can make his decision. That is where the Northern Territory government and the Northern Territory people have real power. That power is not there in any legislation. It is not there through any legal mechanism. You can spend a fortune on lawyers; it is not there with lawyers. It is there by the power of Territorians to say: ‘You are Territorians, we want you to stay in the Northern Territory and we will use people power to ensure the minister makes the right decision’. That is the way these people will stay in the Northern Territory.
It is important to understand this: I believe that Minister Ruddock - and I believe this emphatically - is absolutely sympathetic to your case. But I also believe that we have a situation in Australia where there are enormous numbers of people from countries like Afghanistan and Iraq and various countries in the Middle East, who are also seeking to have the rules changed and create a precedent for themselves to remain in Australia. So, through the processes that are put in place, I would hope that you understand that the federal government has an obligation to follow that process in determining whether or not a person is a refugee.
But, when it comes to determining whether or not these are people have earned their right to stay in the Northern Territory and to be Australian citizens, I believe that is when the non-compellable and discretionary power of Minister Ruddock comes into play. I would remind you of this: the Labor Party may be in power in the Northern Territory; it is a Coalition government that is in power federally. The Coalition government has me as one of its allies, and Mr Tollner and Senator Scullion who have been exhaustively on this case for many, many weeks. I can tell you, I spoke as late as last night with Senator Scullion - quite late last night. I know Senator Scullion was up early this morning seeking the latest information.
Mr Bonson: You wouldn’t be talking with Tollner, would you?
Mr BURKE: It is very sad. Could I just say it is disappointing when your true motives come out. The Labor government’s true motive here is to play politics with this issue. You can tell from the interjections that are coming across this Chamber, that that is their aim. Their aim is to try and incite a situation whereby we have division in our community. I think that is the lowest form of politics. There are times that we sit in this Chamber and we have a responsibility to act on behalf of Australians and in the public interest and as responsible legislators …
Mr Stirling: Tell us what Nigel is doing. Hey! You have Nigel on the job. Tell them what you are doing.
Madam SPEAKER: Deputy Chief Minister, order!
Mr BURKE: It is a great sadness that, somehow, you would see that the trauma that individual Territorians are facing at the moment - at least 76 on my briefings - could somehow be the subject of petty politics. We all want to achieve the same objective.
But, let us just understand where the power lies. The power lies with the people of the Northern Territory and it lies with the minister. That is where it lies, and it does not lie in refugee status. It lies with humanitarianism, and it relies on the arguments that we will put to the federal minister that each and every one of you good people stay in the Northern Territory. I can give you an unequivocal undertaking that until this situation is resolved for every individual East Timorese Territorian, certainly the opposition will not rest. I can tell you that there will be a bee under Senator Scullion’s and Mr Tollner’s efforts. I also know - and I say it quite truthfully - that Minister Ruddock is simply looking for the mechanism that has to be provided to him.
That is where the East Timorese applicants have to play their part. The East Timorese applicants, at some point in time, have to apply to the minister to consider each of their cases on humanitarian grounds. The minister cannot and will not deal with a group. He will make decisions on each and every individual case. The Northern Territory government has given an undertaking that it will use all of its resources to muster that case. I will give you an undertaking that the opposition will not rest until every avenue is explored. I am confident we will be successful, but not if we misinform people. We won’t be successful if we are divisive with Territorians on the issue or if you play super-politics with the minister. The federal minister is dealing with thousands of people and it would be the greatest injustice to these individual Territorians, these few Territorians who have given so much to the Northern Territory that for the sake of cheap politics, politics reigns supreme and they are sent back to East Timor. That would be the greatest sadness of the lot.
So let’s all work together. Let’s get this thing into perspective. There are mechanisms. For example, there comes a point where you have to apply to the minister to remain in Australia on humanitarian grounds. Those grounds are provided under section 417 of the Migration Act and there are reams - reams of areas, sub-classes - that the minister can refer to in order to make his determination in your favour. But let’s not forget this: these reams, at the end of the day, are only part of the answer. The real answer is this: the minister has a non-compellable and discretionary power, and that is where we as Territorians get together; that is where a government worth its salt would stand and say: ‘This is our responsibility. These people are ours and they are not moving,’ and that is where we need to take this debate to its next step.
There is a provision for the Northern Territory government to sponsor every individual applicant under section 417. I hope that the Northern Territory government explores that because the minister himself has alluded to the fact that sponsorship is one of the areas where he can make that decision, but I do not believe that is entirely the answer. I believe the answer will be that if each and every individual case is determined in terms of your contribution to the Northern Territory, your ties to the Northern Territory, your tenure to the Northern Territory, your support of, by and from Territorians, and the unwavering support from your Territory government, that will move the day.
That will move the day, and I tell you what: when I see that unwavering support, when I see less than petty politics being played in this Chamber, then we can all move together as one and get this issue resolved fairly, squarely, keep our eye on the ball and the 76 people and their families who need to be looked after.
I think the motion itself, as I said, for the most part is nice sentiment. I think we can do more. I propose an amendment to the motion. The amendment would read, if you look at the motion itself, because we are going to send a motion to the federal parliament - let’s send a motion that means something, not just sentiment. I believe that if we look at paragraph (f) of the motion we could strengthen it in this way: that the following words be inserted at the start of paragraph (f), and that says:
states unequivocally that the Northern Territory government wants the East Timorese to remain at home
in the Northern Territory and will use its best endeavours to achieve that end and ...
That is what you have to do. So sponsored either by the Northern Territory government, application by the East Timorese themselves to say: ‘We want you, minister, to use your discretionary powers’, muster the case, use our resources, get people power, and I believe you will be successful. I can tell you that as this process moves through, you will at least have one occasion - and if it requires more, it will be more - that CLP members will go to Minister Ruddock and sit in his office, and we will tell him clearly and unequivocally where Territorians stand on this issue.
Madam Speaker, I move that the amendment be supported. With the amendment, the opposition supports the motion.
Madam SPEAKER: Do we need to have that amendment circulated?
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Yes. I was just going to say the sooner we get it circulated, probably not without support on this side, if we can have a look at the wording.
Mr HENDERSON (Asian Relations and Trade): Madam Speaker, it is disappointing to rise and speak in support of the motion having listened to what was in some parts a constructive, but in other parts a churlish response from the Leader of the Opposition.
In terms of cheap politics - and that is what he was talking about; that we were playing cheap politics with this - no way at all. This was a bipartisan motion; this was a motion that was circulated to the opposition I think at about 7 o’clock last night, and there have been a number of discussions between the two Whips since that time. It was agreed that this was a bipartisan motion, so on the face of it we have no problems with the amendment and we will have a look at it, but we are certainly not seeking cheap political point scoring over this. We have engaged the opposition in the drafting of this motion, and certainly nothing has come back to us that the opposition had any problem with the motion until the contribution from the Opposition Leader just now.
For him to say that it is not strong enough, well, he had an opportunity in discussions last night and we would have looked at it. But then he stood up and spent 15 minutes explaining in one way the structure of the process that our Timorese friends have to go through, and then almost being an apologist for the federal Immigration Minister. At the end of the day, this is a humanitarian issue. It is about people; it is about individuals who have made their lives in the Northern Territory, who have had children born and raised here, whose kids go to school with our kids. These people are running businesses, working in businesses. The bottom line of this is it is a humanitarian issue, and it is not about thousands of people. It is about relatively small numbers of people. Territorians and Australians are compassionate people. I believe that in terms of the will of the people being expressed in parliament, both in the Northern Territory and in the Commonwealth Parliament of Australia, and the will of the people being expressed by way of ministerial action, then certainly there are a number of mechanisms available to the federal Immigration Minister to grant permanent residency to these people.
It is about the will of the people, it is about humanitarian issues and seeking outcomes and using all of our best endeavours - our every endeavour - as a parliament, as a government and - I agree with the Leader of the Opposition - totally, unmitigated and unwavering support.
So there are mechanisms there. It is about humanity and expediting the processes as quickly as we can to get to a just outcome for individual people; not putting them through some bureaucratic minefield that is just going to cause distress, alarm and concern. If the end outcome is that these people should be supported in their fight to stay in the Northern Territory, well, we should get to that point as quickly as possible. I would have to say that this issue is not without precedent. We saw federal government expressing the will of the people when an exemption was granted for the refugees from China from the Tiananmen Square massacre where, as a group of people who came in under that class of visa, they were given permanent residency status.
So it is not setting a precedent which could then apply for other classes and categories of people. I do not buy the precedent argument because I do not believe that if an exemption was granted that is one way the federal government could resolve this issue, or as on a case by case basis making those decisions. What we and, I believe, the people in the Northern Territory want, is for our Timorese friends to be allowed to stay here in the country of their choice. It is not about large numbers of people. So I refute from the Leader of the Opposition that we are seeking to play cheap politics with this. We did engage to come to a bipartisan motion to show our friends here that we do support their plight.
Regarding Minister Ruddock, I admit he has one hell of a job to do. Migration is a very, very complex issue, and there is a lot of emotion surrounding it, but I would appeal to the minister’s sense of humanity in making these assessments, if he does not believe that an exemption should be put in place for the group as a whole.
The Northern Territory government is doing everything we can to support people, as is the community. One of the groups in the community that is doing such a big job in supporting these people and their fight for permanent residency is the Hakka Association of the Northern Territory. This association is providing assistance and does a great deal of good work in our community. I can stand here today and say that I am honoured to be a Patron of that society, and accepted that offer just a couple of weeks ago. Mr Jason Lee has been elected as President and is very strongly supporting these people being given permanent residency in the Northern Territory.
We can talk about legislation and how difficult it is in establishing precedents, but we are dealing with individuals, we are talking about people and individual cases and perspectives. Jason Lee, on behalf of the Hakka Association in the Northern Territory, has written to the parliament and wants this letter recorded in the parliament. It sets the point of view from the association and some individual cases. I would like to read this letter into the record:
- My name is Jason Lee. I am an Australian Chinese person who lived in East Timor with my father, mother,
grandparents and nine siblings from 1966 (my birth date) to 1975. We, as with all other Chinese families living
in the East Timor area, were, and still are, considered and treated as second class citizens. Unfortunately, the
authorities viewed us in much the same manner.
In 1975, my family, who resided in East Timor since the early 1920s, realised that the tensions of racial
discrimination, the violence towards the Timorese Chinese population had escalated to a point that our family
felt no longer safe. This coincided with the withdrawal of the Portuguese and the establishment of the indigenous
Timorese into a powerful controlling position. My family was forced to leave Maliana and move across the border
from where we subsequently migrated to Portugal. We resided in Portugal as refugees until 1981 when we were
fortunate to be able to visit our relatives in Darwin and be reunited with our grandparents. We thank the
Australian government in granting us permanent residency since that time. We, and our children who have been
born in Darwin, are ’True Blue’ Aussies.
Although I am writing this as the President of the Hakka Association of the Northern Territory in Darwin, I am
also writing this as an Australian Chinese who has the in-depth awareness and experience of the East Timor
situation. My family experienced the terror and confrontation of hostile indigenous people whilst we lived in
Maliana. We did not appeal or seek the help of the local authorities because of past experience, it was fruitless.
Therefore, as at present, there is no record of the problem. So, I am endeavouring to provide first hand
information that reflects the grass roots situation.
- On Friday, 8 November 2002, the Northern Territory News published on their front page a headline:
‘80 Timorese booted out’. This caused me great dismay as I know many of the families identified as the
people who are to be deported, including Egas Elves and his family, featured in the article.
I ask to be given the opportunity to provide the government with an insight into the ‘real’ situation that will
confront these people if they are deported. This is not a view that reflects the ‘official’ version about the climate
of what will happen if these people return and it is not the opinion of the international estimates of the situation.
It is the facts of life that exist for people who left a decade ago and will return to what the indigenous people
consider they have fought and suffered for and now, from their point of view, these ‘opportunists’ are returning
to seek undeserved rewards for which they did not fight or suffer.
When my family finally decided to leave everything we had (home, goods, chattels, possessions) and drive across the
border, we were physically confronted and threatened by locals. Our car trip out was interrupted by locals who
terrorised us with machetes and other weapons. It was a life threatening situation in which local authorities were
reluctant to help. Our family was given, on our departure, an ultimatum that ‘if we returned we would be killed’!
Obviously, we have no option but to never to return, even with the independence of East Timor.
- I relate the above personal story to parallel the situation that will confront most of the ‘refugees’ if they are deported
from Australia back to East Timor. If they are forced to leave, then their lives will be in great danger.
I implore you to reconsider the decision to deport these people and in particular to grant a Protection Visa to Jose Lay,
Pedro Lay and their mother, Jan In Jap.
I am aware that these people are living and working as decent, self sufficient citizens. They are not a burden to
government and they are regarded as productive and respected members of the community. Many applied for
refugee status and visas a decade ago. Their children have been born and educated in Australia. Their children
consider themselves ‘Australian kids’. Their return to East Timor would expose them to violent confrontation,
oppression and possible death. I state this from personal awareness.
I take this opportunity to relate several issues that I am personally aware of in relation to Jose Lay, a person who
has lived in Darwin for 12 years and who has been identified as a refugee to be deported.
Jose was an employee of the Happy Garden Restaurant, Parap (of which I am the Managing Director) for several
years. He was recognised by his co-workers, the management, the customers and the community at large as a
tireless worker, courteous, well respected and a family devoted man. As an active community member, he reflects
the attributes of an exemplary citizen who contributes within his neighborhood and community by participating,
organising and involving himself and family in social activities, community initiatives and religious activities.
Jose Lay has been an active and valued member of the Hakka Association. The Association implores the federal
government of Australia not to deport Mr Jose Lay, his brother Pedro and his mother, Jan In Jap, and to offer
them permanent residency. This is in accord with the statement and direction of our Chief Minister, Clare Martin.
I offer my services in any way that may gain the above outcome.
I thank you in anticipation.
Yours sincerely
Jason Kin Min Lee,
President of the Hakka Association of the Northern Territory.
So, a few examples there of what this is about. This is about individual people and their lives and it is about the capacity of us as a government, as members, to express the will of the Australian people in providing a humanitarian outcome. That is what we are talking about here. I say again to the Leader of the Opposition and members opposite who may follow in this debate: we are not seeking to play cheap politics with this. This is far too important, Madam Speaker.
In terms of some of the practical ways that we, as a government, are working, we certainly do not underestimate the difficulty of the task. The Migration Act and regulations prescribe the conditions people must meet to become permanent residents. The Territory’s East Timorese have applied to stay here permanently as refugees and to be eligible they must be found to meet Article One criteria of the UN Refugees Convention. This means that they must prove they have a well-founded fear of persecution in their home country because of their race, religion, nationality, political opinion or the social group to which they belong. When they first applied for permanent protection, when East Timor was under Indonesian rule, the danger they faced was apparent.
Now that East Timor has gained its independence, they must prove to the satisfaction of the Australian government that they are still at risk under this classification, and I read Jason’s letter as a specific example that these people feel very strongly, and with a lot of insight as a community, that they certainly would be under threat if they were to return, having resided outside of East Timor for so many years.
If the Commonwealth finds against a claim, the person or family can seek a review of their case by the Refugee Review Tribunal, and whilst there is no fee for the review, if the tribunal upholds the department’s decision, the unsuccessful applicant must pay $1000. This is very distressful for a lot of these people. I can certainly say that we as a government, with the community, will put our hands in our pockets to help with this fee.
We are working through Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs and the Office of Ethnic Affairs. We have provided Legal Aid with additional funding to help people put through individual claims. That is the process and the hurdles that the federal government has put in place on this matter; to look at these cases on a case by case basis. We have put additional funding into the Legal Aid Commission to support our Timorese Territorians to put these claims together, and through whatever mechanism, I urge the Immigration Minister to process these claims and make decisions as expeditiously as possible and to grant these people permanent residency here in Australia.
We will look at the amendment proposed by the Leader of the Opposition. I can say to our Timorese friends who are here in the parliament today, and in our community, that you do have our total, unwavering support, that we will leave no stone unturned for each and every one of you to be allowed to stay in the Northern Territory. If it were our decision, if it were the decision of this parliament, then obviously you would be allowed to stay. But the power and that decision rests in another place; it rests in the Commonwealth Parliament of Australia and the hands of the minister.
It is good to see bipartisan support from the Leader of the Opposition because, as he says, the power is with the Commonwealth government, and the Country Liberal Party and its representative, the member for Solomon, Dave Tollner, as the CLP are affiliated with the Liberal Party, that Dave Tollner sits in party room meetings in Canberra and does have access to the federal Immigration Minister. I implore him to use all of his advocacy skills to get the outcome that we want which is for each of the applications to be granted.
Madam Speaker, we urge the Commonwealth government to get on with it, to make these decisions, to give our Timorese community here in Darwin permanent residency status.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, I rise to contribute to this debate in a similar vein as the previous three speakers, that being our support for the motion. If it were, as the previous speaker said, the decision of this Chamber, there wouldn’t be a problem. The issue here is that we in this Chamber and as representatives of the Northern Territory community can do something, and that has been well articulated by the Leader of the Opposition.
I urge members opposite to seriously consider the weight of the argument put by the Leader of the Opposition and that which is contained in the amendment to this motion because the amendment adds strength to this motion.
If the member for Wanguri was smarter and resisted the accusation of cheap politics being played here, perhaps we could then alter that to being just a little nave, because as already explained, the fact is there is not a lot that we can do. There is not a lot we can do, but we can do something. It is the essential ingredient that can be added to this issue, and that is the complete support demonstrated in an official capacity as we can stand completely behind our fellow Territorians here, and to add that in an official way so that we then add weight to the consideration of deliberations of the relevant federal minister. That is what we can do. That is the essential ingredient that is required and we can formally do that.
When we understand the mechanisms that lie before the federal minister, this not some kitchen cabinet this is being run, this is a nation that is being run and these are questions that are being placed before our nation. We, as Territorians in this federation, can stand and add our sincere weight to the request that has been issued here by the East Timorese. We would stand completely behind them and we would add our weight as a unified community, to support on both sides of this House the request and the sentiment of concerns of the East Timorese community here in the Northern Territory, without a doubt. By understanding the mechanics of the situation we know where we can apply weight. We know where we can make a difference and that is being able to stand and sponsor the East Timorese; to stand behind them and say: ‘They are a part of this community and, federal minister, we send you that message. We stand united on this point’.
I appreciate the letter that had been presented by the member for Wanguri from Jason Lee, the President of the Hakka Association, because that reminds each one of us that behind each one of these people is a story that we can respond to. The more that we understand the plight and the journey of each one of these East Timorese Territorians, that helps us to understand the humanity that must be responded to. The issue is not to downplay that, but to accept it and then to look at the mechanics that we have before us to see how we can then facilitate a positive outcome.
That has been the work that we have undertaken on this side of the House, and I am sure to some degree it has been reflected on the other side of the House. The issue is we understand the humanity, the journey that has led each one of these East Timorese to this particular point; some more than others. It does affect our emotions when we understand the fortunate position we are in - that many of us have never faced situations that have been faced by those who are already in our community. Once we understand that, we put that in its place and then we work out how we, as a just society, can find a way, a solution. The issue is to find the solution and I believe that we will, together, find that solution, and we will together be able to spend our Christmases, our Easters and our other community celebrations together in many years to come as the families grow up here. But the issue is how do we do it? I believe it has been well articulated by the Leader of the Opposition that there is a way forward, and together we will achieve that outcome.
In closing, I have been particularly concerned about the way the media reflected the plight that we are discussing in this motion. What is needed at times like this is correct and well-balanced information, and appropriate understanding. We can respond emotionally to these issues and it is fitting when we do understand the humanity behind the people involved, but it is important that we have a sober view so we can then work our way through, as the member for Wanguri called it, the bureaucratic nightmare.
We are the ones here in this Chamber who should be facilitating the path through that bureaucratic nightmare, working it out, finding the solution, piecing the bits of the puzzle together, understanding the bureaucratic map before us and applying the pressure where we need to. We need the appropriate information so that there is no unnecessary grief, concern, fear or anxiety. Together, we can solve this issue, and I do believe that we will.
Mr VATSKALIS (Ethnic Affairs): Madam Speaker, I support the motion, and I have to admit that I don’t envy Minister Ruddock’s position. He has to make some really tough decisions. Some members of his household don’t agree with his decisions and what was reported in the media. His daughter totally disagreed with what the minister is doing, and I can certainly understand in these difficult times we have a mass wave of migration for economic or for other reasons to Australia and Minister Ruddock has to make a decision bearing in mind the best interests of the nation.
At the same time, Australia has a proud humanitarian record. After the war, Australia welcomed refugees from the Baltic States; in the 1950s, accepted refugees from the Hungarian revolution and in 1974, just the year before East Timor was invaded by Indonesia, Australia accepted refugees from Cyprus when it was invaded by Turkey - in very similar circumstances, many of these refugees came to Darwin, stayed in Darwin, and today a large number of the Cypriot community are ex-refugees.
Following the invasion by Indonesia of East Timor, a number of Timorese escaped in order to save their lives, to rescue their families, for the simple reason that they were threatened, and they came to Darwin. They were not economic refugees; if they were economic refugees, most likely they would finish up in Melbourne or Sydney like so many others who tried to evade the authorities and disappear in the crowds of five million people in Sydney or three million in Melbourne.
But they stayed in Darwin because they wanted to be close to East Timor where they had other members of their families and friends, and in the belief that one day Timor would be liberated. Many of those refugees helped the Territory, helped Australia, when the East Timor crisis exploded, and we received in Darwin 2000 refugees from East Timor, from Dili. Many of those refugees came here to the Kalymnian Hall and offered their services as interpreters and translators, they cooked, they confronted some of the issues of the Timorese refugees and helped the Territory and Australian authorities to cope with the disaster.
At the same time, it is not a bureaucratic issue only; it is a humanitarian issue. I am not about to say that, yes, our motion has a lot of sentiment in it for the simple reason that we live next to these people - my next door neighbour is a Timorese person - probably yours is, too. They have been here in Darwin, some of them have been in other towns in the Territory and that was brought home one day when my wife came home with a letter from one of her students, a young boy, 15 years old, who went to her and said: ‘Miss, can you help me? I want to stay here. I don’t have any other home but Australia. I don’t speak the language, I don’t know anybody in East Timor. I have no friends, I have no home. There’s nothing for us to do there, and we have been asked to prove our status or pack up and go’.
Of course, I promised to help him out, not as a minister but as a citizen of the Territory because I felt for these people. I felt the same. I know what it means to actually leave your country, leave your friends, leave your relatives and come to another country. As a minister, I tried to help out as well, through my department, the Office of Ethnic Affairs, and I would like to point out their continuous effort to work with the Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission to help these people to go through that bureaucratic nightmare. They have to go through a process, and nobody knows the outcome. I am very pleased to see that there is bipartisan support for these people to stay in Darwin.
I agree with the Leader of the Opposition that there is a coalition government in Canberra, the other side of this House are their natural allies but they are prepared to stand up. He also admitted that probably he would be landed in hot water, but he was not afraid to make an amendment to make our motion stronger, and I am prepared to accept that. I am prepared to support the amendment because what we are talking about is 85 people, 85 families that have made Darwin home. They have contributed significantly to the Territory’s multicultural character, to the Territory character. A lot of our communities support these East Timorese refugees in their plea to remain in Australia. We should not forget that many of our citizens were themselves refugees. Many Vietnamese arrived in Darwin a few years back, some of them are still in Darwin. There are other people from other places in South East Asia, war torn countries came to Darwin and are still here. They support the Timorese people.
I do not want to continue for long, but I want to say that our government is fighting very hard to help the East Timorese. We tried to find a way to sponsor the East Timorese refugees to stay in Darwin, even trying to find a way of employing them in the public service but, unfortunately, the rules and regulations of the public service prevent us from directly sponsoring these people. However, we have a commitment that we are going try as hard as we can to help these people. I am very pleased that we and those on the other side of the House are prepared to stand up and push the government in Canberra to have these people remain in Darwin.
Madam Speaker, we want these people to stay in Darwin. They are fellow Territorians; fellow citizens. We want you to stay here and we will try our best for you to stay.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, it is very important when a motion like this is presented to the House that the solidarity of the House be demonstrated. It is really important that there should be fulsome contribution from both sides to this debate. I will start with a small quote:
- With a touch of Timor pony three parts thoroughbred at least, and such as are by mountain horsemen prized.
It is probably one of our more famous poems, The Man From Snowy River. The word ‘Timor’ is in there. The poem deals with a breed of horse. But it goes way back before WWII; our relationship with Timor has endured for a very long time. At Coburg Peninsula, some of these horses still exist because they were imported from Timor. I have spoken in this House before about our proximity to Timor, with people treating a visit as a small yachting vacation or a small hop on a plane back in the days when it was a Portuguese colony.
We are, as a community, very familiar with people from East Timor. As previous speakers have said, it is because they mix so freely in our community. All of us would have been to weddings at the Timor Portuguese Club or the new Chinese Timor Club. All of us would have - particularly members such as I who have had kids at Catholic schools - mixed with many Timorese people and many of their offspring who are indistinguishable in many ways from anybody else in the community. They play the same sports and go to the same clubs as the rest of us.
It is therefore an easy decision for us to support the motion for their inclusion in our community, the great gifts that they have provided to us in terms of their contribution, should be recognised by this House. The House also should recognise its limitations and that some things are ultra vires. That is, they are beyond our competence to fix, but not beyond our capacity for personal lobbying of the type that has been discussed here by the Chief Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and others. It will be assistance with individual applications for those people who are close to us and seek that assistance, and it will be for a logical and fulsome debate so that other parts of Australia or people, for instance, in this part of Australia that have strong views about immigration refugee status, we can take that case to them and we can put it in a cogent, level headed, unemotional way.
Much of what needs to be said has been said, but I would like it placed firmly on the record that I will do what I can to support those Territorians who wish to stay here, who are faced with this current situation. I can understand the difficulty when confronted by a system that says: ‘Look, if you give up that status which has given you residency here for 10 years, and take on this other status, you have a chance’. That would seem like a risk; it would seem like stepping off one stepping stone without really knowing that the next stepping stone is not in some way going to mean jeopardy.
That is the process that has to be taken and, if the good words that are provided in this parliament are conveyed to the federal minister and if the lobbying that is evidenced through non-government organisations like St Vincent de Paul, the Catholic Church and others reach the ear of the federal minister, I am sure that that next stepping stone can be described in such a way that it is not seen as a risky proposition, and that that step can be taken.
I support the motion, and the amended motion more fully in that it provides a stronger acknowledgment of this House’s great resolve to have these people continue to live here as Territorians.
Dr BURNS (Tourism): Madam Speaker, I, too, support the motion and the amendment, and I fully support the sentiments of the member for Drysdale: there has to be a bipartisan approach from this parliament. Yes, some things are ultra vires, beyond our control, but we can certainly influence them.
I have a little story to tell here in a minute, a bit of history of Darwin about a powerful way in which the Darwin community influenced the Commonwealth government in the 1940s in relation to a similar matter. However, yes, there is no doubt the Timorese people are an important part of the fabric of Darwin. I know that many people in my electorate are concerned about the letters that are being sent out and some of the decisions that are being made, and they are very fearful about the consequences - having to leave Australia, leave Darwin, and return to Timor.
Reading from a media release issued by Minister Ruddock in September, he said:
- East Timorese people who have applications under consideration will remain in Australia until their applications
are fully determined. If they are approved, they will be granted the protection visa. If their application is refused,
they will have access to review of these decisions. However, it is reasonable to expect that if people are found not
to be refugees and so do not have a well-founded fear of persecution, to return home when their country is safe
and secure.
The story that I wanted to talk about actually involves a West Timorese man, Mr Bas Wie. In 1946, at the age of 11, he climbed inside the wheel housing of a DC3. He flew across in the DC3 and was found at the other end with severe injuries. He had burns all down his front and, of course, he was almost frozen - an 11-year-old boy. He was badly injured and he was in hospital for three months. He was then taken in by the then Administrator, Mr Michael Driver. I believe at that stage the Commonwealth was really pushing hard for this 11-year-old boy to be returned to Timor. The whole of the Darwin community got together and got behind it, with a lot of courage shown by the Administrator, to stand up against Canberra. There was correspondence going back and forth: ‘He is not to stay here; we do not want him to go to school here’. He was being schooled in the Catholic education system. However, the Territory and the people of Darwin prevailed in that case. We all know the Wie family – I have worked with Jeni Wie for many years and I have met the rest of the family, and they are fantastic people.
What I am saying is that I believe if we stick together, if we have a united front, then we can put a very strong case to the Commonwealth. The Territory has done it before. We appreciate East Timorese people now need our support, and we will give it to them. In short, I support the motion and I support the amendment.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I add a few comments to the debate. I support the amended motion thoroughly. I believe it is so very important that this Chamber and every Territorian from Alice Springs right through to Darwin support our East Timorese Territorians and their right to say in this country.
Far be it for me to say I came as a refugee. I did not. I came out as a young teenager on my own to study, to grow up in this country. After I graduated, while working, I heard the then Prime Minister of the day of my then home say that he did not want to have any expats back home: ‘You are not wanted back home’. What do you do? You are here as a guest of this country and yet to go through a process of applying for a change of status. This is exactly the situation many of our East Timorese Territorians face today; they are here under refugee status and now they have to extract themselves from that situation and apply for a different status. There is a big gap between what they are in at the moment to what they are going to look for. It is a terrifying experience. You do not know whether coming off one reasonably secure position would allow you to go to another secure position or into a bottomless pit. If I were in their shoes, I would be terrified. I would be terrified to say nobody has given us this assurance, what can I do?
The Leader of the Opposition explained very clearly what the process is, that there are in fact safety nets available that will protect everybody when they step off from one criteria and are applying under to the next. I will give my personal commitment, and I also heard the Leader of the Opposition speak on behalf of the Opposition, that we will work with all our endeavours to make sure that every East Timorese Territorian receives all the support that we can possibly give to ensure that Minister Ruddock exercises his ministerial right to allow our East Timorese Territorians to receive citizenship. This is what I will be working toward. The member for Wanguri, the Leader of Government Business, spoke about the Tiananmen Square Chinese. That is an entirely different category altogether. That was a class application. In this instance with the East Timorese applications, Minister Ruddock has to look at it on an individual basis and I think that is important to make sure that people who have jumped on this band wagon without due rights should not be included. By doing it on an individual basis you can exclude all those people. It is very important, otherwise, potentially, we can have people who are not entitled to apply get in on a non-discriminatory class application.
I agree with the members who have spoken here today that it is about people power; that a sentiment of Territorians in support of East Timorese Territorians must be expressed very loudly, very clearly so that the federal government hears it. But it has to be an unemotional appeal because many times when it is an emotional appeal many people turn off; emotion gets in the way. What I suggest we need to do is for every Territorian to say loudly that we are prepared to sponsor through employment, through government securing employment for those who are not, for government to sponsor employees who are already employing East Timorese Territorians. By doing that, the federal government will see that the East Timorese people are gainfully employed, they are contributing to the community, they are part of the community and very much an integral fabric of the Northern Territory community. We do it that way, we take emotion out of the issue we will achieve what nobody has been able to achieve successfully for so very long.
We have some 80 or fewer. It is not a big population, so Territorians can do it together and support this small group of people.
The Leader of Government Business spoke about Jason Lee and what he has done in our community. I have been publicly speaking about this gentleman myself, and he is one of the people that I said ought to be sitting in this Chamber with us as a member of the Legislative Assembly, representing the East Timorese and the Chinese community in the Top End. I hope one day that he will do that.
Madam Speaker, I strongly support the amended motion. I believe it carries the weight of the feeling that Territorians want to convey to the federal government. If we do that and we are unified in our actions, Minister Ruddock will help us and allow all our East Timorese Territorians to achieve their rightful place in the Territory.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Madam Speaker, my contribution will be brief considering the time that debate on this motion has already incurred. Basically, my actions are speaking louder than my words at the moment. I have been working with the East Timorese community and their legal advisors for some months now to ensure that the Northern Territory government provides every possible assistance to the community that we can.
I acknowledge the presence in the gallery of people who have worked tirelessly as well. I acknowledge that we have in the gallery Jenny Devlin from Legal Aid. She has worked tirelessly for the East Timorese. Unfortunately, we are about to lose Ms Devlin; she is going off travelling. I wish her bon voyage and I look forward to continuing to work with Jonathon Kneebone from Legal Aid who will replace her.
I also acknowledge Charles Yuen, a very well regarded and respected member of the Chinese community here in Darwin, who has been applying his legal expertise and knowledge to assist members of the East Timorese community, and I thank him for his efforts. I acknowledge in the gallery Teng Murray. Teng has been tirelessly working as a volunteer to assist the East Timorese community to have access to all services. Teng is fluent in five different languages and offers her interpreting skills for free and works tirelessly day and night to assist the community, so thank you for your efforts, Teng. I am sure the community is well served by your efforts.
I acknowledge members representing the peak organisations for the East Timorese. Mr Kivi Lay who heads up the Chinese Timorese Club. Kivi is an employer of many of the people who actually are in this situation of uncertainty, and I know that Mr Lay is using all of his endeavours working with the government in the area of business sponsorship to ensure that these people will be able to stay and I thank Mr Lay for his tremendous efforts
Already acknowledged is Mr Jason Lee who is head of the Hakka Association. I know he has worked tirelessly behind the scenes with the Northern Territory government to ensure that all of our resources that can be applied to this effort are being applied, and I thank you for your effort on behalf of the community, Mr Lee.
I also acknowledge in the gallery, Mr Oscar de Nunes. Oscar heads up the Portuguese Timorese Club, and from the very earliest meetings at the start of the year when we first became aware of the federal minister’s intention to move to deport East Timorese from Australia who were under temporary protection visas, Mr de Nunes has swung into action and has coordinated meetings with the Office of Ethnic Affairs - I acknowledge the head of the office there, Ms Janicean Price who has worked ably to assist minister Kon Vatskalis who, from the outset, has been very active. He immediately put necessary resources into the Office of Ethnic Affairs to fund the Multicultural Council of the Northern Territory for migration skills training so that we could equip individual people to work with the East Timorese, to work them through the migration process to the best outcome which is that they can stay and continue to be contributing members of our community.
We also, as you heard previously, put money into Northern Territory Legal Aid. They did not have the funding at that stage to support the legal work and the effort that they were making to represent the East Timorese. It is the Northern Territory government’s actions - not just rhetoric; actions - of resourcing both the Multicultural Council of Northern Territory and Legal Aid to assist the East Timorese community.
I acknowledge the great efforts made by our Chief Minister. She has very publicly supported the East Timorese to stay, as have many of her ministers. She has also lobbied the federal minister to put the case that the Northern Territory is more than happy to have these East Timorese people stay and continue to contribute to our community. We are very proud of our relationship, close cultural and geographic ties with East Timor. That relationship is, as we know, an historic relationship. Other members have spoken eloquently on the historical ties before in this debate.
I want to also thank Flavia Pinto. Flavia is a member of the East Timorese community who has Australian residency. I know she has been working very closely with the East Timor government to ensure that the East Timor government is making representations to the federal government on this matter. I have had meetings with representatives of the East Timor government myself, and I know that they are supporting the Northern Territory’s efforts to have the East Timorese stay here in the Territory. Essentially, they are, as we all know, a new nation. They are not yet ready to absorb large numbers of people back into their nation. These are not the wealthy East Timorese. If they were wealthy they could stay here under various immigration schemes dealing and surrounding people with wealth. They are hard-working battlers; they are families who are not doing it easy. They are in jobs; they are working hard to keep a roof over the heads of their families, to put their kids through education.
Some of the scenarios that I have come across - and I recognise that the families have been through tremendous anxiety. So I say to the member for Greatorex: you cannot take emotion out of this debate because the families are suffering daily with anxiety and the uncertainty of their future and, particularly, are obviously very concerned for their children.
A couple who we have been assisting are grandparents – she is in her seventies, he is in his eighties. All of their children live here in Darwin and have permanent residency. Their role in this community is to care for their grandchildren. Their adult children go to work because they are there caring for their grandchildren. Other people I know of are married to Australian citizens and they have children who have all been born in Darwin and are going through our school systems.
So I congratulate every member who has participated in this debate today. For those members who I know who are supportive but have not availed themselves of the opportunity, thank you very much. Madam Speaker, I wholeheartedly support this motion.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Madam Speaker, today I place on the Parliamentary Record my absolute and unconditional support for the families and the people from East Timor in their plight to stay in Darwin, in the Northern Territory, where they belong. I do not just say that because I went to school up here and I have lots of Timorese friends but, genuinely, the community enjoys a good reputation and has made a significant contribution to our multicultural community.
Briefly, the tone of the debate has, of course, changed as it has progressed. The initial motion is high on rhetoric and really does not go far enough. There has been quite a constructive amendment suggested by the opposition. I am happy to say that has been, it seems, readily adopted by the government. However, in the initial chronology which was read out by the Chief Minister, it really looked what this government has done to date. We have a letter on the 4 January and some brief meeting – there was no detail given about that - and a second letter on 14 May. There were references to public meetings, of course, not organised by the government. Really, if you cut to the bone, the Martin Labor government has done little more than to write two letters on behalf of this important group in our community and if you …
Mr Ah Kit: Now go back and see what your mob said about six years ago, if you want to start bringing up a bit of rubbish.
Mr MALEY: Well, I will just pick up on that interjection, Madam Speaker.
Mr Ah Kit: Well, pick up on it. Read up on it, too!
Mr MALEY: Okay. The only suggestion that these people should not be supported has really come from the jibes - certainly at the beginning of this debate - from the Deputy Chief Minister and the Chief Minister. The …
Ms Martin: When we were being accused of playing cheap politics! You’re not surprised we responded.
Mr MALEY: There are other things the government can do and those things include sponsorship of these people. There are 73 people. The government has billions of dollars in resources, and to take that extra step and sponsor these people is something which should be considered.
There are a number of legal practitioners who have been involved in helping these people and they should be commended. I notice that Colin McDonald QC is also in the gallery, and has been championing the cause for the East Timorese people for some time, and of course the invaluable help that Darwin’s premier immigration specialist, Charles Yuen, has given these people in terms of legal advice.
There is no doubt that if this government is serious about pro-actively helping these good people, then there has to be more than just talk; there has to be some real action, and that is what we don’t seem to be seeing. I have spoken at length with Nigel Scullion and also Dave Tollner, who I understand have had several meetings with members and representatives from the East Timorese community, and they also are very concerned about this issue.
Madam Speaker, I end where I started: by pledging my unconditional and total support for these people in their application to stay permanently in Darwin.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I will also be brief, recognising the time of day. I support both the motion and the amendment that have been proposed. As has been said by others, it is important that we stand united as a parliament, to tell the federal government that we believe East Timorese Territorians should be allowed to stay in the Territory.
I thank the government for introducing the motion. It is an important motion. I thank the Leader of the Opposition for clearly stating the process that has to be gone through, which I think most people would have difficulty understanding if you just heard the stories that are circulated in the media. It is a little bit more complex than most of us realise. But, from what the Leader of the Opposition said, there certainly is hope, and by being a united parliament today, we can tell the federal government that we believe the East Timorese Territorians should stay. If it means that Mr Ruddock has to use his discretionary powers, so be it.
East Timorese have helped our Territory, they have helped make the Northern Territory the unique part of Australia that it is. East Timorese have been through a lot, and I don’t believe that our federal government should be making that lot any worse. The East Timorese should be given a free choice if they wish to stay or return to East Timor. At the same time, I believe, like Father Frank Brennan, who was interviewed on ABC Radio the other day, that the government should still encourage East Timorese who have gained skills and education in the Territory to use those skills to help their own country in its rebuilding process. I think the Northern Territory should remain as a centre of learning and facilitate skills for East Timorese so we can always be a base, so that people can come here, train and go back to East Timor and help their country. That would also give them less reliance on help from outside which is important if it is to advance itself as an independent nation in the future.
Amendment agreed to.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I can assure you that this motion will be sent on to the federal government within the next couple of days.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: I advise members of the presence in the gallery of members of the New South Wales Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics: Mr John Price MP, member for Maitland, who is the Chairman; Mr Matthew Brown MP, member for Kiama; Mr Rod Caldwell who is the community member on that committee; Dr Elizabeth Kernohan; and Rhonda Miller, the Secretary to the committee On behalf of all members, I welcome you all to our Assembly. We had a very informative meeting with them at lunch time. It is noteworthy that they have a community member on their committee.
STATEMENT BY SPEAKER
Security Arrangements
Security Arrangements
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, at this stage I would like to take this opportunity to update and advise you of the wide range of activities relating to the security of Parliament House and the Parliamentary Precinct.
As you are all aware, Parliament House is a high profile building located close to the central business district in Darwin. As such, the building is utilised by large numbers of the general public, as well as providing a working venue for some 200 people. On some occasions, there are in excess of 500 to 600 people at any one time in this building. In this respect, we can be considered vulnerable and a soft target in a high threat situation.
In the past 12 months or so, we have experienced increasing levels of domestic disruption to the parliament in Darwin, to which the department has responded to by improving and enhancing security arrangements. This has been an ongoing task for us and we will continue to do so as the environment changes around us. To date, the incidents have not incurred any injury to persons or damage to property. Above all, I am keen to maintain a sensible and appropriate balance of public and property safety against access and involvement with this building, its wide range of community activities and as an open public institution for the democratic process of government in the Northern Territory.
We are fully aware, however, of the increasing problem of international terrorism and, therefore, my policy will be to minimise the risk against any threat by appropriate security measures and surveillance. Departmental staff are currently developing a three-tier approach to security conditions, responses and actions for the building and the precinct, and this will be advised to all building occupants in the near future. For security reasons, the details of these arrangements will not be made public, and I would appreciate them remaining confidential.
Discussion has also taken place with other building staff in the State Square area – namely, the Supreme Court, the Chan Building, Government House and the Office of the Administrator - to establish a State Square Security Precinct Working Group to improve coordination and communication between all parties. The NT Police have been involved in these discussions and are very supportive of the tiered security level approach and the joint arrangements for State Square.
You will have noticed and experienced the screening security equipment in the foyer. That has been well accepted by all building users and will remain in place. However, as a temporary arrangement, there are access and exit problems which will require a redesign and a proper fit-out of the front foyer area. Plans and equipment requirements are currently being developed and will be the subject of a Cabinet submission in mid-December this year.
Following the May Chamber invasion and subsequent legal action against the alleged offenders, I have also directed a review of the current Legislative Assembly legislation in respect of security and parliamentary privilege within this precinct. This action was taken on the advice of the Director of Public Prosecutions when some difficulty arose in respect of framing criminal charges under our Legislative Assembly acts.
The review also includes security aspects for the NT Library which provides us with a unique challenge in being a resident within this precinct.
Members will be updated on court proceedings that should be set down for early next year and which some of you may be involved in as a result of that invasion.
In concert with the Parliament House review, the department is also reviewing security arrangements for electorate offices following concerns and incidents that have occurred in some members’ offices. I am pleased to advise members that the support and input from your officers have been most helpful in resolving this matter.
Finally, the new requirements to be put in place in Parliament House are now also being considered in the planning process for the sittings in Alice Springs next year. As you will agree, there has been considerable activity by the department to address and resolve a wide range of security issues in a constantly changing environment.
This activity will be ongoing and will be dictated by the security environment in which we live. With this in mind, I seek your full support and cooperation in ensuring that we are appropriately prepared and equipped to minimise any security threat to Parliament House, the precinct and electorate offices.
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
Move Motion of Censure
Move Motion of Censure
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Seeing that the police minister refuses to answer the questions posed and shoves them all off to some conspiracy theory and seeks to pervert the business of this House by playing the man, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent me from moving that this House censures the member for Nhulunbuy, the former Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services, and the member for Wanguri…
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Mr BURKE: …the present Minister for…
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Speaker, the censure motion is the most serious motion that can be raised, and we accept debate on this motion.
Madam SPEAKER: I ask media crews to cease recording now.
PROPOSED CENSURE MOTION
Ministers for Police, Fire and Emergency Services
Ministers for Police, Fire and Emergency Services
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move:
- That this Assembly censures the member for Nhulunbuy, the former Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services, and the member for Wanguri, the present Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services, for their total failure to provide adequate resources to the police in order to ensure the safety and protection of Territorians.
In particular, they deserve censure for:
(1) deceiving Territorians as to the true picture of the level of crime in the Northern Territory;
and they alone, have responsibility for; and
Police, Fire and Emergency Services.
Madam Speaker, let me preface my remarks on this most serious of motions by saying that we are not criticising Northern Territory Police, Fire and Emergency Services, and we are certainly not attacking the hard working dedicated men and women who work for that service. Rather, we are defending them; we are joining them in their plea for more resources, for more numbers. We are speaking for Territorians who are no longer receiving the service they used to receive, that they are entitled to receive and that they expect from their police men and women.
Each time we have come into this Chamber and urged the government to do something to help our police force, this shameful government pretends it is an attack on those dedicated men and women. It is not, and it never has been. This motion is aimed solely and simply at this government which has shown after more than a year in government that they have no idea how to do the job. They have shown themselves to be totally inept, totally incapable of making decisions, and totally unable to come to terms with the responsibility of government. Their failure is nowhere clearer than in the area of law and order.
In recent days we have seen the appalling manipulation of both the police service and the Office of Crime Prevention. We have seen a deliberate policy to mislead Territorians which has included the appalling situation of, first, the withdrawal of the Northern Territory Police, Fire and Emergency Services annual report and then its rushed release to coincide with the first figures from the Office of Crime Prevention. I would add, Madam Speaker, that at this point in time it still has not been tabled in this Assembly.
It is a conspiracy of manipulation that began with the axing of the Neighborhood Watch figures, continued with the issuing of selective statistics and culminated in the high farce of last week that purported to show that the crime figures were down.
This sham of a government could not even get that right. They could not manage a conspiracy, just as they could not manage a chook raffle, and they certainly cannot manage the governing of the Northern Territory. Their duplicity in issuing two sets of statistics last week only confused everyone. Then yesterday, we had the police revealing that, notwithstanding anything that those statistics showed, break and enters have increased over the last few weeks.
This Assembly is owed an explanation as to what happened to the annual report of Police, Fire and Emergency Services. It has been the long-standing convention that annual reports are tabled in this parliament and then become public. It was known to the media that this annual report was to be tabled in the last parliament. There were strong suggestions that copies of the report arrived in the parliament in preparation for that tabling. Why was it mysteriously withdrawn? Why? What has been changed? What was wrong with the old report? What has it cost to print two versions of the report, and how much has it cost to pulp the copies of the original one? Who decided on this unprecedented act? Who demanded that the Government Printer produce a new version of the police annual report in time for last week’s farce, no matter what it cost? Who decided that the report would still be made public, rather than the time honoured convention of tabling it in the parliament first?
Members of this Assembly and Territorians deserve and demand answers. Both this minister and his predecessor are implicated in this conspiracy. The former minister was in charge when the first report disappeared and the new minister presided over its resurrection and the decision to bypass parliament. Even if one or other of these ministers can come up with a plausible explanation for what has happened, they are deserving of censure, simply for allowing it to happen.
They have made a mockery of the whole process and they have further embroiled the commissioner in the political process by forcing him to go public and suggest somehow that he recalled the report. No matter what the explanation, if there is one, it is these two ministers who are responsible and who must be held responsible. That, Madam Speaker, is our system of government. No matter how much this mockery of a government would like to shift the blame to past governments, to the public service, to the federal government, to whoever they can find, the simple fact is that the buck stops with them. It is their fault, no one else’s. Sadly, it is form now for this government, not just these ministers, to try to pass the buck.
They stand ready to take credit for any good news and in fact this new minister for police has already demanded of his other department that they must pass on to him any good news and report each and every contact with the media. He says he is happy to report the good news his departments produce. I have absolutely no problem in believing that statement from the minister. He and his colleagues are so incapable of producing anything themselves, of making any substantive decision, that they are desperate to find some good news somewhere.
They want total control of what goes out from government to the extent that any contact with the media must first be approved by the minister or his minders. If anything does go wrong, then this gutless lot of ministers turn immediately on the same public service and blame them for it. If they can’t manage that, then they claim total absolution by suggesting that the attack is not on them, anyway, but on the department and the public service. The former police minister is a past master at it. The two motions brought to this parliament on police matters were met with feigned outrage from him, that somehow we were attacking Territory policemen and women. We were not and we wouldn’t. We do not blame our police men and women for the problems that we have. The only people to blame are those sitting opposite.
For once, Madam Speaker, I hope that they take this censure for what it is intended. It is against them and they should not try to deflect it on to the public service or to the police service. They are responsible whether they like it or not. They are responsible whether they are capable of taking that responsibility or not.
Let me first turn to the new boy. On Friday last week, the member for Wanguri, the new police minister, said that at the end of June, we will have 80 new police officers on the beat in the Northern Territory. Let me quote him:
- We’ve got 80 new police officers coming on board and at this point of time I’m comfortable with the situation
and the job the police are doing and with 80 additional police coming on board, they’ll be able to do an even
better job.
He is the only one who is comfortable with that situation. The police are not, and Territorians are not. Of course, this minister did not take into account that on the police’s own figures, 50 police will be lost through attrition in the same period. So at best, there will be 30 extra police which will take the numbers to 968 including police auxiliaries and Aboriginal Community Police Officers. That is still 17 fewer than were on the beat almost 18 months ago, 30 June 2001, before this disgrace of a government got its hands on providing for the safety and good order of the Territory.
This minister even admitted it in his press release last Thursday, and I quote:
- Policing numbers may have fallen since the days when they were above establishment levels under the opposition.
and this minister is comfortable with that! This minister is comfortable that by June next year, we will have fewer police than we did two years earlier. I am not comfortable with that, nor are Territorians, nor are the police. Just after the minister had made his outrageous statement, the President of the Police Association had his say, and I intend to read into the Parliamentary Record exactly what Vince Kelly said.
He told the ABC the 80 recruits the government is planning to get this financial year will really put the government in a position it was in 1994 when, according to Mr Kelly, police numbers were falling far behind what was needed. That was before the CLP government promised and achieved a 150 increase in police numbers. Mr Kelly went on:
- The staffing at Darwin, Casuarina and Palmerston is at a critical level, in my view. I’ve got anecdotal evidence
of sick leave increasing and members refusing to work overtime and in my view that’s indicative of a morale problem
or a staffing problem. The situation is exacerbated, in my view, by the loss of officers with five to 15 years experience.
The government’s own figures predict attrition this financial year will see at least another 50 experienced officers leave the service. Mr Kelly went on:
- I think there is an acknowledgment by all parties that we are losing experienced officers with five to 15 years
experience. Now the problem is that no matter how many police you recruit, the probationary constables do
not have the same experience level as police officers and the level of experience means that new operations
constables are not receiving guidance from experienced police.
- I believe at the moment there’s no substantive sergeants at the Casuarina Police Station and I think that that’s
just not acceptable. Certainly, the experience where Mr Burke’s been …
Well, I haven’t been yet…
- … in New York City is an increase in police numbers led to a reduction in crime and you can’t dress it up any
other way.
He continued:
- The Police Association has maintained for a long time that there is a need for 150 extra police. Unlike
Mr Henderson said, that’s not a figure we plucked out of the air; that’s a figure based on former Commissioner
Bates’ views on the world, and that was that we have a certain amount of people away all the time. To be operating
at optimal level, the police force needs to have 950 or so bums on seats, not 950 people in the police force with 150 away.
I guess the final point, Fred, is that Mr Henderson said this morning he is satisfied that they’ve got the numbers right
and he also said that we could pluck numbers out of the air any time we liked.
- Well, one could only presume from that that the Labor Party plucked 50 police out of the air in the lead up to the
last election, and I call on the minister and I call on the government to conduct an independent review of police
numbers, as we’ve been asking for some time, to ensure that the police force is adequately staffed and resourced to
serve the Northern Territory community. It is not about pay increases for police or anything like that. The association
and our members want to protect the community and we want to have the right amount of people to be able to do that.
- My experience as a serving police officer for some 15 plus years is that people do get frustrated when the police
don’t come. I think we all understand the police aren’t going to be available at the drop of a hat for every single
problem you have, but I do think the public has an expectation that they will see police within some sort of reasonable
time so certainly police officers cop that flack. As I say, I don’t believe the general duties numbers are right at the
moment and that is because they are propping up all the other arms of the police force such as CIB, Prosecutions,
Property Crime Unit, Domestic Violence Unit and, at the expense of front line uniform police, and that is at the sharp
end of policing. All those other areas are designed to provide a service to the general duties police officers and if we
haven’t got the numbers right in uniform, then we just haven’t got it right.
- … the antisocial behaviour and the fact that their houses are getting broken into, and I don’t think we should
necessarily let terrorism, as important an aspect as it is, distract us from what really concerns people in the
Northern Territory. Territorians want to live in a safe community where they don’t have to put up with their
houses being broken into.
- … a little confused, as obviously most of the public are, about the release of two contrary sets of figures at the
one stage.
We should begin, not with the spin various ministers have tried to put on the figures, but rather the document itself. On page 1 of the report comes the first qualification, and I quote:
- Statistics in the Territory can be highly volatile with large swings from one period to another.
- For a variety of reasons, not all crimes are reported to the police. Consequently, levels of recorded crime should
not be interpreted as comprehensively representing the level of crime in the Northern Territory.
I guess the ministers forgot to read that paragraph. Also, they must have slipped by the supplementary notes on page 69. There it is stated that:
- In its current crime and safety survey publication, the Australian Bureau of Statistics reports that in the Northern
Territory some 33% of house break-ins and 71% of assaults are unreported.
- As a result of under-reporting, it is not appropriate to interpret reported crime figures as comprehensively
representing the actual level of crime in the community.
- What the justice figures show is that we are seeing a trend decrease in property crime.
We have all heard and seen the media reports and know of instances that have been reported, but no further action is taken. The complaints about this have risen noticeably since this government allowed police numbers to decline. Now we know how this translates into statistics. Not enough police means not enough action is taken, which means the incident is reported but not recorded, and that means that this government then fraudulently claims that crime is declining.
When this present Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services made those comments, did he know police were saying at the same time: ‘Break and enters have increased substantially in the last few weeks’? Did he know, and did he deliberately lie to the media and Territorians, or is he so incompetent, so out of touch and incapable of doing his job, that he had no idea that his comments about declining crime rates would be blown out of the water within days by the police themselves?
Last night, we all saw the police say how crime had increased and how they were stretching their meagre resources to meet this rise in break and enters. Didn’t the minister know that last week? Isn’t he kept up to date with what is going on? You might throw this disdain at the opposition, but on the day your justice figures were released, the opposition knew what the daily figures for crime in the Northern Territory were, because it is very easy to get that information. Not only could we tell him, but any Territorian could have told him that crime was on the increase. So why did you have to lie to us?
Let us go back to those statistics and see what they do say. In Darwin, property offences, including break and enters, did increase in the 12 months to September 2002, when compared to the 12 months to September 2001, and they increased markedly in the three quarters following the abolition of mandatory sentencing. In Palmerston, they allegedly fell, but I challenge you to find anyone in Palmerston who agrees with that.
In Alice Springs, the figures for both break and enters and all property crime was up in the comparison between the year to September 2001 and the year to September 2002. We might just ask why no murders are recorded for the September quarter in Alice, when the contrary has been reported in the media?
In Katherine, there has been a noticeable decrease in all reported crime, whether against the person or property, which begs the question: why has this occurred? Or is this just another flaw in the process? Because if the statistics are true, then doesn’t it suggest that the Katherine police are doing something right? If the stats in Katherine are right, where is the analysis that tells us what it is that they are doing that is so right? Hasn’t the Office of Crime Prevention been set up to prevent crime, not just to report what crime there is? Can’t this government even get that bit right?
In Tennant Creek, according to the figures, they are incredibly volatile. In the September 2000 quarter there were 140 property offences; in the same quarter last year it was 347; and then in the latest September quarter, the figures have dropped almost to the 2000 level at 168. The Minister for Justice and Attorney-General has already admitted that the figures for Tennant Creek are skewed by the fact that some of its crime is reported in the Alice Springs figures because it is investigated by Alice Springs police.
In Nhulunbuy, a 17% decline in reported property offences is more than matched by 35% increase in crimes against the person. Indeed, across the Territory there has been a general increase of some 6% in crimes against the person, and that is the truth of the matter, when comparing the reported offences for the year to September 2001 to the similar period for 2002, which has led the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General to make the extraordinary statement that he is happy to admit that crime is unacceptably high.
So he told Territory radio last Thursday, and I quote:
We are very happy to admit that all levels of crime are unacceptably high in the Northern Territory.
So we have the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General saying he is very happy that crime is high, and the new Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services is very comfortable with the situation. Well, I am ashamed of it. I am ashamed that our two most senior law and order ministers should take such a cavalier attitude to the dreadful situation Territorians are facing day in and day out, a situation that this government’s own figures reveal is getting worse; a situation that this government admits is not going to get any better because they are intent on cutting the number of police on the streets, not increasing them.
This new police minister has continued the spurious arguments of his predecessor, the member for Nhulunbuy, that somehow, having fewer police is an increase. The former police minister was caught out when he admitted in September that police were at their critically lowest level. Much to his own embarrassment, he tried to retract that statement a few weeks later in early October. But it was too late; he had already made the figures public during the Estimates Committee hearings.
At least the member for Wanguri has picked up and learnt that lesson. In his press release last week, he admitted police numbers had fallen since the change of government as I mentioned earlier. He also admitted to the media that the reason the government was cutting police numbers was to save money. He told ABC radio his government’s commitment was to a ‘deficit reduction strategy’ and to bring the budget back into surplus so they could not afford any more police at this time. While his government is playing that tune and cutting police numbers, Territorians are suffering an asset reduction strategy. While they have to pay more taxes and charges, they are seeing more of their hard earned property being ripped off by criminals. I am sure Territorians will be pleased that while their budgets are going through the roof as they struggle to pay these new taxes and charges, and struggle to replace the goods stolen from them, the government is pursuing its deficit reduction strategy.
That is the situation, and that is the reason why we are in this situation. The government cut a recruit course in 2001-02 simply to save money. That has put them behind the eight-ball in trying to increase police numbers and their penny pinching has meant that they have not even replaced those who left in 2001-02. The Estimates Committee process revealed that in 2001-02, 78 police personnel left and only 52 were recruited to replace them. This minister and his predecessor are incapable of working out how to overcome that wretched decision.
The annual report of Police, Fire and Emergency Services shows up the lies of this government and in particular the two ministers who have been and are responsible for the Northern Territory Police, Fire and Emergency Services. The annual report reveals that there are 54 fewer police on our streets since the Labor government came to power. The annual report showed that the numbers have dropped from 862 in June last year to 808 this year of police including ACPOs but not police auxiliaries. Crucially, most of the drop, 38, is at the level of senior constable and constable, the very ranks that do the basic work of protecting Territorians, and these are the figures at the end of the financial year, three months, I would remind you, before the former minister of police said that police were at their critically lowest level.
Madam Speaker, how on earth can these people claim that they have increased police numbers by 10 in their first year in office? Either the annual report is false or this government and its ministers are continually lying to Territorians. Only last week, the new minister issued a press release stating bluntly, and I quote:
- There would be more than 80 police constables on the streets in this financial year.
Nowhere does he say that they will be replacing the 50 senior and experienced police men and women who will leave the services this financial year. Nowhere does he say that they will be replacing the 23 senior police men and women who were not replaced last financial year. He brags that 13 Aboriginal Community Police Officers graduated earlier this month but he does not say that they replaced the 13 who left last year. He says that with the increase in police auxiliaries, there will be a total of 109 additional police personnel this financial year but the attrition rate across all personnel will total between 70 and 80, meaning numbers will increase from 938 in June 2002 to between 967 and 977 in June 2003.
Let me remind members that the figure for June 2001, when the CLP was in government, was 985 according to both this year’s revised annual report and last year’s Northern Territory Police, Fire and Emergency Services’ annual report. Yet this minister and his predecessor have the gall to tell Territorians that they are on track to have 50 more police by the end of this government’s first term in June 2005.
If you believed their election promises, then they have failed totally to achieve their target of 10 extra police in their first year. They are not even hoping to achieve their target of an additional 10 extra police in their second year. They have lied to Territorians about their intentions and now they are lying to Territorians about their achievements or their lack of achievements. In the meantime, the hard working dedicated men and women of the police service are having to cop the brunt of the blame from their fellow Territorians for not being able to deal with the rising levels of crime. No wonder the clear up rate is decreasing and Territorians are complaining that they get no action when they report a break-in. Who was it who told Territorians that:
- … the likelihood of getting caught is a key deterrent? Clear up rates in urban centres are around 10%.
This government has totally failed to implement its policy and promises, and has contributed to a declining level of safety for Territorians. The blame belongs to all of the Cabinet from the Chief Minister down, and particularly the two ministers who have been charged with implementing these policies through the police service.
Let me put on the record exactly what the CLP intended to do had we been re-elected: we promised Territorians, and I made the pledge at the Police Association Annual Conference in August last year, and I quote from the report of my speech in the Police Association’s journal:
- Let me pledge to you here this morning that a CLP government will increase the number of police officers by at
least 60, taking the complement to more than 1000. I say at least 60 because following discussions between the
minister, the commissioner and your president, we intend to conduct an audit to determine whether the current
operational structure is adequate.
I told the association and Territorians that if the recommendation was for more than 60 extra police, then we would provide them What did the Labor Party do? It promised 50 new police and then bagged what the police were doing at the time. Labor’s policy said:
- Labor will refocus and resource police so that they can be there in person when Territorians need them.
Labor said:
- Police will attend complaints of break-ins and home invasions promptly. In addition, forensic personnel will
attend where the prospect of gathering evidence exists.
Ironically, this suddenly turned up yesterday as a new idea to combat the increasing level of crime. Labor also said there are simply not enough police on the road. Remember, that is when there are about 811 police, not including police auxiliaries and the ACPOs. Right now, there are about 772, some 39 fewer police on the road. So much for Labor promises and so much for feeling comfortable.
The President of the Police Association said last week that the situation was critical. In a rare moment of honesty, the previous minister for police said it himself on September 19 and the new minister confirmed it last week, but the new boy then added that he was comfortable with this crisis.
Let us look at the other wonderful initiative of this government’s law and order policy. In October last year, the government abolished mandatory sentencing which had meant, until then, that those caught for breaking and entering went to gaol. They claimed that mandatory sentencing was not reducing crime and has had no effect on the stats since it was abolished. If you look at the Territory-wide figures, after mandatory sentencing was abolished, property offences increased for the next six months. In Darwin, the high figures persisted until the end of the June quarter, as they did in Alice. Labor said their regime would also send people to gaol unless there were exceptional circumstances. The facts are since October 2001, an average one in three convicted criminals have walked from the court without any gaol time.
Dr Toyne: Nonsense! Absolute deceit.
Mr BURKE: Without any gaol time. One in three have walked from the court without any gaol time and I …
Dr Toyne: Gaol time, community work orders, home detentions.
Mr BURKE: … urge you to try and dispute that simple fact. Between July 1 and September 30 this year, only 65% of people convicted of aggravated property offences received an actual term of imprisonment. So much for Labor’s claims that serious crime means serious time. So much for the claim that people would only walk away in exceptional circumstances. I tell you what: Territorians and I find nothing exceptional in more than a third of the people convicted for trashing Territorians’ homes, for stealing their hard-earned property, for invading their homes walking away from the court, but this government finds that totally acceptable.
Madam SPEAKER: Your time has expired, Leader of the Opposition.
Ms CARTER: Madam Speaker I move that so much of Standing Orders be set aside as would allow the member to conclude his remarks.
Motion agreed to.
________________________
VISITORS
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Before you go on, Leader of the Opposition, I acknowledge the presence in the gallery of school students and adults from a government school in Ambon, SMO Negeri S, accompanied by their teacher Mrs Elizabeth Pattiruhu. They have been visiting Darwin as guests of the Darwin City Council. On behalf of all members, I extend a warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
_______________________
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, Leader of the Opposition. I am sorry to interrupt.
Mr BURKE: Madam Speaker, I am happy to be diverted. As our visitors come from Ambon, may I say from the opposition’s point of view, welcome to the Northern Territory and we hope that peace reigns in your country in the very near future. It is something we certainly hope occurs as soon as possible. It has been a tragic series of events.
If I may get back to the remaining comments I have, it is an indictment on this government when they say that serious crime means serious time, when their own figures show that their version of exceptional circumstances now means in the Northern Territory that for every three people convicted of a property offence, one in three is considered to be an exceptional circumstance and walks from the court. That is the end result of the Labor strategy. That is what Territorians know is happening, and that is why Territorians have no faith in this government’s law and order strategies. That is only the tip of the iceberg. Territorians do not have faith in this government because of economic figures and other things.
But government is happy. Government is very happy to look at the statistics and say: ‘I’ll just keep flicking through my books and get the statisticians to put disclaimers here and there, and make sure those figures look good and then we can go out and shout it from the roof top’. Shout you may, but Territorians don’t believe you.
Madam Speaker, I know, you know and every member of this Assembly knows, that break and enters are the scourge of Territorians. Every Territorian knows that they may be broken into, every Territorian knows someone whose home has been invaded. Yet this government and these ministers have tried to tell us otherwise. Every Territorian knows and respects the job our police men and women do, but they also know they cannot be expected to do the impossible. Without sufficient police, the spiral of break and enters will continue. Every Territorian knows this except this government and these ministers. Every Territorian knows that our hard working police men and women need all the support and all the help that they can get. Everyone knows that except these ministers. Every Territorian knows that crime is on the increase, every Territorian would support a government that truthfully said: ‘We are doing our best. We are doing all we can to increase police numbers and help make your home safe.’ But this government and these ministers are saying: ‘Crime is coming down, we don’t need any more police and we don’t need to punish the people who trash your homes.’ More than that, the minister for Justice says: ‘I’m happy!’ and the new Police minister says: ‘I am very comfortable’.
It is only us poor sods, the rest of us, who think we have a problem. These ministers are saying to our police men and women: ‘Stop complaining about the overtime, the stress, the lack of numbers!’ They are lying to Territorians, lying to our police and lying to this Assembly. Unless the Chief Minister can offer some sort of defence for their actions, they deserve not only the censure of this House, but also they deserve its contempt.
Mr HENDERSON (Police, Fire and Emergency Services): Madam Speaker, we knew this was coming, it was telegraphed over the last few weeks. With all the ammunition, the supposed conspiracy theories, the fact that we have released all of this detailed information, if that’s the best that the Leader of the Opposition can do in a Censure Motion, the most important motion that can be brought before this House, then he is on thin ice. He failed to prosecute his point, and I will deal in detail with the issues he has raised, but if he is asserting that crime is rampantly increasing across the Northern Territory, he did not attempt to actually provide any critical analysis of the Justice quarterly crime reports. He went back to the annual report for the 2001-02 financial year, which is history. He did not touch at all on the information that is in the Justice report. He is either saying that those numbers in the report are lies…
Mr Dunham: Yes! We’re saying your lying.
Mr HENDERSON: I will pick up the interjection from the member for Drysdale. What the opposition is saying is that this report, produced by the new Department of Justice, is a lie, a fabrication. That is exactly what the member for Drysdale said by implication. That is an absolute insult to every one of those hard-working public servants who work in that office - an absolute insult. I am sure my colleague, the Justice minister, will state in his contribution to the debate that we have had these figures independently assessed, audited and analysed, not only on their accuracy, but the complementary nature between these and the police report and the assessment attests absolutely that these are the most comprehensive, accurate reporting of crime figures in the Northern Territory.
The member for Drysdale has an opportunity, if he is going to jump second in this debate, to prosecute his assertion here in this parliament that the statistics released by Justice are a lie. I challenge him to do that because that really is an absolute insult. If we are going to debate this issue, let us debate it on the facts rather than anecdotal evidence that can be walked in here …
Mr Dunham interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON: … anecdotal evidence and scare mongering that can be walked in here at any time. The Leader of the Opposition did not prosecute that fact. He went back to the police annual report and, yes …
Mr Burke interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON: …the police annual report did state that there had been an increase in crime across the Northern Territory over that time period, the 2001-02 financial year. For at least three months of that time period, the CLP was in government.
We do have to look at these crime statistics over an extended period and, as I said in Question Time today, we are releasing these statistics on a quarterly basis. They will be up and down, as crime is across the Northern Territory and across the world.
So the member for Brennan’s contribution really, in prosecuting the fact that we are peddling lies in crime statistics is intellectually moribund unless he can be rescued by his colleague, the member for Drysdale.
In terms of the conspiracy theories about the police annual report and the assertion that somehow either my predecessor or myself or my office or my predecessor’s office instructed the Police Commissioner – that is the assertions that are being run here - based on something that we apparently may not have liked in that report, that it should be pulped.
Members interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON: Again, it is easy to make those allegations and assertions, but not backed up by any shred of evidence - not one skerrick of evidence to support the conspiracy theory that somehow myself or the previous minister in this portfolio had instructed the Police Commissioner to pulp and shred and reprint a version of the police annual report that we were satisfied with. There can be absolutely nothing further from the truth. Again, it is an absolute insult to assert that the Police Commissioner would bow to pressure from a minister or minister’s office and pulp or order to be shredded a report that he was happy with. That is the assertion. I find it an absolute insult.
It goes back to the day this current Police Commissioner was appointed by the government and to the Leader of the Opposition’s constant undermining of his position here. We have had a censure motion run against my colleague, the previous Police minister, the member for Nhulunbuy, in terms of his selection for the position - an absolute insult to his integrity and to the officers who worked with him producing that report.
I can say that the report that will be deemed to be tabled in this parliament, that is such a secret, members opposite have already have it. It is so secret, they already have it because we released it publicly last week. It is such a secret, this annual report …
Mr Dunham: When was it tabled?
Mr HENDERSON: It will be tabled in …
Mr Burke: Why did you pull out all stops to have it printed on the same day as the Justice report?
Mr HENDERSON: … the reports …
Mr Burke interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON: … it is already tabled, so there you go. It is such a secret report, we actually put it out ahead of parliament. We had this wonderful political strategy to allow us to beat ourselves over the head with it, it was such a secret.
Members interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON: It was such a secret we put it out to beat ourselves over the head with it.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr HENDERSON: There was so much secret information contained therein, or not contained therein, as a result of this conspiracy allegation that somebody, be it myself or be it the previous police minister, that somehow we interfered with the production of that report. Well, we certainly did not.
We can say that to Territorians and …
Mr Burke: They don’t believe you.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr HENDERSON: … unless the Leader of the Opposition can provide one skerrick of evidence – there was certainly nothing put before this House - then he really does stand condemned because in terms of the importance of this motion, he has a responsibility, because he has interrupted the business of parliament, to provide some evidence to his assertions that somehow the police annual report was tampered with either by me, my colleague, the previous minister, or somebody in our office. There is absolutely nothing further from the truth.
The Police Commissioner is responsible for providing that report to me and a copy of that annual report is currently with members opposite. It is the first and only copy of that report that I have seen. What preceded it is a matter for the Police Commissioner.
Having dealt with that issue, most of the censure was taken up, a good 10 minutes of it anyway, with reading verbatim a transcript from the Police Association President, Vince Kelly, on the radio the other day, and it is good to hear.
Mr Burke: Don’t you think that’s relevant? Is that irrelevant, is it?
Mr HENDERSON: No, I don’t say it is irrelevant at all. But it is good to hear at long last, and it is amazing the transformation that has been made by members opposite since they became the opposition, that they are starting to listen to unions. We have been listening to unions for years and are very proud to stand up to support the union movement in the Northern Territory and Australia. They used to be derided by members opposite, but it is good to see that the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues - maybe not the member for Goyder who still talks about socialists and uses language that has been forgotten by the rest of Australia some 20 years ago; and I don’t think that he talks to union leaders very often - but the Leader of the Opposition is prepared to hear the views of people who represent workers in their various areas of responsibility.
It is the unions’ role, as the Leader of the Opposition and members opposite will understand as they get closer to and understand the importance and relevance of the union movement, that it is their role to advocate on behalf of their members, and all unions will advocate for more. You have yet to see any leader of a union advocate for less, for fewer resources, for a reduction in wages and salaries or conditions or numbers of people. We accept absolutely that we are going to have an ongoing debate with the union in terms of police numbers, wages and conditions, and we will continue to work through these things in a professional way.
As the Leader of the Opposition has forgotten, being in government is not about responding totally positively to every demand that every community group or union or business lobby would place on you and say: ‘Just because we say we need 150 additional police officers or an extra 300 teachers or an extra 500 nurses’. You don’t take that request on face value. Government is all about balancing competing demands and delivering infrastructure and services to Territorians including police services to Territorians. It is about that balance of competing demands and it will be an ongoing debate as to whether the resources are there to meet those demands.
It is good to hear that the Leader of the Opposition is basically falling in behind the police union and saying: ‘Yes, we agree totally with everything you say’. It is a pity that they did not do that when they were in government. They are falling into the role of it being very easy when in opposition, but in government, I remember many industrial disputes with the Police Association over the years about staffing numbers, wages and conditions, housing allocations and what have you. In fact, when we go back to one of the previous Commissioners, Mick Palmer, the cry very loudly and very strongly then was for more police resources and what was the then government’s response? It wasn’t to say: ‘Yes, we’ll give you everything that you want’. Their response at the time was to tell those police officers that they had to buy back their leave, that they weren’t allowed to go on leave, they had to …
Members interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON: They weren’t allowed to go on leave and we will buy your leave back from you. So they have priors, Madam Speaker. They have priors in terms of listening to the police union and bowing to every request that they make.
We will continue to work constructively. We will continue to have the debate, but we will do it in terms of competing demands across the Northern Territory.
If you look at commitments made prior to the election, yes, we did agree to 50 additional police officers - not to be delivered in the first year, but over our term of government, and we will deliver on that. The CLP at the time committed to 60. Okay, they upped the ante; they went 10 more than us and committed to 60. We were about at the same point in the lead up to the last election in terms of the additional resources that we believed as opposition of the day that the police needed. We are committed to delivering on those additional 50 police officers by the end of our first term of government. It was not committed that we would deliver on those additional 50 within 12 or 15 months of coming to government.
If we look at the police numbers as they stand today, we - as I have said repeatedly on radio - are on track for this financial year, and it is not for 80. The latest advice I have is for 81 new police officers. We have put through, this financial year, three recruit squads. We don’t have the capacity to put any more through; 25 new police officers graduated in October, 29 are in training to graduate in May and a new squad due to start in January with 27 recruits expected to pass out by June. So that is 80 new police officers coming into the system. Unless we build a new police training college, we cannot put any more through. If we compare that to the last full year that the previous government was responsible for, two police squads through with 54 police being passed through the academy. So 54 under the CLP; we are putting through 80 this financial year and we will work to meet our electoral commitment over the term.
It is easy to play with statistics. Yes, police do retire. They have always retired, and the attrition rate that I am advised, around 7% to 8%, has been constant for many years. Over a 12 month period there are peaks and troughs when people go. We have traditionally - and it is not something new - lost experienced officers interstate, particularly to Queensland who totally respect the capacity and capability of our police officers and do entice them over the border. That has been going on for years, and I acknowledge that it is still going on.
So 80 new police officers to be recruited over this financial year, and that puts paid to items two and three on the censure motion: failing to provide the 10 extra police they promised in 2001-02. Well there are 80 coming on board this financial year; and failing to put in place policies to recruit 10 additional police. Well, if three recruit squads and 80 new constables isn’t a significant effort, then I don’t know what is.
We then come to the issue of allowing police numbers to fall and we have cut police numbers. I acknowledge that it is publicly a difficult argument to sustain, but in terms of management of financial resources, it is the reality of what was inherited. When we came to government, the police were 33 positions over and above the approved establishment. It is a coincidence, but it is probably a pretty strategic coincidence, that the member for Katherine was the Treasurer and the police minister at the time. We could see how he couldn’t manage the Territory’s budget when we were running at a deficit of over $114m when he claimed it was $14m. He didn’t even know what was happening in his own department. Irresponsibly, we had recruited 33 positions over and above what was actually allocated in …
Mr Elferink: Irresponsible recruiting?
Mr Stirling: Well, why didn’t he adjust the bottom line?
Mr HENDERSON: …and he didn’t adjust the bottom line. He didn’t go back to his Cabinet colleagues. It was in the lead up to the election and we were just going to do everything we could to be re-elected, and we will see what happens afterwards. And heaven help us if they had been re-elected because who knows what the correction strategy would have been. We will deliver an additional 50 police officers by the end of our term.
In terms of outcomes, and the statement that we have misled Territorians in claiming there are sufficient police on the beat, no one has said that we have sufficient numbers. What is the definition of ‘sufficient’? A police officer on every street corner in every community across the Northern Territory? What we can do is to put in place operations and programs that are going to reduce the incidence of crime in our community. We believe that with the significant legislation that we have introduced since we came to government, in particular legislation to support our three-point plan on drugs and property crime, the police have significant extra tools to get out there and deal with people who are committing property crime and profiting from dealing in illicit substances, whether it is by manufacture or distribution. I am convinced that we will see, over time, police using that legislation and we will see property crime reducing as that legislation comes into play and is used more often and more effectively with the additional police resources we provide.
If, for some reason, the graph started going out the door at the other end of the scale, yes, we would look at it. But at this point in time, we have introduced significant legislation which members opposite certainly didn’t champion through this House. In fact, there were more arguments as to why we should not introduce that legislation rather than why we should. History will be a good teacher when people go back and read the contributions of members opposite in that debate, as well as the drug house and drug law, witness protection and money laundering legislation. Again, legislation that was never implemented under the CLP, tools for the police were never available to deal with organised crime and the distribution of proceeds of organised crime.
We can see by actions rather than inaction that we have given the police the tools that they need. At a briefing with the commissioner the other day, I told him to feel free to come to me at any time if he wants to see amendments, changes or new legislation that would give the police the tools needed to protect and serve Territorians. That was an invitation I gave the Police Commissioner at one of our first meetings. We are absolutely determined to give the police the tools that they need to do the job and to give them numbers they need to do the job, but we are not going to be able to provide the numbers that the union seeks.
If I go to the key findings in the first of a comprehensive series of reports on crime across the Northern Territory covering every region: Darwin, Palmerston, Alice Springs, Katherine, Tennant Creek and Nhulunbuy - information we called for during years in opposition, but would the CLP introduce it? No, because they knew exactly what was happening to crime under their regime and they didn’t want to be exposed.
We do expose ourselves as a government, releasing this information but we will release it, whether it be good, bad or indifferent and at the end of the day, we will be judged. If we look at the September quarter, that’s the quarter from June to September this year, the most up-to-date information - and I presume that the next series of data that will come out in three months time may pick up the figures the Leader of the Opposition alluded to when he said that in the last three weeks crime has gone through the roof. We cannot manage the police force on a week-by-week basis because some little ratbag out there has just done 20 breaks or whatever. What we have to do is get the little ratbag and deal with him within the system.
Rather than looking at the global statistics, let us move through Darwin and Palmerston. In Darwin, the total number of property offences fell by 22% in that quarter. It could go up next month, but it is a trend and a start, and I would rather see that number being down by 22% than up by 22%. All categories of property offences recorded a decline: unlawful entry with intent, dwelling, reduced by 37%; property damage by 22%; other theft by 21%; and motor vehicle theft and related offences by 21%.
If we go into Palmerston during that quarter, overall property offences fell by 6%, not as big as in Darwin. Property damage decreased by 13%; motor vehicle theft and related offences reduced by 25%; unlawful entry within dwelling fell by 7%; and so it goes on.
In Katherine, property offences rose by 6%, other theft increased by 27% - not a good figure. However, if there was some conspiracy theory out there to hide the bad news, well, we certainly would not put it in this report. But property damage decreased by 7%. So we are committed to releasing these statistics, good, bad or indifferent, and yes, the Police Commissioner …
Mr Burke: Some numbers!
Mr HENDERSON: Not some of them; all of them.
Mr Burke: Some numbers. Read your own disclaimers.
Mr HENDERSON: Obviously, the Police Commissioner has this information at his hands, and his officers on a daily/weekly basis use this information to deploy resources, to mount operations. I believe that over time we will start making a real inroad. If we look at Operation Gene Sweep that was run this weekend - where was the press release from the Leader of the Opposition congratulating the detectives who ran this operation? We never hear the Leader of the Opposition as shadow police minister saying: ‘Well done, guys, and people who were on that operation, a fantastic result’.
Mr Burke: How many went to court from the last one?
Mr HENDERSON: A fantastic result. No, we don’t hear that. All we hear is the negative whingeing, whining and knocking. I will read from the media release from Operation Gene Sweep which ran over Thursday and Friday last week and which focussed on arresting outstanding offenders using fingerprints and DNA from crime scenes:
- Police cleared up 78 offences in Darwin and Alice Springs, mostly unlawful entries and stealing. Commander
George Owen said the ages of the 20 people arrested were between 14 and 32. Of the 78 offences cleared up by
Gene Sweep, one 27-year-old man was arrested for 13 of them. Another man aged 21 was arrested for seven
offences and an 18-year-old man was arrested for another six.
- The 20 offenders arrested during this operation have 597 prior convictions between them.
So, a little support, a pat on the back for a job well done would certainly help morale. It does not hurt the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow police minister to say: ‘well done’ when it occurs. I do not have the press release with me in terms of Gene Sweep #1. That led to an apprehension of 40 people in three days.
To say that crime is going through the roof and there are no efforts being made to clear up crime is nonsense when operations such as Gene Sweep continue, when we have an ongoing series of reports provided by Justice to this House - such is the conspiracy that we are running and hiding the true facts from Territorians! We are releasing figures every three months to beat ourselves around the head. It does not stack up.
What is more disturbing - and it will be interesting to see whether they put it on record – is that the Leader of the Opposition, by implication - and again he has the facts wrong, claiming that since mandatory sentencing was repealed, property crime has gone up. He has not prosecuted that and as I said he has not dealt with the Justice statistics. Does that mean that this is a commitment here, now and today, Leader of the Opposition, heaven forbid, if the CLP are returned at the next election, that you will reintroduce your absolutely failed, discredited and ridiculed policy? It was ridiculed nationally, not only by governments of all persuasions around Australia, but certainly your Liberal Party colleagues with whom you are affiliated. I would really like speakers opposite to come out and say that if we are returned at the next election, we will re-introduce the mandatory sentencing regime that Labor has repealed.
That is the challenge and I think there will be enormous tension amongst those members opposite. It is all right to say and run the line - a false line - that since that legislation was repealed, crime has gone up in the Northern Territory because that is not the case. By imputation, the Leader of the Opposition is saying that if I am re-elected as Chief Minister or the CLP is elected to government again, we will re-introduce that legislation. Territorians would like to hear that commitment and make an assessment of it. I am sure their Liberal Party colleagues across Australia would be interested to hear that policy position of the CLP. I was aware that that policy was under review. But maybe by statements here today - I know they have just had a Central Council meeting - that is their new position.
We are a government about reducing crime across the community. We will continue to work as hard as we can to do that. We will continue to introduce legislation into this parliament to give the police the tools they need to deal with all crime in the Northern Territory - organised crime, drug-related crime, property crime - whether it is supported by members opposite or not. I would encourage students of debates in this House to go back and read some of the comments of members opposite on the drug house legislation that we introduced because there certainly was not full support. One has to question why there was not full support for that legislation in this House.
The prosecution of the motion before us has totally failed. The member for Drysdale has - and I will make sure that it is on the Parliamentary Record and Hansard has picked it up - said yes, he believes the statistics that have been put out by the Department of Justice are lies. He has an opportunity to prosecute that assertion, an absolutely outrageous allegation against the people who have put those statistics together.
Mr Burke interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON: We will continue to have the debate in this House. We are convinced that over time, when we come to the next election, our sentencing and legislative regime will be proven. Our police continue to do a great job. They have the support of every member of this side of the House. I wish for once, the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow police minister may give them a pat on the back instead of ridiculing their efforts every time he stands up in here.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, the defence of this censure has been poor. We have a narrow and discrete focus. We charge that Territorians have been deceived as to the true nature and level of crime in the Northern Territory. That is evident …
Dr Burns: By your press statements.
Mr MILLS: We believe that the assertion that the government has failed to provide the 10 extra police they promised the Northern Territory stands. In fact, we had a decrease in police numbers from 985 to 938. We may talk of 80 recruits without acknowledging an 8% attrition rate. It won’t make it, minister. Your promise will be an empty one, and Territorians will respond when they have the opportunity to do so.
To assert that things are fine with the level of policing in our community doesn’t stand up to scrutiny by anyone. Any local member who has walked through our community and touched closely the concerns of our community – it is out there; it is known. To pat police on the back for work well done, no reserve from any member on this side for the contribution that they make. But to serve the public with depleted ranks, we only have to track it back to find why there is this underlying and fundamental concern within the community. If you do not adequately resource, you cannot deliver, and you end up with the police as a harvesting machine canvassing statistics.
But when these statistics do not record all crime, no wonder our community resonates with an underlying concern about what is actually going on, hence this censure. This censure is well and truly justified. You may well throw out arguments to the left and right, but it sits at the centre. We have an issue that has been raised in this Chamber and we are addressing specifically these two publications that have been presented to us. In fact, one of them has not yet been formally presented to us, and I will get to that a little later.
What have we learnt? We have learnt, significantly, that not all crime is reported. In the face of Darwin having property offences in the sum of 24 345 which is an 8% increase, according to the police report: 24 000! We also have the admission of the Attorney-General that not all crime is reported. What on earth is going on? We have a discovery that there is a one in 10 clear up rate. That means that my house will have to be broken into 10 times before I have a likely chance of having the perpetrator brought before the courts: one in 10!
We see a 14% increase in Central Australia. We see a drop in police numbers. We have little attention given to the attrition rate, no substantial consideration by the previous speaker. We have 54 fewer police on the streets since the Labor Party came to power heralding rhetoric, saving the day, tough on crime and the causes of crime. I will tell you what that means: it means you are very sympathetic and caring and concerned about those who commit crime. Let us see if we can develop some kind of scenario whereby we can excuse you from complete responsibility for your actions. While you have that of the core of this, we can’t have any effective strategy that makes any noticeable difference.
We have the revelation: of those 54 police who are not on the streets since the Labor Party came to government, we find that 38 of them are from the senior ranks. We have a revelation from the Police Association - and I can tell this from my own experience and my work as a local member in Palmerston – that at Darwin, Casuarina and Palmerston police stations, staffing is at critical levels. We have an understanding that the level of sick leave, anecdotal though it be, is an indication of morale and malaise within the force. No reserve for the hard work that our police officers provide, particularly a couple of weeks ago when we had an operation in Palmerston that was very well supported by the community, and although we may not have issued a grand press release – and I pick up the cheap shot from the other side - at the grass roots level where it genuinely means something, appreciation has been solidly extended to the local police station in Palmerston by residents.
It is a real response to a real situation, and we in Palmerston really do appreciate the work of our local police station. But we all understand and accept that they are having difficulty meeting the demand owing to lack of resources. That is a fact.
We have uncovered anecdotal evidence that senior police are saying they simply cannot keep up with the farewell parties. Statistically, the attrition may even be higher - I don’t know, but it is a reality that there is this under current of concern about the morale and the capacity of our police service to meet the rising demand in the community.
That is what we have learned and that is just a snapshot. However, I want to centre on one very important aspect of this issue, that being these questions that come to mind: Why was the police report not tabled in parliament? Why wasn’t it tabled here first as a matter of protocol? That is a question I fairly ask. Let’s go a little further. Another question comes to mind: Why was the first one withdrawn? We have had nothing from the previous speaker to give any clarity, or any sense as to the reason behind the withdrawal of the first report. All we have seen is a distancing, pointing towards a senior public servant. We have had no revelations or insight as to why the report was withdrawn.
By instinct, any person on the other side of the House who is able to think fairly, clearly and honestly, would have the same question: Why would it have been withdrawn? Why was there a dual launch? Is that why it has not been presented formally here in the Chamber? Why was it that there were two at the one time? This fair, honest, open, transparent and accountable government called the media in for this grand announcement which breached protocol in terms of not presenting it here for parliament to have a look at. Instead of letting this Chamber operate as it should, what do we have? We don’t have the provision of these reports to the media – withholding it from the media, and the assertion they were actually in the room at the time the message being delivered to them was that the report has not been printed, or something to that effect, when it was in the room and in a jiffy it appeared through the door.
Why would this occur? We have to start to work on some answers. We have to make sense of this. You may well say doom and gloom is heralded by this side of the House and we are trying to down play the role of the public service, and we’re trying to talk up crime and all this sort of rot. We are dealing with a real issue here and you must be held accountable to the facts of the case. I can’t see how you could operate by slipping and sliding and adjusting your position to where you are politically comfortable. If you did what you said, I would have supported you. I am more than happy to give my support to the publication of these crime figures. The issue isn’t so much these crime figures. I understand and accept that from quarter to quarter, we will be able to look at and compare these crime figures. I am comfortable with that. I accept your intent to provide these figures. I have heard the Attorney-General refer to them in like manner. I have no problem with that; I am looking forward to their release. However, I am uncomfortable when you find the opportunity, by this strange coincidence or combining of events, to emerge - surprise, surprise! - with the amplification of an aspect of this report that crime is decreasing.
I tell you what: you would have gained a heck of a lot of credibility if you had announced the facts and did not put the spin on it - just were plain honest with the community. I reckon they would have stood right with you. But when you have this botched comedy of errors, or a strange set up - well we still have not received it here - it just does not look good. If you were serious about making a difference to crime and about being honest, open and transparent, we would not have any of this. We would not have a censure motion.
It gets worse. I cannot abide by dishonesty and mucking around with facts. There is some very important information we just do not know. I tell you what: it is worth finding out. I do not care whether I am in government or opposition. It is my duty to scrutinise this. Why was this first report withdrawn? What was the nature of the withdrawal? How was it effected? That is the answer that anyone who is looking at this wants to know. It will all be cleared up if we can get the facts of this. I tell you what: the ultimate way to clear this up is to table it so that we can see it, so that we can read it, so we can have a look at it.
Mr Stirling: You’ve had a copy of it for a week!
Mr MILLS: The first one, the one that was withdrawn. Then all things would be clear. Then we would understand. Then we could say: ‘You are honest, open and transparent’. But we do not know why it was withdrawn. We do not quite know how it was withdrawn but I am going to make some allegations in a moment …
Members interjecting.
Mr MILLS: I am going to make some allegations, and I would invite the next speaker to make clear to this parliament the nature of that withdrawal, and how it was effected. I managed to get hold of one of these which is the second police report and I notice …
Mr Kiely: It was posted to you, wasn’t it?
Mr MILLS: No, it was not posted to us! It should be tabled here in this place so we can debate it properly. I tell you what: anyone who has had a look at this will see - you will find at the front page of any annual report - a lovely letter from, in this case, the Police Commissioner - this is in the second one; I would presume it was in the first one - where we have the letter to the minister. In this case, in the second one, it is addressed to the Hon Paul …
Mr Stirling: It is not the second one. It is the report, you goose.
Mr Henderson: It is the report.
Mr MILLS: You will have your opportunity.
Mr Stirling: It is the report that came from the commissioner. If you want to undermine the integrity of the commissioner, go for it.
Mr Baldwin: You pulled it!
Mr Stirling: We don’t interfere in annual reports like you blokes must have.
Mr Baldwin: You have to sign off on it!
Mr Stirling: You blokes must have been up to it every day of the week!
Mr Baldwin: You pulled it!
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Daly and the minister, you are both on a warning. We have had outbursts a number of times today. The member for Blain has the floor.
Mr Baldwin: You pulled it.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Daly!
Mr MILLS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The point I am making, to which the next speaker will have an opportunity to respond, is this: in this annual report we have a letter written to the Honourable Paul Henderson and it outlines the introduction of this of this annual report. Once that is received, away we go to the printer. It would have to go to the printer after the minister has seen it. It is our understanding that the original annual report would had to have gone through the same process; it would had to have been read by the former police minister and then authorised to be sent off to the printer. To assert that the Police Commissioner was the one to do so - how could that be when the minister was the one who signed off on the report? Otherwise, it is not an annual report. Why would it have gone to the printer? Would the Police Commissioner send his own annual report to the printer under his own authority or would it come from the hand of the former police minister?
Therefore, we have the allegation of political interference. How could this have arrived here in this Chamber to then be retracted and then we have the annual report? I tell you what: this whole thing will be cleared up if we can get the facts of that case sorted out. How did that actually occur? More importantly, you could provide this Chamber with the original and then we can stand with you, perhaps, and say: ‘Fair, honest, open, transparent’. Otherwise, we have a situation that causes us to have very little confidence in the integrity of this report and the Crime Prevention NT Report.
We spit on this. If you want to do the job properly, you clarify this because the questions still stand: why was the first one pulped, withdrawn, shredded? Why was there a dual launch? Why did you withhold the report from the media when you made the big announcement? Why on earth did you not table it here first as a matter of protocol to honour and respect this Chamber?
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Madam Speaker, it is curious; the Burke and Mills Show has come to the fore.
Mr Mills: Don’t be distracted. Get on with the issue.
Mr STIRLING: It is the Mills Show more often than the Burke Show these days. In fact, it was the member for Blain who was out there recently complaining bitterly about so many ACPOs having left, ignoring the fact that more than had left had actually come on stream, been recruited, been trained after he was making some complaint about me being responsible for indigenous people leaving the work force. The Burke and Mills Show in search of the Big Tree. That is what we have, except it is only the Mills who seems to be around these days.
The Leader of the Opposition has really been stung by the member for Wanguri’s offer to fund him a trip interstate. I think it is obscene that this clown over here has spent $30 000 of taxpayers’ money on a freebie to New York with his wife and kids. Last year it was South Africa.
Members interjecting.
Mr STIRLING: What did the Northern Territory get in terms of value added for you going off to South Africa?
Mr Baldwin: Tell us why you pulled the report.
Mr STIRLING: What did the Northern Territory get the year before when it was America? What did the Northern Territory taxpayer get the year before that when it was America? Look back at the trips: US of A three out of the last four years, South Africa the exception, and this year it is New York with mum and the kids. You beauty! Mum and the billy lids off to New York compliments of the taxpayer, and what will we get? What will the taxpayers of the Northern Territory get for $30 000?
It is obscene. It is a gross waste of taxpayers’ money and you stand condemned for it. That is why you jumped to your feet to try to censure we two today …
Mr Burke: No. That’s why you have played the man!
Mr STIRLING: … out of embarrassment over your own largesse, and you say you have to spend it. You have to use your entitlements or no one will sign up to be a member.
Well, I tell you, that is not the motivation of the nine members on this side of the House as it is for you, you grubby little capitalist. That’s what it is, except capitalists spend their own money.
Mr BALDWIN: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Mr STIRLING: Capitalists have the decency to spend their own money …
Mr BALDWIN: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Mr STIRLING: … not Tories like you because you want to get in there …
Mr BALDWIN: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Mr STIRLING: … and backpad it up the front. Order! Madam Speaker, I have the floor.
Mr BALDWIN: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: I think I might just throw you both out, that behaviour is so disgusting. I don’t know what you are on about. There is no need for the minister to stand up and scream as loudly as that, and there is no need for the member for Daly to do likewise.
I am considering whether to tell you both to withdraw because you are being quite ridiculous. You are both over the top and you know it.
Mr STIRLING: Thank you …
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, don’t you dare speak while I am! Sit down.
There was a point of order called on you because you did use a most unparliamentary term, but we are in a censure motion and we have had many phrases of unparliamentary language that we have allowed in censure motions. We have had people being accused of lying throughout this debate, so I am going to ignore it at the moment and say there is no point of order, but I will put you both on notice: one more outburst from either of you and you are out, and you will probably be out for 24 hours, not just one hour.
Mr BALDWIN: Just to clarify, Madam Speaker, if I may, my point of order was going to be that the member direct his abuse through the chair.
Madam SPEAKER: I find that offensive.
Mr BALDWIN: No, I mean his abuse …
Madam SPEAKER: I find that offensive.
Mr BALDWIN: … in terms of – well, his comments through the Chair rather than directly at the member, which he was doing across the Chamber, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Be careful with the way you phrase things.
Mr BALDWIN: I didn’t mean abuse against you, Madam Speaker, I meant against the member.
Madam SPEAKER: Well, that’s the way it sounded to me. Minister, I would suggest that you calm down.
Mr STIRLING: Thank you, Madam Speaker, I will because …
Madam SPEAKER: This is twice I have said this today, and I won’t say it again. Continue.
Mr STIRLING: I apologise to the worthy name of capitalism, Madam Speaker, for being provoked into that remark, but the fact is that capitalists do spend their own money where this guy spends tax payers’ money, and the fact remains neither this government nor the Police Commissioner, nor the police force of the Northern Territory will benefit one iota from Mrs Burke, the billy lids and Mr Burke off on Qantas to New York for a little swan song. Probably, come February, it will be the Mills side of the Burke and Mills story that …
Mr Burke: Why don’t you address the debate rather than playing the man?
Mr STIRLING: Both speakers, Madam Speaker …
Mr Burke: Just address the debate!
Mr Elferink: Are you going to deny pulling the report? Deny pulling the report, go on!
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Macdonnell, you are baiting the minister. I know what you are doing.
Mr STIRLING: I don’t listen to him, Madam Speaker, it is all right.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, would you turn and speak to me?
Mr STIRLING: Both the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Blain seem to be particularly taken with some form of conspiracy theory that either myself or the member for Wanguri, when he became Minister for Police, interfered in some way with this Police, Fire and Emergency Services Annual Report.
I don’t know what they as ministers used to do in relation to annual reports, but I have seen this behaviour on other occasions where it is quite obvious that they were very close to the action and they intend to accuse us of doing the same thing. Let me assure them that neither myself, and nor do I believe anyway, the member for Wanguri, had anything to do with the trashing of the initial report.
You want to see how many drafts are made in making one of these reports: it is probably five or six. Do you want to see them all from day one when it started to be drawn up? This question about the minister signing off, the minister does not sign of on the printing of the annual report. He signs off on receipt of the report. It is the commissioner who orders it to go to print. Now, my recollection is that the Police Commissioner was still away at the time that it was to go off to the printer and on his return, it was his decision, no one else’s. It was the Police Commissioner’s decision, and I recall it was on the basis of inaccuracies in the report …
Mr Burke: We want to know why he pulled out all stops to have the second report printed in two days. Now, answer that.
Mr STIRLING: …which he picked up on his return. No conspiracy, no interference. It is the commissioner’s decision all the way. Now, you just wonder how close some of these CLP ministers did get to the action when they are so quick to accuse us. I think they were probably used to it on a fairly regular basis.
The leader, every time he gets to his feet, attacking the Police Commissioner, does undermine the integrity and morale of the police force in the Northern Territory. He well knows that it is a dangerous activity that they undertake on behalf of the community. Every time he pursues this line of action, he damages …
Mr Burke: You’re the one misleading people.
Mr STIRLING: … the Police Commissioner, and he undermines the integrity and morale of the police force. It is a difficult and dangerous job and they need the support, above all else, of members of this Assembly.
The member for Blain ought to pay attention to this. It is not something that we got into in opposition. We were always pretty careful to ensure that the police were kept out of the political action as much as possible. This Leader of the Opposition wants to be into the police, boots and all, every time parliament gets together.
The police force of the Northern Territory deserves the support of every decent member of the community and, above all else, that of members of this parliament, government and opposition included. The leader never considers the ramifications of his actions, and he never considers how that undermines the very difficult and dangerous role that they perform on behalf of all Territorians.
It is interesting, and I think the member for Wanguri picked up on this, to see the Country Liberal Party run on an issue behind a union. You know, they discovered blackfellas early on in opposition, they discovered single mums.
A member: Greenies!
Mr STIRLING: They discovered that there were things like unions. It never happened in 26 years of government that the CLP ever invoked the name of a union on any policy or initiative that they proposed – not once! In fact, the only time unions were ever mentioned in this House was to give them a bagging from the roof tops. Twenty six and a half years! But now they come in waving the flag of the Police Union.
I will give you the inside as to what they think are unions: when the member for Wanguri referred to it as the police union, they said: ‘That is not a union; it is an association’. Well, they hate unions as much today as when they were born all those years ago in Alice Springs, and there is the fact of it because when he said it was the police union, they said: ‘No, it is not a union. We would not quote a union. It is an association’ as if there is some little difference. It is okay to cuddle the police union because they are not a real union; they are an association. We can still keep the divide, we can still hate unions as much as ever, and that is the only reason they used them today. It is interesting. The net gets ever larger under the CLP in terms of what they will use in here.
The police spokesperson has gone on again today and he has raised a number of issues, I will give him credit for consistency, on this question of an independent review into police numbers as if the government is afraid of it or we will not go there because of what it might tell us and the resource implications. Well, there is no fear or anxiety on behalf of government in terms of an independent review. My position was this when I was Minister for Police, and I have not asked the current Police minister what his view is, but in terms of …
Mr Burke: Well, that would help, wouldn’t it?
Mr STIRLING: Well, I am no longer the spokesperson …
Mr Burke: Well, don’t speak for the government, then. If you do not know the answer, do not speak for the government. We want to know the government’s position.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr STIRLING: I am no longer the police minister. I will tell you what my view was: that the Police Commissioner had embarked on a comprehensive continuous improvement strategy for the police force, in a way for himself as CEO getting a feel for the whole of the police force, where it was going, directions, strategies, the whole thing. I would have thought, as the CEO, he would be entitled to see that process of continuous improvement strategy through. A big part of that continuous improvement review or strategy was the deployment of resources.
At the conclusion or at any time through the implementation of that strategy, if the commissioner found a case that he wanted to prosecute to government that there had to be greater police numbers, he knows where to go: straight to government and tell them, demonstrate the case for it. He knows the budget cycle, he understands how government works. That option is there, as it is for any CEO but particularly for the Police Commissioner given that he is having a very close look at the deployment of resources inside the continuous improvement strategy.
You can ask a question of the Police minister tomorrow to see what his view is. Not opposed in principle at all to this question of an independent review. It is a few years since the McAulay Bowe Review went down. It served government well in its time. How often you have these reviews is a moot point. However, I would have thought that following that implementation - the continuous improvement process that the commissioner has embarked on - that he himself may go to government. If he did not, the government itself may say: ‘We thank you for all the work but maybe it is time for an independent review’. It is an open question; government is not closed on it, government is not saying no, except that I was at this time referring to the commissioner’s continuous improvement strategy.
If we can get to some of this rubbish peddled about the level of crime and be clear about what the first Quarterly Crime and Justice Statistics Report did put before the people of the Northern Territory. For recorded robberies, the trend line is stable. The trend line for motor theft rose in January 2002, but has remained stable over the last two quarters. Recorded other theft has remained stable since September 2000. This word stable is: s-t-a-b-l-e. It means a flat line, not what you put horses in. This is not crime going through the roof when I am talking about being stable. Stables are what we are building – we are building new ones for the police horses. However, this is stable.
Property damage has remained stable since November 2001, but there have been two increases in the trend line since September 2000. The trend line shows recorded assaults are down, recorded sexual assaults are down, break-ins to other premises are down. Importantly, residential break-ins are down across the Territory. House break-ins: the Leader of the Opposition insists they have risen. Well, he is wrong and he should stop misleading Territorians. The facts show that house break-ins are down across the Territory, and that has been the trend since January of this year.
Mr Elferink: The time frame that suits you - that is the deception that you guys are getting censured for.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Macdonnell, order! You will have your say in a minute.
Mr STIRLING: Throw him out, Madam Speaker. My voice is going.
House break-ins are down across the Territory and that has been the trend since January of this year. In Darwin, the trend line is at the lowest ever over the two-year period covered by this report. In Palmerston, house breaks-in have been dropping since November 2001. In Alice Springs and Katherine, the same as for Darwin and Palmerston, the trend line shows house break-ins going down. What does the commissioner say? The Commissioner of Police confirms these trends. He said:
- The figures are provided to the Office of Crime Prevention by Northern Territory police from PROMIS, and it has
shown that reported crime has reduced. We know that crime fluctuates - it goes up and down - but in the last six
to nine months there has been a downward trend.
Property crime continued to rise under mandatory sentencing, and started to drop when it was repealed and replaced by this government’s aggravated property offence regime. The aggravated property offences target the right people: those who commit serious crime, property crime, those who are repeat offenders and those who have committed multiple offences.
We are not going to waste taxpayers’ money locking up young kids who stole a packet of biscuits. That was the reality, and it did not solve anything. In fact, what it did - apart from the tragedy of a suicide - it probably put a number of juveniles on to a life of crime that they may not otherwise have become involved with. We are very careful about taxpayers’ money, unlike these people opposite. The government knows enough about crime to know that any single strategy - mandatory sentencing or any other so-called magic wand - is not the answer; it is not going to work. It simply cannot work when you have multiple factors behind these episodes. One answer solutions are never going to get you there.
That is why this government has a six-point plan to combat property crime and a three-point plan on drug crime. We focus on all three levels: protection, punishment and prevention. We have strategies and programs across government: law enforcement to target the offenders, targetted new laws for property offences, home or business invasion, and drug dealers and manufacturers. Of course, that was something that the opposition never wanted to hear about - minuscule. ‘Minuscule’ was the word on one occasion, and ‘infinitesimal’ - I can’t spell it, but I can say it - was the description on another.
We and Territorians well know that there are strong links between illicit drug use and crime, particularly property crime, in the Northern Territory as there is across this country. The establishment of drug courts during this financial year may help to break that drug/property crime cycle through prevention programs and education, health and family services. That is why this government made that commitment and has gone ahead to establish the Office of Crime Prevention, to coordinate and evaluate those programs right across the face of government, to work in partnership with the people of the Northern Territory to tackle crime in the community together. That is why you are starting to see some of these crime levels go down.
We are not cocky about this - far from it. One break-in, one assault, one car theft, whatever the crime, is one too many, but we are also realistic that you are never going to do away with it completely. What you have to do is minimise it as far as you possibly can and minimise the impact on people. We have a long way to go, and we need to keep a real focus on law enforcement and crime prevention programs. We know the crime rates at any time are difficult to bring down but we are committed to continuing to work to try to achieve that.
Some of the other misinformation from the Leader of the Opposition, and I quote him in one radio interview last week:
- The property crime for the September quarter of this year is the same number as the September quarter in the
year 2000.
- Property crime in particular has risen alarmingly since Labor came to power.
- The September quarter this year is the same number as the September quarter last year; but I have to tell you
property crime has gone through the roof since Labor came to power.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, your time has expired.
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the member be granted an extension of time to allow him to conclude his remarks.
Motion agreed to.
Members interjecting
Madam SPEAKER: Members of the Opposition, order!
Mr STIRLING: You have to wonder about the Leader of the Opposition and his message here to Territorians. Was it the same? Did it go down? Did it go up? We’re not sure.
It is important, though, that we do all understand the true situation; if you look at all property offences at the beginning of the two year period, then they are at a similar level to the end of that period, but it does not tell you very much. Property offences cover a vast array of offences from break-ins to shop lifting to breaking a window in a car. You need to look at the individual types of offences. If we take residential break-ins, because that is the offence type in which we are all very interested, if you look at the September quarter of 2000 there were 861 break-ins compared with 605 in the September just gone, a reduction of 256 offences. Even that does not tell you so much. It hides the fact that house break-ins steadily increased from September 2000 through to 2001, but have been decreasing since the December 2001 quarter, a decrease of 43% from the September quarter of the previous year. It is difficult, even for the Leader of the Opposition, to suggest that that is an increase.
Police not recording offences gets a bit of a run occasionally. The Attorney-General passed me an ABS document, the Australian Bureau of Statistics Crime and Safety Australia, April 1998, estimated under-reporting rates by jurisdiction with an Australian average total at the bottom, crime and safety reporting rates. I will try not to be too selective, but if we took motor vehicle theft, generally jurisdictions are pretty high in the reporting rates. Tasmania and the ACT are down towards the bottom at 85.2% and 86.2% estimated reports, Northern Territory 100%. Robbery: New South Wales 47.9%; Victoria 46%; Queensland 52.4%; South Australia 42.5%; Tasmania 56.5%; Northern Territory 79.8%; ACT 56.3%. Only the strongest reporting by a factor of 20% at the lowest.
I will table this. It is not all good. For unlawful entry with intent, the Territory is at the bottom at 66.4%, but it goes through the 70s to 83.2% as the highest, so we are not that high off the pace considering we are the highest in a number of other categories including right up there with assault, but I will table that for the benefit of members, Madam Speaker.
The Opposition Leader has tried to suggest that the police data system PROMIS is not reliable because police are not recording offences and I quote him. He said that a crime report to police
- … doesn’t get on the statistics unless it’s followed up by a comprehensive report or a car is dispatched.
That is plain wrong. The police are far more professional than that and I want to make it clear that procedures used by the police for recording offences are exactly the same as were used when the Country Liberal Party was in government. They are exactly the same procedures that were used when the Country Liberal Party was in office. There has been no change to the way these matters are handled or recorded under this government, as is quite proper in relation to a matter which is clearly operational. I think the Leader of the Opposition gets a little desperate when he seeks to score cheap points at the expense of police and criticises a system which was set up in the first place to ensure that these offences are recorded properly.
To set the record straight, I will explain briefly how it works. The government has been advised by police that offences are recorded on the PROMIS system when police have sufficient information about the offence to enable them to say it is reasonably certain that an offence has been committed. The actual timing of when police do or do not form that view is a matter for the police using their professional discretion. The type of crime, the nature of the offence, the information which is provided during the initial contact are some of the factors that come into play when the police exercise this discretion.
Crime statistics are generated from a field in PROMIS that records the offences police believe have been committed in a particular incident. It is the best way to ensure an accurate record is made of the actual offences which have been committed. It is not correct to claim, as the Leader of the Opposition has, that the recording of an offence is dependent on a patrol car being dispatched or not. It is irresponsible to try to undermine the integrity of our police in this fashion, but it is something that he is becoming pretty used to doing.
The Opposition Leader also suggests that these statistics are flawed because not all crime is reported. The Quarterly Crime and Justice Statistics do not claim to represent every crime committed in the Northern Territory. No report anywhere in any jurisdiction in any part of the world would make that claim, and any government would deserve criticism if it tried to do so. The report only claims to present recorded crime statistics. In fact, the report refers to unreported offences, noting the ABS reports that in the Northern Territory some 33% of house break-ins and 71% of assaults are unreported. The ABS has found there are a number of reasons for not reporting crimes: they consider too trivial a broken window or a break-in where nothing is stolen; the victim did not want the offender punished; or the matter was seen as personal and the victim had taken care of it. That is nothing new. It was exactly the same situation under the Country Liberal Party government as is the case right around Australia.
‘One property offender in every three walks free’, says the Leader of the Opposition. He claims that under this government’s aggravated property offence regime which replaced mandatory sentencing, for every three people convicted of a property crime in the Northern Territory, one of those people walk free from court. Wrong, wrong, wrong. A deliberate misinterpretation of the quarterly report and a deliberate attempt to mislead Territorians again.
The report actually says between 22 October 2001, the date when mandatory sentencing was repealed - that was a proud day, Attorney-General, and I was pleased when that act was repealed and replaced with our regime of aggravated property offences - to 30 June 2002, 425 aggravated property offences were dealt with by the courts. The results of these 425 cases were: in 73% of cases or 311 offences, an actual term of imprisonment was ordered. Not quite one in three going free, I would have thought. In 11% of cases or 45 offences, a Community Work Order was imposed. In 16% of cases or 69 offences, other orders were made. The offenders received home detention, sentences of imprisonment which were suspended but would be reactivated on any further wrongdoing, the imposition of a fine or good behaviour bond. No one walked free. One hundred per cent of those convicted of an aggravated property offence received a term of imprisonment, a Community Work Order or some other type of order.
You have to ask: when is the Opposition Leader going to stop pretending that mandatory sentencing had any effect, and when is he going to stop trying to deceive Territorians over this failed, useless policy? If there is anything he might find out when you go to New York that is any use, ask them if it is still in place, the old zero tolerance and mandatory sentencing.
Mr Burke interjecting.
Mr STIRLING: I will tell you what or what I saw in Los Angeles: a guy doing 20 to 25 years hard labour for stealing a pizza. That is what I saw in America, in Los Angeles. Twenty to 25, hard labour for stealing a pizza. A three strike policy. Gee, that’s justice. That is justice US style.
Mr Dunham: With a gun.
Mr STIRLING: With a gun! He stole a pizza and got 20 to 25, hard labour! You might ask when you are over there, if you get to ask any police officers or the judiciary any questions.
We do ask when the opposition is going to stop perpetuating this myth that it made any difference. The things we are talking about here, crime in our community and how to bring it down, are too important to play petty politics with and so is our police force and so is our Police Commissioner. Every time you launch into one of these little escapades, you undermine the integrity, the morale and the great, hard work that our police do out there in what is a difficult and dangerous job.
I call on the opposition to move on, to stop bagging the Police Commissioner, to stop bagging our police and start to contribute to this debate in a positive way. I will be listening when you come back from New York, New York, just to see what you have come across. If there is anything - and I very much doubt that you will have anything to contribute to the way our police force is run or the way that we are organising policy around law and order, but I will be listening. I will be listening just to see what does come back.
If the opposition cannot bring itself to get out of the gutter and stop attacking our police force, then the least it can do is stop peddling this misinformation and mythology that they want to perpetuate.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I rise to engage in this censure debate. I wasn’t going to at the outset, but I have heard a tirade of abuse which had absolutely nothing to do with the issues at hand. The issues in this censure debate are nothing more complex than the incompetent way that this government is handling crime in the Northern Territory and, much more importantly, the rising crime rates in the Northern Territory.
What we have heard is a battle of the statistics, and that really is what the Northern Territory News was complaining about in its editorial when it said that the attempts by the government to deceive the media in an effort to cover up the crime situation in the Northern Territory was what this government was trying to do. I was struck that week because two newspapers are produced in Alice Springs. The cover of the Alice Springs News in that week said that crime rates had dropped. I opened up the Centralian Advocate, and property crime had soared.
What I saw was a product of what this government was attempting to do, and that was to deceive Territorians. They talk about 16 month periods and September quarters, and blue moons under the ancient Babylonian calendar to make their statistics fit. Unfortunately, there are reporting periods: annual reports come out over particular reporting periods. I rely on those annual reports because they give you an accurate report over those periods.
The annual report of the police, which I finally got hold of today through the Table Office - the second attempt, I might add - lists as offences against property in the Northern Territory ‘Total crime reported’. I point out for the Minister for Police, it is in the big blue line, the big blue one, that says ‘Total crime reported’. For the period 2000-01, 33 986 – well, that is bad enough, 33 986, which tells me there is about a 20% chance that every Territorian in that period was a victim of crime.
What is more astonishing, the period when these guys were in government, the reporting period 2001-02, has gone up to 36 351. That is an increase of 7%. Big blue line, your report, the one that was finally approved and signed off by you guys - the second one that was approved and signed off by you guys shows a clear rise in crime. It is your report, your numbers, and it is a trustworthy reporting period. This is the problem I have: I heard the minister for - whatever he is the minister for at the moment, they change that often - the former minister for police stood in here and told us that their new system of locking up villains is working so well. Then it talks about aggravated property crime.
What about simple property offences? Let us look at the full picture, not starting to put those little disclaimer-type words in there, which then have the effect of muddying the waters and changing statistics to look like what we want them to look like. I am surprised they have not heard it yet, but it is certainly worth quoting. Benjamin Disraeili once said:
- There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics.
This issue of what was in the initial report - the one that ended up in the Table Office, ready to be laid on the Table before this House - could easily be sorted out. If the minister goes and grabs a copy of that one - the one that was in the Table Office before it was dragged out of here, the one that he had no involvement in interfering with, or the one that he says: ‘No, nothing to do with it, I had nothing to do with having that annual report pulled’. At what point does he take control of an annual report? It was sitting in the Table Office ready to go, and he had nothing to do with it? That is really what he expects this House to believe. ‘I have had no involvement,’ says the minister, ‘It is just sitting there in the Table Office. I will not read it, I will not peruse it, I will not get any advice on it. I will simply let it flop onto the Table. I had nothing to do with it. No, no, no. I am putting this distance between myself and the report’.
That is unbelievable. It is a lie. That is what this censure motion is all about. The minister is either saying: ‘I am either so trusting of my staff and everything that is happening around me that I am prepared to let it all happen. I am going to be totally oblivious to that and I do not care’. Well, that is incompetence. The much more likely answer is that the minister was fully aware of what was in that report; was also fully aware of the report coming from the Minister for Justice and thought: ‘Holy cow, gee whiz! I had better rock and roll on this’. Through a very improper process, he went to great lengths to have that report pulled - pulled it out of the Table Office and then sat on it. The whole report is pulped, and then the Minister for Justice says: ‘I am going to release this wonderful report with all these crime statistics. We are going to slip this one in underneath’.
So that places the Commissioner of Police in an invidious situation where he suddenly has to get a new report printed up as quickly as he can, whatever the cost. So the minister is trying to convince every person in this Chamber that he had nothing to do with the pulling of that report; says it was in a draft form. Exactly when does the minister anticipate that a report ends up in its final form? I would hope and consider that a report which is in the process of being developed is not published, stuck into boxes, does not get disseminated to everybody who needs to read it, or nearly disseminated to everybody who needs to read it - and it is still considered to be in a draft form? That is what the minister is expecting us to believe. Any person with an ounce of common sense would realise how incredulous that claim is. A draft form? It defies common sense. The minister knows it defies common sense, but the point is that the minister is still trying to cover his tracks in some fashion; and whatever he was trying to cover was buried in the first report that ended up here in the Table Office.
Mr Henderson: Rubbish!
Mr ELFERINK: Whatever he was trying to cover, and I pick up on the interjection from the minister for police; if that is the case, all the minister for police has to do is take the old report …
Mr Henderson: There was no old report!
Mr ELFERINK: The first one that ended up sitting in the Table Office here. That is all he has to do; bring it into this Chamber, lay it on the Table, so this argument finishes; it evaporates. It surely cannot be that hard. Has every copy been destroyed? What about the one that was holding up the overhead projector?
Mr Henderson: I’ve never seen it. I don’t know what you’re talking about.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, the point is that they have tried to deceive the people of the Northern Territory and tried to do it twice with this annual report: in the first instance by pulling it out, and in the second instance, by trying to slip it out under another set of crime statistics which more suited the government’s position.
I trust the annual report of the Commissioner of Police, and when I try to find out what is happening in my community in the southern region - 2000-01, Offences Against Property, Southern Region, page 95, it tells me that there were 6986 offences against property. The next year, the year of the first Labor government, property offences in the southern region went to 7983; an increase of 14%. I direct honourable members to page 95 of the annual report …
Mr Henderson: Have you read this one? Read this one!
Mr ELFERINK: This is your report, minister!
Mr Henderson: This is our report, too. Read this one! That is an old one; this is the new one.
Mr ELFERINK: The big blue line. If you require some sort of literacy training, then go and get some. 14% increase, and still you come into this Chamber and say that there is no property crime problem, there is no increase occurring in the Northern Territory …
Mr Henderson: I did not say that. Wrong!
Ms Martin: Never said that.
Mr ELFERINK: You are trying to develop a picture which is deceptive. That is the thrust of this censure motion: this government has no credibility, is deceptive, and lies to the people of the Northern Territory. When it fails to see its policies working, rather than reviewing those policies as it promised to do, what does it do? It tries to muddy the waters, obfuscate, and lie. That is the thrust of this government’s intention. The Northern Territory was promised a government which was open, honest and accountable and what it gets is a shifty, shady government which pulls annual reports for unknown reasons, pulls them out of Table Office, and then denies having any knowledge. ‘Never saw it,’ says the current minister for police.
Mr Henderson: No, I did not.
Mr ELFERINK: Well, what did the former minister for police do? How was he involved? He says: ‘No, I never gave any instructions’. What did he actually do? He has not told us that. He had more than 20 minutes to stand up and explain himself in this Chamber, and what did the former minister for police do? The thing that he always does when he feels that he is under the hammer and there is some pressure on him. He hurls into a tirade of abuse, blaming everybody else under the sun, other than himself or bringing himself to any form of account. That has been the thrust of the government’s response: ‘That is you mob over there. You guys had all the wrong policies’.
Well, you can blame anybody you like but what succour is that to the extra 14% of people who live in the southern region of the Northern Territory who have had their property stolen, their houses broken into, their cars stolen? What succour is there in that? What sense of openness and honesty, can the people of Alice Springs have when there is a newspaper saying one thing one day, and literally two days later, at the very first opportunity, the next newspaper in Alice Springs publishes exactly the opposite result? That is a level of inconsistency which can only be sheeted home to the people who are in charge of delivering those statistics, and that is the government of the Northern Territory.
I can only be guided by the report that I have in front of me in relation to this. That report has a set reporting period, as annual reports have every year.
Mr Henderson: They are quarterly now; four times a year.
Mr ELFERINK: They have a set reporting period. It does not introduce other aspects, like the words ‘aggravated property crime’ so the former minister for police can slip in here and say what a wonderful job they are doing by simply using a few qualifying nouns. The fact of the matter is that this government has been seen by the people of the Northern Territory, including the journalistic community, as perpetrating a fraud. That fraud is that if you can’t baffle them with brilliance, you bury them under bull.
Madam Speaker, that is why this government is the target of the censure motion; it is the total mistrust that I and many other Territorians now feel in a government which has dealt with them in a manner which is dishonest, unreliable and basically full of lies.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, it is a very predictable reaction from the opposition. There is more data in these two reports than in the entire period of the CLP government in the Northern Territory; 10 000 pieces of information in there, all with analysis and all with proper rigour in the way that it has been put together. It would never have happened under the previous government. It has happened under our government because we said it would happen as an election promise.
Why did we release two reports at the same time? I can probably best give an idea of that through the words of Police Commissioner Paul White on Thursday 21 November: far better to produce the two reports at the one time to indicate that the crime analysis is based on the same information that is interpreting the data over two different time periods.
We put a lot of faith in the media here in the Northern Territory by releasing a large body of information at once, and I am happy to say that a number of the media have now done their homework and have come to terms with the statistical framework that these reports are going to be following. They will be right, then, every three months as further reports are released; they understand the structure and they can comment on it and have whatever opinion they want of it.
But here we go with the opposition trying to muddy up the waters with: ‘Oh, yes, we had this conspiracy theory about releasing the police stats’. We were so secret about it, we called all the media together and we released some 10 000 pieces of information with briefings and with commentary. If that’s being secretive, I would love to see what we would be doing if we were trying to be public. The problem we have here is that the data, in the area that has had a lot of the discussion, has gone over a hill, and I think that you can see from this graph that it has gone up and over a hill.
The police comparison of the two financial years are on the uphill bit, and that is where the crime rates of this offence, house break-ins, were increasing. So obviously, if you compare that part of the graph with that part of the graph, you are going to find an increase in the crime.
Mr Dunham: Are you going to table that so we can have a look at it? That is going to be tabled, is it?
Dr TOYNE: Yes, I am quite happy to.
Mr Dunham: Good, thank you.
Dr TOYNE: This report from the Office of Crime Prevention is dealing with the last three months, so you are capturing this downhill part of the graph. They are both perfectly true pictures of that area of crime and the trends in that area of crime. There is no rocket science in this. There are exactly the same figures in the two reports; you are just looking at two different time periods and drawing conclusions about what the trend of that crime was in that time period.
It is quite dishonest to claim that the Office of Crime Prevention report deals only with a three month period. It deals with a two year period and compares the last two quarters of that period. There is a complete time line of data back two years and so it is actually a more comprehensive report than the police annual report which deals with a financial year.
I want to clear up, partly for the sake of the statisticians who work within the Office of Crime Prevention who have been very badly demoralised by the ill-informed comment that has accompanied the release of these statistics, they are professional people with a professional reputation which they happen to care very much about. They have been thoroughly insulted by the types of comments that have been going on. Informed comments, fine, but when people don’t even bother to get the facts together, then I think that that is a disgrace.
Ernst & Young, a very reputable company, has done an independent assessment of the two reports for the accuracy of the data, for the appropriateness of the presentation and for the reconciliation between the two reports of the data used. I can say that the Ernst & Young report has found that the data has been calculated and presented accurately, that comparison with prior quarters is a common, widely accepted means of analysing changes in data over time, that the report is presented without undue bias, and that the data of the quarterly report is consistent with the data in the police annual report. Let me quote from the conclusions of the Ernst & Young report, which I will table:
In summary, that data is presented in a way that is appropriate for the stated intended audience, using
techniques and measures that are reasonable, applied in a consistent manner, and without giving undue
bias in data presentation.
So Territorians can be very confident that the crime statistics prepared by the Office of Crime Prevention are both accurate and unbiased in the picture that they produce of these very important areas of crime that are being dealt with. What I say to the media and to the general public, and particularly to the opposition, is: do your homework and come to terms with this framework because you will be seeing it four times a year well into the future. We want some informed debate on this, not manipulated, ignorant comments about what these documents are portraying.
I hope now that we can move on to a discussion of the picture that these crime statistics are presenting. These are incredibly important issues for the Northern Territory. We have to deal with these patterns of behaviour in our communities. We cannot deal with that through public policy if we have one side of politics constantly trying to muddy the waters and discredit any information that is released. We will release this information every quarter; and every quarter there will be a test of this House and the members of this House, along with the media and public interest groups within our community that have a role in doing something about levels of crime.
I am very proud of Issue One of the Office of Crime Prevention’s Quarterly Crime and Justice Statistics. It implements one of our key election commitments of our six-point plan. It is an election commitment that I have personally been very committed to: the production of regular, independent, comprehensive crime and justice statistics. Providing full disclosure is something I believe is very important because of my background in science, and I can certainly give a personal guarantee as to the unbiased and professional nature of this information, and it will remain that way.
These Quarterly Crime and Justice Statistics have been produced by Mr Stephen Jackson, the Director of the Research and Statistics Unit of the Office of Crime Prevention, and I would like to thank him and his team for their dedication in producing such an informative set of figures for the people of the Northern Territory.
As I have already said, the Office of Crime Prevention has adopted the ABS Australian Standard Offence Classification. The data used in this report comes from the police PROMIS system, the Integrated Justice Information System, or IJIS, and from the records maintained at Northern Territory Correctional Services. The Quarterly Crime and Justice Statistics from the Office of Crime Prevention provide Territorians, for the first time, with a broad range of crime statistics at the Territory-wide level and down to Darwin, Palmerston and other regional towns.
What did the CLP leave on its record in terms of providing information to the people of the Northern Territory? I had a look at the last annual report of Police, Fire and Emergency Services tabled under the CLP government in the 1999-2000 financial year. In total, it has one table Territory-wide on selected offences reported to police; one table, again Territory-wide, on reported unlawful entry of a dwelling; one table on reported unlawful entry of a building; and one table on drug-related infringements and apprehensions, again only on the Territory as a whole. We have 4000 items of information in here on top of an equally extensive volume of information in the police annual report.
There is no information in the CLP version of public disclosure on Darwin; there is no information on Palmerston; on Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Katherine or Nhulunbuy. There are no trend lines, there are no analyses, there are no court outcomes to refer to.
I would like to again state that, according to an independent study by Ernst & Young, the two reports are completely compatible in terms of the use of the police data, and the way in which that data has been interpreted within the two respective time lines. One of these is not trying to cover up the other. They are basically two different views of what that particular database can tell us about crime in the Northern Territory.
The police annual report is just that: an annual report covering the financial year 2001-02. In other words. it provides statistics on crime from the period 1 July 2001 to 30 June 2002, and makes comparisons with the previous financial year. On the basis of that, it is not comparable in its conclusions with the report from the Office of Crime Prevention which is a report that provides statistics from the September quarter of 2002; that is, from 1 July to 30 September 2002. It makes comparisons with the preceding quarters. There is no contradiction, just different time periods. The crime statistics from both reports are based on the same data, and I have stated the origins of that data.
This national standard of the ABS characterises crime using a uniform classification structure that we have adopted from the ABS. It is used all over Australia. The Office of Crime Prevention’s Quarterly Crime and Justice Statistics is a more comprehensive report than the police annual report. It provides information over a two year period that will be added quarter by quarter in all major urban centres in the Territory as we go forward. So at the moment, we know about two years of trends in crime. Every quarter we will add to that time line so we will have a much more stable view of what is happening with these various offences.
I urge Territorians to look at this government report and to make use of it, to both interpret what is happening in their neighbourhoods and what is happening in areas of their workplaces and the issues in which they have a particular interest. That is why it has been released and, with the trend data, will give a much clearer picture over time than the percentages which can vary enormously in times that periods are compared. The release of this information ensures that Territorians can see for themselves what the crime trends are, and they will not be as vulnerable to the sensationalist statements of the opposition, or the less informed comment in the media.
Two year trends are the most helpful when you are looking at the way crimes occur within our community. We know that the crime statistics of the Territory can be volatile. Because we are working from a smaller population base and, therefore, a smaller sample than other parts of Australia, the percentage changes can be big. Hence, the member for Blain’s noble effort of using an increase of 14 offences in a part of Palmerston as proof that there is a crime wave. It was probably one offender who cut loose there for the purposes of their own habits and created a one-person crime wave in a very small part of Palmerston. So we have to get beyond that volatility if we are going to see how those crimes are generated in the community and what our public programs are doing to change them.
What do the trend lines show about major crimes in the Territory? As my colleague, the member for Nhulunbuy has already said, for recorded robberies, the trend line is stable. The trend line for motor theft rose in January 2002 but has remained stable over the last two quarters. Recorded other theft has remained stable since September 2000. Property damage has remained stable since November 2001, and there have been two increases in the trend line since September 2000. The trend line shows recorded assaults are down; recorded sexual assaults are down; break-ins to premises other than dwellings are down. Importantly, residential break-ins are down across the Territory and that is right across the Territory. We are finding in every regional centre some significant downturn.
We have to find out what has caused that, in detail. My colleague, the member for Nhulunbuy, has already indicated that there are a number of elements in our policies in these areas of crime prevention that would have impacted along with changes in police work.
I want to focus on some of the crimes, the house break-ins. There is quite clearly a significant downturn since last January and we obviously will be working very hard to see that is consolidated and continues. Looking at Darwin, we have exactly the same downturn. I will table these as I go along.
Members interjecting.
Dr TOYNE: Palmerston, not so clear and in fact quite volatile and it has been on the same fluctuating average now since December 2001. So there has not been the same sustained downturn as has happened in Darwin. Mostly, the overall Territory levels of house break-ins have shown that sustained decrease since last January. All we are taking those to mean is some encouraging early signs of a sustained downturn. The first sustained downturn in the two year period that these statistics deal with. The Commissioner of Police has confirmed these trends during the interview that he had last Thursday.
We know that crime fluctuates. It goes up and down, but in the last six to nine months there has been a downward trend, that is pretty clear to me. He has also said:
- I am somewhat bewildered to see that there is a degree of cynicism …
I wouldn’t be bewildered about cynicism on the part of the opposition because this is not good news for them politically. It might be good news for the Northern Territory community, but it is certainly not good news for you mob because you are still parading around saying there is an increase in crime when in fact the figures are showing these decreases. The commissioner said:
- I am somewhat bewildered to see there’s a degree of cynicism about crime numbers and that we should reflect on the
fact that there is a downward trend. There is a full disclosure of crime information in a way that’s never been
provided before.
Mr Henderson: Never been provided before!
Mr Elferink: In a way that’s never been provided before. I’m sure about that. It’s a whole new way.
Mr Henderson: Four times a year instead of once a year!
Dr TOYNE: That is the Police Commissioner saying the Northern Territory has never had a better picture of crime in the community. Property crime continued to rise as shown in those graphs …
Mr Elferink: Why is the commissioner reporting an increase?
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Macdonnell, enough!
Dr TOYNE: Property crime continued to rise under mandatory sentencing. You have to come to terms with that. Mandatory sentencing, over the three or so years it existed in the Northern Territory Sentencing Act, resulted in a very consistent rise in the very crimes that it was put into counter. In fact, some 4% or 5% per year over the period that mandatory sentencing was in place. Mandatory sentencing had no beneficial effect in countering those types of offences in our community. The only decrease in these types of offences in the community have occurred under a Labor government. They have not occurred at all under mandatory sentencing or under the CLP.
So, we have to find out exactly what elements of police work, of crime prevention work, of community mobilisation has contributed to those early signs of improvement. We have to try to consolidate those initiatives in our government. We will be working very hard to do that. I want to reiterate what has been said many times since the day that we released these figures, that we are not getting cocky about this. We have a big crime problem in the Northern Territory, we continue to have a big crime problem in the Northern Territory and we are not taking any foot off the pedal on action to counter that crime.
The difference between us and you is that you just popped out to your one shot in the locker, the mandatory sentencing, and went to sleep on everything else. We are working very strongly now through our community crime prevention groups. We are working very strongly to support the police as they apply the more focussed laws that we brought onto the Criminal Code and we are seeing the early impact of the body of law reform that we have introduced and the improved operational arrangements within the police force. I think all of the people who have achieved this early improvement should be congratulated for it, but counselled not to get cocky or apathetic about it. We have to keep working, and working very hard, to try and get these figures down further still.
In summary, there is no merit in this censure motion. There is no substantiation of the conspiracy theories, the unsubstantiated criticisms of the documents here. We all have to move on from this. We have thrown them the challenge. There is the information. That is what is going on in crime in the Northern Territory. This is what you have to address as the opposition, as we have to address it as government. We will all stand or fall on how the pattern emerges in the future.
Madam Speaker, I move that the motion be now put.
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: The question now is that the Censure Motion be agreed to.
Motion negatived.
LIQUOR AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 105)
(Serial 105)
Continued from 16 October 2002.
Mr BALDWIN (Daly): Madam Speaker, we move now to an amendment to the Liquor Act that deals with objections as well as the provision for complaints. I will say at the outset that the opposition will not be supporting this amendment to the bill on quite a few grounds, and I will go through them, but particularly that this now starts to prescribe who can and who cannot make a complaint or objection to a liquor license application. Because it is becoming prescriptive, it therefore becomes restrictive in our view. It certainly does limit a person or a group by description that is contained in the amendment and by the location in which those people or groups operate. It also flies in the face of community concern about alcohol in general and alcohol in the community. It does nothing to let people have an open say in how many licences are granted by way of application.
It is a bandaid attempt to fix what has been happening in Darwin of late, particularly in Mitchell Street. To that end, I believe that there needs to be some clear policy articulation in respect of the number of licences that should be allowed in various precincts. Mitchell Street is a good example of that.
Going to the second reading speech, the minister started by saying that the Liquor Act is a very important instrument of legislation designed to protect the community from the harm associated with the abuse of liquor and to ensure that the amenity of the community is maintained. That is a very strong thread throughout the Liquor Act: protect the community from harm and to ensure the amenity of the community is maintained.
This amendment goes to that very aspect: protect the community from harm. This amendment bill actually restricts those Territorians who can have a say in objecting to an application. They are restricted to talk only in terms of amenity. In fact, the fourth paragraph in the minister’s statement says that the act, that is the current Liquor Act, allows any person to object to the granting of a new liquor licence unless it is made on commercial grounds. Commercial grounds have never been allowed, obviously, as a reason for an objection but this amendment bill will restrict a lot of people from being able to make objections.
The second reading speech goes on to say that this bill aims to bring certainty to the liquor licence application process by defining who can object. Further down in the same statement, the minister talks about the amenity of the neighbourhood and then says the term ‘neighbourhood’ is a subjective term. That is quite correct. On the one hand, we are trying to have certainty in the process, and on the other, we have a subjective form of words in the legislation. It will be up to the commission, one would assume, to make a decision. This is going to be very difficult for commission members.
The bill provides that any objection can be made by a person who resides or works in the neighbourhood of premises the subject of an application, who is an owner or lessor of premises in that neighbourhood, a member of the police force, a member of the fire and rescue service, an agency or public authority that performs functions relating to public amenities, and community based organisational groups carried on for the purpose that they are connected with the amenity of the neighbourhood.
As I said, that is now a prescription as to who can object whereas before there was facility for anyone to object.
The neighbourhood part that is mentioned in both the individual who resides or works in the neighbourhood of the premises, or the community based organisation that, as I said, has been mentioned by the minister is a subjective one. He goes on to say:
- That should be taken to mean the area that is likely to be affected by the premises the subject of the application.
The area affected will of course be determined by the type of licence applied for and the nature of the vicinity of the application. For example, the neighbourhood around a proposed city tavern will be, at most, a matter of a few blocks while the neighbourhood surrounding a takeaway liquor facility in a remote place may encompass an area of hundreds of kilometres, and in each case it will be a question of fact to be determined by the Licensing Commission.
That is going to create quite a bit of ambiguity, not certainly, as the minister claimed in his second reading speech. It will limit those individuals who can present an objection to a licence because of where they live within this subjective neighbourhood. That is a critical mistake to make, one that will be seen as a restriction on freedom of expression and will limit the ability of Territorians to have any input in a fair and open process. I note, on that point, that the minister has already circulated an amendment schedule to the amendment bill, to omit that part of that last point of a person who will be able to make an objection, and that is a community-based organisation or group carried on for the purposes that are connected with the amenity of the neighbourhood. He wants to now amend it to omit ‘carried on for the purposes that have a connection with the amenity of the neighbourhood’.
I know, and the minister knows, that this came about because of the briefing he gave to members of this parliament - and I was not one of them, I did not seek a briefing. I am sure the minister will raise that. I did not need a briefing. I have canvassed the views of others. I can understand what the minister is trying to achieve here, but he has admitted that some groups and/or organisations are going to be restricted in their ability to comment on an application for a liquor licence. So, to overcome that - a concern raised by members of this parliament - he now wants to omit the neighbourhood section of that and just leave it to community-based organisations or groups can object. That leaves it open, if there is a liquor licence application being made in Darwin, for instance, and there is a community group or organisation that is generally concerned about liquor in the community, be they based in Alice Springs, Katherine or wherever, then they will be allowed to object, the same way that they are allowed to object now. Any person can object now.
He was going to restrict them, it was raised as an issue for those community groups, so now he is going to let them have that right to objection. Good thing: they already have it; he was going to take it away; he is now giving it back to them. Poor community groups. So if you make that logical step, that you have let the community groups back in, why wouldn’t you let the individual back in? Why restrict Territorians’ rights to have a say on any application?
If it is bogging down the system, change the system, but do not restrict the rights of Territorians to have a say. That goes to the heart …
Ms Martin: That is a totally inconsistent argument that you have just put.
Mr BALDWIN: Sorry?
Ms Martin: Sorry, I should not interfere.
Mr BALDWIN: I will pick up on the interjection of the Chief Minister. If this is introduced like this, the Chief Minister, who once objected to a licence in an electorate that was not hers, who lives more than a few blocks away from where the licence application was being made, objected to a licence. She went before the commission, a concerned Territorian acting on behalf of other people as an individual, laid an objection, appeared before the commission. She did not get the result she wanted, fair enough, but had the right to have her say.
In this instance, that was an application for a licence at the Woolner subdivision. I assume the Chief Minister still lives in the Narrows, or, what do they call it? Fannie Bay West or something, is that where you still live? It is more than three blocks, that is my point, isn’t it?
Ms Martin: Under this legislation, I would still be entitled to do that.
Mr BALDWIN: Wrong! Show me.
Ms Martin: No, it is not.
Mr BALDWIN: Show me where! These are the only people …
Ms Martin: But I am flattered that you know where I live.
Mr BALDWIN: I will pick up on that interjection. The only people who could make an objection are ‘those who reside or work in the neighbourhood of premises the subject of the application’. Are you one of those? No. ‘An owner or lessor of premises in that neighbourhood’. Are you one of those? No. Because we will get to how neighbourhood is described. ‘A member of the police force’. Are you one of those? No. ‘A member of Fire and Rescue Services’. Are you one of those? No.
Ms Martin: A member of the Parap Residents’ Association, Timmy.
Mr BALDWIN: You as an individual, I am talking about.
Ms Martin: A member of the Parap Residents’ Association. I could still do it.
Mr BALDWIN: Don’t muddy the waters.
Ms Martin: I could still do it, you see. You are not smart enough.
Mr BALDWIN: That is what is the matter here.
Ms Martin: Thinks he’s too smart. It can be done.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, Chief Minister!
Mr BALDWIN: They are going to let groups in but restrict the rights of individual Territorians. That is what I am talking about, the same right as the former Leader of the Opposition had in a former application for licensing. That is what they are restricting.
I will continue. Are you a community-based organisation as an individual? No, you are not.
Ms Martin: I’m part of one, I’m part of one, proudly part of one.
Mr BALDWIN: And how is neighbourhood described? How is it? Albeit the minister has said very subjective, but we want to create certainty here, he said in his second reading speech. In terms of a licence in a neighbourhood, not more than three blocks away.
Members interjecting.
Mr BALDWIN: The Chief Minister lives more than three blocks away. Had the right to go forward, in a transparent way, acting on behalf of concerns that she had had put to her, to address the commission. She is on the Hansard in August 2000 saying it was with the experience of all this antisocial behaviour, concern about antisocial behaviour, as they are, as we are, very much in the forefront of my mind, I put in an objection to the provision of yet another licence in the area, and so on and so forth.
Mr Dunham: In my electorate, not yours!
Mr BADLWIN: And that is the whole point here, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker.
Ms Martin: You didn’t care.
Mr Dunham: I did care. I wanted the licence. I supported it.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! No cross-Chamber chat, please.
Mr BALDWIN: So, that is a crucial element of why we will not support this amendment. I would have objected on the basis that only community-based organisations and groups which were connected with the amenity of the neighbourhood could not object. They were ruled out. Now, it has been raised by members of the parliament in a briefing with the minister, that that is not on. Okay, so we have an amendment. That is here. I hope it gets up. But it does nothing for the rights of the individual, and it is paramount that those rights are not curtailed. That is one of the main issues.
Then it goes to a point of limiting the grounds of an objection. First we limit who can object, with some variations now. Then we are going to limit the grounds of objection. Currently in the act, the only grounds of objection that can be limited are grounds that are based on a commercial argument. You cannot argue an objection on a commercial basis. That has worked very well over the years. But now we are going to limit the grounds upon which an objection may be made to that of ‘adverse effect of the licence application on the amenity of the neighbourhood’. That is the only ground you can object on, the amenity of the neighbourhood.
It goes on to say that it is the intention of this legislation that the term ‘amenity’ be read narrowly. It does not appear anywhere in the legislation, but the second reading speech has made it very clear that ‘amenity’ will be read narrowly. The minister goes on to say:
- By that I mean an objection should demonstrate that an application, if granted, would detract from the pleasantness
or facility of the neighbourhood to which the application relates.
That is what ‘amenity’ means, obviously. But unfortunately, the pleasantness and facility, particularly the pleasantness, is again very subjective. It is a bit like looking at a painting. Do you think that is pleasant? ‘I do’; ‘I don’t’. It is a subjective area. It has again limited the way that you can place an objection before the commission.
We have another step which is being formalised in this bill, and that is that objections will be subjected to a pre-hearing process by a member of the commission appointed by the Chairman who will determine the standing of the objector and whether the grounds upon which the objection is laid are of sufficient substance to be considered further.
I can see that what they re trying to do with this provision is streamline the effect and make sure no frivolous objections arise. In fact, sort them out before they get to the commission. But it does concern me that one person, rather than a quorum or the commission, will have the power to determine whether or not an objection should proceed.
The other part, of course, is that no new evidence can be introduced once an objection is taken on board, is then presented – the whole process can take quite some time to a full hearing - that no new evidence can be provided or introduced other than that which was in the initial objection lodged.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, the minister responsible then goes on to say:
- The purpose of this bill is to provide a better and more streamlined system for liquor licence applications
while maintaining effective harm minimization and protection of public amenity.
I say that this is a much more restrictive way of doing it. The upshot, really, is that restrictions are being placed on the public, and this is a government supposedly that is going to introduce – what? Third party appeals for the planning process, more people to have their say, you know, that sort of thing. More inclusive.
Here we have legislation - I am surprised it got past the Chief Minister, that the Chief Minister actually supported this, given her …
Ms Martin: Wholeheartedly.
Mr Dunham: She has not even read it. She did not even understand it.
Ms Martin: Wholeheartedly. We’ll get business moving in the CBD.
Mr BALDWIN: Here is the freedom of individuals to have their say on an issue that has always been a concern to all Territorians, and that is alcohol in the community, that fewer people can have an influence on that licence being granted or otherwise. It is a ridiculous notion that they would come up with something like that.
What they should be doing if they are concerned about the Mitchell Street wars, as reported in the paper, is to provide a clear policy direction to those licencees and to those investors who may want to enter into some sort of a business with liquor available in that precinct or any other precinct for that matter. Provide a clear policy guideline as to how many licences in the current population, allowing for some increase, can be sustained in a precinct such as Mitchell Street. That is what the licencees want. That is what the investors want. That is probably what the AHA would like to see, some clear definition. Even if it will allow open slather - if they know that, then at least they have been told. Or is it a number of licences, or whatever? A clear policy from this government would fix these problems.
Those who have done any talking to the licencees all know that by letting extra licences, an open slather approach, limits the number of people who can have a say against how many licences go in there. So you are aiding and abetting an open slather approach such that we will end up with the same sorts of issues here in the CBD as they have in the CBD of Cairns. Justin Coleman has been quoted in the paper as saying that this is about protecting the public. This is why he was objecting to another licence. This is about protecting the public. We do not want to see Darwin become like Cairns where there are so many bars that there are alcohol price wars which lead to social problems. Seven nights a week in Cairns you can buy $1.00 drinks and between 11 pm and midnight on Monday nights, there are free drinks in two different venues.
Mr Stirling: Tell me where that happens in Darwin! Tell me where that happens.
Mr BALDWIN: You know why this happens? Do you know why this happens?
Mr Stirling: Where does it happen? It doesn’t.
Mr BALDWIN: What the authorities said in Cairns was: ‘Let’s just step away from this. We don’t want anything to do with inhibiting licences. Let’s just have open slather.’ A multitude of licences opened up in that precinct.
We all know – they are pretty easy sums – you only have so many people to buy so many drinks from so many venues. The more venues you have, the more drinks you have to sell, the less viable you become. They get into price wars to attract customers. If we are going to have the same thing here, an open slather approach by limiting how many individuals ...
Mr Henderson: It was happening in Cavenagh Street years ago! It was happening in Cavenagh Street.
Mr BALDWIN: … how many Territorians can have a say on the applications that might be made, then we are going to end up the same way.
When Justin Coleman pulled out from this war against Christo, he said: ‘Here’s the truce in the battle of the bars’. He goes on to explain the circumstances. In his letter, Mr Coleman said to the commission:
- I am writing to inform you that we are withdrawing our objection in an effort to restore some good will within
the industry.
And good on him for that.
- Whatever the commission decides, it is more than obvious within the nightclub/hotel industry, that enough is enough
when it comes to additional licences and continual increased numbers in the CBD.
What is he asking for? A clear indication from this government about some direction, some intent of how many licences may be permitted in that precinct. I will ask the minister responsible to tell us how many licence applications, future ones, does he know of that are going to go into that precinct? I know a figure. I want to hear him tell this parliament. We have had a war about the current licences …
Mr Stirling: How do you know how many there are going to be? I don’t direct the commissioner.
Mr BALDWIN: If you were on top of your job, you would know how many are going to be made. You would know because you should be getting briefed on how many are expected. If he is any sort of a minister, or is he the same sort of a minister as he was as a police minister, totally hands off, totally incompetent, and I would suggest that that’s the case. I can tell you that I know of a number, and I want to know if he knows how many are going to be forthcoming.
Ms MARTIN: A point of order, just for a point of clarification. The member for Daly said he knows how many are going down.
Mr Burke: No, he didn’t. You weren’t listening.
Ms MARTIN: Yes, he did.
Mr Burke: No, you weren’t listening. Too busy talking, you weren’t listening.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, he didn’t say that. There is no point of order.
Mr BALDWIN: I would like to clarify for the Hansard’s sake, that I have a number, that I am aware of, of applications that are coming forward in the future. This is going to increase the pressure on viability of existing licences, it is going to create bar wars, and fewer Territorians are going to have a say on whether they want those licences there under this amendment. There should be some sort of policy directive, a vision, given by this government, to create some certainty. The minister reckons that this is what is going to create some certainty. This is going to create so much ambiguity that it is not funny. They are not doing anything about providing the vision, providing some policy statement, there is nothing on extra powers for the commission to deal with some of the issues.
We have heard from some jurisdictions down south about some of the other instrumentalities that have to deal with some of the problems where, for instance, the Australian Hotels’ Association has launched a five-point plan calling on government to introduce minimum sentences for violence at licensed premises. Mt Isa is to become the test area for new liquor laws which are being trialled. Wollongong City Council has reaffirmed their commitment to alcohol-free zones in the Wollongong CBD.
What the minister should be doing, rather than a knee jerk reaction like this and a bandaid attempt trying to find the solution for a one-off issue here, is have a complete review. That would be something that we would support: a complete review, including looking at very important precincts like this in our area and the people of Darwin, including those who live outside of the neighbourhood, those who come into this precinct from suburbs, out of town, the rural areas and so forth, who would like to have a say on the extent of licences that may be granted in the future in that area.
The opposition is all for cutting costs to businesses, and we would do anything to ensure that there is a streamlined process. It is sad that these monies have to be spent by applicants and objectors - up to $700 000 is quoted there - to be heard. Anything that cuts those costs we would support. However, if the government was serious in that, you would have some process that involved the whole commission looking at objections and sorting them out in a non-adversarial way before you allow the applicants and objectors in with their legal representation to a full hearing, so therefore not involving a cost to the business until you are ready to hear all the evidence that you have allowed to get to that stage. Not one person is allowed, but the full commission is allowed, something of that nature.
But that is going to come about, obviously, with a much more detailed look at the whole act, rather than just in this way of amendment for restricting who can make an objection and on what grounds.
When the one member, as I have stated, gets to see the objection, they then make a determination whether it is in or out. I note that in the amendment bill there is an appeal process then to the full commission for the objector who has been ruled out to make an appeal. That goes, again, to the point that I made. Why not deal with those processes as a full commission, rather than leaving yourself exposed to having one member do that work and therefore speeding up the process rather than getting an objection knocked back and then an appeal process? Why not take it to the full commission, anyway?
The complaints area is much the same except that, where a complaint is lodged with the director - so this is now with the director under this section of complaints - they inform the licensee of the substance of the complaint and give them an opportunity to comment in writing. The director then conducts the investigation of the substance of the complaint, as he or she considers appropriate, and then forwards the comments, if any, he or she receives pursuant to those investigations to the commission. Then a decision on consideration of a complaint is made. The commission must consider a complaint, the report or reports of the director, and any comments forwarded to the commission under section 48(6) and must, if the commission is of the opinion it is frivolous, they dismiss it or they direct the director to inform the person who made the complaint that the complaint has been investigated and no further action is warranted; or they conduct a hearing in relation to the complaint. So they do that for complaints. You would think that they would have the same sort of process for objections.
My colleagues will have more to say on this, but from where we stand, we could not support this. We would support development of a complete review, particularly in order to address the issues that the minister is trying to address, but we do not see that this is the correct way of doing it. We think this is going to restrict the ability for Territorians, like the Chief Minister who had the opportunity to object. We would like to see that ability continue so that people can have input as has been realised by the minister for those groups or organisations which would like to have input, albeit that they do not live or operate or have anything to do with the immediate neighbourhood. Anything that cuts costs to businesses and those wishing to invest in the hotel industry, we would like to see and be involved with and certainly do our best to limit the costs. But in this case we won’t be supporting this bill on the basis of the points that I have made.
Mr HENDERSON (Business, Industry and Resource Development): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise to support my colleague’s statements on the proposed amendment to the Liquor Act to streamline the processes for objections to liquor licence applications.
I will leave it to my colleague, the member for Nhulunbuy, to address a number of the issues raised by the member for Daly. I will pick up on one point made by the member for Daly. He was suggesting or implying that these amendments will lead to an open slather approach to the granting of liquor licences in the Northern Territory. It will be interesting to turn back and look at the act over which the previous minister had carriage, the current act. One could argue that this act has delivered an open slather approach if he is so concerned about it. I will take honourable members to one specific example. I am particularly aghast at how this particular business could have been granted a liquor licence. I am not going to name the enterprise directly, but in Alice Springs, I am not sure if it is on Todd Street or Gap Road, there is a service station probably within a couple of hundred metres of licensed sporting clubs, supermarkets in the centre of Alice Springs within the town boundaries, a service station that has a liquor licence. Now, if we are talking about community amenity and the problems associated with having too many liquor licences consolidated in small parts of the community, well, that licence was granted under the act that the previous government administered.
To say that what we are doing is going to provide for a more open slather approach than already existed, I would think that there is a very strong argument to suggest under the previous government, we already had an open slather approach. I pulled into that service station one day when I was down there and just could not believe that they were selling grog. That is not implying anything about the people who operate that business, but in terms of a statutory regime that grants approval to sell liquor in our community, how that one got over the line in terms of being a benefit to the amenity of the community, I really don’t know.
What this series of amendments is looking at is streamlining the process for objections that will benefit business people who seek to establish a licensed business in that they will be relieved of a costly objection process that had, over past years, become a tool of delay used by existing licencees to restrict new entrants and competition. That is what we are seeking to do here; we are seeking to support new licences that meet the threshold criteria and to ensure that existing licence holders cannot use spurious arguments that essentially are commercial arguments, denying and delaying competition in the market place.
I believe that is where we are at the moment. Everybody is guilty of the same game. To come in here and say: ‘I am okay, Jack, I got in early. I have my licence’. But based on some spurious argument in regard to amenity, we do not want to see any more licences issued in this part of the world really is restricting business opportunities. It really is restricting competition. It really is restricting a growth in social amenity. I do not think there is anybody in this parliament who would not say that over the last five to 10 years or so that Mitchell Street has been a significant enhancement to the social amenity of Darwin. It is a recreation area that is populated and enjoyed by residents and tourists alike. It has generated significant new business opportunities and employs hundreds of people. Given that the consumption of alcohol is so much a part of our lifestyle and, provided it is done in moderation, it can have beneficial effects for the community.
Anybody would say that Mitchell Street has benefited over the years in terms of the social amenity, the contribution that that series of businesses provide to our community. Yet we had previously, every time somebody wants a new licence in that strip, this totally unseemly and very costly legal exercise which is essentially aimed at denying the rights of people who want to establish a business to grow the market and to employ Territorians.
The issues of public amenity, safety, crime and the police are part of that process. The police make a submission when they believe that an additional licence in the area is going to be detrimental to community safety and community amenity. They will continue to make submissions based on those criteria under these amendments.
So what we are trying to do is to streamline the process for objections. One of the initiatives is the introduction of a pre-hearing process, and this should provide a cost effective means for the commission to quickly determine whether an objection falls within the spirit and the intention of the law, or something that has an anti-competitive or other basis. It could be assumed that the amendments to streamline the process for objections will be welcomed by the industry as a whole and the broader community.
If alcohol is responsibly and comprehensively managed, then we can see that this does benefit the community. As a Territory resident for 20 years, I can remember as a young bloke coming to the Northern Territory and working in my trade and enjoying a beer at the end of a hot day’s work. Some of the beer barns that were in the Territory at that time certainly were …
Mr Stirling: Blood baths.
Mr HENDERSON: Well, they were blood baths, picking up on the member for Nhulunbuy. I am not going to go through them, but I had my fair share as a young fellow in those places around town. To argue that Mitchell Street is something that is not a vast improvement in terms of licensed premises that existed 20 years ago in Darwin, I really do not think that anybody in this place believes that.
The changes should vastly reduce the cost that both objectors and applicants have incurred in past years. Without going to names, like the member for Daly, I have spoken as business minister to a number of those operators in Mitchell Street, and they all complained about the litigious process and the fact that it has cost tens of thousands of dollars. What we are trying to do is introduce more certainty and knock out the spurious objections which are essentially based on a combative nature, if you were to be honest about these things, and denying competition.
I am interested that members opposite have decided to oppose this measure. This measure really is about streamlining the process. I do not believe it will lead to an open slather approach. I am pretty sure if you were to do any analysis of the number of liquor licences in the Northern Territory per hundred thousand population, or ten thousand population, you would probably find that compared with other jurisdictions, under the previous regime we already had an open slather licence approach. We need to look at the whole issue of how we licence premises, and the number of premises that we do licence. On the other side of the coin, we really do not want to have a regime that is anti-competitive, that restricts new entrants into the market place, restricts competition; and provide some certainty within the process. We believe, on this side of the House, in what these amendments seek to do and I strongly support the amendments.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, whenever an application for a licence occurs, be it in Darwin, Tennant Creek or Alice Springs, it always creates a huge amount of community interest. We all admit in Alice Springs that we have an alcohol problem. The Minister for Central Australia has been quite active in the work that he has been doing to address that problem. He knows full well that an application for a licence would be severely looked at and perhaps criticised by the local community. We know we have too many licences in Alice Springs. We know the one that the minister referred to is something that we would not like to have. But I remind him that that licence was there before self-government and, in fact, the former government did think about buying it out but it is too expensive. I am sure the current government would like to get rid of it but you cannot. It is as simple as that. It is far too expensive to buy out.
We do have too many licences. Whenever you get an application, there are a number of groups that oppose it. I am very pleased, after discussion in the briefing we had, that the minister has agreed to allow community groups - which according to that definition, in my mind, was far too restrictive. There are many community groups which object, which perhaps do not live within the neighbourhood. I will give you some examples. When the Peter Severin’s road house at Curtin Springs was seeking further extension of their licence, it was the women from the Pitjantjatjara lands who objected. You know, they are a long way away. When the Tyeneretye Club wanted a takeaway licence, it was the MPY Women’s Council that objected. In the way it was phrased before, they would not have been allowed to.
We have had a number of cases in Alice Springs where I believe people may not have been, under the terms of this amendment, allowed to object. I am grateful and thankful, minister, that the amendment has resulted because it allays my fears that some of the community groups I am referring to can now make an objection.
What I found when I rang around last week though, and this concerned me, is that community groups do not know about this amendment. DASA, which is one of our most prominent drug and alcohol services, has a sobering-up shelter, and Nick Gill, who is on one of the federal boards, did not know about this amendment.
PAAC, the People Against Alcohol Coalition, whom I do not always agree with, did not know about it. The Alice in Ten Quality of Life Group, who work together with a huge representation of community interests, did not know about it. That is why I asked you not to put it through at these sittings. I believe there is a need for the community out there to be able to respond to this amendment, to know what you are suggesting, and for them to have a say.
Community consultation was one of the platforms that you were promoting. Yet this amendment was introduced last sitting and is going through now, without the people who are most involved in the alcohol debate knowing anything about it. That is why I said delay it. At least leave it until February so you can get some feedback from the community rather than just from us. I am disappointed that you have not delayed it accordingly.
I feel as though you are making amendments to address a problem in Darwin. This sometimes happens. You may think you are fixing the problem you had in Darwin, but you are creating a problem elsewhere. I see it with the taxi industry. You had a problem in Darwin; we did not have one in Alice Springs. However, by introducing some of these changes now, you have given us a problem in Alice Springs. That is what you have to be careful about: you are introducing legislation, and you do not see the ramifications on a broader scale. You are only looking at the immediate problem in Darwin and you have not thought of the consequences of these amendments and how they will affect other parts of the Territory.
I am concerned that you have narrowed the grounds for objection. You have heard the member for Daly quote from the second-reading speech which says clearly that it limits the grounds upon which an objection may be made. The second-reading speech is the official Hansard record of what this bill is all about. The second-reading speech is what people will always refer to in order to know what was the government’s intention with this legislation. There is no point saying to me, as was suggested, that perhaps we had been a bit harsh on ourselves by writing the second reading speech in those terms because it is the official explanation of the bill. Some of the points that have been raised are quite valid in that it says:
- The intention of this legislation is that the term ‘amenity’ be read narrowly.
One of the things that I am concerned about is the way the amenity of the neighbourhood restricts peoples’ areas of objections. Many of the things that we have had in the past - and I just quote the Tyeneretye Club: when they asked for a take-away licence, Congress objected. It is very hard to know what you mean by ‘amenity of a neighbourhood’ because it is not defined at all. It is so loose a term, you are never quite sure how to interpret it. Congress said: ‘
- The original constitution of the Tyeneretye Club was to educate people in responsible drinking.
That was their objection to a take-away licence: education and responsible drinking. I do not think that objection would be allowed under this definition. They also said they were concerned about the number of deaths that occurred on the railway line, if you recall that. That is a safety issue. Under this definition of amenity of a neighbourhood, I do not believe the safety issue would be allowed. They also said it would adversely affect the women and children using the Women’s Health and Birthing Centre near St Mary’s. That is a health issue. Under this definition, it would not be allowed.
So you have narrowed it so much that you have forgotten the broad view of the effects of alcohol and why we do object. You have not taken into account that it is not just commercial operations, as we have heard from the member for Daly. You have not taken into account that the effects of alcohol raise for us health, education, safety and social issues. The majority of objections in Alice Springs are based on those issues; they are not based on commercial grounds. Competition will sort that out eventually, anyway. But you have narrowed it so much that you are excluding the very principles the Minister for Central Australia has come up with.
It is almost, in my mind, a contradiction of philosophy of the government that, on one hand, they are saying: ‘We have a great alcohol problem. We will bring in alcohol restrictions to help eliminate that’. But on the other hand they are saying: ‘If there is a licence application, we are going to restrict those people who can object and we will restrict the grounds on which they can object’. You really have a contradiction of philosophy from this government. I am surprised it got through Cabinet, I really am. I don’t know what your process is, but if this amendment went through Cabinet, I cannot believe that the Minister for Central Australia would allow it to go through knowing that it runs quite contrary to what he is promoting in Central Australia. He is saying: ‘We want to control this alcohol problem’ and the best way he has seen to do it has been to consult with many community groups to make sure they have had their say, but on the other hand you are now saying: ‘I am going to restrict those people from having a say. I am going to restrict the grounds upon which they can object and it will be up to the commission to decide whether they accept those objections or not.’ That is my concern: that it is far too restrictive altogether.
I feel that you need to think carefully about this. I would like to have had more time to test this in a legal sense to determine whether I could lodge an objection and have it sustained under this amendment. Unfortunately, I do not think it would have been. You have rushed into it, I don’t think you have realised the ramifications of what you have introduced. You have tried to fix a Darwin problem and created one for us in Alice Springs. It goes against the philosophy of your government in terms of what you are trying to do. Community groups will be quite dismayed when they realise what you are introducing. I would imagine the reaction is going to be quite a backlash from those groups who have in the past supported what has been happening, certainly in Central Australia, and the way the government has been handling the alcohol problem. Remember the alcohol problem stems from the premises, the number of licenses, and how many licenses are granted.
What I would like you to do, minister, in reply, is to give me some comfort. If the intent of your amendment was to stop frivolous objections from commercial interests, the intent is not clear in this amendment. The second reading speech does not mention it at all, if that is the intent. What is the spirit of this amendment? What are you really wanting to do rather than just streamline and provide a better and more streamlined system for liquor licence applications? If it is only about streamlining the system, then surely you might say to the Liquor Commission that they need to get their act together and streamline the process better themselves in the way they go about hearing these applications.
Is it really sensible to pass an amendment that may disadvantage many community groups and many people in our community just to make sure you have a more streamlined system? I would like you to state quite clearly to me when you reply, minister, that any objections to an application that are based on health, social implications, education, safety will be accepted by the commission and won’t be overruled. If you can give me some guarantee that those areas of objection will be sustained and will be taken fully into account, that they won’t be overruled and thrown out because they do not comply with this amendment, perhaps people out there in the community when they hear about what you have done today will have a bit of comfort.
The reaction I have had from the chairman of PAAC was one of dismay when she realised what you intended to do. From Nick Gill, who unfortunately has not been well, his first reaction was: ‘Why is this happening?’ He contacted the office of the minister for health and apparently the response from that office was: ‘We don’t know anything about it’. I was a bit surprised, particularly as this is an area that the minister for health should be greatly involved in, and I really believe that you are setting us up to make it harder for us object to application.
Minister, you really need to look at the wording of this amendment.
- An objection under subsection (1) may only be made on the ground that the grant of a licence may or will
adversely affect the amenity of the neighbourhood where the premises the subject of the application are or
will be located.
If you can reassure me that my women’s group who object on the grounds of health or safety to their family, who live in a remote community a long way away from town, whether their objection will be sustained, fine. But if you are saying to me this has nothing to do with the amenity of the neighbourhood where the premises the subject of the application is located, then we have a problem, and you have a problem.
Minister, do you really need to go ahead with this today? Why couldn’t you leave it until February to get some feedback from the community? Why can’t we test a few of the examples we have given of groups that have objected on grounds other than amenity for which is hard to get a definition from you.
Mr Baldwin: Pleasantness and facility, it means.
Mrs BRAHAM: Well, that doesn’t cover health, education, safety and social grounds
Mr Baldwin: I agree.
Mrs BRAHAM: That is my point. They are the main grounds on which we have objected to licence applications in Alice Springs. Finally, I just bring you back to the point that I believe it is in complete contradiction to the policy and philosophy that I have heard from the Minister for Central Australia and the member for Barkly espouse as wanting to make sure that they have a safer community.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, there seems to be no doubt on a close perusal of this proposed amendment that the Labor government does not have a real handle on the issues which confront the liquor industry, nor do they understand the true effect the legislation will have on the regime.
It is supposed to be a Territory initiative by the Labor government, however it is pretty obvious that the text of the legislation confirms once again that they are serfs to their southern masters when they have taken what is effectively Victorian legislation and presented it to this parliament.
The Northern Territory enjoys a vibrant and youthful tourism industry. Unlike members on the other side, the CLP quite genuinely has a vision for the Territory, a vision for Mitchell Street and the tourism industry which relies so heavily upon striking that important balance between having a good time, the consumption of alcohol and making sure that precincts like Mitchell Street are not dominated by liquor outlets and continue to maintain a safe, caf, food-oriented outdoor environment.
The one thing which even the government had managed to flag and work out is that the availability of alcohol is a crucial issue which affects people in every town, in every metropolitan area of the Northern Territory. Of course, it affects people in remote communities.
If I could just touch upon something the member for Wanguri talked about, he didn’t name the service station in Alice Springs, but I suspect he is talking about the one that secured its licence pre self-government, well before he was anywhere near the Territory. That was a licence that existed before the introduction of the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act. To deal with that problem, if it is in fact a problem, it would involve the acquisition of that licence on just terms. So to suggest for a moment that this legislation goes any way toward resolving that problem demonstrates that he hasn’t done his home work. It is untrue …
Mr Stirling: He wasn’t suggesting that at all. You weren’t listening to him.
Mr MALEY: That was certainly the argument he was running.
Mr Stirling: Oh, rubbish!
Mr MALEY: There are effectively two options. Having identified the fact that the availability of liquor is an issue that has to be addressed, there are two options for any government. These include dealing with the matter in a kneejerk and piecemeal fashion, introducing band-aid amendments such as the one that is to be considered today. I suspect some of the motivation behind some adverse publicity in a local newspaper was the work of one particular protagonist. Alternatively, the government can adopt a more global view and deal with the matter in totality.
The government, intends by this legislation, to restrict both the class of person and ground upon which an individual or corporate entity may object to an application to the Northern Territory Liquor Commission for a licence. As the member for Braitling quite properly pointed out, the only ground for objection is now to be, according to the amendment, whether or not the licence may or will adversely affect the ‘amenity of neighbourhood’. The only guidance the Liquor Commission will have, of course, is the poorly written second reading speech which said:
- It is the intention of this legislation that the term ‘amenity’ be read narrowly.
Not only is the term ambiguous and narrow just in a literal interpretation, we have the added interpretive tool of the second reading speech saying that it should further limit the type of matter which can fall to be considered under that category. It is now going to be a matter with which the Liquor Commission is going to have to deal. What does that term mean? Does it include, for example, the long-term economic effect that too many liquor licences will have on a particular tourist precinct? While the amenity of the area may be sustainable, what if the proliferation of liquor licences has an adverse health effect on a portion of our community? Those health problems won’t affect the amenity of the immediate liquor area but, of course, will be dealt with at another time, in another place - perhaps a town camp may feel the effects, albeit several kilometres from the liquor outlet. There is no attempt by this Martin Labor government, or, it seems, their interstate puppeteers, to create a policy which would make places like Mitchell Street an area where a business can reliably invest.
It is important to put this on the record: the Liquor Act is important social legislation and not only deals with who can make an application for a liquor licence, it also deals with those who can object to that application. There are a number of things that the government could do if it was serious about dealing with the problem of liquor availability. A common sense approach would be to properly resource the Liquor Commission, which has a number of very experienced and qualified people, a number of inspectors who have dealt with the industry, who know what has to be done. Properly empower these people to enforce the stringent conditions of liquor licences. Make clear that if someone makes a complaint, then those matters are going to be properly investigated. Give the Liquor Commission the resources to go out into the pubs and clubs and to prosecute people who breach the Liquor Act by selling liquor to intoxicated people, that is just an example.
There are lots of things that quite genuinely could be done to deal with the problem, rather than this fairly pathetic band aid which, I suspect, will have the opposite effect - if you could infer that the government has a good motive; that is dealing with the liquor industry, this is not the way to do it; it is not going to resolve it.
There has not been any real and constructive consultation with the industry. There has been no real attempt to deal with the problem of alcohol availability because, ultimately, this government has no real vision for places like Mitchell Street and for other places where, of course, the availability of liquor …
Mr Henderson: Rubbish! What about your vested interests in Mitchell Street? Isn’t your partner a Liquor Commissioner?
Mr MALEY: That is interesting. The member for Wanguri has interjected with another typically rude …
Mr Henderson: Do you have a vested interest in this?
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, member for Wanguri!
Mr MALEY: The people who are in the industry are precisely the type of people who know what is going on. They are precisely the type of people who should play an active role in the process of new liquor licences, and in dealing with the complaints. They are precisely the types of people who are properly resourced, who bring important material before the Liquor Commission. I am talking about comprehensive surveys about the effect of liquor; about the number of people who regularly go out into the Darwin CBD …
Mr Henderson: You are all right. You do not want to see competition.
Mr MALEY: … on any one weekend.
Mr Henderson: That is your vision. I am going [inaudible] competition.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Wanguri, order!
Mr MALEY: Look, I am happy to take that interjection as well from a man who is very poorly qualified to make any comment on this. If you talk about competition, then yes, competition is certainly an issue. In almost every industry, it seems that competition and competition reform is important. The thing about the liquor industry is that it is in a unique position; there are genuine, valid and powerful arguments why there needs to be very careful consideration of the legislative framework within which people are allowed to sell alcohol.
The examples my colleague, the member for Daly, cited are absolutely spot on. These are facts. In Cairns, the government, through their various Liquor Commissions, said: ‘If you want a licence, you have a licence. If you want one, you can have one. We will let competition decide who is going to survive and who is not going to survive’. What happens is that, in competition with the fellow across the road, there are ‘dollar drinks’. Then you have fewer bouncers on the premises because they cost you money. Then your competition will do exactly the same, and they will fight each other for a finite market. There will be more grog, there will be more social problems, and it becomes worse, and worse, and worse. Now they are saying: ‘Okay, we are going to reduce the closing time from five’ and they are pulling it back to three. That is what has happened. What happens is you have a whole heap of these people who come into town, they move into a licensed premises because the previous licensees failed to make any money, and then they go completely mad. There is the cash till which is for the boys to split, and there is the till you pay your tax with. Then, of course, the tax department get involved. Then they collapse, they all go, and then someone else steps in and you have this boom/bust scenario.
In Wollongong, they are considering having portions of the CBD alcohol free. There is a real social effect. If you talk about competition, well, competition is healthy, but you have got to balance it. With respect, you know absolutely nothing about this. Perhaps your background …
Mr Henderson: We know about your commercial and vested interest in this debate. I’m making a quid, but nobody else can.
Mr MALEY: Perhaps being a minister for a few months has suddenly empowered you with God’s gift on everything. Of course, we expect to be steamrolled and no matter what we say it will be the vote of 13-whatever. That is all part of the process, and all I can do is put something on Hansard and supply that to as many people as I can to let them know that someone is speaking rationally and with a bit of common sense about this as opposed to the very rude and arrogant member for Wanguri.
One thing that did surprise me, given all the hallmarks of classic Martin Labor government polices, is there is no five-point plan. Usually they have some sort of plan and there is usually a review. Be that as it may, there is really nothing of substance to this amendment.
The liquor industry - and I can say from my previous involvement in not the management of it, but seeing how it runs economically and doing the books - fluctuates like every other industry. In my previous life when I acted for various applicants and also objected on behalf of people, apart from one or two, almost all matters are resolved eventually. If you want to make reforms to get this process happening, really it is about …
Mr Henderson: Yes, the lawyers make money out of it.
Mr Stirling: $4m dollars later!
Mr MALEY: That is a gross exaggeration about the money spent on these liquor objections, but the role of the objector is to put the material before the Liquor Commission which is an independent statutory authority which makes the decision. If you want the process sped up, that is an understandable request from industry or one particular protagonist, there are certain mechanisms you can put into place to speed it up to set a time frame which has to be resolved before the commission. But to restrict the type of people who can object and to restrict the grounds upon which they can object does nothing to assist in the process of having these matters resolved quickly.
I do not have the exact words, but I think there was some sort of rationale behind these amendments articulated by the government that they wanted to save money for the person who makes an application for a licence. It is not going to save them money and ultimately, all it is going to do is affect the rights of Territorians, real people who live in the real world, quite genuinely objecting to what they think is an inappropriate application.
I will make the point again: the very people you want to be involved in this process is very much the industry, the hoteliers association, and albeit there is a deal of suspicion about the motivation behind other licensees when they object, but quite frankly, they are the very people in the driving seat who know exactly what is going to occur. I am not making this up. This has happened down south. If you want to make Mitchell Street a liquor dominated place which will not be safe, this is the process where you keep handing out liquor licences. But if you want to make it a place to which tourists want to go, where liquor is not the primary attraction, then you need a bit of a vision and you have to deal with the problem.
Ms Lawrie: You are going to shut down Discovery, are you?
Mr MALEY: Of course, there will be insults. You can save them. All I am asking is that this goes on the record. If the government had a scintilla of common sense they would take on board some of the comments I have made, along with the comments from the members for Braitling and Daly. They are certainly motivated with the best of intentions.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I use to laugh at the member for Goyder’s comments that the government was a Chardonnay swilling party. Now I believe it, because this legislation is going down that path. Some of the comments I have heard tonight really shocked me, coming from the Labor Party. I will get back to that later. This legislation should be returned to the manufacturers as unsafe. It is not up to standard, it has been poorly thought through and it is devoid of vision. Before the government introduces any changes to the Liquor Act, it needs to set out exactly what its policy is regarding liquor licences. I do not believe the previous government had one, but here is an ideal opportunity for this government to set the standard.
Ms Carter: I am.
Mr WOOD: That just astounds me. I have heard the police say that 70% to 80% of their involvement in crime and call outs relates to alcohol. We have got people running around saying: ‘We need more police’, yet I think that is the wrong end of the stick. We should be looking at the problems of alcohol. We are trying to patch up the end. Yet here, government seems to be sending out the message: ‘Look, we are going to restrict to how you can object to liquor licences. We do not want to be anti-competitive and business has to be moving in the CBD’. This is not the Labor party I thought I would see in government. I might have thought it from a Country Liberal no regulation or low regulation type party. I would say: ‘Well, that is their philosophy’, and I could probably accept that. But on the other hand, I see a Labor Party which has always promulgated that it is there to protect …
Mr Burke: No, they are trying to be like the CLP. They’re a carbon copy of us, only a pretty bad copy.
Mr WOOD: Well, they may be. Sometimes I struggle to see the difference, but in this case, I see the philosophy of the Labor Party to help the community to regulate, where appropriate, for the betterment of society. Yet I think this is not the message that this legislation is sending.
May I suggest that the government publish a draft set of policies, invite comments from the community, the Substance Abuse Committee, alcohol rehabilitation groups, church and welfare bodies and the industry alike? The government might like to enunciate its thoughts on harm minimisation, on how many more licences there should be or should not be, and on the future of the industry.
You cannot start making changes to the Liquor Act which relate to objections until you know why we should have liquor licences, how many people should have liquor licences, and what the objective of allowing liquor licences is. There are some fundamental issues missing here. Would the government, for instance, support and promote the idea that a liquor licence is a privilege and not a right? Should there be regular testing and checking of licences to see whether they have been working towards harm minimisation and, if not, should a licensee lose their licence? After all, if the government has objectives, the way for those objectives to be actioned will, in the end, be by the people who have been given a liquor licence.
So if your policy is: ‘We believe in harm minimisation’, then that should be reflected in liquor licences by making sure that those licensees are, for instance, not serving people who are drunk or not serving people who you know are going to drive home in a little while, well over the limit. That is the way you promote your policy, through control of liquor licences.
Speaking directly about the changes that government is proposing to the Liquor Act, I believe, as I said previously, they are sending the wrong message. On one hand, the government has established a Substance Abuse Committee and the Minister for Community Development has told this House about how dysfunctional many communities are in the Territory. We have concerns about the number of itinerants. We have actually done quite extensive reports about our concerns about itinerants in the urban areas. Again, I think we are sending the wrong message.
I know the reason the government is saying it wants to change the law, and that is because of the recent proceedings relating to businesses in Mitchell Street. But this was put to me recently: whilst one could say that much of that debate was really about one commercial business trying to stop another one having a licence, it does raise an important question. Did the complaints by these commercial interests by default mean that at a liquor licence hearing, there was a devil’s advocate or contradictor? In other words, there was someone outside of the Liquor Commission testing to see whether it was proper for the licence to be granted. Although some of these people might not have wanted competition, by default they might have been put in the case that no one else had bothered to put the case as to whether there should have been liquor licences there in the first place.
If we are going to have some changes, perhaps we could start with an independent contradictor who is required at all hearings, even if there are no objections to a licence. So you have someone there who goes out and tests whether there should be a licence granted.
Second, the people or groups who can object should be broader than what is proposed, and the grounds on which they can object should be broader than the ‘pleasantness and the facility of the neighbourhood’. I know the amendment has allowed community based organisations or groups to object, but, as the member for Braitling said, they still can only object on those very narrow grounds, amenity of the neighbourhood, which is now defined as ‘pleasantness and facility’. If you talk about having a field day in court, that is making a field day. If someone is going to define the ‘pleasantness and facility’, they have enough trouble with the word ‘amenity’ - and I presume that is the reason why, in planning, they haven’t bothered to try to define it. So when it comes to defining pleasantness and facility, the lawyers are going to be enjoying themselves.
The issues we are dealing with here are not just about amenity. As the member for Braitling said, there are issues of health, social stability, and crime. According to this, as a member of the Substance Abuse Committee, I am not sure whether I would be heard because I do not belong to a community group. Second, if I wanted to talk on what I believe are health, social or criminal issues relating to alcohol, I don’t believe I would be heard. That is wrong. Even if I didn’t belong to a group, I believe I have the right, as a Territory citizen, to object. Any informed person should be allowed to object. I have objected to land clearing in the Douglas Daly. If you applied this system to the Planning Act, how many people down in the Douglas Daly are going to worry? They are probably all the people who are clearing. Sometimes you need people outside to raise issues that otherwise wouldn’t be raised.
I raised the issue at the briefing - and I thank the minister for the briefing - of a wayside inn somewhere on one of the highways, way out where no one lives within cooee. Where is the neighbourhood? What are the issues? The issues might be road safety, nothing to do with the amenity, the pleasantness and facility, at least not of that neighbourhood - 100km up the road, where they are picking up the pieces, it certainly might affect the pleasantness and facility.
A member: Very good point.
Mr WOOD: We have narrowed this down far too much. You have taken away people’s rights. The Labor Party, I presume, is a great advocate for people’s rights to get up and speak, yet it has cut that off and all because of some unknown person – I would love to know the name of that person - who objected to all the problems we had in Mitchell Street.
This bill has not been thought through, and the amendment was a last minute amendment - and I understand the reason for the amendment - but to me, it demonstrates that this thing hasn’t been thought through properly. That is why I ask the government to withdraw this bill.
The cost of court cases was raised. Maybe it is time that we took out the requirement to have legal representation. You have a Liquor Commission. Why don’t both sides put their case and let the Liquor Commission hear those sides and be done with it? As soon as you bring in solicitors, whether it is into planning or this sort of thing, you do make it costly, but that is not an excuse for changing these laws. Change that law; get rid of the solicitors. If it has to go to Supreme Court, you can bring in the solicitors then.
Now, on to competition. I am all for competition, but we are not talking about a lolly licence here. If you have 100 shops selling red frogs, kids might get a bit hyperactive from eating red frogs, but generally speaking we don’t have a problem, there are no great social problems. With liquor, surely this is a different concern. We are far in advance of every other state per head of population in our consumption of alcohol. We have enormous problems. I should have said my vested interest is that I don’t drink, but I am on the Substance Abuse Committee and we have enormous problems. The message the government is sending out is the wrong message. I would love to have heard other members of the Substance Abuse Committee say how they felt about this because this is not what I have seen when I have travelled around the Territory as a member of the Substance Abuse Committee. I have seen dysfunctional places. I have seen some terrible sights. I have said it before: I have a vested interest in a place called Daly River, where I saw so many young people die from alcohol because, in many cases, the particular licensee was able to sell alcohol without any restrictions, without anybody investigating the type of alcohol, whether it was hot or cold or who it was being served to. In the end, many of those young people died, and it does upset me.
We should be tightening up on who has a liquor licence. The member for Goyder said that we should have enough people to make sure that those who serve alcohol do it correctly. If we are serious - if the government is serious - about setting up a Substance Abuse Committee, if it has concerns about itinerants, about the costs alcoholism incurs in the Territory, then it should reflect that in its legislation. I do not think that is being reflected in this legislation.
It is poor legislation. I agree with the member for Braitling, and I would ask the minister that he delay putting this bill through until the next sittings because that would be far better. What the government has tried to do is fix up a problem that they perceive - and it may be a problem, but there may be other ways of fixing it. They have thrown the baby out with the bath water, and they have forgotten the rest of the Territory and their principles just because someone knocked on the door and said: ‘Oh, we have a problem here, can you please help fix it?’ That is a little disappointing.
I will make one comment on my amendment, just so people will understand. My proposed amendment is to remove the fire brigade as a party having the right to being an objector. You can only be an objector, according to this, on the amenity of the neighbourhood, which is the pleasantness and facility. What the fire brigade have to do with that, I do not know. The fire brigade will be involved in the design of the building; they will tell you whether you have to have sprinklers. They will probably tell you the maximum number of people you can put in that building. What they have to do with a liquor licence application beats me. They have their spot; they get it through the Building Code, and that is where it should be. To me, this is a bit of bureaucracy trying to interfere in another bit of bureaucracy. I do not believe they need to be in here; I do not see any point in them being here. Police, for sure, because they have other issues, but the fire brigade? It is involved at another stage, and that is where they should stay. I do not know why it has been thrown in - whether some people in the fire brigade think they should have a say - but it is over-bureaucratic.
I ask the minister to consider the concerns I have. The concerns are genuine. All right, I have said what I believe a Labor government should be concerned with: they should be concerned about making sure members of our community can have a say - not restricting that say, but can have a say. That is what I thought the Labor Party was about. They are protecting the community from abuse of substances which do affect us, and we know that. Have a look at the crime caused by alcohol. I would have thought that any legislation the Labor Party introduced would reflect that philosophy. This bill does not. I will vote against it, and I would ask that it be deferred to the next sittings of parliament.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): I will pick up, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, exactly where the member for Nelson left off. I am surprised at the apparent philosophical inconsistency between the government’s and individual government members’ position on so many other things, and this legislation. The member for Stuart, the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General, was a member of a committee that I was a member of - in fact, I invited him on to the committee. To his credit, with some enthusiasm, he leapt onto the committee some years ago. This committee dealt with the importance of alcohol in the community. It was an ATSIC funded report. It cost a few bob, but it was one of the underpinning factor that he relied upon when bringing alcohol restrictions to the community of Alice Springs, which the Liquor Commission imposed shortly after the new government was formed. That trial continues as I speak.
I find it curious now that so many of the issues and justifications he raised during that process of delivering those restrictions were community welfare arguments. The community was suffering, the community has a problem, this is a whole-of-community problem. I am sure we have all heard the mantra before, yet, to my surprise, I find the minister now supporting a system where the community does not really get an effective response. I do also wish to, by way of example, support one of the things that the member for Nelson said, and that is in relation to the neighbourhood issue. It was not that long ago that I went to a motor car accident near Kintore where three people died, several others nearly died as a result of that accident, and I have good grounds to personally believe – I am not pre-empting any coronial finding which is outstanding - that alcohol was a major contributor to that accident. I may be wrong; the coroner may find otherwise, but I believe that is the case. I believe that a community like Kintore, Papunya, Mount Liebig, Daguragu, Lajamanu, Milingimbi, Ramingining or any other community should be allowed to demonstrate some sort of interest in who gets a licence and who does not get a licence.
There are many stores in the bush which are way, way, away from other places that do have liquor licences, that do sell liquor, and that liquor finds its way hundreds of kilometres away from the licensed premises. These people are not neighbours, they are not close, they aren’t in any fashion close to even meeting the criteria set down at the proposed legislation, so I have some concerns about that. Another concern I have is that it disempowers me from objecting or otherwise in respect of a liquor licence. I am not entirely sure that I would qualify under any of the proposed criteria. It is a little concerning. One of the reasons that I am elected is to represent the population and public of the Northern Territory. I appreciate the system and how it works and those sorts of things, but I have been involved in liquor applications, I have even supported liquor licence applications in the past, and I have spoken against others. I am concerned that my ability to respond to these issues might be removed. I am very surprised by the philosophical approach that this government seems to be taking because the word consistency does not spring to mind.
The member for Nelson referred to competition and how important it is. It sprung to mind that there something called the National Competition Policy. Even the National Competition Policy says that there are certain criteria and guidelines where you will not have to pursue competition policy for the sake of competition, and one of those exceptions, of course, is public interest. There are certain things that the National Competition Policy accepts having to be regulated. I have always been a believer that drugs, no matter whether they be legal or illegal, should be regulated. I look upon alcohol as a drug and, in many instances, a drug of addiction. I believe that there is good room for regulation. I have made it clear in the past that the regulation has to occur for no other reason than the public interest. As a member of the public and a member of this Chamber, my disempowerment by this legislation would be a very poor outcome indeed, because I represent the interests, from time to time, of people who do come to me with their fears about liquor and liquor licences. Normally I help them to nobble together some sort of an objection, and say to them: ‘This is how you go about lodging an objection’, or I become involved at one level or another. I am unconvinced that I will be able to do so in the future.
Mr Stirling: I am sure you will.
Mr ELFERINK: Well, that is interesting because I would like to know exactly. I pick up on the interjection from the minister. I would like to know exactly how I will be able to do so, and I look forward to his explanation in due course.
I have the fear that because we do not have an Administrative Appeals Tribunal in the Northern Territory, and we are not covered by any sort of Administrative Decisions Review Act, this all then relies on the common law process of appeals from executive decisions to the judiciary through the courts. I have the feeling that we could be loading ourselves into a position where we will see more things ending up in court because those people and groups who are removed by the classification system we be in a situation where they will not be able to front the Liquor Commission but may still very well find that they have standing in a court.
Those people and organisations may very well feel that their only possibility is to then go to a lawyer and say: ‘I cannot get access to this decision and as a consequence, I have to then take it into a court’. All of a sudden you will find the first thing that happens after a decision is taken by the Liquor Commission is that people make applications to court and then you have injunctions happening and then you have to go through that whole process. By disempowering objectors, the government may be actually pushing the Liquor Commission into court more often rather than less often. When they end up in court, the expenses are going to be enormous.
I suggest to the government that perhaps one of the things they may consider is that the simple common law rules of standing apply rather than a very prescriptive list which is proposed in this amendment. It is a very prescriptive list. Not being a legal expert nor a lawyer, I understand that the rules of standing are broader than this and perhaps that could be used by the government as a means to deal with these issues.
I have the feeling that this is trouble for the government. I am surprised that they are heading into this arena because I think there is going to be a lot of disenfranchised people out there, and they are going to respond very negatively to the government. In the words of Sir Humphrey Appleby, I think of the government as being extremely brave.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I cannot support this. I have a real problem with it. However, I put my objections on the record and assure the minister that I will dredge those objections out in due course when people find that they are disenfranchised, and I will be pointing out to the community who has disenfranchised them.
Mr STIRLING (Racing, Gaming and Licensing): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, it has been an interesting debate right around the Chamber, even from some who disagreed with the context and the point of the bill. I am struck by the primary spokesperson’s attitude. There are two traits that exemplify a closed mind: one is arrogance, that you know it all; the second is laziness, that you cannot be bothered to find out or you assume you know it all.
Mr Baldwin: This is on the briefing, is it? It is funny how the others agree with me.
Mr STIRLING: Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, he is so arrogant, he knows it all and he does not need a briefing or he is so lazy. I think they are both together. He is a contemptuous person in his arrogance. He was known to be the laziest minister in the previous CLP government administration. He might have understood something that was touched on by the member for Macdonnell, and I noticed that the member for Goyder did not go anywhere near it. It is a question - I do not pretend to be a lawyer, but I do know this much. It is a question of administrative law and it goes to the question of standing. What this clown would have the parliament and the people of the Northern Territory believe is that prior to the advent of this amendment tonight, anybody, anywhere could jump in and object to a liquor application. Somebody living in Essex in England wants to oppose a liquor licensee application in Parap, Darwin had the right to do so and we are taking that right away. A person in Moonee Ponds in Melbourne wanted to object to a licence in Alice Springs had the right – no such thing! Never did and still does not under this bill. So do not mislead people for a start that we are taking away the rights of individuals. We are not!
Mr Baldwin: You are misleading.
Mr STIRLING: We are not!
Mr BALDWIN: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! The member is inferring that I misled the House. He knows he can only do that by substantive motion, and I ask him to bring on that motion if he wants to make that allegation …
A member: Or withdraw.
Mr BALDWIN: … or withdraw it.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, the is a point of order.
Mr STIRLING: Oh, be joking, there is a point of order!
Mr Burke: Have a bit of respect for the Chair, or leave.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have made a ruling, Deputy Chief Minister.
Mr STIRLING: What do I have to withdraw?
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Withdraw that you allege that he was misleading parliament.
Mr STIRLING: If I made an allegation he was misleading parliament, I withdraw it.
Mr Baldwin: You did.
Mr STIRLING: I withdraw it. What the member for Daly did, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, was put out there that prior to this amendment, any individual anywhere has the right to object to a licence application. Now, that is simply not true. It was not the case then and it will not be the case now. The commissioner always had the right, always had three grounds to rule out an objection to an application: vexatious, frivolous and relevance. Now the person in Moonee Ponds …
Mr Baldwin: What about location? Never had that ability …
Mr STIRLING: The person in Moonee Ponds - is that a question of location? The person in Moonee Ponds who wants to object to a licence application in Alice Springs would have had no standing then, and has no standing now. Nothing is being done to diminish, to reduce the right of the individual; it is a question of arrogance and laziness.
If he had a briefing, he would have found that an individual seeking to object to a liquor licence that does not affect that person in any real way could never in the past object and have that objection heard because it would have been struck out on the grounds of irrelevance. It is a simple matter of administrative law relating to standing, something that the member for Goyder, I sense, understands - because he did not get into this; he did not want to go anywhere near it – and something touched on by the member for Macdonnell who has a reasonable basic understanding …
Mr Baldwin: Frivolous or vexatious, that is right.
Mr STIRLING: … far better than you. You would have been better placed - and I tell you this: even in all the years in opposition as shadow Attorney-General, with the exception of one occasion, I always went to the briefings to find out at least what the bill was about and the intent of the bill from the government and try to understand it from the government perspective. Then, and only then after the briefing, have a view as to whether we, as an opposition, should oppose, support or try to amend the bill which are the three options open to you. However, at least we always went to the briefing to understand where the government was coming from, what they were trying to do, and whether there was a better way to do it.
This shadow minister fails his role as opposition spokesperson by not availing himself of the briefing because he is too arrogant, thinks he knows it all and, because he is too lazy - and I think even laziness overtakes arrogance as the greatest deficiency and the poorest trait that this member displays. He says: ‘Commercial grounds have never been grounds for objection’. He knows when he was the minister - and it has certainly continued since we have come to government – that the most thinly disguised objections were sometimes not even an attempt at thinly disguising them, other than the fact that they had to get them into the Liquor Commission. If they were exposed as commercial grounds, they would have been ruled out But very thinly disguised in a lot of cases. What we have had are protracted cases costing probably many thousands of dollars with the Liquor Commission resembling something like the High Court.
Now I do not think that was the intent of the Liquor Act, nor do I think it was the intent of the objection process when it was first laid down. It is something that evolved over time: you get a lawyer, I get a QC. It just blew out over time to no one’s benefit. The thinking behind what the opposition is saying tonight is that in some way, we want to blow the system open so that every licence application gets through. Far from it. All of the same grounds will be there, but the process will be tightened up. We will get away from these excessive and expensive delays and these incredibly lengthy hearings.
I listened very closely to the member for Braitling because she spoke with some passion on this situation. I was very interested in her perception of government - no doubt, not just this government, perhaps even her own – that if they saw a Darwin problem they want to legislate on it to fix that Darwin problem without a view for the ramifications beyond the Berrimah line; and what may be a fix for Darwin could in fact be creating a problem for Alice Springs. I have some awareness of that, and we have often seen it from the Commonwealth in respect of the Northern Territory overall, and certainly from Nhulunbuy’s perspective, because I have often thought that sometimes things fixed at the Darwin level by the previous government were no fix at all for the regions. In fact, it could be the reverse.
However, I want to assure her that it is not the case here that this is simply about a Darwin fix that is going to make things worse for Alice Springs or for any other region in the Northern Territory. It has been thought through from that point of view. People will still have the opportunity to object, provided, of course, that they have relevance and standing in the hearing.
Mr Wood: Pleasantness and facility.
Mr STIRLING: The question of amenity and the lack of a definition was touched on by a number of speakers. I cannot remember the example, but I can remember some years ago, arguing vociferously from the opposition benches about the need to have some clarity and meaning behind the particular term. It already had some meaning at law, anyway. It might have been the former member for Sanderson who was convincing me that, whenever you go to put a tight definition you, in fact, rule things out. By trying to define it as broadly as possible - however broadly you define the particular term that you are attempting to – you, in fact, make it tighter and rule other things out that may otherwise have been considered under amenity. It is far better in terms of neighbourhood, because the neighbourhood would go with the merits of the case.
The example drawn to me, if it has not been made in the House tonight, I think the member for Daly might have mentioned it, that in the case of a rural or remote location, ‘the neighbourhood’ to be affected could be 500 km. In the event of an individual whose family members may travel that 500 km to access that alcohol, the individual would easily have a case to say they are affected despite the fact they live 500 km away from the premises subject to the licence application. Less likely in an urban concentration, although there still could be the case of that community having an argument that they still could be affected by what is going down in that particular area. So you are better off with the commission deciding on the merits of the case coming before it as to what ‘neighbourhood’ constitutes in that case and for the objector.
In the same way, this question of amenity: if you tie it to a particular dictionary definition, then anything that does not appear in that tight definition would have to be ruled out on the basis that the act provided a tight definition.
The other point I wanted to make was in relation to the member for Goyder almost accusing that we have been motivated by ‘one particular protagonist’. He made this allegation twice. There is an underlying assumption behind an allegation like that, that this government is motivated by particular individuals at any one time, as if that assumption is how the previous government operated so, presumably, this government operates the same way. Well, nothing could be further from the truth. However, it is interesting that this mindset prevails with the member for Goyder, that it is one particular protagonist that is pushing us along this line as if the previous government always operated on hidden agendas or secret favours. They never told you what they were doing it for, but there was always that assumption and, of course, he assumes that this government only acts on behalf of a particular person who is pushing us along that path. Well, it ain’t true. It ain’t true. There is a problem with the objection process. It takes too long and it costs the earth. The amendments themselves do not rule out the ability of either individuals or organisations to object. I mean, if they are relevant, they get in.
Mr Wood: I can’t. No, not if they don’t live in the neighbourhood. I can’t. You have to be a community based …
Mr STIRLING: I will explain: if they were not affected before, they were not deemed to have standing, their objection would not be heard. If they are affected in this case, they have standing, they will be heard wherever they live. If they are affected and they come under the relevance ruling …
Mr Baldwin: They could make an objection beforehand.
Mr STIRLING: It would have done you good to have a briefing, and perhaps this was not tested in the briefing in relation to the member for Nelson, but it is very much a question of standing and relevance as seen by the commission at the time. If that person is deemed and can be seen to be affected in some way, they will get a hearing. But if they are deemed irrelevant, they do not.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, in relation to the committee stage amendment to clause 6, some concern is expressed over the wording of the proposed new section 47F which deals with the categories of persons and groups who may object to a liquor licence application and in particular section 47F(3)(f) presently states:
- … a community-based organisation or group (for example, a local action group or a charity) carried on for
purposes that have a connection with the amenity of the neighbourhood.
Now, the concerns raised were that the current wording could prevent some groups with a real interest in liquor licencing issues from objecting to a liquor licence application because they are unable to establish the requisite connection with the amenity of the neighbourhood to which the liquor licence application applies. It was never the intention of this bill to impose any limitations on community minded groups; never the intention. In order to allay any concerns raised in that area, I want to amend the wording of the bill by deleting the words ‘carried on for purposes that have a connection with the amenity of the neighbourhood,’ from that section 47F(3)(f).
Other concerns were raised in relation to the intention of the bill and the concept of amenity, whether it should be defined; the second reading speech said it should be read ‘narrowly’. Any concerns over that definition should be allayed by stating there is no intention to prohibit any objection based on social, health or lifestyle issues and it is those kind of issues that it is envisaged would be captured in the public amenity ground. The position was set out clearly in the Victorian Supreme Court in the case of the The Returned and Services League of Australia (Victorian Branch) Inc (Pascoe Value Sub-Branch) & Anor v Liquor Licensing Commission & Anor [1998] VSC 87 in which it was stated that the amenity of the area would include such things as traffic movement and density, noise, nuisance, parking facilities and any other matters which may interfere with the enjoyment of the area by members of the local community. It is hoped that the proposed amendment and that further explanation of the intention may allay concerns. I doubt it would in relation to the member for Daly because generally, he has a closed mind. He knows it all. He will not be told. He has a view and, whether it is right or wrong, he will stick to that view and it does him no justice at all.
I would urge support of the committee stage amendment, and I would urge support of the bill. It will make for a clearer, cleaner and less onerous process on all involved. It will not lead to an explosion of licencees around the Territory. It is interesting that the government that really walked away from the Living With Alcohol policies proposed by former Chief Minister Marshall Perron, the light beer initiatives. There was some very good work done in the latter stages of Chief Minister Perron’s stewardship of the Northern Territory and it was a pity that a lot of that work fell away because I think there were signs that that strategy was working.
It is interesting tonight that some of those concerns about alcohol in the community and what this may or may not do are back on the agenda with the opposition. I can assure the opposition that it hasn’t left our horizon at all and that is why we have the Substance Abuse Committee up and running.
The member for Nelson is absolutely right. I can sit in my local court in Nhulunbuy and I know that probably 85–90% of the court cases simply wouldn’t be in court except for grog. That might be break and enter, it might be assault or whatever the situation; 85–90%, and I have sat in that court many times over 13, 14 years. I have seen it time and time again. We know that is the case and there is a great deal of work that has to be taken on by this government, we would hope that with the support and cooperation of the opposition. Some of the things that they said tonight encouraged me in that line.
This is not an inconsistent amendment in terms of how we as the government may go in the whole substance and alcohol abuse question. I do urge support of the committee stage amendment and the bill.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Clauses 1-5, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 6:
Mr WOOD: Madam Deputy Chairman, I move that the whole of paragraph (d) in proposed section 47F(3) be omitted.
That paragraph refers to a member of the fire and rescue service within the meaning of the Fire Emergency Act as being one of the following persons, organisations or groups that may make an objection under subsection (1) which relates to the granting of a liquor licence.
I can see no reason why the fire and rescue service should have anything to do with a liquor licence. As I said previously, if it is relating to safety, that, surely, would be a matter for the fire and rescue service to look at in the construction of the building or when a building is being modified as a premise for public use. I do not believe the fire and rescue service have anything to do with the amenity of the neighbourhood when you are talking about the pleasantness and facility of the neighbourhood. I am basically asking that it be omitted because I think it is a body which is irrelevant for the purposes of this act.
Mr STIRLING: Madam Deputy Chair, the fire service plays quite a critical role in assessing a building in respect of access and egress points, the safety and design of a building and how it would cope in terms of fire. How safe is it? When you are proposing to sell alcohol, you have to take that into consideration in terms of normal use of a building compared with one where people might be less than fully sober in the event of a fire or an explosion or any other reason which might necessitate vacating the building in a hurry. There are eminent and sound reasons why the fire services ought to be able to inspect the location of premises and fire in an objection if they saw that there was a real danger, an aggravated risk to public safety in the event of a less than safe and ideal premises being licensed for the purposes of selling alcohol.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, minister. I am under the impression that this can be done under the Building Code and that is exactly where their role lies, under the Building Code. That is where all those things that you mentioned would be taken into account, and that is why I see this as a duplication of their role. I am not saying that they shouldn’t be involved in those matters you spoke about, that’s most important, but they shouldn’t have to duplicate that role.
Mr BALDWIN: I’ support what the member for Nelson is saying because those issues are taken up in the Certificate of Occupancy of a building that is administered by the Building Board. The other issue is, if you are going to let the fire authority have a say, what about the work health authority and all the other agencies? Couldn’t you fix this issue by the Licensing Commission distributing for comment to all government agencies concerned, to solicit comments and views on a particular application. If there are other concerns and inspections are needed, you could do it as an internal mechanism. It doesn’t have to appear in here as one of the groups that can be a certified objector.
Mr STIRLING: We have heard nothing on this bill from the opposition except for the fact that we are trying to reduce, restrict and tighten the eligibility of people to object, and here we have the category of objector, fire and rescue service, and we have to knock them out. Now, I don’t know how inconsistent you can get. If the member for Daly wants to jump up and suggest this amendment now, he has had weeks to have a briefing, he has had weeks to bring it to me as an amendment. He could have written to me, he could have circulated it this morning, and he could have spoken to the government and sought a briefing. You are not going to jump up here with your smart alec ways! One, you are too arrogant because you know it all, two, you are too bloody lazy to go for a briefing, and you walk in here and expect me to fall over and accept your amendment. No!
Mr Baldwin: I will answer you this time. You don’t have my amendment because it is not my amendment, you goose! It is not my amendment.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Order!
Mr Baldwin interjecting
Mr STIRLING: Because it is ill conceived, ill thought out! You haven’t bothered to work it through, you haven’t bothered to seek a briefing and you haven’t come in here and elaborated your argument.
Mr ELFERINK: Just on the tail end of what the member for Daly was saying, one thing I would like to point out to the minister is that the member for Daly hasn’t brought this amendment before the House; it was the member for Nelson.
Mr Stirling: He was proposing another amendment.
Mr Baldwin: No, I wasn’t. I was supporting omitting it. You are an idiot.
Mr ELFERINK: Well, I pick up on the interjection. The minister is more than happy to be critical of members opposite him on these technical issues, and then launch into a tirade of abuse when he does not even know who is bringing the amendment. The amendment is being brought by the member for Nelson …
Mr Stirling: I know what the amendment is. He has proposed another one.
Mr ELFERINK: … and that is what we are discussing.
However, I would like to hear from the minister why - in detail, rather than just a tirade of abuse - the Work Health Authority, town councils and the Health Department have not been added to this list. Maybe the Health Department should be added to this list of potential objectors as well.
I do not want to see this narrowed down any further; I would like to see it expanded. So why don’t we expand it to government departments plural? That, I believe, was the member for Daly’s point.
Mr BALDWIN: Madam Deputy Chair, I will say that the minister is reverting back to his old arguments of laziness by me. I have to go for a briefing for all my knowledge now, that is what he is saying. I am not allowed to have an opinion of my own without first having a briefing. Well, that is utter rubbish!
I am not proposing another amendment. The amendment comes from my colleague, the member for Nelson, as it is distributed under the schedule. I am saying I support what he is doing in trying to omit the fire and rescue service from this, suggesting that they could be dealt with in an administrative manner by the commission, just like the Planning Act does. When a planning application comes in, the application is distributed to all agencies for their comment. That is easy; that is something that goes on in government now. But here, what we are doing is making them a certified objector if they so choose when they can put forward their views, their comments, their objections even, by way of submission when asked by the commission - as could the Work Health Authority or the local community council or the municipal council and so forth.
For the minister to say that I am trying to move another amendment is quite false, and he knows it. The fact that he thinks any amendment I propose should be in writing, should give him notice and write to him three weeks before - we have had this argument before. He knows full well - and he used to do it on this floor, where he would propose amendments to the government of the day from the floor. I do not have to follow his processes.
Mr WOOD: Madam Deputy Chair, I would like to say a couple of things. One is that it is my amendment. Two is that the intention of the amendment was not to restrict the fire and rescue service from having a say in the suitability of the building because that, I presume, is why they have been put into this section. It is just that they can do it already. I am not trying to say that they should be taken out of the equation, I am just saying this is a duplication of bureaucracy. You have one method in which they can comment on the suitability, the safety, of a building. That is where it should be. I have not been convinced that, if that is the case, then why should we duplicate it under the paragraph (d)?
Amendment negatived.
Mr BURKE: Madam Deputy Chair, dealing with clause 6, section 47(F)(2), it reads:
- An objection under subsection (1) may only be made on the ground that the grant of a licence may or will
adversely affect the amenity of the neighbourhood where the premises the subject of the application are or
will be located.
I ask the minister: does he have - because I do not have it in front of me - a copy of the principal act, and does that principal act describe the definition of ‘amenity’? What is it?
Mr STIRLING: In terms of the definition of neighbourhood and amenity?
Mr BURKE: On amenity.
Mr STIRLING: Amenity? I dealt with this in closing debate on the second reading, and the question of once you define the object - in this case amenity - that you do immediately narrow it and restrict it. It is better, in terms of the definition, dealing with it case by case on merit before the Liquor Commission.
Once defined, whether you select whatever dictionary definition you choose, or once you put it down in the legislation, this is it, it cannot mean anything else, anything that does not fit that definition obviously does not get a guernsey. Well, we don’t want that; we want the widest possible interpretation and definition of it and that is best left on a case by case basis with the commission. That is the view that we have.
Mr BALDWIN: Just on the amenity definition, the minister made some reference in his closing remarks that ‘amenity’ would include all of those things that the member for Braitling raised in her contribution to the debate, that is health, social and safety issues. Would the minister agree that all of those things were included in the terminology of ‘amenity’?
Mr STIRLING: It might be easier, and the member for Daly can jump again I have not answered his concern here. I will reiterate what I said in the second reading: other concerns have been raised on the intention of the bill that the concept of amenity should be read narrowly. I would like to allay any concerns over that definition by stating that there is no intention to prohibit any objection based on social, health or lifestyle issues. Indeed, it is these kind of issues that are envisaged would be captured in the public amenity ground. The position was set out clearly in the Victorian Supreme Court in the case of The Returned and Services League of Australia (Victorian Branch) Inc (Pascoe Vale Sub-Branch) & Anor v Liquor Licensing Commission & Anor [1998] VSC 87 in which it was stated the amenity of the area would include such things as traffic movement and density, noise, nuisance, parking facilities and any other matters which may interfere with the enjoyment of the area by members of the local community.
Mr BALDWIN: But that ruling does not, obviously, include things like health, social and lifestyle issues. You have said they include it; that definition by the law that you just read includes things such as traffic which goes to the amenity, of course, in terms of pleasantness which is the definition of amenity. What I am saying is if it includes health, social, safety, lifestyle, as you say, what doesn’t it include other than commercial aspects? Why is it in there? If it includes all things except commercial things, why have it in there? Why not just leave it as subsection (1) that says:
- Subject to this section, a person, organisation or group may make an objection to an application for the grant of a licence.
Why go on to say that it must be on the grounds of amenity when amenity, by your interpretation, is going to include everything?
Mr STIRLING: I go back. The concerns that the member for Braitling had were: what if the person was concerned about their health or a lifestyle issue, I think it would be included. By reading that position that came out of the Victorian Supreme Court, I do not intend that would restrict our definition or that the commission should see amenity as restricted to that. I quoted that by way of example. In that case, it included those things and in ours, the government certainly does not have any intention to prohibit any objection based on those other matters. The member for Braitling raised social, health, lifestyle matters, and they are important issues. The member for Braitling was concerned that they were ruled out on the question of amenity being affected. I do not know how I can make it any clearer that it is not government’s intention that they be ruled out.
Mr BALDWIN: If that is the case, can you tell me what the term ‘amenity’ does rule out? If it doesn’t rule out anything, why have it in there in the first place? That is the whole point. What does it rule out? You have said in your second reading speech:
- … it is the intention of this legislation that the term ‘amenity’ be read narrowly.
Give us the wide interpretation that leaves things out, that ‘amenity’ doesn’t include. Tell us what it doesn’t include. That is what I am after. It is simple.
Mr STIRLING: I will tell you what it doesn’t include: commercial grounds. It doesn’t include commercial grounds.
Mr BALDWIN: That is my point. Why have it in there?
Mr STIRLING: Go again.
Mr BALDWIN: I hope the minister accepts this point because I make it realistically, and this is one of the big concerns with the industry: if it doesn’t preclude anything other than commercial grounds which is already unavailable in the primary act, why have it in there as a description? Why not just leave it as it is or, indeed, leave it as the minister’s subsection (1) of 47F that says:
- Subject to this section, a person, organisation or group may make an objection to an application for the grant
of a licence.
May make an objection - instead of going on in subsection (2) saying, under that subsection, the only sort of objection that they can make has to do with anything that would adversely affect the amenity of the neighbourhood. There is an issue with neighbourhood, but let’s stick with amenity. You can only make objection on the basis of amenity, and to confirm that, the minister has said ‘amenity’ will be read narrowly. If it is read narrowly, give us the wide interpretation of what is not included in the term ‘amenity’.
Mr Wood: What are we sitting here for?
Mr BALDWIN: Exactly! So drop it out, take out subsection (2) – I am sorry, I don’t have a written amendment to that effect, but it would then make sense.
Mr Wood: Drop the bill. You are back to where you were. You are back to the status quo.
Mr BALDWIN: Does anyone else want to speak while the minister …
Mr WOOD: Thank you, member for Daly. Madam Deputy Chair, I agree. Even if the minister wishes to get up and say this is now the interpretation of ‘amenity’, I am of the presumption that what is written in the second reading is the interpretation that is given to ‘amenity’. That is what is taken into account. Now, if we are changing what was said in the second reading, how can that be interpreted if this word is challenged?
What will happen now, if we have a different interpretation and not a narrow interpretation, not pleasantness and facility and we have a big picture amenity definition? This act is now flawed, and if that is the case, then this bill is just a circle; it went round and round and ended up in the same place. If that is the interpretation, this bill should be dropped and we think about it in the February sittings where we suggested it be in the first place.
Mr BALDWIN: I would ask the minister to answer the concerns of both myself and the member for Nelson - me on behalf of the opposition, CLP, and the member for Nelson - to explain to us why the necessity for that interpretation if he cannot provide an explanation to this House as to what will fall outside of that description of amenity. If nothing falls outside of it and everything can be joined in as an objection, why have it? What is the purpose? He really needs to explain this to Territorians because this is one of the single biggest issues of the amendment to the Liquor Act.
Dr BURNS: Minister, isn’t it true, that there is a wider definition of ‘amenity’ other than a physical or environmental amenity? There is a social amenity, which I think is quite well recognised and really covers the aspects that you are talking about. It covers things like the health and wellbeing - amenity is the use, amenity is the wider definition of a place and the people who live within it. You can’t recognise it. I propose that as a definition of amenity; it is not just the physical definition of amenity, it is also the social definition.
Mr BALDWIN: I thank the member for Johnston because he is actually supporting my argument. That is exactly what I am saying. It is exactly what the member for Nelson is saying: amenity does have a wide interpretation, as the minister just said. So it includes everything.
Members interjecting.
Mr BALDWIN: Why read it narrowly, and why have it in there? If you can make an objection anyway, why limit it to amenity, when even the member who just spoke agrees that it could be all things.
Mr STIRLING: I think the member for Daly made the point himself earlier in debate that there was that question that although the original bill did not allow commercial objection, there were cases that floated through the system on fairly thinly disguised commercial grounds.
Mr Baldwin: I hope not.
Mr STIRLING: You know yourself, when you were minister, it certainly happened in recent times. You have to provide scope for the community to have their say, and the grounds under amenity do that, at the same time retaining the prohibition on objection on commercial grounds.
Mr Baldwin: I agree.
Mr STIRLING: That gets there.
Mr Baldwin: No, it doesn’t.
Mr STIRLING: How does this allow an objection on commercial grounds? Alternatively, how does it not allow the community to have its rightful say? It is there.
Mr BALDWIN: At the moment, Madam Deputy Chair, commercial grounds are not allowed under the principal act. We are not changing that. This is currently how it is. That is how it is going to be after this abomination goes through, if it does. You can object on any grounds currently. Now, this is purporting to limit it to a narrow interpretation of the word ‘amenity’. So if it is being narrowed, I am asking: what is it that will be knocked out as an objection that does not fit into that interpretation and that description of ‘amenity’? If there are no things except commercial, then my point is that we do not have to …
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Deputy Chair. I draw the Chair’s attention to the repetitive questions from the member for Daly. This is the same question that he has asked on three previous occasions and I would urge you to remind him that he cannot keep asking repetitive questions. The minister has answered.
Mr BALDWIN: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Deputy Chair. It is all right for a minister to waltz in here half way through a debate to try and give some sort of support to this minister, but the point is we have raised the issue; we have not heard a response that can be described as having any understanding from the minister. I am asking him to give us his interpretation because I think he knows full well that this does not have to be in there; he just will not give up on the point. If he is not going to give up on that, well the whole thing is flawed in my view. This is a very important issue that is concerning the industry.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: On the issue of the point of order, I will disallow it. The minister can make the call on whether or not he answers the question.
Mr WOOD: Just picking up on what the member for Johnston said. He is highlighting what I believe amenity should mean. He is also highlighting the fact that they are the concerns that I had where, if you use the narrow interpretation as specified in the second reading, then the issues that the member for Johnston has just enunciated could not be used. That is the very concern I have. Now the problem is, as I have said before, the minister is saying: ‘Oh, it is the wider interpretation; it does basically include those issues that the member for Johnston has said’. But that is not built into the second reading. So if someone decided to challenge, for instance, a community group getting up and saying: ‘Well, we would like to object to this application based on health grounds, we think it might increase the itinerants up the road there somewhere’ - maybe that could be regarded as pleasantness of facility - but if the objection was based on something that did not fit within those narrow grounds, and they said: ‘Well, the minister said in his speech in parliament on this particular day that it did’, what would really happen? Who would anyone believe? Is that interpretation of ‘amenity’ under the second reading, the interpretation that a court would take ‘amenity’ to mean if it were ever challenged?
Mr MALEY: Madam Deputy Chair, my question is to the minister. Regarding the phraseology ‘amenity of the neighbourhood’, no doubt you are aware - and this can be confirmed through you advisors - that if a commissioner or a court is in the position where it has to determine the scope of the term ‘amenity of the neighbourhood’, it not only looks at the literal interpretation, it goes straight to the second reading speech. All of this debate will not be used by that interpretative authority to determine the scope of the word ‘amenity’. So, all the court or the commissioner is going to have is, really, the words contained in the second reading speech. ‘It is the intention of this legislation that the term ‘amenity’ be read narrowly’. That is what they have.
The precise concern or the ambiguity raised by the member for Johnston about: ‘Oh, it could mean social or whatever type of amenity’ illustrates the point. The current term, read in light of the second reading speech, genuinely narrows it down. If the government cannot decide which interpretation is the correct one, isn’t this the ideal time to genuinely take a step back, take on board the suggestion from the member for Johnston and insert the words ‘social or physical amenity’? Perhaps there can be an amendment made to broaden it out to include some of the examples you say are covered during the course of their debate.
Minister, I want to make it clear that, as this debate evolves, you are aware that none of the things you say during the course of this committee stage of the debate will be taken into account. It is only what is in the second reading speech, and it is only what is written in the legislation. So the concerns from your colleagues and the other members on this side of the House, unfortunately, will not bear weight in the interpretation. You realise that any assurances that you attempt to give the Northern Territory community and honourable members in this House will not account for anything unless you are prepared to stand up, do the right thing and amend this legislation, amend the amendment.
Mr STIRLING: I appreciate the legal advice from the member for Goyder. There are two points that I want to make. In relation to the member for Daly, that the industry has anxieties or concerns about this, well, the AHA does not. The Australian Hotels Association is the voice of the industry in the Northern Territory, and they have spoken with us about this amendment.
Mr Maley: You are saying they are happy?
Mr STIRLING: Exactly. The AHA do not have a concern.
Mr Baldwin: They have spoken to you and said they are happy?
Mr STIRLING: I accept that the AHA is a strong representative and a strong voice for its industry.
Mr Baldwin: Who told you that? The member for Wanguri, did he?
Mr STIRLING: Who told me that? No, no, the AHA. So, if there are concerns in the industry, why aren’t they telling the AHA?
Mr Baldwin: What, are they all members of the AHA, the industry?
Mr STIRLING: That seems to be the problem. It seems to be a problem if the industry is not telling its own representatives.
On the other points that the member for Goyder made, the commission will exercise judgment on the facts of the case before it. I do not think it strengthens the case at all to add wellbeing or different words that you want to use. Allow the commission to exercise its judgment on the facts of the case before it in relation to neighbourhood. If it goes wrong and people are unfairly knocked out in any of these categories or they do not have the opportunity to put their objection where previously they would - I don’t believe that is the case - if it turned out to be the case, we would very quickly have another look at it if it didn’t settle the whole objection procedure down.
You don’t change a law and turn your back and never look at it again. If there were concerns that this had not met the need in getting the process much more back on the rails than it has been, we would be back there to have another look to see what is needed. We are not convinced that this is not going to work and adding those words I don’t think strengthens the case one little bit. You have to allow the commission to exercise its own judgment in these matters.
Mr BURKE: Madam Deputy Chair, I started this area of the debate by referring to this subsection 47F(2). It is clear the minister cannot provide the definition of ‘amenity’ in this Chamber so we have no comfort from that and it is one of the reasons that we will not be supporting this bill. Just in terms of the word amenity, and I am certainly no lawyer, but I would have thought that given the debate in this Chamber this evening, and given the comments of the minister as to what he thinks this word amenity could mean, that if in a subsequent application to the Liquor Commission an individual is ruled out of being able to have their objection heard on the question of amenity, I suggest to you that simply by the debate in this Chamber they will move quickly from the second reading speech to the debate in the Chamber and would have grounds for the objection from that debate.
Certainly from where I sit listening to it, the minister himself in describing this bill has basically said that amenity can mean any and everything except ‘on commercial grounds’. Therefore, if the Liquor Commission now rules against an application on the grounds of their interpretation of amenity and defines that narrowly, I suggest that you will defeat one of the objectives of your bill and that is to keep the costs of litigation down because it will immediately go to appeal and it will be appealed on that provision, and it will be costly. But I will move on.
I assume also, minister, that you cannot define the word ‘neighbourhood’ other than the way you have described it in the second reading speech. You have said it is a subjective judgment. You have also said: ‘For example, the neighbourhood around the proposed city tavern will be at most a matter of a few city blocks’. In that context I would ask you: if there was an application for a new liquor licence at the Stokes Hill Wharf, where would you consider the neighbourhood of that facility to be?
Mr STIRLING: That would be a matter for the commission to decide. Okay, there is a licence application being made down at Stokes Hill. The commission, in that case, would decide what constituted the neighbourhood. I am not going to stand here and say it ends at the top of the cliff or it ends just past Parliament House. The commission would make that decision at the time.
Mr BURKE: Minister, you said in your second reading speech, and this is the way I interpret it, that the neighbourhood around a proposed city tavern will be at most a matter of a few city blocks. Now, do you think that Stokes Hill Wharf falls outside of those parameters? If so, to what extent does it fall outside those parameters? If we are arguing whether it is the cliff face, let me put another example to you: the same example, but let’s describe neighbourhood. An application for liquor licence is at Stokes Hill Wharf and the objector lives in Palmerston. Would they be considered within the definition as being part of the neighbourhood?
Mr STIRLING: Well, I mean, you can use these different examples. That was used in the second reading speech as an example of what may be, in an urban situation as opposed to a rural or remote area which could involve hundreds of kilometres. If it is an existing outlet, and it is the only outlet there, it could conceivably have an effect over a far greater radius, area, distance from the proposed location compared with the urban situation where if you have a number of outlets on different city streets, how far can you go in drawing the bow to say: ‘That is going to affect me’, particularly if the person lived at Palmerston and there are 27 outlets between Palmerston and Stokes Hill?
I am not trying to hide behind the semantics here. I just think that the commission would make that ruling on the facts before it.
Mr BURKE: You are not trying to hide behind the semantics, and I am not trying to be mischievous, but I am saying that people are looking for clarity in the intent of this legislation. Surely, with the advisors in the Chamber and yourself as the minister, we have a simple proposition that a new application for a liquor licence is made for Stokes Hill Wharf and a person in Palmerston wants to object to that application based on amenity. Would that person, in your opinion, be eligible to object? Surely you can answer that question.
Mr STIRLING: Sorry, the last point?
Mr BURKE: Would that person who lives in Palmerston who wishes to object or perhaps support the application for the licence at Stokes Hill Wharf be considered eligible, in your opinion, based on your interpretation of ‘neighbourhood’?
Mr STIRLING: No, it is not my opinion. It is the Chairman’s, based on the question of relevance. We have had this argument. Now I understand what you are talking about. It is based on the question of relevance as to whether they have standing in that particular case. The commission makes that ruling, not the minister standing here who knows nothing about the individual in Palmerston or what particular ties or standing that person might have in relation to that case. Now, I can’t make that call. The commission would on the facts before it.
Mr BURKE: Yes, okay minister. But we are the ones who are elected here, and we are the ones that make the law. The fact that we hand those laws down for others to interpret, administer and rule on our behalf is a separate issue. This is the point at which we decide the law. It is not a matter of saying: ‘I don’t know what he is going to do it; it is a subjective judgment of his’.
Mr STIRLING: No, it is not a subjective judgment …
Mr BURKE: We are prescribing the parameters within which he will work. Now, I am not giving you a difficult situation. Would you or don’t you accept that a person who lived in Palmerston under this legislation would have a valid opportunity to object or support an application for a liquor licence at Stokes Hill Wharf?
Mr STIRLING: They live at Palmerston, if they work up here, yes. That would be clear under the bill.
Mr Baldwin: What if they don’t work up here?
Mr STIRLING: If they don’t work up here, then it is on the facts before the commission. We are talking about a person you are making up. I don’t know the facts behind that person and whether they are relevant or would have standing in the case before the commission. Only the commission could make that call, and it comes down to those grounds of vexatiousness, standing and relevance. Relevant or irrelevant, how is this person affected? What is the impact on that person?
I am trying to think of a case in which they could be strongly affected, and I can’t, but, clearly, if that person could demonstrate that before the commission, then they are relevant to the case, then they have standing, then they are a valid objector. But for me to try to fill in your imagined person, I don’t see the need to. The commission will make that call on the facts before it. Is the person impacted upon, how is the person affected? Yes, they are relevant to this case; they can object. I don’t see what the problem is.
Mr BALDWIN: Maybe if we can approach this in a different way, the minister can give an explanation. If a person wants to make an objection to a particular licence and they live some distance away, more than three blocks as you have suggested in that scenario, how do they know whether they are allowed to make an objection? Do they ring the commission and say: ‘Am I in the neighbourhood?’ Oh, they do? The minister nods.
So this is what is going to happen: your person in Palmerston who does not work in the precinct, but wants to object to a licence on the wharf, rings the commission and says: ‘Do I qualify as being in the neighbourhood of the applicant for the licence?’ And the commission is going to say: ‘Oh, no, you are outside of the neighbourhood.’ Does the person actually get the chance to lodge an objection?
Mr STIRLING: Yes, of course they do.
Mr BALDWIN: Oh. And then they get knocked out.
Mr STIRLING: This is the problem when you are lazy and you do not read the bill, you do not understand. You have to read a couple of clauses. I know you are too lazy to do that.
Mr BALDWIN: No, I have read it. I want you to explain it because you do not know. You can not even explain what ‘amenity’ is going to cover. Now we are trying to discover what ‘neighbourhood’ means. So you get on your feet and try and explain it.
Mr STIRLING: How do they get in? They simply object. They make their objection.
- 47I(1) The Director must forward an objection and the reply to the objection (if any) to the Chairperson.
(2) On receiving the objection and the reply to the objection, the Chairperson must select a member to
consider the substance of the objection.
(3) The member selected under subsection (2) –
considers appropriate.
nature, or does not describe circumstances that may or will adversely affect the amenity
of the neighbourhood - dismiss the objection; or
forward the objection, reply to the objection and his or her findings in relation to the
objection to the commission.
- (4) If the member dismisses the objection under subsection 3(c)(i), he or she must direct the Director and inform
the person, organisation or group who made the objection, that the objection has been dismissed.
Mr BURKE: Minister, we now have the situation whereby you cannot describe ‘amenity’.
Mr STIRLING: I do not intend to.
Mr BURKE: That is a subjective judgment that is in the hands of some person who is passed this bill to implement. You cannot describe ‘neighbourhood’. That could be anything, depending on the subjective judgment of the person to whom you pass this bill. You cannot describe the person who is going to make the application whether they have a chance of being successful in their application or not and who may spend long hours in effort and at some expense, preparing an application which could be knocked out in the first instance. Does it not beg the question, minister, of what on earth this bill achieves that the current bill does not achieve in terms of an application by an individual to apply to the Liquor Commission with some change of success that their application will be heard under this new legislation that was not there in the past?
If you say, as you said in your reply to the second reading, that vexatious and frivolous applications are knocked out under this legislation in the same way as they were under the previous legislation, this legislation falls down on this issue of amenity and neighbourhood, neither of which you can describe and, in trying to describe them, you have only confused the members of the opposition. It does not achieve anything of substance. The only thing it achieves in its intent is the way it is stated in the second reading speech and that is that it is to be narrowly defined and it only allows certain people the criteria in order to make an objection. No wonder then, minister, you are going to have trouble out there selling this to the community.
You can say what you like in this Chamber. We have tried to advise you that what you should do is withdraw this bill and do more work on it, and then, if necessary, seek support from the House. If you want to blunder ahead and ram this bill through - I do not intend to labour the point any more, but certainly, you are going to have a great many problems with the community because you simply cannot explain away the terminology that is in your second reading speech, enunciated clearly in the bill. The average Territorian is going to ask the simple question: why?
Mr BALDWIN: Same section, different issue, for your information because, as the Leader of the Opposition said, we have made our point on that and we will not go further.
I would just like to ask for clarification, and I know the minister will say: ‘Well why didn’t you go to a briefing?’, but it is very important that he answers this question. In section 47F(3) the only persons allowed to make an objection are:
- (b) a person holding an estate in fee simple in land, or a lease over land, in the neighbourhood where
the premises the subject of the application are or will be located;
My interpretation of that is that it does include licensees and/or owners of hotels and other establishments that already have liquor licences. That is my interpretation, and I am sure you will clarify that for me, minister.
Mr STIRLING: If this covered a licensee, they could still object if they were working in the area or living in the area, on grounds of amenity not on commercial grounds.
Mr BALDWIN: Yes, I know not on commercial grounds. You have just said if they are working in the area. Some owners of hotels are not there working in the vicinity. So can they, as an absentee landlord who owns a company that owns a licence, for instance, lodge an objection? Not on commercial grounds. Under this section 47F(43)(b), you are allowing anyone who owns a piece of land in fee simple or a lessee. So does that include licensees in that?
Mr STIRLING: Landlord, leaseholder, those types of …
Mr BALDWIN: Licensee, liquor licensee?
Mr STIRLING: Yes. On grounds of amenity, as per the grounds above. That is all.
Mr BALDWIN: Yes, I am not worried about that. They will be allowed to. Just to clarify in the instance of the newspaper cuttings I showed the minister before, you know ‘bar wars’ and what have you. You have the Coleman family, Christo, so on and so forth, the McNamee family who own various establishments. One would assume then, under this as owners and lessors and what have you, that they would be allowed to lodge an objection other than on commercial grounds. Yes. Thanks.
Clause 6:
Mr STIRLING: I move amendment 34. The amendment is to omit ‘carried on for purposes that have a connection with the amenity of the neighbourhood’. That is to give comfort that those community-based organisations and groups still have the ability to lodge an objection.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: The question now is that the bill stand as amended.
The committee divided:
Ayes 13 Noes 11
Mrs Aagaard Mr Baldwin
Mr Ah Kit Mr Burke
Mr Bonson Ms Carney
Dr Burns Ms Carter
Mr Henderson Mr Dunham
Mr Kiely Mr Elferink
Ms Lawrie Dr Lim
Mr McAdam Mr Maley
Ms Martin Mr Mills
Ms Scrymgour Mr Reed
Mr Stirling Mr Wood
Dr Toyne
Mr Vatskalis
Motion agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
Bill to be reported with amendment.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Mr STIRLING (Racing, Gaming and Licensing): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 13 Noes 12
Mrs Aagaard Mr Baldwin
Mr Ah Kit Mrs Braham
Mr Bonson Mr Burke
Dr Burns Ms Carney
Mr Henderson Ms Carter
Mr Kiely Mr Dunham
Ms Lawrie Mr Elferink
Mr McAdam Dr Lim
Ms Martin Mr Maley
Ms Scrymgour Mr Mills
Mr Stirling Mr Reed
Dr Toyne Mr Wood
Mr Vatskalis
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
PETROLEUM (SUBMERGED LANDS) AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 104)
(Serial 104)
Continued from 16 October 2002.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I indicate that the opposition fully supports this legislation. It would be foolhardy to try and interpret the second reading speech any more clearly than it has been interpreted. I would be the first to say that the terminology is such that one has to read it three or four times to understand it but, essentially, and I invite the minister to correct me if I am wrong, we have Commonwealth legislation that deals with all of those submerged areas outside of the three mile limit for which they have an act, the Commonwealth Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act.
The Northern Territory government is responsible from the three mile limit back to the low water mark. Notwithstanding that there might be other projects around the place, we are dealing with an imminent project which is the Bayu-Undan pipeline to shore. That pipeline will traverse both areas and therefore it is essential that the Northern Territory legislation is consistent with Commonwealth legislation and the intent of this amendment bill is to achieve that end.
I also understand that the amendment is phrased in such a way that the Commonwealth itself is reviewing its act, but the way our amendment bill is constructed will be consistent with the eventual amendments that come from the Commonwealth.
One interesting aspect of the bill is that the proposed term of the pipeline licence will remain in force indefinitely, which is a provision of this new amendment. However, there are caveats that, whilst the term is indefinite, a provision is included to terminate the pipeline in the event of things like no work being undertaken for five years to, on the one hand, reduce certainty but on the other hand to prevent them from warehousing.
Amendments in the bill also relate to a new coordinate datum system that has been adopted by the Commonwealth called GDA 94, which replaces existing geodetic datum ADD 66 and this amendment bill achieves consistency with that new datum methodology. Third, the opportunity has been taken to construct the penalty units consistent with the way penalty units are applied in other legislation of the Northern Territory.
I understand that is the essence of this new amendment. It is sensible. It appears to be well drafted, and the opposition fully supports it.
Mr HENDERSON (Business, Industry and Resource Development): Madam Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his comments. I can say that he has it in one. It was a very concise summary of the intent of the amendment bill. It is a fairly complex set of amendments, but essentially to bring us into line so that the three nautical miles where we have legislative jurisdiction for pipelines complements the Commonwealth’s legislation. The Commonwealth, as a result of administering areas outside of the three mile limit around Australia, has amended legislation over the years.
The fact that we haven’t had an onshore pipeline has meant, in terms of legislative requirement, anyway, that we haven’t amended our legislation to complement the Commonwealth legislation, as was the intent of the two statutes. That is what we are doing now. We are, through my department, undertaking a review of all legislation to prepare ourselves for what we all hope is an imminent announcement on Bayu-Undan. We are ready to go. There are no legislative hurdles in place that could cause problems in terms of getting that project up and running.
I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the people in my department who really do magnificent work. This is very complex legislation and, certainly, when I was presented by the department with the committee notes and the second reading speech, I, too, had to read it three or four times to try and get across it.
We have very competent people in the department and I am confident that we are well placed to grasp this project with both hands once the Commonwealth parliament and the Timorese parliament ratify the Timor Sea Treaty. This is just a piece of housekeeping legislation. I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his support and put on record my thanks to the people in the department who have tidied up this legislation and other legislation over the last few months to support this project.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr HENDERSON (Business, Industry and Resource Development)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
TOBACCO CONTROL BILL
(Serial 101)
(Serial 101)
Continued from 16 October 2002
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I first must declare an interest in this matter, being a non-smoker. There is great difficulty in this debate in that many people who engage in the debate on one side or another have an addiction to this substance, albeit a legal addiction, and many of them are in denial about it. This makes it a very difficult thing to discuss at some times.
I can foreshadow at the outset that the opposition will support this bill, and we applaud the government’s moves in this direction. We believe, like the government, that there is a necessity to bring further restricting legislation into this arena. Had the election result been different, I would have been sitting here with a similar act, so I do applaud the government.
I will make one caveat on that; I thought it was arrogant for the minister to appear on television tonight and assume that parliament had passed this. I had indicated that she had the support of the opposition, but it is probably a little premature to go on the television and say that parliament has done one thing or another when that is patently not the case, given that the news was an hour or so ago, and the bill has only just come on for debate. With that minor caveat, I do support the legislation.
It is not my intention to run an excursion through the various portions of it, suffice to say that there has been extensive community consultation, including with probably the most affected industry and that is licensed premises. Any health minister who does not see this as one of the critical issues on their desk is deluding themselves and there is probably some way to go.
I would like to thank some staff in the Department of Health and Community Services, including Di Rayson - probably to her embarrassment given that she is present tonight – Peter Zeroni, Shirley Hendy and Gloria Markey. All of these people advised me as a minister and, while they would probably not like to carry the title ‘zealot’, they are very passionate people about matters relating to tobacco and the ill health that arises from it. They were very persuasive lobbyists from within. I have seen Di in full flight at places like the Fred’s Pass Show with this cunning little machine that does the drawback in a little plastic tube. There has been a very powerful and persuasive educative campaign which augurs well for this legislation because there is a sense of expectation in the community.
Certainly, people who have travelled to other places or who have come from other places realise that there is a necessity to make a more rigid regime here in the Northern Territory. Likewise, the industry members who talked to their counterparts in other places realise there is a necessity from a work health, staff safety and, certainly, from a health point of view, that this legislation is necessary and relevant in a contemporary society.
As a young child, I grew up in licensed premises. Not only did we sell tobacco, but it was consumed on the premises and, in those days, given that I am a fairly old person, chewing tobacco was still very common, and commonly used by mostly Aboriginal people, but certainly station people in Katherine where I grew up. I would suspect that the reason that many of those people are not around is because of that product.
We have to move decisively on this. I believe the community is with us and, in this case, the opposition is with the government. The data released by very noteworthy and indisputable commentators and research institutions would have us look at this substance and the necessity to control it in this way. So, I applaud the government and note that this is probably the first of several actions over the next several years, but it is certainly a very good start point.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I also support this Tobacco Control Bill. It is legislation that has been a long time coming. Looking at the costs that tobacco causes to public health in the Territory, it is a very good bill and I believe it will be supported by most people.
I thank the minister for the briefing. I should also mention to the member for Arnhem that I am supporting the bill, just in case he thinks I never support bills from the government. I support this bill because I think it is an excellent bill. I hope that when I do vote on things, that is the reason I vote for them.
Again, I thank the minister for the briefings I received. There were a number of issues that I raised and I need to raise them here in parliament because that is where my concerns should be raised. I noticed in the second reading a number of times, the issue about children being discouraged from smoking is raised. It is raised regarding school areas and the possibility of selling individual cigarettes. It mentions how the licensing scheme provides a key economic disincentive to sell tobacco products to children; the offence of selling tobacco to a child is retained. Of course, the objective of this bill is to reduce the harm to people’s health and the consumption of tobacco and other smoking products by discouraging people from smoking.
The issue that I raised at the briefing and would like to raise tonight is of course the issue of whether smoking should be allowed on school premises. School premises are government property. Even though there is an allowance for a discrete area to smoke in, I think if that is allowed to happen, it is still sending the wrong message especially to the very people who are mentioned in the second reading, that is children. They probably can’t see it, but they will certainly smell it. So to some extent, it will send the wrong message in a place where you would hope that we are going down the best path, the more positive path. So if it is possible to remove smoking from school premises, I support it. I know there are some issues involved in terms of whether school councils would allow it, and I know there are some difficulties if teachers have to go out and smoke outside the fence line.
But, really, if we are to make an effort to show children that smoking is not something that is good, then the school is probably one of the most important places to show that. Having discrete areas really does not hide anything; it just tends to show kids that you can do it behind the tree or down behind the bicycle shed as long as we don’t see you. I know this might change, but I think it needed to be raised tonight because it is important. I certainly do not want children smoking. I have a daughter who took up smoking when she became a ringer because being a ringer, if you did not smoke, swear and drink you weren’t a ringer. Thankfully, when she fell pregnant she gave up smoking, so she had the sense to do that and she hasn’t smoked since.
It is so easy to get into the habit. You see so many young people, especially around the supermarkets. In some of the supermarkets it is nearly a tradition to be a smoker so you can go and knock off work and sit around the back there and have a fag. The more we can do to discourage people, especially young people, the better. If that means some of us have to put up with a little bit of pain in doing it, well that is the way it should be.
I raised this under the section 11 exemption areas which deals with the regulations that may permit the occupier of premises or the occupier of a class of premises to designate an area within a premises to be exempt. I think that related to schools as well. I did raise the question as to whether children are the occupiers. I know it was said that they were not, but I just wonder whether perhaps the word ‘occupier’ in this case should be clarified as to who is the occupier, particularly of a school. Is it the owner, is it the teachers, the janitor, the children or the parents? That needs more clarification.
The other issue I raised for which they did not quite have an answer at the time was that section 17 relates to price discounting not to be advertised. It says:
- A person who engages in price discounting to market tobacco products must not advertise the price
discounting of tobacco products.
Whilst there was an explanation, all that means is that there would be a permitted size; you could not have a big sign out the front saying ‘our cigarettes are this cheap’. I am not sure if that is clearly spelt out. I have some concerns about the way it reads - not concerns, because I support people selling cigarettes, but I did not know how it related to competition within a free market. We are allowing people to sell cigarettes. Can you go and tell them that they cannot advertise the price discounting of a tobacco product? Would there be any ramifications under the Competition Act in that respect?
I know there will be one caf in Casuarina that will be very pleased to see these laws come into place, and you might know yourself, that Casuarina Shopping Square introduced a smoke free zone quite early. The problem was that it was not introduced for the whole of Darwin, just Casuarina. There were cafes that did allow smoking within Casuarina shopping centre that immediately lost trade because their smokers all went out to a caf in another shopping centre. They will be very glad to see that now we are starting to have uniform rules in respect of smoking. They had quite a drop off in patronage and as these people had only just bought the business, it certainly hurt them for a while. So I know they will be very pleased to see these changes.
I applaud the government and the minister for introducing this bill. It makes common sense.
There is only one other area, which I nearly forgot, an area where I think there should have been restrictions, and that is the casino, not just in the Aqua area as the smoke-free zone, but we should take a leaf out of the Victorian book where the Crown Casino will be smoke-free. One reason is to try to get people out of the place because a lot of the people just stay there smoking and keep spending their money. It does force them to go outside and get a bit of fresh air, and perhaps break away from the poker machines. So besides the health issues, there are also issues of encouraging people away from the poker machines.
I do not know whether the gaming tables of the casino are smoke-free, but I would have thought that is an area that should be smoke-free. I do not know how the casino covers itself from the point of view of workers suffering from passive smoking in those areas. Anyone who has been to the casino knows that you come away with clothes that just smell of tobacco.
Mr Bonson: Quite often.
Mr WOOD: That’s right. Thank you, member for Millner. So I thought there really was an opportunity for more restrictions on places like the casino, not just from the health aspect, but there were some real social spin-offs, as has been found in Victoria.
Once again, minister, I applaud the introduction of the Tobacco Control Bill and I will support it when it comes to the vote.
Dr BURNS (Tourism): Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to support the Tobacco Control Bill. As the health minister stated in her second reading speech, the aims are to: reduce the impact of smoking on the Territory community; discourage the uptake of smoking, particularly by children; support those who wish to quit smoking; and reduce exposure to environmental tobacco smoke.
When we look at the overall cost of tobacco to the Australian community, we find that, first, it is the largest form or cause of preventable death in the nation. It causes over 19 000 deaths in Australia each year, and smoking kills more people than the combined total killed by drink, drugs, drowning, murder, suicide, motor vehicle accidents, poisoning, infectious diseases, and AIDS all combined.
Importantly, I would like to reiterate the burden that tobacco places on the Northern Territory community. One in five deaths in the Territory is tobacco-related. The overall smoking prevalence rate in the Northern Territory is somewhere around 27% to 30%, the highest in the nation which stands at about 20%. I made a calculation a few years ago, admittedly based on old figures of a 1992 study done by Collins and Lapsley, into the cost to the Australian community of drugs. In that study, they found that tobacco cost the nation about $12bn a year. That is not only in direct costs like hospitals and medical treatment, it is also time lost through illness or someone dying from cancer and the spouse, or family, having to give up time to nurse that person. There is also the loss of productivity and the loss of life. Many people lose years of life through tobacco smoking and if you pro-rate that out to the Territory population which is about 1% of the Australian population, that works out to $120m per year in the Northern Territory, which is a substantial amount. As I say, it is an estimated cost that I once calculated, but it is astounding.
Many of the provisions of this act relate to reducing exposure to tobacco smoke in the environment. The effects of exposure to tobacco smoke in the environment are well known. These include, first, a 20% higher risk of lung cancer, a 25% higher risk of cardio-vascular disease, higher risk of stroke and breast cancer, and in relation to children, low birthweight babies, as well as increasing bronchitis, asthma and cot death among children exposed to environmental tobacco smoke.
This act comes before parliament after considerable consultation with the community, particularly since the release of a public discussion paper in March 2002. As the health minister reported, this discussion paper attracted 190 submissions with approximately 90% attracting support for the measures outlined in this act. Furthermore, I am aware of successive polls over the years that have indicated similar levels of public support for enclosed public places legislation, in relation to tobacco smoke.
I heard what the member for Drysdale said. It is late at night and probably not the time to dig the political spurs in. I believe the member for Drysdale was and is sincere about this type of legislation and its potential contribution to the good health of the Territory. However, I believe that the member for Drysdale, when he was health minister and probably the opposition leader, when he was health minister before him, were somewhat landlocked within their own party about moving forward on these issues. Both of them basically had good will, but for whatever reason, they didn’t move forward. We are a government that has come to power, this was on our agenda, and we have done something about it.
I still have the very strongly held belief that if we can address tobacco issues in the Northern Territory, particularly amongst Aboriginal people, and reduce smoking prevalence there, that will have a profound beneficial effect on Aboriginal health, both in the short, medium and longer term. It is very important. Even a 5% reduction would have profound effects. That is why I have always been a supporter of tobacco control legislation - I will come to that a bit later, because in my speech I will be trying to acknowledge those people over the years who have worked very hard and made a big contribution even when things seemed impossible, they ploughed on. Today, we have the results. There is still more to do in the tobacco area, but this is a mighty step forward. I take on board what the member for Nelson said about more things could be happening, but for the Territory, and given that the Territory has a very extensive tobacco culture, for want of a better word, this is a mighty step for the Territory. Let’s look at the next steps further on down the track.
I would like to set out the provisions of the act which I believe will reduce exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and those deleterious effects I mentioned previously. On 1 January 2003, smoke free areas will include restaurants, cafes, shopping centres, public transport, and commercial child care centres.
It is important to remember that the Property Council of Australia and major shopping centre proprietors are 100% behind these changes, and they have been for some time. This is a responsible view for the Property Council and the shopping centre proprietors to take. There’s also an occupational health and safety issue there, and an issue in relation to maintenance of air-conditioners in shopping centres because we all know the tar infiltrates air conditioners to some degree.
From 31 May 2003, licensed premises will be required to provide a non-smoking area of equal amenity. To quote the Health minister in her second reading speech:
- These provisions will allow people to shop, eat and work in enclosed places without the discomfort and
risk associated with passive smoking.
It is my firmly held belief that there are a lot of people in the community who want to go about these everyday activities and not be exposed to passive smoking. You may be trying to enjoy a meal and someone lights up on the table next to you - or they light a cigarette up, anyway - and you are overcome.
Mr Wood: That is banned, I think, member for Johnston.
Dr BURNS: No, I just meant spontaneous combustion actually, member for Nelson. I was not thinking the other stuff but, obviously, you are.
Mr Wood: Oh, sorry!
Dr BURNS: Another important area that this act seeks to address is to reduce smoking amongst young people. Penalties and licensing provisions under this bill create a major disincentive for retailers to sell to children. Point of sale advertising and distribution of promotional material are part of the marketing activities of tobacco companies. They are all designed to increase sales, recruit new smokers and to keep smokers smoking. Provisions under this bill restrict these activities.
I do not believe we should ever underestimate the cunning, guile, deception, deceit and lies of tobacco companies. They are all words that were used today in our censure debate, but we know there is a history there of denial, coming to terms with the truth, and letting the public know the truth about their activities. Their marketing over the years has become very subtle. You only have to look at some of the film clips of modern music on the television, or just movies generally, to see the way that smoking is portrayed – certainly, I believe, to try and promote smoking to young people. These are very subtle things, and in some cases it has been shown that money has changed hands for this to be portrayed as a desirable activity for young people. That is a big issue. I am not sure whether we can do anything about that tonight.
Finally, it is important to acknowledge the work for well over a decade of a number of individuals and organisations in making this legislation reality. I have a potted history from 1993, and I thank Graham Opie from the Heart Foundation and Melissa Farrington for helping me with this and a few other speaking notes that I have used.
In 1993, the Tobacco Interest Group was formed and it ran until 1996. The goal of TIG, as it was called then, was to push for the establishment of what was known as the Tobacco Action Project. It comprised - and right up the top of the list - the member for Port Darwin, Sue Carter, who was at that stage with the Women’s Health Unit. I can remember the member for Port Darwin being at the foundation meetings of this group. Obviously I was there as well. Dr Jo Wright, who was a DMO of what was then Territory Health Services, was a prime mover in establishing the TIG. Jo - he tells most people; he has given presentations on it -- was a member of a group called Buga Up. I am not sure it has any other connotations. But they were the groups that defaced tobacco billboards quite some time ago, and many of them went to court. Jo was a bit of a subversive in this way. He got a group of people together and he was a moving force in this.
Peter Thorn, a well known DMO, was involved. Bart Currie was involved; Vicki Krause from Territory Health; Anne-Marie Leutwiler; Dr Kate Evans; Jenni Judd, known to a lot of people from the Health Promotion Unit within Territory Health; Peter Lindsay; Gloria Markey; Louise Brown and Barbara Flick from Danila Dilba were also involved. Jo Frampton, well known to a lot of people from Allied Health, and I have the name Margaret Vatskalis from the National Heart Foundation from when Margaret was working there. Sue Smellie from the Cancer Council; Hinton Lowe from Batchelor College; the Asthma Foundation and the AMA. Robyn Cahill certainly had and still has a very active interest in this issue and has pushed it for a long time.
Out of that grew the Tobacco Action Project that was announced by Minister Dunham in 1995 - I am not sure whether that is right, but this is the note that I have. That is right? Yes, for a five year period subsequently made recurrent funding to $0.5m per annum. Out of that I know Di Rayson and others have been working in this Tobacco Action Project for some time, preparing briefs and preparing a case as to why this legislation that we are considering tonight should go through.
The Tobacco Control Coalition ran from 1996 to 1999 and the goal of this coalition was to increase awareness of the dangers of smoking tobacco and to gain community and political support for tobacco control initiatives. Once again, Dr Jo Wright was involved. He was Chair; the core members were the Heart Foundation, the Cancer Council, the AMA, the Asthma Foundation - somewhere in the Cancer Council I have forgotten to mention the name of Janice Barr who was involved very closely. The AMA once again, Robyn Cahill, the Asthma Foundation, the Top End Division of General Practice, Amity Community Services, Danila Dilba, and at that stage, the Public Health Association of the Northern Territory became involved. I think that is where Rowena Ivers might have become involved.
That went into stasis. I think people became a little bit discouraged at the end of 1999 and it was revived in 2001 to the present, the Northern Territory Tobacco Control Coalition, and at that stage Rowena Ivers of the Public Health Association was the convenor until July 2001, and from then on the National Heart Foundation has been the convenor. The Northern Territory Tobacco Control Coalition currently includes a wide range of organisations including health organisations, NGOs and consumer groups interested in the area of tobacco control. I will read out this list, it is quite extensive; I have 15 minutes. It shows how this movement has really grown from just a few people like Jo Wright, the member for Port Darwin and a few others back in 1993 to a coalition of organisations, some of them very powerful. This added to the impetus for government to move on this issue. I will read the list:
Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) - a lady by the name of Anne Jones is a superb lobbyist, she has lobbied all around Australia and she made a visit to the Territory, really gave us a bit of a push along at one stage and gave us a little bit of direction about lobbying and taking the legislative steps; the Asthma Foundation of the NT; the Australian Council of Health, Physical Education and Recreation, also known as ACHPER; the Australian Health Promotion Association; the Australia New Zealand Thoracic Society; Australian Faculty of Public Health Medicine; the Australian Medical Association; the Australian Nursing Federation; Body Health NT; the Cancer Council NT; Central Australian Division of Primary Health Care; Danila Dilba Health Service; Diabetes Australia; Menzies School of Health Research; National Heart Foundation; Northern Territory Cardiac Support Group; Public Health Association of Australia (NT Branch); Royal Australian College of Physicians; Royal Australian College of Surgeons; Sudden Infant Death Syndrome Association of the NT; Top End Division of General Practice; and a number of interested individuals, organisations and industry groups.
This is where the Australian Property Council became involved - they were very keen to see things move forward - and major proprietors like Lend Lease out there at Casuarina. It had grown to a cast of thousands, but there was a lot of unity in the group and it is a very powerful coalition. Their activities were advocacy and lobbying government to introduce changes to the NT tobacco legislation; letters to and meetings with MLAs, relevant ministers, advisors and opposition members; support and recognition by business and sporting community organisations to become smoke free such as Casuarina Square, Darwin Netball Association, Nightcliff Aquatic Centre. That was a bit of a controversial one, I remember, as were Darwin City Council swimming pools at Casuarina and Parap.
They had a media strategy, media releases, interviews, advertisements during Quit Week; production and distribution of tobacco facts fliers for 2001-02. I have a few of them here. They were quite good. They had lots of facts and figures and interesting angles like going for tobacco control and smoke free environments would not affect business, in fact it could increase business. It would not turn tourists away. It was a very good lobbying exercise and I congratulate the coalition. They had regular meetings, and of course, they made a submission for the review of the Northern Territory Tobacco Act Discussion Paper 2002. I have provided a lot of names, it has been a long road, but there is more to go.
Some people have called me a tobacco zealot. I would have to tell the House that when I was younger, I used to smoke.
Mr Bonson: No!
Dr BURNS: Yes, I smoked from about the age of 18 to 22. It was very hard to give up, so I know how addictive tobacco is. A lot of people in my family smoke. I am not against smokers; I never have been. But, as you might have gauged from what I said previously, I am certainly against tobacco companies because I know over the years that they have marketed a very addictive substance; they have hidden the truth from people and a lot of people have found themselves hooked, and it has had a very bad effect on their health.
I do not class myself as a tobacco zealot. I have tried to work for change in this area, and tonight it has come. It gives me a great deal of pride to be part of a parliament which tonight, I believe, has acted decisively to pass this legislation, and to be part of a government that has developed and enacted this legislation in consultation with the public. It is an important public health issue.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to the House, and I urge all members to support it.
Mr BONSON (Millner): Madam Speaker, I rise tonight in support of long overdue tobacco law reforms. As a life long non-smoker, I support strongly the courageous actions of the Northern Territory government. Though long overdue, community, industry and employer consultation has led to a legislation regime that accurately reflects the best interests of the community as a whole.
This subject has been controversial in the past. Why was it controversial? For a number of reasons. There is strong community feeling in relation to the substance, tobacco, commonly smoked via cigarettes. I believe it was controversial for two reasons: first, tobacco is a highly addictive drug. Tobacco is accepted by the medical profession as an addictive substance. My immediate family unit contains five members, four of whom smoke - two for nearly 40 years and two for the last 15 years. So in my family there is combined 110 years of smoking. I touch wood every day that they will not suffer serious health conditions as a result of their long-term smoking addiction. As a non-smoker, but a long-term passive smoker, I also fear consequences of tobacco smoke on my health. That is the fundamental underlying reality of this legislation: to minimise the detrimental health issues surrounding tobacco smoking.
The second reason argued by many members of the community is that I, or the person might have a right to smoke argument. I would like to put on record today that this is not solely a debate on individual rights; this is also an attempt to reflect people’s community rights. Here we have a case of smokers’ individual rights to smoke in public areas versus those who are non-smokers who would enjoy smoke-free public areas. I believe this is an issue of public interest. There are many smokers and non-smokers, workers, business owners, etcetera, who recognise that this is a health issue that needs to be addressed for the sake of public health.
The Minister for Health and Community Services stated in this House on 16 October 2002:
- Smoking is one of the most serious public health issues facing the Territory. The Northern Territory has the
highest rate of smoking in Australia, at nearly 30% of the general population, and upwards of 80% amongst
indigenous people.
Smoking is the single most important preventable cause of illness and death in the Northern Territory. It is a
factor in all key chronic diseases in the Northern Territory. It is directly related to one in 20 hospitalisations
and one in five deaths. Many long term smokers die from their habit.
I believe that summarises why we need to take the measures outlined in the Tobacco Control Bill, and to ensure that community health concerns are properly managed. The cost of smoking to the community must be addressed and properly managed. As a non-smoker, I feel the effects of smoking on passive smokers, who can suffer a number of illnesses as described by the Anti-tobacco Control Coalition in their publication Facts for NT Decision Makers. Adult passive smokers can suffer lung cancer, nasal cancer, increased risk of stroke and heart disease. Children can suffer bronchitis, cot death, asthma, low birth weight and middle ear infection.
I believe the legislation has gained widespread community support and is a result of great community consultation. Under the legislation, from 1 January 2003, smoking will be prohibited in all indoor restaurants, cafeterias and shopping centres. On 31 May 2003, hotels, clubs and casinos will also need to provide equal amenity areas in bar areas. Hotels and clubs will be required to provide equal amenity in gaming areas where they have more than 25 gaming machines and then only for machines in excess of 25.
Other venues where smoking will be prohibited on 1 January 2003 include halls and community facilities such as libraries, theatres and galleries. Confined areas of common access such as stairways, corridors, lobbies, waiting areas and ticketing areas will also be covered by the provisions, as will toilets and staff amenities in public buildings, taxis and buses, including ticketing and waiting areas.
Additional measures outlined in the bill will have particular impact on Aboriginal communities where smoking rates are particularly high. Restrictions on retailing and advertising tobacco products will help prevent young people becoming addicted. Licensing tobacco retailers will help control the substance.
I rose to speak on this issue because I am amazed by the amount of damage tobacco causes in the community. I know there is an argument raging at the moment about the effects of alcohol as well in remote areas. When I was first elected, I met with some health workers and the first thing they said to me was to address tobacco issues. I must admit I was one of the many people who, like the member for Nelson suggested, would go out to the Casino or go to a disco, or nightclub, and you always come home with your clothes and hair smelling of smoke. Obviously, that was very annoying. But because I grew up in a family where everyone smoked, it never bothered me at restaurants, etcetera, even though smoke was drifting all over the food. Because I grew up with it, I took it for granted.
There are probably whole generations in the Northern Territory, plus across the board in Australia, who have grown up in families where people smoked and have taken this for granted. But obviously, with the number of people adversely affected by smoking, it is important that this government and future governments of the Northern Territory take steps to control tobacco as a substance. That is why I rose to speak tonight.
Madam Speaker, I strongly support the bill and commend it to the House.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support for the Tobacco Control Bill 2002. I would personally like to congratulate the Minister for Health and Community Services for taking a responsible decision on this serious public health issue by presenting this bill. I am also heartened by the strong community and opposition support for the bill.
As a former smoker, I understand only too well the nature of this highly addictive and harmful product. Now, as a non-smoker, arguably my health is better, and I choose to breathe smoke free air. I hope my children will have smoke free lives. Their money will be better spent and they will not be put at risk of tobacco related illness. There are many ways in which I, as a parent, can encourage my own children not to smoke. Not smoking myself is a very important step. When I make the decision to eat at a restaurant, visit a club or other enclosed public place, my family and I, like so many other non-smoking Territorians are exposed to the environmental tobacco smoke of those who choose to smoke.
This bill is about protecting individual choice and public health. This legislation will assist in reducing the long-term health problems associated with tobacco consumption, as well as bringing the Territory into line with the rest of Australia in regulating smoking in public places.
Sadly, the Northern Territory has the dubious honour of having the highest rate of smoking in Australia. Smoking remains the single most preventable cause of illness in the Territory, being responsible for the deaths of one in five Territorians. Likewise, the economic cost to the community is extremely high. It is estimated that the direct cost of tobacco consumption to the Territory community exceeds $60m a year. The indirect costs through absenteeism, lost productivity and welfare could well double that burden on the community purse.
Despite the significant impact that smoking has on the lives of Territorians, existing legislation is the weakest in any Australian jurisdiction. A stronger approach was needed to combat the negative impact of smoking on the health of both those people who consume tobacco and those who do not. This approach is achieved in the legislation being introduced by this government. The legislation covers three important areas: the establishment of a smoke-free public environment; reducing the number of people who take up smoking, in particular children; and helping those who want to quit this highly addictive habit. Under the existing legislation, Territorians continue to be put at risk of tobacco-related harm from exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in public places.
In the last decade, evidence has mounted to confirm that passive smokers are put at risk of serious illness. Adults exposed to environmental tobacco smoke are at a higher risk of cardiovascular and lung diseases. A 2002 research review by the World Health Organisation’s International Agency for Cancer Research confirms that passive smoke causes cancer in non-smokers. In children, exposure to environmental tobacco smoke can result in bronchitis, pneumonia, asthma and other illnesses. The link between environmental tobacco smoke and SIDS is well documented. Beyond the risk of serious illness, passive smokers are subject to the unpleasant smell of tobacco smoke, not only while in the presence of smokers but also later, as the smell clings to their hair and clothing of which we just heard a graphic example.
This bill aims to reduce the harmful effects of environmental tobacco smoke on those people who do not consume tobacco. Provisions are designed to protect the non-smoker who has made the choice not to smoke. Even with our high current level of smoking in the Territory, non-smokers represent over 70% of our community. The majority of Territorians who choose not to consume tobacco have the right to be protected from the toxins of other people’s smoke. The proposed Tobacco Control Act will initially prevent smoking in enclosed public places such as shopping centres, restaurants, cafes, community facilities and public transport. These measures are particularly important in protecting children from exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. Smoking restrictions in licensed premises and enclosed workplaces will follow by 31 May 2003.
This is not all-out prohibition on smoking. The bill allows for smoking in outdoor eating venues, as well as provision of smoking and non-smoking areas, equal amenity hotels, clubs and casinos, striking a balance between the rights of smokers and non-smokers to use adult recreational facilities. A number of commercial facilities have already voluntarily put smoking bans in place. A total ban on smoking at Casuarina Shopping Centre has been successfully implemented, and I commend the shopping centre for going ahead with that.
In my own electorate of Sanderson, the Northlakes Shopping Centre and the Darwin Golf Club have moved to provide non-smoking facilities over the past years. The respective management and committees of these organisations are to be congratulated for taking these responsible and forward thinking steps to provide a non-smoking environment for their patrons. These steps have not diminished their business; the shopkeepers of these centres record no change attributable to the ban of smoking. The Darwin Golf Club has not had a mass exodus of members since prohibiting smoking.
Recently, I was at an awards night at the Darwin Golf Club and it was all happening in the non-smoking amenity area of the club. The table that I was sitting at with a lot of the committee members, they were actually smokers. But they would get up and leave the table and they would go down into the smoking area and have their cigarette and then come back. Let me say that as the night progressed - and, of course, everyone was becoming more convivial, as you can imagine, and they were all pretty chuffed with the prizes that they were winning - no one lit up a cigarette in the non-smoking area; they still maintained that. It is a good thing in pubs and clubs; people will respect the rule not to smoke in areas that are gazetted non-smoking.
Evidence from studies in the US show that the introduction of controls on passive smoking have little effect on the bar and restaurant communities involved. These findings have been backed up by studies in South Australia and Victoria, after the introduction of legislation banning smoking in restaurants.
Despite growing awareness in the Territory community of the harmful effects of ETS and the voluntary steps taken by some businesses to deal with it, there remain those businesses and individuals that continue to put at risk non-smoking members of the community. When the centre management at Northlakes brought in non-smoking, they consulted with the customers, and with the other tenants in the centre. Mr Tony Miaoudis did a marvellous job of public consultation and got the support and backing of all the shopkeepers and introduced the policy. I was pretty happy about that. I had a constituent come into my office and say: ‘Now that you have made this place non-smoking, how about doing it for Hibiscus?’ I had to explain to her that this is not legislation; this is people power. This is the centre management in consultation doing this. They were really at me then, saying: ‘Well, come on, get the government behind this and legislate. For those centres and those places that will not bring it in then we do need legislation’. Well, that has happened. That is the strength of this desire of the community to introduce this type of legislation.
The provisions in the bill will ensure that the owners and managers of public places are responsible for ensuring the observance of these regulations. This will be accompanied by an associated public awareness campaign, assistance from government on signage, and the allowance of sufficient time to prepare for the new regulations will greatly assist in ensuring our compliance.
One of the important aims of this legislation is to discourage people, in particular children, from taking up smoking. The introduction of a simple licencing scheme will strengthen the restrictions on the sale of tobacco products to minors which will go a long way to achieving the same. The provisions in this bill for the Director of Licensing to revoke the licence of a retailer if they are found guilty of selling tobacco to a child will provide strong disincentive to the sale of tobacco products to minors. This provision will not affect competition, nor will it be onerous on tobacco retailers. This licencing provision will in fact protect those responsible retailers who ensure tobacco products are not sold to minors by allowing for unlicenced and irresponsible tobacco retailers to be more easily prosecuted.
Changes have also been made to enable a retailer to sight approved photographic ID to verify the age of a buyer. No longer will it be a defence for the retailer to have reasonable cause to believe that a buyer was not a minor. A defence provision such as this would limit the capacity to ensure that those who continue to sell to minors are able to be prosecuted under the offence provision of the new bill. The licensing of tobacco retailers will assist in ensuring they maintain a responsible level of behaviour that meets community expectations. This also brings the sale of tobacco products into line with other dangerous drugs such as alcohol, kava and some pharmaceuticals for which the community accepts a degree of regulation.
The new legislation will help to reinforce the message to our future adult Territorians that smoking is not a smart choice. The prevention and equal amenities provision will not only ensure grandchildren are not exposed to ETS in public places, they will further assist in developing their understanding of the risks of smoking to their health. When the community sends a clear message on smoking by restricting where you can smoke and protecting those who do not smoke, younger Territorians will be assisted to make healthy choices as they develop into adults. By working to delay that choice until they have reached adulthood will further encourage them to make a more reasoned and healthy choice on smoking as an informed and mature adult.
Changes to point of same advertising regulations in the bill will be beneficial to those who are yet to smoke and for those who have made the decision to quit. The bill will remove those forms of advertising that are designed to encourage the consumption of tobacco products specifically when the consumer’s primary reason for entering the retailer was to buy products other than cigarettes. It is all too easy to say that this is a person’s choice. This type of advertising, as the member for Johnston stated, is not designed to help the prospective consumer make an informed decision. It is there to persuade them to buy. For those people who have stopped smoking, the desire to smoke does not magically disappear. It is a long term battle of will not to return to old habits that we as a community should make every attempt to encourage and support.
Unlike specialist tobacconists where different regulations will apply, the local supermarket, corner shop or petrol station is visited more frequently to purchase the necessities of life. It is a necessary part of ensuring the efficacy of this bill that point of sale advertising is limited to those retailers whose primary product is tobacco. This will mean that tobacco advertising is directed at those who have made the choice to smoke and have freely entered such premises. Other restrictions on advertising are complementary to Commonwealth legislation and are specifically targetted at those forms of advertising that appear to be directed towards the younger members of the community.
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have had the opportunity to speak in support of this bill. It is important as a community to ensure that the rights of one group in society do not impinge too greatly on the rights of others. This bill ensures that the rights of smokers are not ignored, but they are subject to the need to protect the wider community from the devastating impact of tobacco consumption. This legislation will assist those who choose not to smoke to use public spaces without the health risks associated with ETS. It will help to make sure that the decision not to smoke made by the children of today will be made as informed, mature adults. It will assist in providing those people who are quitting smoking or those who may be encouraged to do so with a more responsible and less coercive retail environment.
I support remarks made by the members for Drysdale and Johnston in their thanks to all the Health team who got right behind this.
This law has been a long time coming. Like the member for Johnston, I only wish that the support from the other side could have been here in the Territory many years ago when it was introduced throughout Australia. When I was working in the Commonwealth back in the 1980s, we introduced non-smoking then. It has been a long time coming in the Territory. Many people have suffered detrimental health effects because of the lack of this legislation and the lack of will to introduce it.
Madam Speaker, I express my wholesome support for this bill. My thanks to the minister responsible. It is an excellent move by her. My thanks also go to the Martin government for getting behind this unanimously and bringing it on.
Mrs AAGAARD (Health and Community Services): Madam Speaker, I thank all honourable members for their contributions tonight. This is probably the most significant health legislation in the last decade, one which I know that, for the future, will mean better health outcomes for Territorians. It is a very sad state of affairs that we have one in five Territorians dying of smoke-related diseases, and at this stage, we also have about one in 20 hospitalisations as a direct result of smoke-related illness. This is far too high.
Tonight I was very pleased to hear that the opposition will be supporting this bill and I thank them very much for that. It is disappointing that over the years, they have not found it necessary to put into place a bill such as this, and you have to wonder about how many people have suffered because of that. So although I am very pleased that the opposition is supporting this bill, it is disappointing that it did not happen earlier.
The member for Drysdale commented on a television report tonight. What I was saying was in fact that the legislation would be passing today, not that it had in fact already passed. He obviously misunderstood what was happening at that media conference.
Once again, I thank the opposition for supporting the bill, and I would like to acknowledge the member for Port Darwin and her role in tobacco education over the years. I have heard that she has been very involved in this.
In relation to the member for Nelson, I thank him for his comments and for his support of the legislation. I, too, am very concerned about children, particularly children taking up smoking. One of the key aims of this legislation is to try to stop young people from taking up smoking. There are a number of aspects of the legislation which will, in fact, discourage people from both selling tobacco to minors and which will assist in minors not taking up smoking.
The member for Nelson picked up on the issue of schools. This is a decision where we are saying that schools are smoke free, but there is the possibility that staff at that school can agree to have a single place which is not accessible to people under 18 years and which is not in the view of children. Unlike other workplaces, teachers really do not have the capacity to leave the school very easily. Although I would have to say that it would be desirable that teachers were not smokers, unfortunately there are people who do smoke at schools and it was considered that if staff at a school agree that there should be a single smoking area, then that would be agreed to. Of course, this is something that will be looked at in the future as well.
The member for Nelson also referred to the issue of discounting. Price discounting will be permitted, but the retailer will not be able to advertise ‘discount’ or have a large sign with a low price on it. The member for Nelson may be interested to know that proposals were actually scrutinised by an independent consultant and they were found to be consistent with the National Competition Policy.
He raised issues in relation to casinos and a number of members mentioned going to casinos and various licensed premises and coming out smelling somewhat unsavoury. What we are talking about in relation to casinos is that there will be equal amenity at the casinos and there is a Code of Conduct being drawn up by the casinos and the Australian Hotels Association in relation to each licensed premises. It is expected that some of the gaming tables will be smoke free as well. I thank the member for Nelson for his contribution.
The member for Johnston is a very passionate supporter of non-smoking. I think his many years with the Heart Foundation have meant that he is, perhaps, a zealot in this area and it is a very good cause. I thank him very much for his support for this bill. He very rightly recognised the high levels of death from smoke-related diseases. It is salutary that so many people are losing their lives to smoking when it is such a preventable death.
One of the things that the member for Johnston raised was the depiction of people smoking in films. I must say that I agree with him. It is a very difficult area, though, not one that over which we have any control but it is, perhaps, something that we could look at as a separate lobbying issue in terms of federal legislation.
I thank the member for Millner for his contribution. The member for Millner drew my attention to something that has certainly happened to me since I have been the minister for Health and that is being lobbied about tobacco and its use. This has happened to me a lot and has obviously happened to him. I would have to say that of all the issues I have been lobbied on - and there have been an extraordinary number of those since I have been the minister for Health - that tobacco legislation and changes to it have been at the top of the list.
I thank the member for Sanderson for his contribution. I was very impressed with his point about the balance in the bill; balance between the rights of those people who do wish to smoke and those who don’t wish to smoke and who have rights in terms of clean air and I think that’s a very important point.
I pick up the points that he has made in terms of various businesses, organisations and shopping centres which have, ahead of this legislation of their own free will, taken on the banner of no smoking. He mentioned the BiLo complex at Marrara which has been smoke free for some time, also Casuarina and the Nightcliff shopping centre are among the few I would like to mention. For some of these, it was a particularly courageous decision at the time and it has paid off. A lot of people really enjoy the experience of going to shopping centres without having to face a wall of smoke.
This has been a very complex bill to put together and it has involved a lot of people. The member for Johnston mentioned a lot of people who have been involved with the smoking legislation, or the possible smoking legislation over many years and I would particularly like to thank a number of people in my department. Certainly, Di Rayson who has been involved with this kind of work for many years. Dr Shirley Hendy has also been a keen advocate of no smoking in the workplace. Two people from my own staff, Miss Tess Lee and also Bernadette Jago, who have been very involved in the legislation process and also Jeremy Kirby who has been involved in drafting the legislation.
In putting together this legislation, we couldn’t have done it without the kind of consultation we had with a number of organisations. I would really like to thank the Australian Hotels Association which, from the word go, have been extraordinarily cooperative. When there were more difficult issues to deal with in relation to the legislation they have at all times been cooperative and tried to work with us rather than be negative. I would particularly like to thank Greg Weller and Mick Burns for their involvement in the preparation of this legislation. I would also like to thank the Property Council of Australia who have been very keen on the legislation. They have seen the issues in relation to public liability and considered it was essential that this kind of legislation be introduced, so I thank them as well.
Of course, there has been, all along, a series of health advocates in relation to this kind of legislation: the NT Tobacco Control Coalition, which has been working on this for a very long period of time, as the member for Johnston has mentioned; the Heart Foundation; the Cancer Council; the AMA, particularly Paul Bauert and Robyn Cahill. I will be very pleased that I will not have to receive the Dirty Ashtray Award again, and sincerely hope that nothing like that ever comes into the Northern Territory again. I had a couple sitting in my office and they are quite disgusting things: glass ashtrays with butts stuck in the bottom of them; they smell something shocking. So, it will be great not to receive any more of those. I would also like to thank the Menzies School of Health, who have also been involved with this.
So, Madam Speaker, to sum up, I very much appreciate the support of the House in this legislation.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Mrs AAGAARD: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 28.1 as circulated. This amendment will enable the requirement for display of a warning notice about sale to minors at each point of sale to take effect on commencement of the act; that is, 1 January 2003. The requirement for display of health warnings, which is a new requirement for retailers, will be commenced on 31 May 2003.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 3 and 4, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 5:
Mrs AAGAARD: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 28.2 as circulated. This amendment will provide that a domestic premises used as a child-care facility will only be deemed smoke-free during the hours that it is operating as a child-care facility. The premises will not be deemed smoke-free at other times. This amendment will mean that a person who lives in a house that is used as a child-care facility can, if they choose, smoke after hours.
Amendment agreed to.
Mrs AAGAARD: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 28.3 as circulated. This amendment corrects a reference to the Private Hospital and Nursing Homes Act and the terminology in that act. The original clause (a) was drafted in the assumption that the Private Hospital and Nursing Homes Amendment Act 2002 would commence before the Tobacco Control Act, but this will not be the case.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 6 to 8, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 9:
Mrs AAGAARD: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 28.4 as circulated. This amendment alters the maximum penalty for the offence of smoking in a smoke-free area, from 100 penalty units, $11 000, to 20 penalty units, $2200.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10:
Mrs AAGAARD: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 28.5 as circulated. This amendment alters the maximum penalty for the offence deemed to have been committed by an occupier, being a natural person, of a smoke free area if a person smokes in that area from 100 penalty units, $11 000, to 20 penalty units, $2200.
Amendment agreed to.
Mrs AAGAARD: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 28.6 as circulated. This amendment alters the maximum penalty for the offence deemed to have been committed by an occupier, being a body corporate, of a smoke free area if a person smokes in that area from 500 penalty units, $55 000, to 100 penalty units, $11 000.
Amendment agreed to.
Mrs AAGAARD: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 28.7 as circulated. In clause 10(1), the bill provides that if a person smokes in a smoke-free area, the occupier of the area is deemed to have committed an offence. Clause 10(2) provides a defence to the occupier. However, the legal effect of subclause (c) of the defence is unclear. The defence may not, in its current form, be available to an occupier who did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to know that the person was smoking. This would be unfair to the occupier as it would require of him or her an unreasonable degree of vigilance. This amendment clarifies that subclause (c) of the defence is satisfied if an occupier did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to know that the person was smoking. This will reduce the occupier’s burden of vigilance to a reasonable level. The objective reasonableness requirement and ‘could not reasonably have been expected to know’ means that the defence will not be available to an occupier who wilfully turns a blind eye to smoking in his or her smoke-free premises. This is an amendment which the member for Port Darwin had brought to our attention.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11:
Mrs AAGAARD: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 28.8 as circulated. This amendment alters the maximum penalty for the offence deemed to have been committed by an occupier of an exempt area if a person smokes in that area in contravention of a condition specified in the regulations from 100 penalty units, or $11 000, to 20 penalty units, $2200.
Amendment agreed to.
Mrs AAGAARD: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 28.9 as circulated. This amendment alters the maximum penalty for the offence deemed to have been committed by an occupier, being a body corporate, of an exempt area in contravention of a condition specified in the regulations if a person smokes in that area from 500 penalty units, $55 000, to 100 penalty units, $11 000.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13:
Mrs AAGAARD: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 28.10 as circulated. This amendment alters the maximum penalty for a natural person selling cigarettes other than in packets containing less than 20 cigarettes from 100 penalty units, $11 000, to 20 penalty units, $2200.
Amendment agreed to.
Mrs AAGAARD: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 28.11 as circulated. This amendment alters the maximum penalty for a body corporate selling cigarettes other than in packets containing less than 20 cigarettes from 500 penalty units, $55 000, to 100 penalty units, $11 000.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 14:
Mrs AAGAARD: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 28.12 as circulated. This amendment alters the maximum penalty for a natural person selling loose tobacco other than packets containing 250g or more of loose tobacco from 100 penalty units, $11 000, to 20 penalty units, $2200.
Amendment agreed to.
Mrs AAGAARD: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 28.13 as circulated. This amendment alters the maximum penalty for a body corporate selling loose tobacco other than in packets containing 250grams or more of loose tobacco from 500 penalty units, $55 000, to 100 penalty units, $11 000.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 15 and 16, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 17:
Ms AAGAARD: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 28.14 as circulated. This amendment alters the maximum penalty for a natural person advertising price discounting of a tobacco product from 100 penalty units, $11 000, to 20 penalty units, $2200.
Amendment agreed to.
Mrs AAGAARD: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 28.15 as circulated. This amendment alters the maximum penalty for a body corporate advertising price discounting of a tobacco product from 500 penalty units, $55 000, to 100 penalty units, $11 000.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 18 to 28, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 29:
Mrs AAGAARD: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 28.16 as circulated. This amendment removes the references to the prescribed fee in relation to tobacco retail licence applications.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 29, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 30 to 34, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 35:
Mrs AAGAARD: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 28.17 as circulated. This amendment removes references to the prescribed fee in relation to tobacco retail licence variations.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 35, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 36:
Mrs AAGAARD: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 28.18 as circulated. This amendment removes references to the prescribed fee in relation to tobacco retail licence transfers.
Amendment agreed to.
Mrs AAGAARD: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 28.19 as circulated. This amendment corrects a typographical error: ‘with’ is changed to ‘within’.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 36, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 37 to 41, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 42:
Mrs AAGAARD: I move amendment 28.20 as circulated. This amendment alters the maximum penalty for a natural person selling tobacco to a child from 500 penalty units, $55 000, to 200 penalty units, $22 000.
Amendment agreed to.
Mrs AAGAARD: I move amendment 28.21 as circulated. This amendment alters the maximum penalty for a body corporate selling tobacco to a child, from 2500 penalty units, $275 000, to 1000 penalty units, $110 000.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 42, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 43:
Mrs AAGAARD: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 28.22 as circulated. This amendment alters the maximum penalty for a natural person supplying tobacco to a child from 500 penalty units, $55 000, to 200 penalty units, $22 000.
Amendment agreed to.
Mrs AAGAARD: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 28.23 as circulated. This amendment alters the maximum penalty for a body corporate supplying tobacco to a child from 2500 penalty units, $275 000, to 1000 penalty units or $110 000.
Amendment agreed to.
Mrs AAGAARD: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 28.24 as circulated. This amendment alters the maximum penalty for a natural person purchasing tobacco for use by a child from 500 penalty units, $55 000, to 200 penalty units, $22 000.
Amendment agreed to.
Mrs AAGAARD: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 28.25 as circulated. This amendment alters the maximum penalty for a body corporate purchasing tobacco for use by a child from 2500 penalty units, $275 000, to 1000 penalty units, $110 000.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 43, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 44 and 45, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 46:
Mrs AAGAARD: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 28.26 as circulated. This amendment alters the maximum penalty for a natural person selling children’s products resembling tobacco products from 200 penalty units, $22 000, to 20 penalty units, $2200.
Amendment agreed to.
Mrs AAGAARD: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 28.27 as circulated. This amendment alters the maximum penalty for a body corporate selling children’s products resembling tobacco products from 1000 penalty units, $110 000, to 100 penalty units, $11 000.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chairman, I am curious about why there is a whole raft of similar amendments to this, dropping the penalty in relation to these offences. I would like to hear from the minister as to why these penalties are being dropped.
Mrs AAGAARD: In fact, they were actually inaccurate in the first bill and we have just replaced them with the correct figures. When we picked them up, in going through the bill for these sittings, we realised that there was a mistake in the bill, and so it is simply correcting what was incorrect to begin with.
Mr ELFERINK: I find that that is a remarkable sort of answer from the minister, quite frankly, because we are talking about some 27 or 28 mistakes, as I understand it. These bills have to be trawled through in some detail. I would expect that 28 errors in a bill would be something that the minister would be very aware of. I hope it is something that the minister would be very aware of, and I would expect that the minister would notice an issue like that, where you are talking about a reduction in penalty of something in the order of 150%. Minister, how many other mistakes are there in this bill that we are not aware of?
Mr Kiely: Have you read it?
Mr ELFERINK: I am raising it now.
Mr Kiely: I said read it.
Mr Dunham: Of course, he has.
Mr Stirling: Well, if he had read it he would have picked it up himself.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Order!
Dr TOYNE: I can clarify that for the member for Macdonnell. Most of these amendments are just simply recalibrating the penalties that apply to the various offences throughout the bill. It is really only one mistake; it was a basically a reference to penalty units rather than to dollar amounts, so we had to recalibrate it. The current penalties now, if you are worried about the reduction in the penalty levels, have brought the bill very much into line with jurisdictions around Australia, and also with the relativities to the use of illicit substances.
We are not penalising a smoker of tobacco more harshly than, say, a smoker of marijuana. So we have brought this into a standard set of penalties that you would find match the situation right around Australia.
Mr ELFERINK: I thank the minister for health for his answer. I find this a little surprising that I posed a question to the minister for health, who seems to be unaware of what is happening with her own legislation. So much so that the Attorney-General takes it upon himself to answer the question.
Dr Burns: Well, because you will not accept the explanation.
Mr ELFERINK: I am not the person bringing the legislation into this Chamber; the minister for health is. I want to quiz the minister for health in relation to this, and the minister for health immediately has a wall of protection around her. All I want to do is get a straightforward answer. It is not a difficult question; it is not an attack on government. All of a sudden I find myself facing a barrier of people running interference when I cannot even get an answer out of the minister for health, and frankly …
Mr Kiely: You wanted an answer; you’ve got your answer.
Ms Martin: Oh, sit down. Make a useful contribution or none at all.
Mr ELFERINK: … the interjection earlier, that I had not read the legislation, therefore, I would not know what penalty units were – if it is written in the bill before the House, then we assume that that is what the minister wants to bring before the House. All I am trying to demonstrate is that there are 28 mistakes in the bill, and I am concerned enough to ask a question about it. What I get is interference being run by everybody, except the one person of whom I asked the question.
Dr Toyne: Nonsense!
Dr Burns: She already answered it twice.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 46, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill to be reported with amendments.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Mrs AAGAARD (Health and Community Services): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
TABLED PAPER
Auditor-General’s Report, November 2002
Auditor-General’s Report, November 2002
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I table the November 2002 report of the Auditor-General to the Legislative Assembly.
MOTION
Print Paper – Auditor-General’s Report, November 2002
Print Paper – Auditor-General’s Report, November 2002
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the report be printed.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Note Paper – Auditor-General’s Report, November 2002
Note Paper – Auditor-General’s Report, November 2002
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the report and I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later hour
Leave granted.
Motion agreed to.
TABLED PAPER
Remuneration Tribunal Report and Determination No 2 of 2002 –
Ministers and Members of the Legislative Assembly
Remuneration Tribunal Report and Determination No 2 of 2002 –
Ministers and Members of the Legislative Assembly
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I table the Remuneration Tribunal Report and Determination Number 2 of 2002, Ministers and Members of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly.
MOTION
Print paper - Remuneration Tribunal Report and Determination No 2 of 2002 –
Ministers and Members of the Legislative Assembly
Print paper - Remuneration Tribunal Report and Determination No 2 of 2002 –
Ministers and Members of the Legislative Assembly
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the report be printed.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Note paper - Remuneration Tribunal Report and Determination No 2 of 2002 –
Ministers and Members of the Legislative Assembly
Note paper - Remuneration Tribunal Report and Determination No 2 of 2002 –
Ministers and Members of the Legislative Assembly
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the report.
Madam Speaker, the then Leader of Government Business met with the Remuneration Tribunal chair on behalf of government on 3 October 2002 in relation to the government’s submission. The determination does not recommend substantial changes to members’ entitlements. We are pleased that ongoing financial restraint has been maintained. No increase in office holders’ salaries is proposed; the government supports that position.
Members will be aware electorate allowances have not been substantially increased since 1996. An increase of 2.12% equivalent to the Darwin CPI for one year has been recommended by the Tribunal to electorate allowances to help members continue to serve their constituencies.
As the Tribunal reports, the government has made the case that travelling allowances should not be able to be used to receive a windfall cash gain when staying with family or friends in non-commercial accommodation. The Tribunal has determined that a modified structure for travelling allowance should apply including the restoration of a flat Darwin rate for reasons of, in the words of the Tribunal, ‘costs, security and productivity’ where the members stays in their own accommodation. The Tribunal has recommended this rate be fixed at $145 per night as applies in the Commonwealth parliament. When members stay non-commercially with family or friends, they will continue to receive the meals incidental rate applicable to the NT public sector as determined by the Commissioner for Public Employment.
The Tribunal has also recommended that the capital city rate for travelling allowance in Hobart or Adelaide be reduced from $230 to $215 per night in line with Commonwealth members. The Tribunal has recommended the electorate of Stuart, due to its extraordinary size and population split between Alice Springs and Katherine, receive a part-time staff member in Katherine to perform a liaison role for the member. We note the Tribunal has changed the format of this determination to improve clarity and simplicity and we thank the Chairman for his efforts in this regard.
The report covers other matters for members and all should read it. The government accepts the Tribunal’s determination and I thank Otto Alder and his team for their work.
Madam Speaker, I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later hour.
Leave granted.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Commercial Passenger Vehicle Industry
Commercial Passenger Vehicle Industry
Mr VATSKALIS (Transport and Infrastructure): Madam Speaker, I know it is late, but it is better late than never because I am going to talk about something that is very close to your heart: taxis.
This government believes that the commercial passenger vehicle industry plays a key role in our community. It provides a transport service to residents that strives to be safe and reliable. It is also an important element of our tourism industry, offering visitors an opportunity to travel around our communities visiting hospitality services and tourism highlights. In opposition, the government held the view that reforms to the industry instituted in 1997-98 had detrimentally affected it rather than achieving a positive outcome.
Since November last year when I inherited the transport portfolio, I, my office and my department have undertaken an extensive consultation and discussion program with the commercial passenger vehicle industry with the aim of reforming and restructuring the operation. We knew then that reform and restructure of the industry would take time and would need careful consideration of its operations in a Territory-wide sense. To ensure that this was undertaken in an atmosphere where no advantage could be taken out of the eventual outcome, I capped industry numbers, initially for six months beginning on 26 November 2001, and then extended it for 12 months. That cap remains in effect until 1 March 2003. Discussions have been held across the Northern Territory.
In November, I published to industry the terms of reference of the proposed review. Those terms of reference were extensively distributed. The focus of those terms were first, the capacity of these three sections of industry - minibus, private hire car and taxi - to provide sustainable, high quality services to the public; and second, improvements that can be made to the operational framework and regulatory arrangements to achieve the objectives of sustainable, high quality service to the public. Letters were sent to industry representatives inviting comments. Extensive meetings were held to bring those comments directly to me. Thirty four written submissions were received, in addition to the numerous discussions held by my office and the department. What became clear from these discussions was that the industry was in serious trouble. Concerns were expressed about the quality of the service provided, the reduction in income suffered by many in the industry, especially drivers, and ongoing disputation between sectors of the industry.
Issues were raised which extended from ranking facilities and their restrictions through to numbers in the industry. In addition to industry comments, submissions were also received from tourism, restaurant and accommodation industries and consumer groups such as the Integrated Disability Action Group and Aboriginal organisations.
Submissions closed on 30 March and I issued a discussion paper following extensive work by my department and my office in May 2002. Copies of the discussion paper were sent to all stakeholders, including those who had previously made submissions. This generated another, perhaps even more extensive, series of discussions with the result of a further 40 submissions being forwarded to me.
In October this year, I announced the final outcome of the government’s deliberation. Extensive changes have been made to the way the industry in toto operates. The government has established an Interim Commercial Passenger Vehicle Board and will establish a permanent arrangement. The Interim Board consists of representatives of taxi and executive taxi operators, minibus operators, limousine operators, regional industry operators, tourism industry, disabled access advocacy, consumers and drivers. The board has an independent chair, and I am very pleased to advise that a respected Darwin lawyer, Ms Melanie Little, has agreed to take this job on.
As I said, the Interim Board has been established and has met for the first time. This board’s powers will be invoked with the passage of legislation through this House. Additional members of the board are Mr Ken Colhalan, taxi and executive taxi representative, Mr Julian Sharples from the minibuses, Ken Armstrong from the limousines, Tony Rooke, regional industry operator, Mr Paul Styles and Craig Catchlove from the tourism industry, Ms Mary Johnson from the disabled access advocacy, consumers Ms Clare Anderson and Leah Shacklady, and from the drivers, Bob Lockhart.
The board will provide advice to the minister on all policy and regulatory matters, will oversee reform of the industry, to guide future direction of the industry, to administer regulations of the industry, to ensure all industry and consumer interests are represented in ongoing industry development. In particular, the board will be responsible for overseeing entry standards for drivers and operators, training requirements, vehicle standards and age limits, provision of disabled access for wheelchairs, standards for network licences including complaint management and driver management processes, codes of conduct for drivers, operators and networks.
The board will also have the power to determine whether drivers, networks and operators meet fit and proper requirements for accreditation, accredit training providers and suspend drivers, operators and networks for breaching regulatory requirements and approved codes of conduct.
The importance of the establishment of this board cannot be overstated. The government, in taking this action, has established the first cross-industry representative body which has some power and a strong influence in the direction of the industry as a whole. It brings all players together in one room, something that has been much needed for some time. It is about the government having confidence in the maturity of the industry and giving it the opportunity to make decisions for itself.
All driver training will be extended from 24 hours to 78 hours. This will be effective from March 2003. New drivers will be required to undergo an initial training period of 24 hours which will lead to the issue of a temporary ID card. A further 54 hours will be required over the following three months. Training providers in Alice Springs and Darwin will be required to be independent of operators and networks. This to ensure that those people who undergo training are not pushed through and are properly trained to national standards. The board will also develop accredited training packages for operators, networks and dispatch clerks. The government is a strong believer in proper training. This training will ensure that we do not get people on the road who have not been extensively and rigorously trained in their job.
A review of the existing fit and proper standards will be conducted by the new board. All new drivers will be required to hold a licence for five years before they can obtain a licence to drive a commercial passenger vehicle. The board will also review the conduct standards for drivers to tighten application of the standards and impose strict penalties for those who break the code.
We have given the board the power to suspend drivers not just from one network, but from all networks. This will prevent a driver who has been suspended for poor conduct being picked up the next day by another network or operator.
Vehicles designed and fitted out for wheelchair access and fitted with meters will continue to obtain a 50% reduction in licence fees.
The board will also have the task of reviewing other possible incentives and ways to bring disabled access vehicles in to all industry sectors. In the interim, taxi and executive taxi fleets must have a minimum of 10% of vehicles that have disabled access.
CVLs will be regionally based. CVL fees will continue to be paid quarterly. Any new CVL issued for any category will require a full year, up front payment or the first year CVL fee. This will apply to new CVLs taken out by new and existing operators. For the second and subsequent years, the fee will revert to quarterly payment. Executive taxis will pay the same CVL fee as for a standard taxi. The fee for a new minibus CVL will be equal to that of a taxi, or for any taxi commencing on 1 March 2003. Existing minibus CVLs will be aligned with the fee for a taxi CVL in a stepped increase over the next three years commencing on 1 July 2003 including pro rata for the first 12 month period. The three year phase-in period for CVL fee alignment also applies to MOGs converted to minibuses, and that will also commence on 1 July 2003. The fee for a limousine CVL will be $1120 annually in all regions commencing in July 2003. The fee for a special function car will be $500 annually in all regions commencing also in July 2003.
A new regulation will require the registration of a taxi, limousine or minibus to be in the same name as the CVL attached to that vehicle. This will be phased in for existing holders over a 12 month period. The registration of a vehicle in a company or business name is permitted, provided all directors of the business or company have accreditation. Minibuses will continue to operate without meters. They will be able to be hailed by roadside customers. Fares will be set by operators, based on a zonal system. They must be registered with the board by 1 March 2003. Fares will be maximum fares, must be prominently displayed and must be agreed with passengers before they enter. The Motor Omnibus Gove category will be abolished and all existing MOGs will be converted to minibus arrangements by 1 July 2003. Where existing MOGs are greater than 15 seats, they will continue until their age limit is reached.
A new category, executive taxis, will be created to provide a luxury level of taxi services to the public. An executive taxi will be a higher standard than a standard taxi. The board will set the standards, similar to that of the limousine category. Executive taxis will pay the same commercial vehicle licence, CVL, fee as a standard taxi. Executive taxi maximum tariff will be higher than for a standard taxi, reflecting the higher capital and operating costs.
Private hire cars will be replaced with a limousine category and a special function wedding car category from July 2003. There will be no entitlement fee payable for a limousine or a special function car. The existing $10 000 entitlement fees for private hire cars will be refunded to operators from 1 July 2003.
Limousines will be required to be pre-booked only, and must return to base after every job. Where there is a schedule of work and where there are pre-bookings, the return to base may not be practicable in all instances. The government accepts that the work schedule can be maintained and this will not require return to base on all occasions. The CPV Board will be asked to examine this issue. From 1 July 2003, there will no longer be sub-bases to which a limousine can return after a job. Limousines cannot accept walk-up fares. Private hire cars and limousines wishing to ply for hire can convert to the new executive taxi category.
Madam Speaker, these are the changes the government has made. We believe that this will have a number of impacts. First, the industry will have a clear delineation between industry types. For too long, the lines of demarcation between each sector have been blurred. Now minibuses will operate as minibuses; private hire cars will be either executive taxis, if they wish to ply for hire, or they will be limousines, like in every other part of Australia; and taxis will operate as taxis.
Drivers, operators and network managers will receive more thorough and accredited training. The industry will be policing itself. Government will not be required to continue to referee disputes or become intrinsically involved in uniform wearing, etcetera, all of which occupies time which could be better utilised. The industry as a group, will have a say in the future direction of the industry. Drivers will be better qualified and standards will improve. They will also have better support from their incomes.
One issue that had to be addressed early by government was the impact of our decision on national competition policy. Predictably, the National Competition Council has kept a close eye on our considerations. I do not believe that the government has taken any action that can be seen to be anti-competitive. We have not capped or frozen numbers permanently. We have not placed limits on the population ratio. We recognise that having gone down that path would have incurred the wrath of the NCC. Instead, we have chosen to put the industry on a sensible, organised footing.
I am aware that some members of the industry are disappointed that we did not go down this path, but it has become very evident to us that should we have done so, the NCC would have imposed very severe penalties on us.
The NCC has indicated to us concern about our ongoing cap period, but this is the right and proper thing to do during the decision-making time. That cap will now be extended to 1 March 2003 to allow this House time to absorb the legislation I intend to introduce tomorrow. This will be the final extension of the cap.
This government inherited an industry that was in crisis. We have been faithful to our principles of public consultation and engagement. I believe we have produced an outcome that will benefit both the industry and the public.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Mr REED (Katherine): Madam Speaker, the presentation tonight of this statement is a demonstration of the gross incompetence of this minister.
The process of the review of the commercial passenger vehicle industry commenced in March this year. It has been a long and tiresome process for the industry. There have been a number of extensions in relation to the times; dates set by the minister on a couple of occasions have not been met. For example, we had a commitment from the minister, I think in the August sittings, that he would be tabling responses to the review of the industry before the end of those sittings. That commitment was not met and the industry was left dangling on a string. We are now at the ludicrous stage where he has delivered this statement the day before he introduces legislation. Tomorrow we will be in a position to read the second reading speech and to see the legislation.
The minister and his incompetence - and it is gross incompetence that goes beyond incompetence; it goes to taking this parliament for granted. It goes to treating this parliament with contempt because statements are not intended, in the parliamentary process, to be used by the minister as a means of being able to put something on the record, in this case, to demonstrate that he has consulted with industry. Statements are an important part of the parliamentary process. The intent of the statement is for the minister to deliver it, for all members in this House then to be able to contribute to the debate and, hopefully, for the minister to take on board some of the comments made by members, and then be able to incorporate those comments into the legislation.
That clearly was not the intent in this case. The parliament has been treated with contempt because the legislation and the second reading speech have already been printed for presentation tomorrow, so any contribution to any debate in relation to this statement will have no affect. No member who contributes will be listened to, in terms of having any input to the drafting of the legislation. It is an absolutely pointless exercise in terms of expressing the views of members of industry. I point out to the minister that, as late as 8.55 tonight, I received an e-mail from an industry representative seeking to have the effective date of the legislation deferred until 3 July at the earliest so that industry can be fully consulted in relation to this matter.
That is but one item of correspondence that I have received from industry over the last couple of days. It is all very well for the minister to say that he has consulted broadly. I came to Parliament House this morning by taxi, and the owner/driver of that vehicle did not have anything to say that was supportive of the government’s position or, in particular, the way that this matter has been handled. The minister must be aware of those concerns and the opposition that many members of industry have about the way he has handled this matter. They are also concerned about the lack of effective consultation.
This statement serves no purpose whatsoever because within 24 hours it will be superseded by the second reading speech, a legal document, and the legislation itself. That will serve to further confirm in the mind of industry the fact that government has not been serious about consulting with industry; it has not been serious about providing members of this House with an effective means of debating the government’s intent in relation to changes to the commercial passenger vehicle industry. That is treating this House with contempt.
In a further demonstration that the minister just has not known where he has been going with this legislation, I had a call last week from the minister’s office to my electorate office advising that this legislation for these changes to the industry was to be introduced and passed this week, and as a consequence I might want to avail myself, as the opposition spokesman, of a briefing on the legislation. Naturally, that generated some concern. The very fact that complex legislation of this kind was to be introduced and passed this week, and that was the intent of the government last week …
Mr Henderson: No, it wasn’t.
Mr REED: You say: ‘No, it wasn’t’. Why did the minister’s office ring? I refer, Madam Speaker, through you to the Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services’ comment that ‘No, it wasn’t’. The advice to me was that this legislation would be passed with urgency this week.
A briefing was arranged and I attended that, together with the member for Greatorex, yesterday afternoon, only to be advised: ‘Oh yes, well we were going to pass it with urgency this week. The minister intended to do that. However, that is not the case now. It will not be passed until the February sittings. The debate will take place after introduction of the legislation this week. The debate will not ensue until February’. So another demonstration of how sloppily this has been handled, how incompetent the minister has been in the business relating to this bill and to this statement. From that point of view, it is absolutely pointless contributing further to this debate. Any comment made will be blatantly ignored and the House treated with contempt because the second reading speech and the bill have already been printed.
The purpose of a statement of this kind has been overridden, very clumsily overridden. All members of this House should be concerned about that, whether they are on the government benches or not. The purpose of statements to the House is both advisory and to generate a two-way flow of information. It might be that the government does not accept any of the points made in relation to the debate, but the very fact that we have a parliament and that members have a right to participate in a debate knowing full well that it is to be an effective, open debate which has the potential to influence the minister. A full debate means that members may have points they raise at least considered by government. This government has become exceedingly arrogant in an exceedingly short space of time since it gained government in August 12 months ago. The delivery of this speech tonight by the minister clearly demonstrates that.
I have expressed concern on behalf of members of the industry with whom I have had contact. Indeed, the member for Greatorex has done a lot of work on this issue. The opposition spokesman for tourism has likewise had a lot of contact from industry, and very broad concerns have been expressed.
I say to the minister: stop being so arrogant, focus a little more in a way this House can benefit from the presentations that you make to it in the form of this Ministerial Statement, and provide members with at least the ability to participate in the debate with the knowledge, and indeed the intent of this parliament, that their participation will play an effective role. What you have done today is a dreadful demonstration and a blatant disregard for the rights of members of this House, for the rights of Territorians to have their representatives able to put the points that members of industry across the Northern Territory might bring to any member in this House. This is not restricted to criticism; there may be support for legislation.
It might be that a statement of this kind, had it been introduced at a more appropriate time, some expressions of support could have confirmed the views of the minister or further entrenched in the government’s mind a desire to take a course in relation to legislation they were going to introduce. The input can be both negative and positive, constructive at the same time, but the minister has forgone that opportunity. He should be ashamed of the fact that he has treated the House with contempt because in doing so, he has treated Territorians with contempt and in particular the industry.
Whilst he might be talking to some sections of the industry who are supporting the changes that the government is about to put in place - and I do not deny that there is support, but the minister must also understand that there is concern and opposition in sections of the industry to the proposed changes. I am not suggesting for a moment that everyone could be made to be happy because that will not be the case. There will need to be compromise, but I would have thought that the minister, in presenting a statement, would have been open and refreshing enough to be able to stimulate debate to enable members to contribute in a positive and constructive way.
The way that he has handled this has been deplorable. The industry is horrified by the attitude that demonstrates and all the members in this House should likewise be horrified because it is a sad day for the processes of this parliament, given that the minister has delivered this statement and that any comment that may have been made would not have been incorporated in the legislation or even considered because it is already printed for presentation tomorrow or the next day. The second reading speech has already been printed. It is all over, red rover in terms of any input.
This is nothing more than an absolute insult to members of both this House, to the industry and to Territorians generally who expect a far greater and far fairer process in relation to the business of this House and the way it is conducted.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to congratulate the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure for the statement he has delivered on the commercial passenger vehicle industry. I welcome the statement, and I can’t resist the temptation of responding to some of the comments made by the member for Katherine who is momentarily out of hiding.
I am not surprised that the minister’s office had to contact the shadow to offer him a briefing because he has shown, since the election loss by the CLP, that he is completely disinterested in representing constituents in the Northern Territory and has been very lazy in his shadow portfolio duties. If he truly was concerned about this matter he could have availed himself at any stage of the extensive consultation process that the minister and his staff have undertaken to provide some input into the consultation process.
The minister’s statement clearly identified that in November 2001, that is a year ago, the minister published to the industry the terms of reference of the proposed review. Those terms of reference were extensively distributed, spelling out the focus of the terms which were: the capacity of these three sections of the industry - minibus, private hire car and taxi - to provide sustainable, high quality services to the public and improvements that can be made to the operational framework and regulatory arrangements to achieve the objective of sustainable, high quality services to the public.
In context, a year ago the industry was very broadly consulted about what the term of a review into the industry would be. Thirty-four written submissions were received, and I take it from the response of the shadow minister that he didn’t bother writing a submission, that he was not one of the 34. I wonder whether any member of the opposition bothered to participate at all. I would hazard a guess not, because they have shown laziness.
In addition to the numerous discussions held by the minister and the department, it became very clear that through these discussions, the industry was in serious trouble. I have taken the time to do a bit of work, unlike members opposite, and to have a look at what the trouble might have been. I refer members to a Northern Territory News article of 8 June 2001.
- Taxi industry won’t settle, says council.
The Taxi Council has rejected a claim by the Transport Minister, Mick Palmer, that the Northern Territory
taxi industry would settle down after the disruption caused by deregulation.
At the end of reading these excerpts, I will seek leave to table them. Northern Territory News 13 February 2001 ‘Untrained taxi drivers risk lives’. Northern Territory News 14 November 2000: ‘Darwin taxi firm shuts shop’. Northern Territory News 10 September 2001: ‘Taxi service for disabled faces bleak future’. Northern Territory News 10 November 2000 ‘Cabbies may hit government for millions – buy backs ruling’. Northern Territory News 10 May 2000: ‘Cabbies earning only $35 a shift’. Northern Territory News 20 April 2000: ‘Taxi owners face ruin – levy blamed’. Northern Territory News 6 May 1999: ‘Cabbies now rank job too taxing’. We have the minibuses weighing into the chaos of the industry, 1 May 1999 ‘Minibus drivers in rank row’. Northern Territory News 17 August 1998: ‘Taxi Plan – the poor, elderly will suffer’.
I am using these examples to demonstrate that the minister inherited an industry in complete and utter shambles and chaos, an industry that had been previously imposed upon by the government. That is, the previous government had not worked with the industry and worked up industry reform; instead, it had taken the opposite approach and deregulated the industry which sent it into chaos. It sent many owner/operators into dire financial circumstances, adversely affecting minibuses, executive taxis, etcetera, at the same time.
This epitomises the previous experience under previous regimes. Northern Territory News 10 August 1998 ‘Taxis shut out of review talks’. Northern Territory News 20 May 1998 ‘$40m taxi licence buy out proposed’. So not only is there a shambles in the industry created by the CLP government, that shambles was affecting taxpayers and the government budget in terms of millions of dollars of payouts. Northern Territory News 6 June 1997: ‘Darwin cab co-op breach trade law’. 21 May 1997: ‘Co-op in court; taxi rules unfair’; 6 May 1997: ‘NT Cabbies hurting – too many hire cars’; 30 April 1997 – ‘”We’ll cook in cars”, say airport drivers’.
This the picture that our minister inherited. It is an absolute disgrace, a shame, and members of the CLP sitting here espousing hypocrisy, continue to discredit their own party. Really, some of them are far beyond their use-by date and should seriously consider retirement.
Going on to the consultative mechanisms that the minister very clearly put in place a year ago; of the 34 written submissions, concerns were expressed about: the quality of the service provided; reduction of income suffered by many in the industry, especially drivers; and ongoing disputation between sectors of the industry. These were the key broad concerns expressed, as the result of consultation, which the member for Katherine would have us believe did not occur. He has been referred to as the Harry Potter of accounting, so I daresay he could be referred to as the Harry Potter of the commercial passenger vehicle industry. The man seems to live in the realm of fantasy.
Issues were raised which extended from ranking facilities, to their restrictions, through to numbers in the industry. The deadline for submissions was 30 March this year, many months ago, and the minister issued a discussion paper following extensive work by his office and his department in May of this year.
I do not know whether members opposite have bothered to pick up and read that discussion paper but, yet again, there was an opportunity to engage and to provide their feedback and input into government about any concerns they had with the path government was heading down. Any representations they were receiving from the industry that they wanted to communicate to government, they would have been well served and well placed to have done the work back then. I guess they were still looking for birds in various exotic places.
The discussion paper, as I have said, was issued in May 2002. Copies of the discussion paper were sent to all stakeholders, including those who had previously made submissions. This generated another, and perhaps even more extensive, series of discussions - again, consultation - with the result being a further 40 submissions being forwarded to the minister. In October this year, the minister announced the final outcome of the government’s deliberation.
It is quite extraordinary for claims to be made in the House this evening by the member for Katherine that the minister is holding this House in contempt by making this statement tonight. Anyone undertaking due diligence as a member of this House would know that this process has been ongoing for a long time, and members have had ample opportunity to participate in this process. Certainly, I have met with members of the industry. As the member for Karama, I have many people in the industry living in my electorate. I have spoken to drivers, operators of taxis, owner/operators of minibuses, owner/operators of private hire cars, and each of those discussions have afforded me the opportunity to go and represent their interests and views to the minister. I cannot understand why I, as a member, am able to do that, whereas members with more years experience than myself have chosen to ignore the processes available to them.
I congratulate the minister for creating the Commercial Passenger Vehicle Board. This is groundbreaking in terms of the industry. We are finally seeing an industry that has been divided, that has been in chaos, that by the nature of the commercial aspect of their industry have been entirely competitive and in some cases, combative against each other, finally coming together. They are coming together to be mature and to control their own industry, rather than continuing to rely on government to control their industry which in the past, has led to chaos. So this government is saying to the industry: ‘We will facilitate a process - we have facilitated a process - whereby parameters are set, a framework is established, and you, as an industry, can determine the outcomes of your industry’. We have established the guidelines and parameters, as good government does, within the role of the advisory board, but we are clearly saying to the industry: ‘We have brought you all together as a result of consultations. There is a framework now in which you can all work together for the betterment of the industry, for the outcomes that taxpayers have sought from our government’. The drivers had been losing income. The owners had been losing income. There had been no clear delineation between minibuses, private hire cars, taxis and in far too many areas, all of these were overlapping.
The chaos created by deregulation imposed by the previous government after having locked out many sectors of the industry from discussions about that, cost the taxpayers about $20m to buy back taxi plates. And the outcome? Less income for drivers and owners. The big difference between the past and what this ministerial statement explains of the future is that the industry will be able to guide its own future. In the past the government imposed and created chaos.
I believe the industry is capable of looking after itself within the clear rules and guidelines that the government has established for the advisory board. We do want a quality industry, one that is mature enough to run itself, and the government is always here of course, to quite appropriately play its role in monitoring the health of the industry. I am relieved that the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure has not been idle. As of November last year, he has been working hard with his staff, both in the office and the department, to work through the consultative process with the industry, with all key stakeholders. As I said, I have met with many representatives from the industry who have felt very confident about participating in that consultation process. They have beaten a path, very quickly, to the minister’s door; they have met with the minister, with key advisors, with departmental people. They have never had any knock backs in terms of being able to engage some of the decision makers.
The time frame has been a reasonable time frame. As a government, we have moved as quickly as we possibly could, driven by the need - that is, we have an industry that was absolutely bleeding financially as a result of the deregulation imposed by the previous government. People’s livelihoods had been dramatically affected. It was no longer in many instances a viable way to work. So within the reasonable time frame of a year, we are driving it forward so industry can rebuild its health and vigour, see the opportunities come back into many small business people who operate in the industry. I believe the minister has done a tremendous job at driving this forward within a reasonable time frame but with the haste that it really did require, because of the financial suffering that people in the industry were feeling as a result of the previous CLP government.
The ministerial statement is very informative. It provides specific details to each member of this Chamber as to the role and nature of the Commercial Passenger Vehicle Board. It certainly gives each member enough information to form views and ideas on exactly how they want to participate in debate on this legislation in February.
Again, picking up on the comments of the member for Katherine who was complaining about the statement being presented tonight, so close to legislation being introduced, precluded members in this House from being able to participate in informative debate - I challenge that. That is not the case at all. We do have the debate in February. There is ample opportunity to prepare a cogent debate and arguments. You have had ample opportunity already to participate in a very broad ranging, year-long consultation process. I am sick and tired of the hypocrisy coming particularly from the member for Katherine. I challenge him to show us one example in his lengthy parliamentary career where any debate contributions from members of the opposition have altered any legislation that he sponsored. Stop with the hypocrisy. Get real. Either stop being lazy, stop being in semi-retirement, feeding off the taxpayer, and participate in a real sense, or retire.
Madam Speaker, I congratulate the minister for his tremendous statement.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, that is the most sanctimonious claptrap I have ever heard in this Chamber, honestly. The member for Karama really should play the ball rather than the man.
Today I understand that the minister gave notice that he was going to introduce the legislation tomorrow. He gave notice. Tonight, he rises and delivers a statement on legislation he will introduce tomorrow. Now, if that is not breaching Standing Order 68, Anticipation of Subject, I do not know what is. It is a blatant breach of standing orders. If the minister does not understand debating rules in this Chamber, he should not be in here. It is every member’s responsibility to understand standing orders.
This is a Minister of the Crown who does not understand his job. The opposition has spoken about this issue at great length for the last 12 months. We have quizzed the minister on many occasions during Question Time. We have made adjournment speeches about this issue on many occasions. We had no response from the minister except a lot of excuses. He kept deferring the issue, he kept extending the cap under the watchful eye of the ACCC, he admits.
All the minister has done in the last 12 to 18 months is procrastinate on this issue. I said last time that I do not think he is stupid; he is incompetent. To say that he has consulted industry is nothing but a laugh. He has hardly been in Alice Springs to speak to the people in the industry down there.
As you alluded in an earlier debate, Madam Speaker, they fix things in Darwin and as a result of that, disturb the equilibrium that has been in existence in Central Australia for many years. This is an incompetent minister who thinks only as far as his nose, and does not consider the impact on the whole of the Territory.
The minister said we should be writing submissions. He is in government; it is his job, and he wants us to do it for him! Come on. That is a laugh. If he does not know his job, then he should let somebody else do it. Maybe the member for Sanderson would like to have your job. It is about time that the minister, in his incompetence, walked away from this.
The minister said it before, and the member for Karama drew on it tonight: buying the licenses has produced a debt for this government. This is how non-business people appreciate finances. They do not understand it. I said in my last adjournment speech: you buy something, you have something. You buy a house with borrowed funds from a bank. Sure, you owe the bank a lot of money, but you have an asset. If you do not want a debt, sell your house and you do not have a debt. Easy as that!
So the government does not have a debt as a result of the buy-back. Not at all. You have an asset that you can do what you like with. If you choose not to do anything with it, that is fine. That is your choice. I am not going to argue about it. I say to the minister: I am not going to debate this statement of yours; it is not worth the paper it is written on. If you want to bring on the debate tomorrow, we will have a debate tomorrow. This is a hypocritical piece of garbage that says nothing. It promises the industry nothing at all. Now, if you cannot do your job properly, move aside and let someone else do it for you.
I am very disappointed with the way the minister has conducted this business for this industry. People in the industry have been screaming for the last 12 months at least. Sure, there are some sectors of industry that have benefited from this proposal and they are pretty comfortable with it, but for the majority, they are a lot worse off. Prior to a recent interview the minister had with Fred McCue, Greg Palmer was on air saying that it was all too hard; that this minister did not know what he was doing and is causing the taxi industry in Darwin a lot of harm. If the minister has not heard that, then obviously he has not been to the industry to discuss it with them. If his minders have been discussing the issue with the industry, they have not been giving the minister the right information from the industry.
It is a real pity that the industry that was doing - not exactly the best, and that is accepted. It has become so since the minister took over. His inactivity in the last 12 months at least has been detrimental to the industry, causing great confusion and uncertainty. Nobody knows where they are going. They cannot make plans to either expand the industry or expand their own business. They don’t know whether to sell out or not to sell out. The industry and its relationship to tourism is a long story. I will not embark on that because I am sure there are others who are closer to the tourism industry and who would like to address that. It is time the minister comes to a decision. Delaying it for another two or three months is really a pointless waste of time.
It is strange. I walked into a briefing yesterday with the member for Katherine, and into the office came two officers from the department of transport and one of the minister’s minders. The first thing we were told was the legislation is not going to be passed this week; it is going to be introduced only and will be debated in February. That was not my understanding. Then, at a briefing, we were told that. Either this minister knows what he is doing or he doesn’t. I suggest to you, Madam Speaker, that his performance over this last 12 months on this issue, with all the prompting that I have given him in the last six months, has indicated that he is not across it. The industry will show their dissatisfaction with him at the polling booth, I am sure.
Mr VATSKALIS (Transport and Infrastructure): Madam Speaker, I thank members for their constructive debate.
My understanding is that in a statement, the government is espousing a policy rather than forecasting legislation. Both members said that they cannot contribute when we put legislation before the House. They will have the opportunity to propose amendments, to make suggestions and if they are the right suggestions, we will take them into account.
But let us start at the beginning. A year ago we published widely that we were going to go back to the industry and ask the industry’s opinion on how we are going to fix the mess the previous minister had left, and the $20m debt for which we have nothing to sell to recover the money to pay the bank to extinguish that debt. What the previous government did was borrow $20m, bought the number plates back - and you can’t sell them again because the NCC will come down on you like a ton of bricks. You knew that very well.
We talked to the industry. We spoke to them widely. We received 30 submissions; none from any member of the opposition, certainly not from the members for Greatorex or Katherine. Not only that, we went back with a White Paper which we circulated widely. I travelled to Yulara, Tennant Creek, Alice Springs. I spoke to members of industry there. I spoke to the members of industry in Darwin because I use taxis very often, and I catch different taxis. I talked to people about the issues that concerned them. I had some people from Alice Spring complaining to me about some unfortunate events that occurred to members of their families. I highly recommend that the member for Greatorex speaks to a Councillor in Alice Springs about her daughter suffering an assault by a taxi driver. She was not the only person.
When they opened the market, suddenly we had another 80 taxis in the market. Of course, nobody was going to work for $3 or $4 an hour, so all the good drivers left. So what did we get? We got the riff-raff, we got people who were opportunistic, trying to drive taxis around town just to make some money, and these people did not have the proper training or they did not know where the suburbs were. My own experience is getting into a taxi at the airport, asking the driver to take me to Nightcliff. He told me bluntly: ‘You show me; I will drive’. That was the level of drivers that you brought to the industry because of your incompetence when you tried to sort out the mess it was in.
We spoke to the industry; we consulted with the industry. I wonder how many members of the industry did the then government consult before they freed or liberated the market. None! They did not speak to anybody; they just brought legislation to the Table and then God help everybody. The industry was in a mess for years before the election in 2001. One person in Alice Springs told me that, prior to the election, they came up here, spoke to the then leader of government, Denis Burke, and when he went back to Alice Springs he told the people: ‘This is what I was told by the government. I suggest you all vote for the opposition’. These are people who always supported the government, the CLP, but they saw what happened, what you did to them, and they decided to change the way they voted.
That is the reason why you are sitting on the other side of the House, members for Greatorex and Katherine. It is very easy to sit there and criticise, to say: ‘The minister is incompetent; he has not done anything in 12 months’. We have seen how far you took the industry when you acted in three months or in a shorter period of time without any consultation. At least we take the time to speak and consult with people, so what we are going to release is going to be something good, not something we just thought was a good idea, put it on the table and then the industry will sort it out itself. Well, it did not happen.
We took our time. Yes, I admit we took 12 months and I do not apologise for that because I wanted to speak to every single person who made a submission and every single person who responded to our White Paper. Had the member for Greatorex made a submission or responded to our White Paper, I would have been quite happy to speak to him in his office in Alice Springs or in my office in Darwin. But we did not receive a submission; all we received is criticism - all doom and gloom.
On the other hand, I was really encouraged to hear the member for Katherine admitting that he will support it. Yes, he had problems with the industry, but he also admitted there is support from the industry. He could not bring himself to say everything was bad. To his credit, he admitted that what the government has done was not obstruction of the industry. Sections of the industry are supportive. Quite rightly, he also admitted that not everybody will be pleased. I said exactly the same when I was interviewed by Fred McCue: you cannot please everybody. If I please only 80% or 85% I would be quite happy. There will always be somebody who will disagree. It does not matter what you do, there will always be somebody who says it is not right. Reading the Centralian Advocate recently, of course there was somebody there who disagreed with it, but at the same time, it is encouraging to see that a member of the industry takes the time to write to the Centralian Advocate, supporting what we are doing and really attacking the person who complained, and accusing him of not understanding the legislation.
There is support in the industry and there is big support. There is certainly support from the brother of the then minister for transport, Mr Greg Palmer, who came out and said publicly, on Fred McCue’s program that the industry support at least 80% of the changes that the government has instigated. So there is support from the industry. The industry and the staff understand what we are trying to do. We are tyring to bring back the owner/driver to the industry. We are trying to bring back some standards because the person who uses a taxi should feel safe about using a taxi. A man or a woman who takes a taxi in Darwin, Alice Springs or Tennant Creek should feel that they will arrive safe and well at their destination. The person who is driving a taxi, a respected member of the community, is going to respect the rights of the passenger.
We took our time, I have no apologies for that. We are going to introduce this legislation tomorrow and we are going to introduce further legislation in the future in order to fix the mess that you created and we are called, once again, to sort out.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr HENDERSON (Business, Industry and Resource Development): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
___________________________
Statement by Speaker
Madam SPEAKER: Deputy Chief Minister, I will give you the first call, but before you start, could I remind honourable members that the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs will be visiting tomorrow as part of their Inquiry into Capacity Building in Indigenous Communities.
The committee will be holding public hearings in the Litchfield Room and have invited members of the Legislative Assembly to have informal discussions with them about the reference during the luncheon suspension tomorrow. I just want to remind members about that so they can think about it. Perhaps they would like to appear before that committee at lunch time tomorrow.
Ms Carney: Could you repeat the reference, Madam Speaker?
Madam SPEAKER: It is the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs and they are inquiring into Capacity Building in Indigenous Communities.
_________________________
Mr STIRLING (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, it is an opportunity for all members to appear before that committee, thank you.
Madam Speaker, there are a number of long serving employees from the Department of Employment, Education and Training who are retiring or resigning.
In 1971, Kaye Aldenhoven began her teaching career in the Territory as a pre-school teacher at Umbakumba. Students at the pre-school at the time, now assistant teachers and Aboriginal resource officers, still remember her fondly. Kaye moved to Yuendemu in 1973 and from there to Gillen Primary School becoming senior teacher in 1975. She continued in a senior teacher role at Millner and Malak Primary Schools. In 1988, Kaye became Assistant Principal at Jabiru Area School. She was Acting Principal in 1992 and during this time the school was awarded the National Landcare Award. Kaye was a moving force in the Arts Council and is remembered in the community for her cooperation with the indigenous community. In 1995, Kaye was Acting Principal of Alyangula Area School and in 1996, became Principal of Batchelor Area School.
Kaye’s continual drive for improvement in literacy and numeracy outcomes for all students resulted in the Batchelor Area School winning the Northern Territory section of the national award in literacy and numeracy and an indigenous education award - NT Literacy and Numeracy outcomes. The school was successful also in winning the Keep Australia Beautiful Award for environmental awareness. Kaye’s commitment to the welfare of students is paramount and her depth of empathy and understanding is reflected in the students’ sense of belonging and connection with the school environment. Kaye is resilience itself. Her level of stamina, energy and drive are envied by all. She is a dedicated teacher, educator and leader committed to improving outcomes for children of all ages. It was a great visit down to Batchelor Area School this year to meet with Kaye, and I wish her well.
Bob Hale came to the Northern Territory to Maningrida in 1974 as a post-primary teacher. In January 1975, he was appointed to Katherine Area School as Senior Teacher, Humanities. In 1978, Bob and his family went to Canada on exchange and he taught Year 7 at Nanaimo in British Columbia. The school, Brechin Elementary School was a French immersion school at which all students were taught in French. The principal received an exemption for Bob on the grounds that he, the principal, could not understand Bob’s brand of English let alone let him loose in French.
In May 1979, he transferred to Darwin office as Professional Assistant to the Deputy Secretary, Programs. It was the start of Bob’s office career and in July 1979, he became Senior Education Advisor, Staffing. In February 1980, Bob became the Northern Territory representative for the Commonwealth Teaching Service Commissioner. In July 1981, Bob returned to staffing and was promoted to Principal Education Officer, Staffing Operations. He returned to schools in January 1990, as Acting Principal at Malak Primary School. In 1991, he transferred to Anula Primary School as Acting Principal before settling down at Karama School as Principal in 1992.
At Karama, Bob has been instrumental in developing and expanding opportunities for indigenous students and their families. Indigenous staff have been employed in the school to provide positive role models for students. In 1999, Bob became chairperson of the Indigenous Education Portfolio Principals Group. In recognition of his efforts, he has won an award from the Australian Principals Association Professional Development Corporation for School/Community Partnerships in Indigenous Education. He has won the NAIDOC Committee Award for School/Community Partnerships. He is one principal in an urban situation who has gone absolutely out of his way in respect of indigenous education, and we certainly wish him well.
Wendy Murphy is currently a Year 1 teacher at Nhulunbuy Primary School with almost 40 years of teaching service. She came to the NT as teacher in charge of Rockhampton Downs School in the Barkly on 18 January 1988. Prior to that, Wendy taught in the NSW Teaching Service for almost 21 years with a focus on small schools and relief teaching. After Rockhampton Downs, she moved to Robinson River School and in 1989, to Borroloola CEC. She came to Nhulunbuy Primary School in January 1991 and has been there since.
For many years, Wendy has been the elected AEU NT Sub-branch representative for her school and more recently, on the AEU NT Executive representing Arnhem and she is recognised widely by her colleagues in this role.
Wendy, who is a highly respected teacher perceived by students, parents and colleagues as a caring teacher, establishes a warm rapport with all of her students. She has worked with dedication across all sections and levels of the school; she is held in high esteem in the school community. Her commitment to education over such an extended period is exemplary and her departure is seen as a loss. Nhulunbuy Primary School has had a great deal of stability over recent years, and Wendy’s loss will be felt all the more for that.
Joan Angeles is retiring this year from Nemarluk where she has been a Teacher Assistant for just over 20 years. Joan was first employed by DEET in July 1982 as an Indigenous Teacher Assistant working with severely and multiply disabled children at the hospital school in the Harry Chan Ward. She was transferred to Henbury School when Charlie Carter was the Principal and then to Ludmilla Special School, as it was known before it changed its name to Nemarluk. Not only has Joan advocated strongly for the indigenous disabled students at Nemarluk School, but she has supported their families to gain assistance from generic services and to come to terms with their child’s impairment. She has put much of her own time into visiting families and following things up for them.
Joan has also supported other indigenous workers at the school and has been a mentor for the Aboriginal and Islander Education Workers, Chairperson of the ASSPA Committee at the school for the past four years and was on the committee several years prior to that. In 1999, Joan attended the World Indigenous Educators conference in Hawaii and was able to bring back much invaluable information to the school.
She is a life long learner and recently completed her Certificate IV in Disabilities at NTU. She attended many other inservices related to her job, as well as gaining certificates in Information Technology at Casuarina College. In her own time, Joan has completed advanced hand signing courses and is a conversationalist signer. Joan is a quiet achiever and a much respected member of staff whose gentle but assertive manner enables her to communicate with people from all walks of life in an effective and meaningful way. Her communication style allows her to move from government minister to young disabled child with consummate ease. Joan will be missed from Nemarluk School and not easily replaced.
Lucy Tinley is retiring from Employment, Education and Training after 22 years. Lucy joined the Northern Territory Department of Education in 1980 and has had varied education experience across the Territory in both schools and office based positions. For 11 years, Lucy worked in schools in the Top End, in the southern region, including Alawa, Bradshaw, Karama and Ross Park. Lucy has had an interest in the area of literacy and numeracy throughout her career. From 1991 to 1995, she worked in the Katherine region, Katherine School of the Air and as a group support mentor. Following this, Lucy moved to Darwin to work for five years as the Education Officer on Aboriginal Curriculum Development, and made a significant contribution to culturally appropriate education materials for indigenous primary school students, Years 4 to 7.
From 1999 to February 2002, Lucy has worked both as an advisor and manager of Commonwealth Targetted Programs. This involved working closely with schools for the planning and management of Commonwealth programs, and for their strategic plans and initiatives at the systemic level. In her role as a manager, Lucy’s contribution to the work of the department was substantial. She always made herself available to schools and was often sought for her advice. Lucy is recognised for her dedication, commitment and motivation in the delivery and management of the programs in which she has been involved, and we wish her well in her retirement.
Doreen Wright is a teacher whose career spans 36 years of which 27 have been spent teaching in the NT. Doreen has taught in a range of teaching contexts: north, south, mainstream and remote. She is a Teacher of Exemplary Practice Level 1, and is currently teaching a Year 1,2, 3 class for above average children who are independent workers. Apart from her teaching duties, Doreen has devoted a huge amount of time and energy to curriculum development at Karama School. She is seen by the staff as an expert in all areas of curriculum, but particularly in literacy and numeracy. She was one of the main architects involved in the development and implementation of Karama School’s school-based curriculum document during 2000-02.
She has been heavily involved in the revision and modification of this document to reflect the requirements of the NT Curriculum Framework. She is an acknowledged leader in the implementation of the Lindamood strategy of phonological awareness which is used at Karama school to supplement its reading program. She is a highly respected educator and has been a mentor for many less experienced staff. She gives freely of her time to assist others in the profession which she so passionately believes, and to which she has made such a magnificent contribution. She has taken a leadership role in the Perceptual Motor Skills Program, integral to the Early Childhood Program and she deserves full recognition for its success.
Around school she is affectionately known for her speed of movement from one place to another. In the playground, the children all know about the notebook in which she writes the names of those who break the rules - in particular ‘running on the concrete’. A wonderful career of dedication, sincerity and caring. Well done, Doreen. We certainly wish you well.
At the end of this year, Maningrida CEC farewells a much loved and respected teacher, Marie Matthews. She has worked at Maningrida CEC for 18 years, coming from Darwin in 1985 where she taught for six years in Catholic schools. Marie began her teaching at Maningrida in the Burarra Preschool, moving to the Burarra Primary section before becoming involved in the English as a First Language class.
For 12 years she has undertaken the difficult role of being the lead teacher of English as a First Language class known at Maningrida CEC as Garlarrk class. This is a multi-level class. Students are catered for from Transition to Year 7. Recognition of her teaching excellence has been through the Teacher of Excellence Program and the conferment of Level 2 status. She is an extremely well prepared and highly organised teacher. She has, over the years, enhanced the learning programs for students by providing appropriate learning in English, whilst acknowledging and teaching about the language and culture of the community in which they live. A focus of her teaching has been the promotion of harmonious relationships between the students in the Garlarrk class and all peoples from different cultural and racial backgrounds.
In her time at Maningrida, Marie has undertaken considerable fund raising, and is well known for cakes and goodies. This has seen a lot of money raised for the Garlarrk class which has largely meant these students have access to computer technology long before the advent of system-wide initiatives. As a teacher of many years’ experience, she has not let the learning of something new stand in the way of providing her students with current best practice teaching methods. She has been a quintessential lifelong learner. Maningrida CEC will miss Marie. She will be affectionately remembered by the people of Maningrida, and by all of those families whose children were fortunate enough to have experienced her teaching.
Peter Ivinson commenced employment with the former Commonwealth Department of Works, NT Branch in February 1965, where he commenced as an Electrical Fitter/Mechanic apprentice. He was named NT Apprentice of the Year - I did not know that - before commencing his long career in the Territory public sector electrical industry. Since that time, he has worked as an electrical inspector, union organiser - or association organiser, Hendo, either one. They were mostly unions, I think, with Peter. More recently, Peter worked as an electrical safety officer.
Mr Ivinson is a long-time Territorian, having undertaken schooling at St Mary’s Primary School and later at St John’s College. He has been very active in community affairs: a member of the NT Waterski Club; a volunteer bushfire member for his region; Scouts, Humpty Doo and Taminmin High School Councils, as well as prominent in local Territory politics, having stood as a candidate on three occasions. He has done a great job, Mr Deputy Speaker, and we wish him well.
Margaret Stehouwer taught in the Northern Territory from the early 1970s until her retirement in 2002. She taught at Darwin and Stuart Park Primary Schools. For the last 20 years of her teaching career, she taught at Anula Primary School and Anula Preschool. She is remembered by staff as having a natural ability to communicate with deaf Aboriginal students she taught at Stuart Park despite their hearing impairment and the fact that they spoke little English. She was admired and respected by colleagues for her unique ability to identify student interests and their learning needs, and to develop programs that enabled students to blossom. Staff who worked with her and the parents of the hundreds of children whom she taught regarded her as an exceptionally gifted, creative and dedicated teacher. She was frequently described as a ‘born teacher’, or ‘a natural’.
She provided timely and sensitive support to both inexperienced and experienced teachers by being an outstanding model, and by conducting interesting and challenging workshops for both parents and teachers. Many people still remember the innovative family maths evening she conducted for the Anula Primary School community. Despite her obvious talents, she steadfastly refused to seek promotion or to apply for Teacher of Exemplary Practice, a status she richly deserved. She was an inspiration to all who came into contact with her – students, parents and colleagues alike.
Don Ross is retiring after 28 years in education in the Northern Territory. His first position in the Territory was senior teacher at Angurugu on Groote Eylandt in 1974. He left Groote after three years, and from 1977 to 1982, held positions of senior teacher and assistant principal at Bagot Reserve Transitional School, Kormilda College and Ludmilla Primary. Don moved to Berrimah Primary as Principal in 1982. The transition of the teaching service from the Commonwealth Teaching Service took place while Don was Principal at Berrimah. His assistance during this demanding exercise was recognised by Commissioner A N Stewart, who wrote that Don’s personal contribution was immeasurable in terms of maintaining standards and professional continuity.
Don later went on to be principal at the Don Dale Correction Centre; Acting Principal at Parap and Berry Springs; and from 1998, Principal of Alawa Primary. While Principal of Alawa, the school was commended for its supportive learning environment and students were congratulated on their outstanding achievements.
In recent times, Don has become an outstanding sporting competitor, taking five medals for swimming at the most recent Masters Games held in Alice Springs. Don is recognised by his colleagues as an extremely practical person whose main objectives, greater successes and primary focus have centred on the educational, social and cultural enhancement of students.
On behalf of the many Northern Territory students and staff with whom he has been associated as a Territory educator, we wish Don a long, happy and fulfilling retirement., as I do for each of those long-serving individuals within Education and Work Health over those many years of service. I wish them long, happy and healthy retirements. I am sure everyone joins with me.
Members: Hear, hear.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise tonight to raise again, but in more detail, some concerns which I raised during the last sittings about the possible closure of the Women’s Information Centre in Alice Springs.
To my surprise, after raising the matter on 16 October, the government did not respond. I thought that after raising the matter the Chief Minister, who is the minister responsible for women’s policy, might have come into the parliament the next day to allay my concerns. Unfortunately, that did not occur so I followed the matter up with a letter to her. Members will remember that my concerns were that the position of Coordinator of the centre had been left vacant since April and, therefore, the service had not been operating in any effective way.
I duly received a reply from the Chief Minister to my letter on 23 November and, not withstanding its contents, I and other women in and around Alice Springs, remain very concerned. In fact, the concern is so widespread that earlier today I tabled a petition on behalf of women with an interest in this area.
The letter I received from the Chief Minister was an extraordinary one and fell well short of placating me and the other women I have sent it to for comment. She wrote - and I will table the letter at the conclusion of my speech - and I quote:
- In the last 10 years or so there have been a number of services established in the town designed to meet the
specific needs of women, an example of these services are the Alice Springs Women’s Shelter, Domestic
Violence Services, Women’s Legal Services and a range of counselling and support services.
Let me tell members why that part of the letter, in particular, is extraordinary. First, the Alice Springs Women’s shelter was not established in the last 10 years. In fact, it was established in 1983, almost 20 years ago. The Central Australian Women’s Legal Service is the only legal service for women, a service which, incidentally, I helped to establish. So I do not know what the Chief Minister meant by ‘services’ because there is, in fact, only one women’s legal service in Alice Springs. Second, as for the Chief Minister’s comment that there are a ‘range of counselling and support services’ for women in Alice Springs, it is simply wrong. It is the Women’s Information Centre that provides a range of services and there are no others. What are the ‘other services’ the Chief Minister talks about, I do not know what they are, and the other women I have consulted who work in the relevant areas do not know what they are either.
The relevant services that do currently exist in Alice Springs for women are: the Alice Springs Women’s Shelter - it has a full-time domestic violence counsellor but the position is only for victims of domestic violence; second, the Domestic Violence Service which is only a legal service and does not provide counselling; the Central Australian Women’s Legal Service, which also does not provide counselling; the Sexual Assault Referral Centre which is co-located with the Women’s Information Centre and that only provides counselling for victims of sexual assault; and, finally, Relationships Australia which provides counselling for couples.
So, there are no other counselling services except for private phycologists who, of course, cost consumers money. The Women’s Information Centre is the only provider of free general counselling in Alice Springs. It provides free counselling, group work, meditation workshops, education and workshop sessions on health and welfare issues such as menopause, postnatal depression, parenting information sessions and so on, as well as a library for information and referral. It also services women from all over the Territory. It has a key role - and traditionally always has had - in the organisation for Reclaim the Night events, International Women’s Day and other public events.
Clearly, the information the Chief Minister provided to me in writing was wrong. Whoever wrote the rubbish in this letter really has no idea, and the Chief Minister should not have signed it. The letter goes on, however, to refer to the fact that the position of Coordinator had been left vacant since April and I quote:
- … the decision was made to defer recruitment action for the Coordinator position until all of the issues have
been identified and appropriate planning had occurred.
This, of course, raises more questions which must be answered. What are the issues, and what is meant by ‘appropriate planning’? This government prides itself on consulting, but no one I have spoken to who works in this area has any idea about deferral of the recruitment of the Coordinator’s position.
So I ask: who is being consulted, who made the decision whether or not to recruit, and who is going to make it in the future? Another question arises: what is the time frame? When will the decision be made, and, if changes are going to be implemented, when will they be implemented? The position of Coordinator is pivotal to the operation of the service, and no one knew why the position was deferred. No announcement has been made, no announcement of a review has been made, and nothing has been done to assure women in Alice Springs that the service is even being looked at by government.
It was only when I started asking questions that any explanation was given by the government. The explanation given is not in any practical or intellectual sense satisfying, and it arouses suspicion that the service is at risk. However, there are even more worrying matters that arise from the Chief Minister’s letter of 13 November. The Chief Minister seeks to assure me that the Women’s Information Centre will not be lost, but is likely to have, and I quote: ‘a broader, more relevant focus’.
This comment was linked somehow to the famous, or should I say infamous, health review that has been stalled for some months. I looked at the Health Department’s web site and could see no mention whatsoever of the Women’s Information Centre. So I ask: is the Women’s Information Centre part of the health review or is it not? If it is, then I want to know who has been consulted because out of the key stakeholders I have spoken to in Alice Springs, none of them have been consulted. I also want to know what is meant by the comment ‘is likely to have a broader, more relevant focus’. Is it intended that it will no longer be a women’s information service? Will it become part of the mainstream, that is, a service for all? Where are the women of Alice Springs supposed to go if they want information about something that is not domestic violence or relationship based?
I was interested to see, from a perusal of the budget papers, in particular the one entitled Building our Community. At page 3, under the rather virtuous heading of ‘Meeting the needs and aspirations of women’ that among the government’s guiding principles was this statement:
- Making the information widely available to women through a range of information strategies and technologies.
It is my view that closing or seeking to limit the women’s information service or simply not having it operate for months and months and months is not the way to achieve information provision to women in the Northern Territory.
The government has been caught out on this issue. It admits that the position of Coordinator was deferred, yet no announcement was made about it at all and the situation simply goes from bad to worse. I will table, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, a document called Newsround which is published by the Health department. This edition was published in October 2002. It is an information tool, I gather, for people who work in the health system, but from a cursory reading of this document, it is abundantly clear to me that it seeks to really cover up the Minister for Health’s ineptitude, but I digress.
In any event, at page 6 of this document there is an article about the Women’s Information Centre. The article mentions that Family Planning has been co-located at the Women’s Information Centre and it describes the co-location with the Women’s Information Centre and the Sexual Assault Referral Centre as providing ‘the women of Central Australia with increased convenience’. It goes on to say:
- Since its establishment 16 years ago, the Women’s Information Centre has been the only continuous
information service provider to women in the Centre, evolving and developing in order to reflect
changes and trends in the community.
This document was published in October this year, only last month, in the full knowledge that there had not been a Coordinator appointed since April, and in the full knowledge that the decision to recruit one had been put on hold for an indefinite period and without publicly announcing that decision.
Nowhere in the article on page 6 is there any reference to the decision having been made to defer recruitment of a Coordinator. Nowhere in that article is there any mention made of a review and nowhere in that article is there any mention made of the so-called issues that need to be identified or the appropriate planning that needs to be made. So it is abundantly clear to anyone having regard to the facts that the article in this Northern Territory Government Department of Health and Community Services publication is a deceit in light of the facts and it should never have been published.
In essence, none of it makes sense. The plot continues to thicken and the women of Central Australia in the Northern Territory deserve much better. The Chief Minister should know that I will walk across hot coals to ensure that the Women’s Information Centre is not closed or in any way restricted in its operation, and the Chief Minister should know that many women will come with me on that walk.
In conclusion, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I think that many Territorians would never have thought they would see the day that this Chief Minister, the Territory’s first female Chief Minister, would be the worst Minister for Women’s Policy that the Northern Territory has ever had. That is a shameful thing. It is tragic that many Territorians are increasingly holding that view, and the Chief Minister’s conduct and, for that matter, the health minister’s, are nothing short of shameful. They have been mysterious, to say the least, in covering up what is happening to the Women’s Information Centre, and both of them should be ashamed of their conduct.
I am hopeful that at some point over the next couple of days of this parliamentary sitting, the Chief Minister, the minister responsible for women’s policy, might come clean, provide something in the way of an explanation. I, along with many other women, wait for that explanation with bated breath. I seek leave to table the documents to which I have referred.
Leave granted.
Mr AH KIT (Arnhem): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, that was a woeful contribution from the member for Araluen, but one comes to expect that of her when she participates in debates in the parliament.
Ms Carney: Please don’t say something interesting and useful, which would be a bit of a change.
Mr AH KIT: I rise tonight to speak about the 2002 Alice Springs Masters Games. From memory, the member for Araluen, along with the members for Greatorex and Macdonnell talked the Masters Games down. When I gave ministerial reports, they talked about not being able to get the competitors there. They were worried about whether Alice Springs would do well. It was a success story.
Dr Lim interjecting.
Mr AH KIT: Stop talking it down! It was a very big success story. In fact some $5m was pumped into the Central Australian business community through that week of the Masters Games in 2002.
Alice Springs people once again showed that they are great at playing host to the 3500 people who travelled from all over Australia to participate in some 38 sports during the 9th Masters Games. There were some 300 or 400 others who travelled with them as partners. This biennial event has the reputation, as we know, of being the friendly games and this is in part due to the spirit in which the competition is played. Old friendships are renewed while new acquaintances are formed.
The Alice Springs Masters Games was the first multi-sport competition for mature aged athletes to be held in Australia. Since its beginning in 1986 when just 1000 competitors participated, the concept of Masters Games has spread nationally and internationally. Last month, as I said, some 3500 registered for the Masters Games, the most popular sport being golf with 406 participants.
The youngest competitor was Robert Eandi who is 25. He is from California and he participated in swimming. The oldest competitor was Ruth Frith. She is 93 from Wahroonga, New South Wales and she participated in the field events at the athletics. Some special performances include Steven Blake’s third consecutive win in the Optus Masters’ Mile. Alice Springs runner Anne Kidman’s gold medal performance in each of the seven events she entered, and Sydney’s David Moore’s nine gold medals in pistol shooting.
I would also like to congratulate my ministerial colleague, Peter Toyne, on his two athletic gold medals. In addition, I was successful in competing in the darts teams competition and was presented with a silver medal in those team events.
Perhaps the story of South Australian shearer, David Miller, from Streaky Bay, demonstrates how much the Masters Games in Alice Springs mean to some participants. David, fresh from shearing sheep drove 1000 km or more to Alice Springs with just 55 minutes sleep along the way to arrive at about 5.45 in the morning, 15 minutes prior to the half marathon event in which he had entered. Dressed in an Adelaide Crows football socks and jumper, David blitzed the field, winning his age group in 1.31.39. This certainly shook up a few locals who had loaded up on carbohydrates the night before and gone to bed early.
Events of a magnitude of the Alice Springs Masters Games require a huge team effort. I wish to thank a great many people who were instrumental in making the 2002 games such a highly successful event. To the Patron, Dawn Fraser, and the special guest and medal presenter, Darryl Somers, the advisory committee chaired by Peter Hoey, the Masters Games office staff headed up by Bob Corby, the directors, the 500 volunteers, 40 ambassadors, 42 sports co-ordinators and the dedicated Office of Sport and Recreation staff. I sincerely thank them for their outstanding effort and contribution.
I would also like to acknowledge the sponsors who provided more than $500 000 worth of cash and in kind support. Special thanks go to Peter Kittle Motor Company, Alice Springs Town Council and Lasseters Hotel Casino, Imparja Television, CSC, Coke-a-Cola, Carlton and United Breweries, Optus, TIO, Tattersalls, Coleman’s Printing, Rydges Hotels and Resorts, Thrifty Car Rental, Trainways, TAB, Beringer Blass Wine Estates, Centralian Advocate, Hamilton Sunscreens, Alice Plaza, McCaffertys, and Greyhound Pioneer.]
Finally, I want to congratulate the people of Alice Springs. They opened their hearts and their town to the competitors and showed them a fantastic time. The sporting facilities in Alice Springs rival those in towns similar in size throughout Australia in regards to the quality and location of the facilities. The new wet turf pitch for hockey at Traeger Park has been a significant improvement and the effort from the Alice Springs Town Council and the Northern Territory government certainly benefited hockey players at this year’s Masters’ Games. It was great also to be present for the finals where I witnessed the Brown-Eyed Girls from Darwin winning the gold medal.
The Traeger Park Master Plan is another of this government’s initiatives to improve sporting facilities in Alice Springs. At the end of the fun-filled week, the committee announced the slogan: ‘Come back for more in 2004’ at the closing celebrations. Promotional work is already under way for the Masters Games 10th Anniversary.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I look forward to competing again and hope that my parliamentary colleagues will talk up the challenge.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, yes, I concur with the Minister for Sport and Recreation. We look forward to the Masters Games, and I challenge him to work harder in two years time to promote the event more, so that we can have more competitors in Alice Springs, as we once had when we had over 5000 competitors when we had the Masters Games compared with the 3500 we had this time.
It is, indeed, the community of Alice Springs that made it so very successful with their unselfish contribution to all the sports that were held in Alice Springs. The volunteers were there in their hundreds, working every day for the duration of the sports. Myself and the members for Blain and Macdonnell were equally involved in many of the sports including athletics, football, table tennis. We also took part in medal presentations for many of the sports, along with the member for Araluen.
Tonight, I want to speak more about a couple of other things that I believe are worth mentioning. First, I will quote quite extensively from an e-mail I received, indirectly, from GecOz Pty Ltd, a company with the other name Geospacial and Environmental Consultants Australia. In the e-mail the CEO wrote last Saturday, 2 November, GecOz won the Australian Research and Development Award in the Asia Pacific Information and Communication Technology Awards held at Jupiter’s on the Gold Coast. GecOz will represent Australia in the finals of the International Research and Development category in the coming months. This is the second award of this type that the company has won, the first being the AIIA Innovation Award in November 2001.
The company has developed a patented system for measuring salinity content of soils, using a synthetic aperture radar that is far faster, cheaper and accurate than existing systems. GecOz is now conducting due diligence with a major government organisation with the intention of providing quality information to farmers and irrigators of their salinity hot spots so that they can assist in rehabilitating land to an arable state. Obviously, the company is very proud of this achievement as it puts not only the company but Northern Territory research and development well and truly on the map.
I was the Chair of the Environment Committee of the former CLP government which looked into salt water intrusion into the Mary River Wetlands region, and I can understand how this technology would be useful in monitoring the salt water intrusion in the Territory.
I believe scientists in the company such as Dr Darren Bell, Josh Fawner and Renee Botalo were the ones who were intimately involved in the program. Their invention may really help solve problems on the land, and to the benefit of the Territory. I congratulate Mark Christie, the CEO of the company, and his crew, and I look forward to hearing from them further about their developments. I encourage them to continue to work cooperatively with companies like DMR Consulting and the Northern Territory University. The Minister for Business, Industry and Resource Development might be interested that his department are also involved in the development of this technology.
I now want to move to a happy event that occurred recently at Farrer Boulevard, Farrer. This was the opening of Garner Court. Garner Court is named after Harold and Peggy Garner, two very prominent Central Australian residents who started their lives in the Territory up here in Darwin when Harold was engaged as the Principal of the Adult Education Centre.
The Farrer development, or Garner Court, came as a result of an application from the HPA to myself when I was the Minister for Housing, to provide them with land to develop supported accommodation in the new subdivision. I agreed with that and provided them with land and money, and was pleased to find out later on that the present government also gave them extra land and money to develop a total of some nine units. Peggy Garner was there to take part in the opening of Garner Court. This is what she had to say, and I quote from her speech:
- Harold and I moved to Darwin in 1957 with our five children. The youngest, Phillip, two years old, was a severe
epileptic. In 1963, Harold felt that there should be something done to help the few disabled children living in
Darwin then. He called a meeting, just hoping some folk would turn up. They did; about 12. One man present,
named Keith Jarvis, who was the President of the Darwin Rotary Club, presented a cheque for 1000. That
was the beginning of the Slow Learners’ Association.
Harold used some of his classrooms at the Adult Education Centre for recreation for the disabled children,
much to the Education Superintendent’s horror. But the Administrator came to Harold and asked: ‘Is this true,
Harold?’ and Harold admitted that that was right, and was told: ‘From now on, you have my permission.’
We raised money by having cake stalls, concerts at Raintree Park and many donations. One event stands out in
my mind. The Greyhound Racing Club had a race meeting and called it the Slow Learners’ Association Stakes.
That raised quite a big amount. Some time later, the Northern Territory government gave the association a
block of land running between Coconut Grove and Bagot Road. We first did a preschool, where Harold
experimented by putting normal children with the disabled, and this proved a huge success. They helped one
another. We, the association, then built a cottage to house eight outback children. They had 24 hours a day care.
Later, a workshop was built and a citrus orchard grown. In early 1974, the workshop was doubled and in October,
the then federal minister for housing, Mr Wentworth, opened it. Nine weeks later, Cyclone Tracy arrived, and the
workshops became a heap of rubble.
Harold would have been so proud today to see this wonderful building being dedicated to both him and myself.
His family is extremely proud of all his achievements and we all hope that disabled people find this a special
place to live in or to visit. Congratulations to HPA for the wonderful work they are doing.
Peg continues to live in Alice Springs and now resides in a self-contained cottage at the Old Timers. She lives a very productive, fruitful life with her children all still living in Alice Springs.
In the short time left available to me, I would like to report on a meeting that I attended during the week of the Australian Local Government Association’s National Conference, held in Alice Springs three weeks ago. The meeting was, as you all heard, opened by the Prime Minister. It turned out to be a very successful meeting at the Convention Centre. Some 860 delegates turned up for the conference; the first one, I am told, held outside Canberra. It was held in Alice this year to celebrate the Year of the Outback, and what better place to hold it but in Alice Springs? It demonstrated their support for the outback, and many of them, for the first time, saw what the real outback is all about.
As I said, the Prime Minister opened the conference and, three days later, the Deputy Prime Minister came to wind up the conference for the local government delegates. He also attended quite a few other functions. The Prime Minister, while he was there, visited the School of the Air. In fact, we discovered that he is the first Australian Prime Minister to visit the School of the Air in Alice Springs. I think the Prime Minister was pretty chuffed that he was the first to consider visiting the School of the Air when previous prime ministers never bothered.
The Prime Minister then had a long session on the two-way radio with the children of the School of the Air in Alice Springs and he was so visibly enjoying himself, talking to the kids through sometimes a very poor connection over the two-way radio, at times hardly able to discern what the children were saying on the other side. At other times, it was very clear and his conversations were about what he thought about the remoteness of Central Australia and the types of education that these kids can achieve through a lot of self-motivation and a bit of assistance from teachers at the School of the Air.
Staff discussed with him implementation of the use of the Internet for the School of the Air so that the children could be on real time, seeing their teachers on a two-way video conferencing set up via the Internet. That is quite an achievement for our little community in Central Australia. The Prime Minister has requested that he be invited back for the opening of that program.
Another part of the conference was about the outback highway development where the Development Council discussed the issues of funding and political commitment that they may receive from governments in Western Australia, the Northern Territory and Queensland to help seal or develop that outback highway between Western Australia and Queensland.
One of the topics of discussion was what the Territory did and then reneged on in respect of funding the Territory section of the outback highway. In the papers that the Outback Highway Development Council provided to the meeting was an extract from the Centralian Advocate which showed a picture of the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, the member for Casuarina, with the headline: ‘Territory forced to shelve road plan’. The article detailed the commitment that this Labor government had made prior to the election to fund some $40m of Territory money without any proviso, then how quickly, once they won government, emerged a proviso that Western Australia would show their money and Queensland would show their money. So you show me yours, and I will show you mine.
But you will all recall at the election, that was never the case. Labor was going to commit the money. If I can read from the article of the Centralian Advocate of 4 July 2002 written by Glen Morrison:
- Mr Vatskalis confirmed that $14m of NT funding had been contingent upon a Labor win at the last federal election.
Now, that is definitely not true. It was never said before, but somehow this rewrite of history has come about and now the government conveniently reneges on a promise that it made prior to the election. How convenient is that?
Mr KIELY: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker!
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Do you wish to speak to that point of order?
Mr KIELY: I was going to, but he sat down.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a few preliminary comments on the government’s Northern Territory Quarterly Crime and Justice Statistics that have just been released.
I congratulate the government on this document. I was one of those who supported the repeal of mandatory sentencing. I have not supported the repeal of mandatory punishment. One of the reasons that I did support the repeal was that I would rethink what was happening after we were able to look at some statistics to see whether the government’s promise earlier in the year that the new sentencing regime would reduce crime. I think that was the statement made at the time, and the only way to determine that is to have some detailed statistics.
It is a pity that the minister announced this report today in a Ministerial Statement because that allowed very little debate on what is a very important document. Of course, it is a document that can be used politically, and, being a document of statistics, it can be used in many ways depending on how you want to interpret those statistics.
I hope that this and subsequent reports can be used to evaluate exactly what is happening with crime and whether the government’s legislation package, especially the changes to the sentencing regime, are having an effect. If they are not, then we should be looking at whether that or other things are the problem.
It is a very interesting document. As I said, statistics can say anything, and when you go through statistics - I have been through some of these and done my own averaging. I have been using an averaging formula for between September 2000 and September 2001 which includes the period before the new government came into office and when mandatory sentencing was operating. I have looked at the period after the government was elected and mandatory sentencing was repealed. I have done some averaging there. I know there are some graphs in this paper, but I would like to look at the numbers.
If you look at property offences for the Northern Territory overall, and you average the period before September 2001 and the period after that September quarter, up to September quarter 2002, there is an overall increase in the Northern Territory of property offences.
But when you divide up those statistics, you find that unlawful entry with intent for dwellings has gone down; unlawful entry with intent for other dwellings, I presume that is business, but it does not explain that, has gone up; motor vehicle theft and related offences have gone down; other theft has gone down; property damage has gone up quite a bit; and other property damages have gone down.
Of course, that is for the whole of the Territory. Those rises in the statistics tend to be reflected in the Darwin figures. In Palmerston, for instance, you practically have, overall, from property offences, a status quo, things have hardly changed. In Alice Springs, there appears to have been an increase in property offences over that period, and in a place like Katherine you have a downturn in property offences. These figures need a lot more assessment and analysis before you can say where we are going. People might claim that the repeal of mandatory sentencing has, therefore, increased the number of property offences. One could argue that, but then if you look at the Katherine figures, you could argue that it has had no impact at all.
We need to be very careful that politics does not get in the way of good judgment. We certainly need another set of quarterly statistics to compare them with so that we can make a rational decision about what the effects are. When it comes to the mandatory sentencing issue, I suppose what you are looking for is found in section 2.4. It relates to court outcomes for property offences. It says these included imprisonment 65%, community work orders 13%, and court orders for the remaining 22% of the unlawful entry with intent offences, including fully suspended terms of imprisonment, fines and good behaviour bonds.
I have always believed that unlawful entry is a serious offence, and I argued that there should be some form of punishment. I do not think that people should be walking away scot-free. Again, there is a problem in this document about what certain offences mean, but I will come back to that later. The only way to see what those figures means is to have an analysis of (1) the crime matched with (2) the punishment. Unless you can see that, then it is very easy to make a bland statement that those 22% got off scot-free. I do not know, and I will be asking the Attorney-General for a more detailed analysis of the crime matched with the punishment because that is important if you are to make an intelligent analysis of these figures.
I would be concerned if 22% of offenders were getting off with a slap on the wrist. Some form of punishment is required but, again, until you analysis those figures by seeing the actual facts, it is very hard. As I said, these are preliminary comments on the figures. I was due to have a briefing today at 5 pm, but other matters in the House got in the way, so I have not had a briefing on these figures for an explanation of some of the methodology.
Another issue is that these figures show recorded offences in the Northern Territory. You will find that offences can be a series of matters carried out by one person. What we really need is the number of incidents. If one person, in breaking into a house, committed five offences in the process, how are we to tell from these figures? For instance, the total number of property offences for the Northern Territory in the September quarter is 6342. Does that mean that there were 6342 individual crimes, or were they committed by 6342 individuals?
Until you have that analysed, we have a set of figures that can be interpreted any way you want. What needs to be extrapolated from these figures is how many incidents do they reflect? How many people who offended repeated the offences? Surely, there were not 6342 individual criminals. We need to know how many individual incidents, and how many of those were repeat offences if we want a proper analysis. It has been said that it is a very small number of people who commit these crimes. Well, the way to find out is to see what the statistics show. I am told that the Crime Prevention Unit should be able to provide those figures. Again, if we are to make a balanced and rational analysis of the figures, then we certainly need that sort of information.
A further issue about which I have concern is that these documents present statistics under the headings of property offences, unlawful entry with intent - dwelling, unlawful entry with intent - other. There needs to be an explanation as to what ‘other’ is. I presume it is a business but it is not explained. They also deal with property damage. But if you go back to the glossary in this book, there is a definition page, but I do not think you will find ‘property damage’. You will find ‘home invasion’ and ‘business invasion’. They are regarded as separate criminal acts, yet nowhere in the statistics does it show how many offences of home and/or business invasion occurred.
There seems to be a mismatch or inconsistency of terms which makes it hard to understand what these figures actually reveal. I remember that in the debate about home invasion and business invasion, there were statements by the government that this was quite a serious offence. The offences of aggravated home and business invasion and car trashing as well as robbery, unlawful entry, assault with intent to steal and aggravated criminal damage were regarded as serious offences.
If we have these two acts which created the home invasion and the business invasion offences, we need to ensure that these figures reflect the nature and number of offences. How do we know who has been charged for those offences?
I raise these issues because this adjournment debate, sadly, appears to be the only platform by which one can discuss a very important set of statistics. Sadly, in all the law and order issues, politics gets in the way: my law is tougher than your law. I do not believe anyone in this House wants criminal activity to increase, nor do they want people bashed or people’s properties smashed up. We need to work with a more bipartisan approach. It is just a pity that these things becomes headlines all the time. When I go around my electorate, people do not talk in Labor or CLP terms; they talk about what we can do as a community. They have set up a Litchfield Safe Group; they talk to the police. It would be really good to see a more bipartisan approach toward finding ways of reducing crime. I have said before that the reduction in crime is not just about more police on the beat or more security patrols; it is about trying to do things at the other end of the spectrum: helping families, trying to get kids off the street and into more productive activities, sport and technical schools and all that sort of stuff. We have to do a lot more in that area.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I ask the government for an opportunity for these figures to be debated, perhaps away from some of the political hype. I will avail myself some time of the briefing that has been offered. At another stage, it would be good to get an understanding of how the police report, which I have only glanced at. I have had difficulty, though, matching the figures in the police report with the figures in the CPU quarterly report. It would be interesting and useful to have an explanation of how the two match together.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, first this evening I would like to inform the House of the success of the Menzies School of Health Research in the recent round of National Health and Medical Research Council grants.
As the House would be very aware, these are very competitive grants. You have the cream of medical researchers from all over the country applying for these grants and usually there is a success rate of about 20% or even less. This year, the Menzies School received seven grants that were signed off by the National Health and Medical Research Council which represents just a bit under 50% of the grants that they originally applied for. This is very successful. It is well beyond the national average, and the Menzies School of Health Research is to be congratulated, and that is what I am doing this evening.
Dr Lim: Hear, hear!
Dr BURNS: We know that under John Mathews’ stewardship, he established and developed the Menzies School of Health Research. John was there from 1995 until probably about three years ago. In recent times, the directorship has been taken over by Professor Kerin O’Dea, who is a noted health researcher, particularly in the area of diabetes, in Australia. The Menzies School is once again flourishing under Dr O’Dea’s stewardship and direction.
I would like to detail the success of the Menzies School, and I will read out the successful projects. Dr Alan Cass is being funded for about $425 000 over three years for a project that he calls IIMPAKT that is Improving Indigenous Patients’ Access to Kidney Transplantations. Renal failure is a substantial issue in the Aboriginal population, and this is a very important project.
Dr Ross Bailie has been funded for just under $400 000 over three years to study the impact of household infrastructure improvements on child health in remote Aboriginal communities and, given the extent of NAHS funding and NAHS investment - for which I give the current federal government all praise; I think it is a great project - it is very important to try and measure the impact of that infrastructure development on child health.
Dr Joan Cunningham is a very well known epidaemiologist who was funded for between 2003-07 inclusive for $1.6m for the DRUID study, which is Diabetes and Related Disorders in Urban Indigenous People in the Darwin region. That, once again, is a very important project. There has been some work done outside the urban area in diabetes, so this is really a first.
Dr Graham Maguire has been funded for about $430 000 over three years to study selective use of long-term antibiotics for chronic lung obstructive disease in Aboriginal adults. Graham is a respiratory physician and I am sure he will do a great job on that very important project.
Dr Heidi Smith-Vaughan, who has recently become a mother, is a relatively young researcher. She has a two year grant of about $330 000 for research on implications of bacterial load for vaccine efficacy and antibiotic treatment outcomes in a high risk population, which is a very clinically orientated research study, but nonetheless very important.
Bart Currie is well known to most people here in the House. He has $340 000 over three years to look at the molecular epidaemiology of meliodosis in Australia. Bart, as everyone knows, is a world expert on meliodosis which is a particularly savage disease and prevalent, unfortunately, here in the top end of Australia.
Heidi Smith-Vaughan received another grant for three years of just over $515 000 looking at pneumococcal surveillance in the Northern Territory: implications of vaccination and mass treatment programs.
Nick Anstey received a Practitioner Fellowship. Nick is an infectious diseases physician and he is an expert on malaria. Nick and his family are currently in the United States, and he has this Practitioner Fellowship which is about $450 000 between 2003-07.
Matthew Stevens - I don’t know Matthew - has a training scholarship for indigenous Australian health, and Louise Maple Brown also has a scholarship with the NHMRC. Julie Brimblecombe, who I know as a nutritionist, has a scholarship; as has Emma Kowal. Jonathon Carapetis has a project to look at skin infection with group A strep causing acute rheumatic fever. That is $569 000 over three years. So the total NHMRC funding for the Menzies School between 2003 and 2007 is something like $5.3m. That is very successful, indeed.
Outside the NHMRC, Menzies researches have a number of funding sources including some of the drug companies like Pfizer. Dr Louise Maple Brown has a very important grant. It is a starter, I think, at about $50 000, for non-invasive assessment of vascular function in the remote indigenous community, impact of diabetes and dyslipodemia. Louise has more money from Eli Lily, $19 000 for the project, and Diabetes Australia Research has given Louise $30 000 to further support this particular project.
Ross Bailie, from PHERP, which is the public health research projects, has $116 000 over three years to look at the development of a course on social determinants and indigenous health. Kerin O’Dea has a number of PHERP project grants, one totalling $493 000, looking at public health and nutrition; the next one looking at chronic diseases, $300 000. Nick Anstey, once again with malaria, has a NIH project, which is $1.25m between 2003 and 2007 to look at nitric oxide and severe malaria, which is an area that Nick has specialised in. Following along with the DRUID study I mentioned previously, Kerin O’Dea has grants of over $400 000.
The total other grants for the Menzies School represent $2.26m over the years 2003 and 2007. The total funding over this time of NHMRC and non-NHMRC is just over $8m. I congratulate the Menzies School. This is a fantastic result for them. The projects are very focussed. They will have great outcomes, particularly in the area of indigenous health in the Northern Territory. I congratulate Kerin O’Dea, all the researchers and the board at the Menzies School. I know that the member for Greatorex served on that board for a number of years. Menzies is a great organisation and all credit to them. They are leading the way in Australia in indigenous health research.
I have some adjournment notes related to my electorate, and I would like to start on that tonight and probably carry on tomorrow night.
On 11 October I attended the NTU Graduation Ceremony, representing the minister for education. It was great to hear Don McKinnon, the new Vice-Chancellor, speak. I hear already that the NTU is changing direction, and there is a lot more confidence. It is a hard road but he is a great leader. I was proud to see Anne Ortlipp, who is a constituent, receive a Certificate II in Spoken and Written English; Angus Cameron, also from my electorate, from Jingili, received a Batchelor of Visual Arts with Second Class Honours; and Norma Giannikouris was conferred a Certificate III in Hairdressing.
On Saturday 12 October, I attended a concert to commemorate the 30th anniversary of diplomatic relations between Australia and the People’s Republic of China at the performance theatre at the Northern Territory University. I was warmly welcomed by Howard Chew and the Patron of that association, Austin Asche. There was a performance by the Darwin Youth Orchestra and a speech by Adrian Walter, Associate Dean of Music; also a speech by Chinese Consul, Wang Shigang. I cut a cake with Bill Van Der Veen, President of the Australia China Friendship Society and Consul Wang. There was a junior dance group, performances by Chinese musicians, solos and ensembles, a vocal solo by Madam Wang Ning, a very accomplished artist, with Ms Andrea Ngai on the lute and a Cantonese opera by Louis and Winnie Wong and the choir.
On Sunday the 13 October, I attended the Australian Hellenic Education Progressive Association 48th National Convention, and the Minister for Ethnic Affairs addressed the throng in Greek. It went down a treat. They really loved it and they loved Darwin.
On the 18 October, my life changed a bit in that I was appointed to the ministry. I have become very busy, but I am determined to properly service my electorate; to doorknock and to stay close to the very people who put me in this place.
On Saturday 19 October, the Pinoy Aussie Society of the Northern Territory held their 12th anniversary at St Mary’s Football Club. It was compared by Mary Ann de Guzman. There was a welcome address by Arsenio R de Guzman, President of the Pinoy Aussie Society. It was a huge program, including Freddie Esguera, the ‘Tom Jones of Sydney’ who sang the Frank Sinatra ‘I did it my way’ and a new Tom Jones song called ‘Sex Bomb’.
Mr Bonson: It’s about two years old!
Dr BURNS: I was very taken by Freddie’s performance and I would like to see more of Freddie; I think he is great.
There were great dances by Shauna Ricardo Dance Studio, a song by Reanna and Cody Grant, and the fantastic Kalymnian Aegean Dance Group of Darwin, consisting of Niki Kathopoulils, Katerina Trikilis, Themelie Trikilis, Michael Fitirikos, Vicki Fitirikos and Pedro Rigas. A surprise number by Maria Gabunsoz - who goes to school with my daughter Amy – of the YFC-CFC Dance Troupe, under Gil Ninonuevo. Pia McElroy, who is a great artist, also sang on the night.
On the 24 October, I attended a meeting of the Wagaman Residents Committee, and that was attended by Lord Mayor, Peter Adamson. It was a very important meeting. There were opposing points of view but I really have to give credit to the Wagaman Residents Group and their Chairman Asad Mohsin. The issues were canvassed and there was agreement reached about locking and unlocking the gates by the residents, and people taking charge of their local environment to address issues related to antisocial behaviour. I believe that the Wagaman Residents Group is showing the way in this regard.
On the 25 October, I represented the Chief Minister, who was also able to come along, at the NT Council of Churches in the Litchfield Room. It was great to meet the ministers of all the different denominations who raised various issues of concern. There was very good flow of conversation and understanding between the Chief Minister and the ministers of the major churches in Darwin.
Also on the 25 October, I was able to show students from Nungalinga College around Parliament House. They are doing a Family and Community Services course, and we had a dialogue about political life, political structures and how politics actually works. I commend that course to the students, and I know they will do very well.
Mr Deputy Speaker, that is all I have for this evening, but I will give stage two tomorrow evening.
Mr McADAM (Barkly): Mr Deputy Speaker, I adjourn tonight in memory of Theodorus Adrianus Hendriks, who passed away on 9 November 2002.
Theo Hendriks was born in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, on 21 July 1921. Theo was the son of Peter Hendriks and Anna van Noort. Theo took pride of place in the Catholic family of nine children, four of whom were his brothers.
Young Theo witnessed first hand the sweeping political changes in Europe leading up to World War II while completing his technical education, and was later placed directly at the mercy of the fierce global conflict from the outset in his native Holland. After the war, Theo travelled to Indonesia as part of his military service and experienced a vastly different lifestyle compared with a depressed post-war Europe.
Theo enjoyed the freedom, the country and the exotic lifestyle of the Dutch colony. He returned to the Netherlands for his armed services discharge and preparation for the new chapter in his life. Like so many others returning home after war, Theo was greeted by dire economic circumstances in his beloved homeland. The country Theo once knew for its renowned and celebrated culture and economy was now characteristic of high unemployment, a critical shortage of housing and a population in both physical and emotional shambles. Theo departed Europe in the early 1950s to start a new life in Australia with his brother, Leo, who accompanied him. Leo chose to settle in nearby New Zealand and later married and raised his children in that country.
Theo never married, choosing to live in a number of small towns throughout Australia before finally moving to Sydney. Upon the death of his father, Theo’s mother, then 70 years of age, travelled to Sydney to visit her son and it is noted by one of his sisters as a time that Theo enjoyed very much. From Sydney, Theo moved north to Tennant Creek in 1968 where he worked in both the Orlando and Warrego mines as an electrician. Theo chose a true celebration of his life in the outback town of Tennant and made many friends in both his place of work and the mining community. Theo became the focus of the southern media on a number of occasions, featuring in both a magazine publication and a television documentary keen to portray his flamboyant lifestyle on the last frontier of our rugged Australian goldfields.
Some of his sisters travelled to Tennant Creek over the years at the invitation of their brother. In the words of his niece, Angelita:
- … noticed the way he lived, a way of living quite different than they were expecting but nevertheless it was
Theo’s way of living. The family accepted that, but it was not always that easy.
Theo became a successful businessman in the community of Tennant Creek, concerned mainly with real estate that included financing and building a number of flats and houses for the growing population of the town in addition to his original trade as an electrician.
On weekends, Theo could often be seen at the football grounds volunteering his services in the local St John Ambulance brigade, at Labor party meetings dealing in Territory politics, or sharing a cold drink with friends in one of Tennant’s hotels.
Theo established Theo Electrical, his own contracting business in Tennant Creek after his extensive employment period with Peko Mines, renewing his relationships in a professional sense with the Catholic Church in the form of its restoration project as a heritage listed building in 1988. Theo often spoke with pride about the electrical work he completed as part of the project that restored this famous little church to its former glory on the rocky hill overlooking the town of Tennant Creek.
Time marched on in the extraordinary life of Theo Hendriks and, after a brief illness in the early 1990s, he underwent an operation that brought him back to full health and, ironically, to the deep Catholic faith of his Netherlands childhood. During Angelita’s visit to Tennant Creek in January 2001, Theo complained of the incessant inland heat to which his niece suggested a move to the coast and the cool ocean breezes. Theo calmly responded with: ‘No, I will stay here in Tennant Creek where I have my friends, my church, the sisters and my two faithful dogs’. Theo did leave Tennant Creek, however, under the orders of his doctor when he was transferred to the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Adelaide in October 2002.
Upon admission his brother Piet phoned and was told by Theo that the ‘end was nigh’, giving the family due warning of his imminent death as he felt his time had come. Theo reached the age of 81 years and spent his life the way he wanted it. He was a good man, a wonderful, kind person who will be missed by us all. Unfortunately, his brothers and sisters will not join Theo for the final journey from his cherished Catholic church as they are elderly and resident in distant lands. However, their hearts will be with him as his friends and colleagues return his body to the earth at his chosen place at the Tennant Creek cemetery.
Mr Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the people in the Tennant Creek community, Theo, rest in peace, our dear friend.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to speak about a couple of wonderful events around my electorate that I have had the pleasure of attending. Both are great community events for the people of the Sanderson and Casuarina area. The events I refer to are the Casuarina Junior Football League competition and the FAANT KCC grouping together of a local Filipino group with a community school in the Filipino community.
First, the Casuarina Junior Football League. I have the pleasure of being the Patron of the league. Its goals are to train up juniors into AusKick and junior football league. It is a bit of a bridge between 8, 10, 12 year olds before they start playing more senior football. It was started off by local families around the area, until it reached a point where there are over 200 registered players, lots of kids and parents involved. It is held on a Saturday afternoon and it runs for about 12 weeks. AusKick is a program in which kids learn Australian Rules Football skills as well as having pretty good competition itself with the under 10s and under 12s. There are six to eight sides in the competition - the Crows, the Swans, the Eagles, the Blues, the Dockers, and the Power - made up of kids from around Leanyer, Wulagi, Wanguri, from all over the place. All these kids get together and they have a great competition. This would not be possible without the support of the parents and the committee.
I will single out a couple of important people on the committee. One of those is Paul Wyatt. He is the President and has been for something like three years now. I have been the Patron for two years. Paul has really put in. He has a young family himself, but he works tirelessly for the Casuarina Junior Football League. He was press ganged into being the president this year. He has made it pretty clear that next year he wants to focus more on working with the Swans because his young fellow is running with them. On behalf of other members of the Casuarina Junior Football League, I thank Paul for his tireless and selfless contribution.
The league could not go on without the help of so many supporters, so many individual parents, as well as some corporate sponsorship. I was there at the presentations for AusKick and for the under 10s and the under 12s at the grand finals, presenting the medals to players. Great skill levels, but these kids just would not be where they are unless they had their parents in there helping them, and there are other supporters helping drive the league.
I am talking in particular about Jenny Elliot, Gareth Lewis, Bill Shepherd, Gavin Johns and Adam Walding. There is Leigh Bujunowski, Shane and Jenny Dignan, Nick Malone, Paulina Motlop, Lesley Collins, Craig Pollock, Brittany Hughes, Mark Kirby, Peter Clarke, Glen Stanford, Glen Nicholson, Paul Kirby, and Steve Glennon, and all the other parents who help. These are the people who, for the joy of helping their own children, and children of other parents, get in there and contribute every week.
The league also has a very strong sponsorship and community following from business houses around Darwin, particularly from Casuarina Shopping Square who help a fair bit, but there are a couple of special sponsors whom I would like to single out: Aurora Frontier Hotel; Springfield Butchers are great, they provide meat at very, very good prices for the league and they have a sausage sizzle every week; InFocus NT who take the photos each year, and as part of the presentation all the kids get a photo and that is quite good for them; Halkitis roofing, NT Fastners; General Roofing Products; Silko; ITW Buildex, Top End Sounds Pro Shop, who have donated guitars and all sorts of things over the year to raffle off and help raise money; and Murray Pest Control.
As Patron of Casuarina Junior Football League, I thank those business houses for their contribution. The parents and the committee of the league appreciate all the sponsorship that they have provided, and they are hopeful that these organisations will provide ongoing sponsorship for them.
I would now like to talk about a visit to Darwin of the Kabankalan Catholic College study tour group. They were in Darwin between 25 September and 6 October as guests of the FAANT and Mr John Revis. He works tirelessly for this particular Filipino community group, and he comes from the Kabankalun area and so he has very strong roots there. John has a strong desire to foster a relationship between Darwin and the place of his upbringing.
The study tour was an initiative of the Filipino Australia Association of the Northern Territory Incorporated. The Chief Minister is very supportive of this group and, where possible, she has assisted with that initiative. The KCC study tour was a project organised by John Rivas, the President of the FAANT, and he was strongly supported by his study tour committee.
He wanted to work with the Kabankalan Catholic College study tour to provide students from the Filipino community in Darwin and those at Kabankalan Catholic College with an opportunity to learn about each other’s way of life. He hoped to provide students with a learning experience in travel and tourism which can be achieved best through study tours, to expand existing links between the NT and the Filipino governments in the area of consul education, to pave the way for more cultural development between the two participating Filipino communities,: one in Darwin, and the other in the Kebankalan city of Negros Occidental, the Philippines.
Eight students, five girls and three boys, who came from KCC. They were accompanied by Mrs Nomy Muhal, College Principal and Mr Dennis Christian Martir, the tour coordinator. I met these people at a function over at the Filipino Complex in Baton road and, like a lot of shows over there, it was really enjoyable.
I met the students. There was Charlene Cuenca who stayed with Lito and Josie Ocampo and their children, Joann, Joey and Angelo. The visiting students were billeted with Darwin families. There was Anna Lorraine Geirza, who stayed with Julfredo and Mrs Lourdes Valles and their children Julianne and Jules. Leozelle Gatoc stayed with Apolonia Craufurd, and their daughter Joy Lyndale Craufurd. Apol is a great person; I have had many a chat with Apol. I reckon she is a great member of the community, and she is in so many other cultural groups. Emmanuel Sabay stayed with Ron Greaves and Eunice de Ramos and their boy Christopher. Roshen Quanico stayed with Peter and Charisse Boase and their children Minone, Vanessa and Gavin. Katherine Saloria, another student from KCC, stayed with Danny and Virginia Sharpe. Then there was Miguel Marcelino, who stayed with Rolando and Macrina Abril and their children, Roly Jr and Jane. John Rupert Montinolo stayed with Michael and Fluer Morrissey and their children, Luke, Scott and Nicole.
These eight students, by the way, put on a great show. They performed contemporary youth dancing from the Philippines as well as something a bit more traditional. They enjoyed their stay here in Darwin and I believe they have done a lot to strengthen the ties between us. As a matter of fact, the Kabankalan Catholic College study tour group did take home a piece of Darwin memorabilia: the FAANT presented the KCC High School Library with three video tapes of Darwin and the Northern Territory, two albums containing photo shots of the students in Darwin, tourism books about Darwin, information about NTU, information about the Port of Darwin and the railway, and magazines produced by FAANT.
Now, Mr Rivas is a forward thinking man. He is a great asset to Darwin, and I believe that he is going to make his mark on this town in the years to come - not that he has not already made it already. However, he has got some future plans; he hopes that the Kabankalan Catholic College study tour is the beginning of a long study tour tradition. The KCC wishes to reciprocate. The FAANT study tour committee will chaperone the children of the hosting families to Kabankalan City in the first two weeks of July 2003.
The FAANT plans to do a PowerPoint presentation of Darwin and business opportunities in the NT in line with the new sea port and the forthcoming rail link during their visit to the region of the Philippines in 2003. Mr Rivas is always thinking ahead. He sees the benefits of strengthening the ties between our community here and the community that he came from in the Philippines.
To Mr Rivas, the children from Kabankalan Catholic College, the hosting families here in Darwin who showed these children so much of the fine hospitality that we have to offer here in our diverse and multicultural city, I wish a very merry Christmas and a safe and happy new year. I wish them the best of luck for the reciprocal visit to the Philippines. I am sure that such cultural exchanges between us and other countries are something which will create a strong bond for us and take us all forward into the 21st century.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016