2002-10-16
Madam Speaker Braham took the Chair at 10 am.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I would like to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of ESL students from Nungalinya Theological College accompanied by their teacher, Amanda Donahue. On behalf of all members, I extend a warm welcome to our visitors.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I table a copy of the report of the review of the Northern Territory school-based policing scheme. I sent a copy across to the shadow minister this morning.
School-based police officers have played an invaluable role in Territory schools since the scheme began as a one-off as a pilot in 1984. The Territory now has 20 school-based police officers servicing 135 of our 182 primary and secondary schools, each officer regularly visiting an average of seven schools.
Earlier this year, the government asked DEET and the police to conduct a joint review into the current roles and responsibilities of school-based officers. We wanted to see how the scheme could be enhanced to best serve Territory school communities. We wanted to ask parents, educators and police officers for their views on how they felt the scheme was running and how it could be improved. To do this, DEET and police conducted a round of extensive consultations throughout the Territory; a series of public forums attended by 215 people - many parents, students and other interested members of the community - in Katherine, Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Nhulunbuy, Darwin and Palmerston. Stakeholders including educators, police, school council representatives and the Chief Minister’s Youth Round Table were asked for their views. Throughout all phases of public consultation, the review team received firm Territory-wide support for the continuation and possible expansion of the scheme. School communities clearly value the presence of uniformed police in the schools and the proactive approach to policing they represent.
The primary recommendation made by the review team is that the school-based policing scheme should continue with its present resources and within the present framework. The government wholeheartedly embraces the finding which will ensure police continue to hold this important place within Territory school communities. The review team further recommended the scheme should be structured around a number of core themes. These themes would help to better define police officers’ roles in the school community and, importantly, help with the development of our young people’s life skills. Those themes are: the role of police in society; the legal system; rights, rules and responsibilities; consequences of our actions; keeping ourselves and others safe; drug and alcohol education; and personal development. A range of issues were discussed at the forums and have now been presented to government as part of the review report.
One of these issues was the delivery of health and drug education in schools; specifically the delivery of DARE. DARE NT was originally designed as a joint delivery program between school-based police officers and classroom teachers. Police advised the review team that delivery of DARE absorbs 5000 hours annually, a considerable amount of time. Because of the pivotal role they play in schools, police officers have the difficulty of dealing with competing demands on their time. What came out of the review was that the most valuable contribution our school-based police officers make is the positive interaction they have with students. Also of vital importance is their proactive and responsive police work in the school environment.
Police officers clearly have a role in delivering drug education in schools but it is widely recognised that, to meet national best practice, classroom teachers need to take primary responsible for drug education. It is something all state and territory governments have agreed with in their combined push for a nationally consistent approach to addressing drug issues in schools. As such, the team has recommended that school-based police responsibility for the delivery of DARE should be withdrawn when a suitable alternative program is ready to be implemented that will see the load better balanced between teachers and police. DEET is currently working on a comprehensive drug education strategy in keeping with the national approach. Within that strategy, police officers will continue to support teachers in the delivery of drug education.
Another issue raised during the review was the possibility of extending it to more Territory schools. Consensus was that this was a desirable option, as long as it did not divert resources from schools currently benefiting. I understand police are interested in investigating options to enable the servicing of more schools in remote localities, and that is something that may occur in the future.
I would like to thank the many people who have shown interest in this. The government is grateful for their contribution to strengthen the scheme. In line with my earlier commitment, a copy of the review report will be made available on the NT government web site. It should be available on the DEET web site later today.
I would like to reiterate the government has accepted the key recommendation of the review that the school-based policing scheme be continued with the same resources and framework. The review team has recommended ways to improve the scheme; these have also been accepted by government. The government will now continue to work with school communities and police on enhancing the scheme to ensure it continues to meet the needs of the community, students, schools and police.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, I welcome the response to this review which indicated just how dearly we hold the school-based constable scheme. It highlights the aspect that was always being endeavoured to be raised; that it was the interaction of the school-based constable with students that was the key in all this. So I note with some concern the reference to the DARE program.
I understand, educationally, there may be issues in terms of appropriate delivery of drug education, but the principle strength of the school-based constable scheme is their direct connection with students. Therefore, in any review of that we must make sure that that inherent aspect is preserved.
With those words, I support the review. It does seem that this whole exercise has resulted in affirming the existing position within our community. On the issue of more schools, well, of course, we know that the school-based constable scheme was initiated here in the Northern Territory and is seen as a model for other jurisdictions. For it to receive additional support would be welcomed on this side of the House.
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his comments. I would like to hear from him after he has had a chance to read the report and come back to us. In relation to DARE, it originally was conceived as a joint operation, in front of the classroom - classroom teacher and police. Over time, classroom teacher disappeared from the scene; all left to police. It never was the original intention of the scheme. We want to get it back on a more balanced workload for these people, with police supporting the primary role of the classroom teacher because, quite clearly, they have a role in it.
The other point in relation to DARE is that there has never been a considered evaluation of the outcomes of the program. Does it achieve what it sets out to achieve? Difficult, probably, to assess that. It certainly was not in the scope of this review to determine the effectiveness of DARE. However, DEET will continue to work on its strategy and we will see more of a balance between the school-based constable and the classroom teacher; which is how it was set up and how it always should have been.
Mr HENDERSON (Tourism): Madam Speaker, I would like to brief the House on the Dreamtime tourism event that was held in Alice Springs over 16 and 17 September 2002. Dreamtime is the premier incentive travel showcase for the Australian Tourism Commission on an annual basis, and the Northern Territory won the bid this year to the tune of $150 000 for the right to host. I can say it is an investment that will reap great rewards for the Territory tourism industry.
Alice Springs won based on the following criteria: destination, appeal, sponsorship facilities and an event program to showcase the appeal of the destination. There have been a number of firsts as a result of Alice hosting Dreamtime. It is the first year that the event has been held outside of a capital city and the first year that it has been held entirely in the Northern Territory. Alice Springs certainly put on its best, and the feedback that we have had from international buyers and sellers and from the media has been absolutely extraordinary. I will go to some of those quotes in a couple of minutes.
The last time Dreamtime was held in Sydney in 2001 about $40m confirmed value of generated business came to that destination. The Australian Tourism Commission does actually track the business that is written as a result of Dreamtime. We estimate about $1.6m worth of media coverage was generated for the Northern Territory for hosting the event. We played host to 129 international incentive buyers from 22 countries. Significant business has already been flagged as a result of those buyers. We hosted 21 members of the international media, 180 sellers and 13 NT operators participated versus a total of 54 companies from other states. So a very high profile for NT product there and it went down very well.
I would like to thank the 13 Tourist Commission staff who managed the logistics of the event; they did an exceptional job. There were five optional activities for buyers that people participated in. I spent a day in Alice Springs talking to people; they had a great time.
There was a mock Henley-on-Todd at Simpson’s Gap staged by the local Rotarians on a private basis, and thanks to them that was an event that was enjoyed by all; dinner at Ooraminna Homestead, lots of local entertainment; an outdoor lunch at the Telegraph Station; a spectacular gala on the fourth night showcasing local acting talent and, again, a great night with a big fireworks display. Then everybody was off out to Uluru and an al fresco lunch at Kata Juta and a Sound of Silence dinner. If people have not done the Sounds of Silence dinner, it is a spectacular event and my colleague, the member for Casuarina, certainly has potential for business outside of his career in politics because, when we went there, his description of Greek mythology of the sky at night was absolutely fantastic. It was awesome, so get Kon to do the sky at night. It was very good.
We will be conducting a survey amongst participating buyers to determine the value from this event. But I would just quickly like to go back to some of the comments, and this actually pays huge tribute to the people of Alice Springs and the people from the Tourist Commission who assisted with this event. I will quote some of the letters and e-mails we have received:
Mr Ibrahim Tahtouh, an incentive buyer from Brazil.
Albert Hummel, incentive buyer from Canada. The last one:
Suzanne Baker, incentive buyer from New Zealand.
They are just some of the many comments we have received. I put on the record my thanks to the Tourist Commission staff and to all the volunteers in Alice Springs. It really was a fantastic event and it is going to repay handsomely for the tourism industry in the Northern Territory.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his statement and also endorse his comments in relation to the staff of the Tourist Commission and the countless volunteers and members of in the industry who did contribute to the success of the event. Unfortunately, I was not able to make a couple of the functions. However, the feedback I have received has been positive.
A couple of local people who have businesses in the heart of Alice Springs, however, have said that they were a little bit disappointed - and I say this in a constructive way - that many of the Dreamtime participants did not spend too much time spending their money in the CBD. Now, that is not a criticism of government; it is just the way these things go. But in terms of the future, it would be good if perhaps the minister could do what he can with the assistance of his staff to address what was put to me as a shortfall.
Nevertheless, it was an outstanding event, so I am told. Thank God for the tourism industry because it has been motivated by this event; it was motivated before, during and after. Thank God that the industry has the ability and capacity to get itself together to promote the Northern Territory in the way it always has. Thank God for the industry when we have a minister and a government who has consistently cut and slashed and burnt everything there is in terms of government assistance to this tourism industry. We are facing unprecedented closures, unprecedented lack of specific funding made available by Treasury in a time when the tourism industry is doing it tough. So thank God for the industry because the industry certainly does not thank God for the minister.
Mr HENDERSON (Tourism): Madam Speaker, I thought we might have had a bit of bipartisan support for the tourism industry there for a moment, but the honourable member just could not help herself.
This was a great initiative by government. We fought really hard for this bid and put in the money and attracted the event that will return the investment 10 and 20 times. It was government who actually went out there and secured this event for Alice Springs and put the money on the table to secure the event against very stiff competition.
In terms of the cuts to the industry I take the honourable member to the fact that in the last 18 months we have put in additional $3m directly and indirectly into the tourism industry here in the Territory with $2m to secure Virgin Blue, with the additional $1m for international marketing. If we just compare that with the ATC and the federal government, post 11 September last year, we put in $3m in 12 months. The Commonwealth government have only give the ATC an extra $6m so our credentials are on the line. I just wish that the members opposite would talk up the tourism industry instead of talking it down.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, it is clear that the people of the Territory are committed to their individual and collective rights. They rightly believe in equality. Many recent political and social debates have revealed this commitment. To take just one example, look at the intense interest Territorians displayed in their rights during the statehood debate. There has been a keen sense that Territorians did not enjoy the same rights as other Australians.
This government believes that Territorians value their rights as fundamental to their way of life and want fairness and equity. This brings me to a very important question about people’s rights under Territory law.
It is a well known fact that our laws contain a number of areas in which gay and lesbian Territorians do not have equal rights with their fellow Territorians or with gay and lesbian men and women in other parts of Australia. This government, from the start, has shown its commitment in establishing the rights of Territorians. We saw a prime example last week with the passage of our historic Information Bill. This government is keen to see the Territory’s laws in relation to gays and lesbians examined and amended where appropriate to bring the Territory into line with the rest of Australia.
The Darwin Community Legal Centre released a paper earlier this year containing some proposals and ideas about law reform, including issues such as bringing the age of consent into line with other laws, extending domestic violence laws to homosexual couples, reforms to the Anti-Discrimination Act, access to adoption and reproductive technology, reform of the homosexual panic defence, and access to de facto property settlements and other general property rights and benefits such as superannuation.
The government is considering the recommendations of this paper and I want to thank the centre and those involved for their work on the submission. We want to examine these matters carefully. We do not think it is wise to rush into these important areas without proper consideration. I expect that the government will be in a position to outline its plans for legislative reforms in the first half of 2003. We have modest but important goals. We want to develop modern and fair laws which reflect the general Territory attitude of a fair go for all Territorians. I have brought this matter to the House because I think members need to be kept informed of the government’s intentions, and I know that there are members with a particular interest in the reforms in this area.
Where the process is further advanced, briefing opportunities will be provided to all members of parliament. In the opposition’s reply to this report, I would hope they would place on the record their support for the principle that Territorians should be equal under the law, and that gay and lesbian Territorians deserve equal treatment.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I can indeed indicate that equality before the law is a fundamental tenor of the CLP’s platform. There is absolutely no doubt that the submissions that were submitted to government by the Darwin Community Legal Service will be carefully reviewed. We look forward to seeing the response that government has to those submissions, and I can indicate that the CLP will be working closely with government to look at those issues. Upon the formal response by government, we will address each of them. I think there are several submissions and you cannot talk globally, but we will look at each one of those separately and individually having regard to the merit.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I thank the opposition’s constructive response to the agenda I have drawn attention to today, and I look forward to working with them through briefings to resolve these issues.
Mr AH KIT (Regional Development): Madam Speaker, I would like to report on progress that the government has made in assisting the Battery Hill Mining Centre. The Battery Hill Mining Centre is an important tourist attraction, reflecting the rich heritage and mining history of Tennant Creek. The centre’s significance is noted in the region’s development plan, the Barkly Blueprint, where a proposal to create a tourist precinct for Tennant Creek includes the battery. Battery Hill has received a considerable amount of support from government over a period of 20 years. Most of this has come from the Northern Territory government, however funding has also been received from private industry as well as the Commonwealth government.
The facility is currently in financial difficulty and urgent action has been required to address the problem. It is a matter of great concern and I, together with my colleagues the Chief Minister as the Minister for Arts and Museums, and the Minister for Tourism, have directed officers from our respective departments to work together to consider the best interests of the region. This government has approved funding of $30 000 to enable a scaled down operation to be maintained for the next three months.
During that period, a review will be undertaken by an independent consultant. The review will consider the Battery Hill Mining Centre’s relationship with other key bodies in the region and how it might be better integrated with a wider tourist precinct. The review will also identify possible directions for a more sustainable future, considering the most appropriate mix of public and private monies. Because, of course, the only way for operations like the Battery Hill Mining Centre to survive and prosper is through the innovation and energy of local people. No amount of money can prop up a facility that does not have the support and interest of the community.
This is a most important issue in terms of protecting and promoting the Barkly region’s assets. This government is taking a responsible and considered approach to this very issue. We will support Battery Hill in its bid to forge a path to a viable and sustainable future. I intend to inform members of the review’s recommendations after the process has been completed.
Mr REED (Katherine): Madam Speaker, the member for Barkly, I noticed, was listening with great interest to the words of the minister. The government is going to find that there are cases across the Northern Territory where there is no alternative but for government to support them, and that can be difficult at times and it can be expensive. However, in the case, and this is a good one, of the battery at Tennant Creek, Tennant Creek has a limited number of attractions to attract tourists and to keep them in the town. The battery has been exceedingly successful at that, and the tourism industry - not only in Tennant Creek but across the Territory - is going to be exceedingly disappointed to learn that the government by its actions - or in this case inaction - is going to allow a reduction in activity at that centre. That is not the way to support a tourism industry.
The tourism industry is Territory-wide. The destinations not just here in Darwin, or Katherine or Alice Springs. If the government allows this particular facility to fade away through lack of support …
Mr Henderson: Wrong!
Mr REED: … that is going to create a very clear difference between the CLP’s policies and the government’s policies.
I hear the interjection of ‘wrong’, but that is just what the minister has told us. By virtue of the government’s actions, it is clearly demonstrating that there is going to be a reduction of activity here. The thing that was needed for the people of Tennant Creek and the Territory tourism industry was continued support and to ensure that the facility continues to operate rather than doing what this Labor government does so frequently: ‘Let us have another review; let us look at this all over again’; and leave the people responsible for these actions and the tourism industry in the wilderness, hanging on a string, not really knowing what is going to happen for month after month after month, and not being able to promote it successfully for the tourism season next year and the benefit of the overall tourism industry across the Territory.
Mr AH KIT (Regional Development): Madam Speaker, those nice words uttered would be lovely to send off to the Battery Hill people and the people of Tennant Creek, because it is a change of heart, most definitely. When the CLP was in power they neglected the Tennant Creek region, and that is all we have ever had …
Mr Dunham: Not true!
Mr AH KIT: … feedback from. It is wrong! It is wrong what you are assuming. I am not sure whether the member for Katherine is shadow minister for regional development. I noticed when he got to his feet, he had a look around to see if anyone else was jumping.
Now, let us be quite clear about what this government intends to do. What this government intends to do is to ensure that the sustainability is there. It is definitely a project that is worthwhile supporting, but we are not a government that is going to continue to throw money at these types of headaches that are a legacy of the former government. We will go in and check it out, and ensure that it is operating in a viable manner. That is what this government intends to do.
Reports noted pursuant to Sessional Order.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill now be read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to amend section 13 of the Motor Accidents (Compensation) Act 1979 to confirm that:
Section 13 provides compensation to Northern Territory residents whose earning capacity is reduced as a result of being injured in a motor accident. Since the inception of the compensation scheme in 1979, it has been practice that a person’s entitlement to section 13 benefits has ceased or reduced when that person has regained his or her earning capacity, as evidenced by a return to work or by a medical clearance.
The Motor Accidents Compensation Appeal Tribunal, as constituted by a judge of the Supreme Court, has recently interpreted section 13 in such a manner as to introduce doubt on how the section should be applied. The government takes the view that it is appropriate that the doubts be removed. As no appeals can be made against the tribunal and because other legal avenues are difficult, the only option for removing the doubt is legislative reform.
There are two options for clarifying the legislative intent. They are to either amend the legislation to clearly state that (1) the assessment of ongoing benefits should have regard to the employment opportunities and the potential income of each individual as interpreted by the tribunal; or (2) that the manner in which the scheme has been administered since 1979 correctly reflects the legislative intention when establishing the scheme.
If the assessment of ongoing benefits is to have regard to employment availability and other factors as outlined by the tribunal, people with only minor injuries will remain entitled to benefits either in full or on a top-up basis despite regaining the capacity to work full-time. This would result in large increases in contribution rates payable on registration of all motor vehicles to ensure that the scheme should continue to afford to pay for past and ongoing benefits or the long-term viability of the compensation scheme being placed in jeopardy in the absence of such increases. The alternative is to confirm that the practice adopted by the scheme administrator since 1979 is the correct interpretation.
The government has adopted the second option for the following reasons: that it meets the original intention of the Motor Accidents Compensation Scheme to ensure that compensation for injuries would provide a fair level of compensation to injured residents on a no fault, no litigation basis at an affordable price both now and into the future; that it clearly highlights that the benefit is a capital payment and is not a replacement of earnings which protects the tax free status of the benefit; and that it does not reduce the level of compensation or the duration of compensation paid to people with major injuries.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
Ms MARTIN (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill now be read a second time.
The Pay-roll Tax Amendment Bill (No 3) will put in place two minor amendments to the Pay-roll Tax Act to clarify anomalies that could potentially hinder the recovery powers under the act.
The first amendment addresses the commissioner’s powers to recover tax liabilities from members of a payroll tax group. Where persons are grouped for payroll tax purposes the act allows a tax liability of a group member to be recovered from other members of the group. This amendment clarifies that this power includes the recovery of further and additional tax which is typically imposed as a penalty for the underpayment of tax from any member of a payroll tax group.
The second amendment relates to the commissioner’s power to recover tax owed by an employer by way of requiring a person who owes money to any member of the payroll tax group to pay that amount to the commissioner. However, an anomaly in the act only allows recovery in this manner to be made in respect of a group member who is also an employer. Therefore, while all group members are jointly and severally liable for tax, the commissioner’s recovery powers are limited to those group members that are also employers at the time of the recovery. Accordingly, this amendment ensures that payments of money owed to any group member may be recovered to satisfy the group’s payroll tax liability regardless of whether the group member is an employer.
These changes align the Northern Territory’s recovery provisions more closely with the majority of states. Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr STIRLING (Racing, Gaming and Licensing): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time. The bill proposes an amendment to the Liquor Act to make changes to the objection process in determining applications related to liquor licenses.
The Liquor Act is important legislation designed to protect the community from the harm associated with the abuse of liquor and to ensure the amenity of the community is maintained. The act allows any person to object to the granting of a new liquor licence unless the objection is made on commercial grounds. There is no other limitation currently contained in the act as to the grounds on which an objection can be made.
The act requires the Northern Territory Licensing Commission to consider a number of criteria when determining an application before it, including the location of the subject premises, the location of other licensed premises in the vicinity, the needs and wishes of the community, whether the applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a license and any other matter that the commission thinks fit. The breadth and vagueness of the current objection process has allowed objectors to question each and every aspect of an application, often resulting in long delays in the handing down of decisions by the commission. The result can be a costly and drawn out proceeding for both applicant and objectors alike.
The bill aims to bring certainty to the liquor licence application process by defining who can object to the granting of a liquor licence application and on what grounds an objection can be made. The bill will allow for objections to be made by: persons who reside or work in the neighbourhood of premises the subject of the application; 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 organisations or groups carried on for purposes that are connected with the amenity of the neighbourhood.
The term ‘neighbourhood’ is a subjective one and should be taken to mean the area 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 city blocks whilst the neighbourhood surrounding a take-away liquor facility in a remote place may encompass an area of hundreds of kilometres. In each case, it will be a question of fact to be determined by the Licensing Commission.
The bill also has the effect of limiting the grounds upon which an objection may be made to that of adverse affect of the licence application on the amenity of the neighbourhood. An objector will be required to clearly show on the face of a written objection lodged with the Director of Licensing that the amenity of the neighbourhood to which the application applies will be or is likely to be adversely affected by the introduction of new a new liquor licence of the type applied for in that neighbourhood.
It is the intention of this legislation that the term ‘amenity’ be read narrowly. 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. Objections shall 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. Those objections found wanting will be refused leave to be heard, whilst those considered by the commission to have sufficient merit to be considered will be referred to the commission for hearing as part of the application process. Objectors, when addressing the commission at an oral application hearing, will be limited to presenting evidence supporting the grounds of objection contained in their written submissions and recognised by the commission as being relevant to the application before it.
The Liquor Act, through section 31, compels the Licensing Commission to turn its mind to all aspects of a liquor licence application that it is considering before it makes a decision on that application. That will not change with the passage of this bill. What will change is the focus on how an objection to an application is handled by the commission.
The purpose of this bill is to provide a better and more streamlined system for liquor licence applications whilst maintaining effective harm minimisation and protection of public amenity. I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr HENDERSON (Energy): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill now be read a second time.
The main purpose of this bill is to mirror the provisions of the corresponding Commonwealth Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act (1967) and provide for more efficient title administration. The Northern Territory Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act applies to the coast line of the Northern Territory at the mean low water mark to the three nautical mile limit, also referred to as the adjacent area.
With the Offshore Constitutional Settlement of 1967, the Commonwealth, states and Northern Territory agreed to, as far as practicable, administer the exploration and exploitation of petroleum resources with common principles and practices. Therefore, the Northern Territory offshore legislation should be as consistent as possible with the provisions of the corresponding Commonwealth PSLA.
With the possibility of an offshore pipeline project to bring gas from the Bayu-Undan field in Area A of the Zone of Cooperation, it is necessary to update the corresponding Northern Territory PSLA. The pipeline will run through both the Commonwealth and Northern Territory offshore areas.
Turning to the actual amendments, there are three main provisions. First, it is proposed that the term of the pipeline licence remain in force indefinitely. Second, amendments are included to make possible the conveyance of petroleum from outside the adjacent areas covered by the Northern Territory PSLA, including the area in which the Bayu-Undan field is situated. Third, the amendments will incorporate the shift to a new datum, the Geocentric Datum of Australia, GDA94, to describe the position of titles. These amendments are relevant to the project.
The term of the pipeline licence will be indefinite as it will correspond to a similar section under the Commonwealth PSLA. This amendment will enable consistency in the grant and administration of the pipeline licences in both jurisdictions. With the amendment to an indefinite pipeline licence, the consequential amendment is the removal of renewal provisions relating to pipeline licences. Whilst the term is indefinite, a provision is included to terminate the pipeline if no work has been conducted, or if there was no use of the pipeline for a continuous period of five years without justification. These amendments would provide security for the pipeline holder, and ensure there is no warehousing so the pipeline licence holder will commence activities on the pipeline licence as authorised by its grant.
I would also like to flag to honourable members that I will be introducing similar amendments to the Energy Pipelines Act early next year, so that the portion of the pipeline from the low water mark to where it enters the LNG plant has the same term for its licence.
On 1 January 2000, Australia adopted a new worldwide coordinate system called GDA94, to replace the existing Australian Geodetic Datum, AGD66. Put simply, the position of the existing grid will remain, but it will be referenced to the GDA94. The new datum is based at the earth’s centre of mass and is linked directly to the orbit of satellites. The change will allow Australian latitude and longitudes to be integrated in the new global system for greater accuracy and efficiency.
The Commonwealth PSLA has adopted this system and has provided the relevant amendments to the Northern Territory PSLA to mirror these provisions. In principle, the amendments provide for the description of a point line, block or other area in a title or instrument in latitude and longitude, under the GDA94. This shift in datum means that the physical position of the title will remain the same on the earth’s surface, but its coordinates will change as they will be referenced under the new datum. The distance between the same set of coordinates for a position on the different datums will be approximately 200 m to the north-east. The advantages of this shift are that it is compatible with modern survey techniques, it provides for the integration and compatibility with an international global system, and it includes the direct use of satellite positioning systems.
With these changes, the opportunity has been taken to amend the penalty regime to conform with the Northern Territory government policy of establishing a penalty unit structures for offences.
With the exception of a pipeline licence application, there are no other titles under the Northern Territory PSLA. The existing transitional provisions and the corresponding schedules, which were relevant in 1985, are proposed to be repealed to avoid confusion, particularly if there is need for new transitional provisions in the future. A corresponding savings clause for the pipeline licence application has been included so that the grant of the pipeline will be subject to the amended act.
The amendments also include the update of gender provisions to keep in line with existing Northern Territory government policy.
The Commonwealth PSLA is currently being rewritten and a more extensive amendment to the Northern Territory PSLA would be appropriate at a later stage so that the mirror legislation principle, pursuant to the Offshore Constitutional Settlement, is maintained. As the project is under way to repeal and replace the Commonwealth PSLA, recent proposed amendments in the Northern Territory PSLA have been included to cover the existing Commonwealth act and the act that will be re-enacted in the future. There are pre-emptive changes and the Northern Territory will be the among the states and territories to include these amendments. These amendments will ensure that the references to the Commonwealth PSLA and the Northern Territory PSLA will remain valid if and when the Commonwealth act is rewritten and renamed.
Getting the Northern Territory act consistent with the Commonwealth Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act is an important element in ensuring the harmonisation of the offshore regulatory regime, and it would avoid any impediments arising from inconsistencies that may disrupt the eventual arrival of offshore gas to the Northern Territory mainland. It is important we act now to amend our legislation, and I comment this bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mrs AAGAARD (Health and Community Services): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
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 50% 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 NT. It is directly related to one in 20 hospitalisations and one in five deaths. Half of long-term smokers die from their habit.
Yet, despite the enormous impact of tobacco on the health of Territorians, the Territory has had the weakest tobacco regulation of any Australian jurisdiction. The Northern Territory Tobacco Act 1992 mandates health warning requirements on cigarette packets and vending machines, and prohibits the sale or supply of tobacco products to children, but these measures have, in isolation, proved ineffective in reducing tobacco related harm.
This bill aims to reduce the impact of smoking on the Territory community by discouraging the uptake of smoking, particularly by children; supporting those who wish to quit smoking; and reducing exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. A range of measures are introduced to support these strategies. The measures are based on proposals outlined in a public discussion paper released in March 2002. The response to that paper indicated overwhelming community support for the proposals, with 90% of the 190 submissions received expressing overall support. The proposals have been subject to an independent regulatory impact analysis which found that the benefits to the community associated with any restrictions on competition outweighed the costs, and that no less restrictive measures were likely to be effective in achieving the objectives of the proposed legislation.
Exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, or passive smoking, is a serious hazard. Unlike residents in all other Australian jurisdictions, Territorians remain at risk of tobacco-related injury by exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in their workplaces, shopping centres and restaurants. Apart from the subjectively unpleasant effects of breathing other peoples smoke, passive smokers are at higher risk of serious illness including heart attack, stroke, cancer, lung disease and acute asthma attack. In addition, a range of problems in pregnancy and in children are associated with passive smoking including meningococcal disease and sudden infant death syndrome.
The bill will reduce involuntary exposure to environmental tobacco smoke by deeming a range of areas to be smoke-free. The regulations will, however, authorise occupiers of certain smoke-free areas to designate them as exempt areas. Implementation of smoke-free areas is staggered over two key dates: New Year’s Day, traditionally a time when many smokers contemplate quitting; and 31 May 2003, World No Tobacco Day. On 1 January 2003, completely smoke-free areas will include restaurants, cafes, shopping centres, public transport and domestic premises being used to provide commercial child care. Domestic premises, generally, will not be deemed smoke-free. Areas that may be designated exempt areas from 1 January will include: licensed premises except enclosed areas where meals are prepared or served; workplaces which are not generally accessible to the public; within educational facilities, and where staff agree an outdoor smoking area that is concealed from the view of children, and restricted to adults; personal living areas in shared accommodation facilities; 50% of fixed seating at outdoor public venues; and the upper decks of vessels.
The general workplace’s exemption will continue until 31 May 2003, World No Tobacco Day. The licensed premises exemption option will remain, but from 31 May 2003, the regulations will require the provision of a non-smoking area of equal amenity. It will be an offence for a person to smoke in a smoke-free area, and for an occupier to allow smoking in a smoke-free area. It will be a defence for a smoker that prescribed signage was not displayed; that there was no other indication displayed that the area was a smoke-free area; and that the smoker could not reasonably be expected to know the area was a smoke-free area.
It will be a defence for an occupier that the prescribed signage was displayed; the occupier did not encourage smoking; that within a reasonable time of becoming aware that a person was smoking, the occupier had asked the person to stop smoking; and if applicable, the occupier had stopped providing goods and services to the smoker.
The measures I have just mentioned will, for the first time, allow people to shop, eat and work in enclosed spaces without the discomfort and risks associated with passive smoking. In achieving this aim, the bill does not prevent persons who wish to smoke from doing so, but it does recognise that the freedom to smoke is not absolute, and must be balanced with the right of non-smokers to breathe fresh, clean air.
The bill introduces a simple tobacco retail licensing scheme, and from 31 May 2003 it will be an offence to sell tobacco without a licence. The licensing provisions will commence at an earlier date to allow time for lodgment and processing of applications. The Director of Licensing may, on application, grant a licence to any adult in respect of specified premises. The Director of Licensing may cancel or suspend a tobacco retailer’s licence if the retailer is convicted of selling tobacco to a child, or has been issued with two or more infringement notices within 12 months. Decisions made by the Director of Licensing may be reviewed by the Licensing Commission under Part 4 of the Northern Territory Licensing Commission Act. The licensing scheme will not restrict competition. There will be no limit on the number of licenses that may be issued, no restrictions on the amount or variety of tobacco products that may be sold and no licence renewal fee.
Research shows that the earlier a person commences smoking and becomes addicted, the longer they will remain a smoker, and the greater their chance of dying from smoking. Smoking-related illness accounts for the death of half of all long-term smokers. Current legislation makes it an offence to sell tobacco products to a child. Unfortunately, a significant number of retailers continue to do so. The economic incentive to sell to children apparently outweighs the risk of a fine. The licensing scheme provides a key economic disincentive to sell tobacco products to children. It allows for a simple and cost-effective enforcement by police and other authorised officers as anyone selling tobacco who cannot produce a license without reasonable excuse is easily identified as trading illegally. It will also bring tobacco regulation into line with similarly harmful substances such as alcohol, kava and pharmaceuticals, and assist reputable retailers by excluding irresponsible sellers from the tobacco retail market.
The bill also strengthens existing measures. The offence of selling tobacco to a child is retained, and the liability for the offence is extended to the tobacco retail licensee and where the seller is a child, to the adult person, if any, directly supervising the seller. The child, however, is deemed not to have committed the offence.
The bill recognises that in some circumstances it may be unjust to prosecute all parties deemed liable for the offence. Some flexibility is therefore provided so that the prosecuting agency may prosecute any person being liable for the offence without prosecuting any other person. For example, where the tobacco retail licensee has coerced an adult into selling to a child, the prosecuting agency can choose to prosecute only the licensee. Where a child obtains a tobacco product from a vending machine, the person in charge of the bar area, that is the manager, and the tobacco retail licensee are deemed to have sold the tobacco product to the child. Again, the prosecuting agency may prosecute either the person in charge of the bar area or the licensee or both.
The current defences of selling or supplying tobacco to a minor that the defendant had reasonable cause to believe that the buyer was not a child or had taken reasonable precautions to ensure the tobacco product was not sold or supplied to a child limit the effectiveness of the offence provision and will be replaced.
The new defence will be that the person had sighted a driver’s license, passport or other approved form of photographic identification and had no reason to believe the identification was false. The defence will not apply, for example, where a child who is obviously under age uses his or her elder sibling’s driver’s license or identification.
The regulations will provide for the issuing of on-the-spot fines for offences committed under the act and regulations. This will minimise enforcement costs. Another measure aimed specifically at limiting the supply of cigarettes to children is the prohibition on selling single cigarettes. This profitable practice provides children who could otherwise not afford to buy a packet of cigarettes with access to tobacco products.
Advertising at point of sale is clearly influential in attracting new smokers and tends to undermine the resolve of people attempting to quit. The bill therefore introduces measures to limit the impact of advertising, including displays at point of sale. The bill prohibits from 31 May 2003 all forms of tobacco advertising except for limited displays of tobacco products at points of sale. It prohibits sponsorship of public events if a tobacco product or brand is advertised as part of the sponsorship arrangement.
Redistribution of things such as T-shirts and caps that bear tobacco advertisements by, or on behalf of, tobacco product manufacturers, distributors, wholesalers or retailers will be an offence. Engaging in a value added marketing scheme, such as providing free gifts with each purchase of a tobacco product, will be an offence. These measures complement Commonwealth legislation with respect to television and radio broadcasting.
From 31 May 2003 only one point of sale will be allowed per premises except liquor licensed premises. Each adults only bar area of a liquor licensed premises will be permitted to have two points of sale provided that one is a vending machine. Displays of tobacco products will only be permitted at points of sale. The maximum number of each type or brand of tobacco product which may be displayed will be prescribed in the regulations. As tobacco companies have worked around similar restrictions in other jurisdictions by increasing the number of types and brands of tobacco products, a maximum total display size will also be prescribed.
The use of certain visual effects to enhance a display such as bright lighting or a moving display would defeat the purpose of the above restrictions. The bill therefore prohibits their use. Vending machines, which are a key source of cigarettes for minors, will be restricted to adults only sections of licensed premises and, except on those premises which are completely inaccessible to children, must be kept within line of sight of a bar service area. The person generally in charge of the bar area will be responsible for sales from the machine.
The allowable number of vending machines will be one per bar area. If the vending machine is the second point of sale within a bar area, advertising on the machine will be restricted to availability and price. As per the current legislation, the regulations will require licensees to display standard health warnings at each point of sale.
The government recognises that the display and point of sale restrictions introduced by the bill may have a proportionately greater impact on specialist tobacconists. The bill is not intended to render such business non-viable or to unduly restrict competition. The bill therefore provides for the issuing of a specialist tobacconist license to those retailers whose business wholly or predominantly consists of retail trade in tobacco products.
The regulations may exempt specialist tobacconists from certain restrictions and impose others. Thus the normal display restrictions can be lifted to allow the tobacconist to display a broad range of imported cigars and new conditions may be imposed. For example, that the premises be established so that tobacco products are not visible from outside the premises, similar to adult shops, and that children not be allowed on the premises. The exact nature of the substitute restrictions will be determined well in advance of the commencement of the display and point of sale provisions.
Madam Speaker, this bill is an important and long overdue step towards reducing the devastating impact of smoking on the health of Territorians. I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
Continued from 20 August 2002.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): My contribution will be short, Madam Speaker, on the basis that the opposition supports this bill.
I thank the minister and her staff for a fulsome briefing which was provided to myself and two of my colleagues, the members for Greatorex and Port Darwin. The bill essentially moves to align the Northern Territory with recent moves, mostly initiated by Commonwealth regional national moves, which are to be commended because, essentially, the differentiation between nursing homes and nursing hostels did cause some problems, particularly for married couples, where one member of the relationship was nursing home appropriate and the other one was not. Often, these marriages of some decades standing saw, for the first time, couples split on the basis of the level of care that was required.
The move now, obviously, is to allow high-care and low-care clientele into the same facility, so a nursing hostel now can have a person who is nursing home appropriate in the old jargon. The names have also been changed to get rid of that obsolete nomenclature.
There is also a very good amendment to the act which allows that the matron or person in charge of a nursing home can now be advised after the fact that they have been replaced, whereas prior to this there was a very difficult administrative procedure of alerting the Chief Health Officer that a replacement was imminent. Often, unforeseen vacancies meant that this was very difficult to achieve. We now have the happy circumstance where a week is provided to alert the Chief Health Officer on the basis that the person has the prescribed qualifications that are required.
This is an area that needs continual analysis and investigation. Issues relating to supported accommodation for our elderly and people who are frail or have dementia are moving fairly quickly. It is an area where, even with these amendments, we are going to see that there is a continuing need for the community to voice its concern and amend the statutes that apply in this particular area.
The opposition supports the bill and thanks the government for the briefing.
Mrs AAGAARD (Health and Community Services): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Drysdale for his comments and the opposition for their support of this bill.
It is an important bill and will bring us into line with national competition policy, and it will have a significant effect on the care of people in aged facilities in the Northern Territory.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mrs AAGAARD (Health and Community Services)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill now be read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Continued from 22 August 2002.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): As with the previous bill, Madam Speaker, the opposition supports this bill and, as with the previous bill, we thank the government for the opportunity of a briefing.
This is a very important area because it deals with children and children’s rights, and children who have a connection with the government because of want of care or some other reason. Again, this is derived from national moves of several years ago. The amendments seem logical and workable. They have come from the advice of practitioners, not just the lofty wordings of a ministerial council, and they are entirely supported by the opposition on the basis that the best interests of the child are paramount.
The bill also includes several pages of statute law revision, if you like, in the sense that the gender specific terminology has become gender neutral. The amendments are entirely and absolutely supported by the opposition.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Madam Speaker, in relation to the amendments to the Community Welfare Act, I have made the point in the place - and I will continue to make it - that our children are our most important resource. The primary responsibility for developing that resource rests, in most cases, with a child’s parents. But when parents are unavailable, be it because of death, disease or social dysfunction, other arrangements need to be put in place.
Sometimes such alternative arrangements involve other family members stepping into the shoes of absent or incapable parents. Sometimes, the circumstances in which a child finds itself are so dire and the reliability of any actual or potential family care is so uncertain that the government, through the agency of the minister responsible for Community Welfare, needs to step in. Sometimes it is possible to find a satisfactory halfway house between these two kinds of arrangements, involving joint guardianship shared between a particular family member on the one hand and the minister and her delegates on the other.
The Northern Territory is a big place and shares borders with Western Australia to the west, South Australia to the south and Queensland to the east. Each of these border areas is remote and predominantly populated by Aboriginal people. We are talking about Aboriginal people whose ancestors have lived there prior to the establishment of such borders. Unsurprisingly, the contemporary Aboriginal population in each of these border areas lives in and travels frequently back and forth between communities on both sides of the border. The artificiality of the states and territory jurisdictional boundaries, when considered from an Aboriginal point of view, has caused hardship and confusion in the past in respect of children whose care and upbringing is shared amongst family members.
The benefits of this amending legislation will flow, in particular, to Aboriginal children who are either in the care of the minister or under joint guardianship arrangements, and who come from places like the Gulf country, the Pit lands or the Keep River National Park area. The amended legislation will enable flexible and effective care arrangements to be put in place by government on both sides of the border.
In terms of the consultation with indigenous stakeholders, there has been - with all the information that I have been provided and sought out - that after the Community Services ministers meeting in July 1998, an outcome was the approval in principle for a set of protocols. These protocols were given to the secretariat of the National Aboriginal Islander Child Care which provided comments. Some of SNAICC’s suggestions are reflected in those protocols. Also, there has been some consultation carried out with KARU, the local body responsible for placement of children.
Madam Speaker, I support the amended legislation.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I wanted to assure the minister that I have more than just a keen interest in this area. For some years, I practised in Alice Springs in this area which I invariably describe as my favourite area of practice.
There have been a number of matters over the years that, in my view, have warranted a review. I remind members of this House that, in my maiden speech made one year ago today as it so happens, I referred to this area. I was, with the greatest of respect, slightly disappointed to see the government propose amendments to the Community Welfare Act - which, in my view, is well overdue – but which do not go further.
I gave, very early on - in fact , I think it was not long after my maiden speech last year - to a representative from the Attorney-General’s office or department a number of submissions that I had prepared some years prior that I thought should be incorporated into any reform of the Community Welfare Act. I am, again with respect, disappointed to see that none of those were picked up. Obviously, it may be something that on a General Business Day at some point in the future I will bring those amendments to the House. Without pre-empting the contents of those amendments, I would just like to assure the minister that I have a very strong interest in this area, and I look forward perhaps to working with her as the months advance.
Mrs AAGAARD (Health and Community Services): Madam Speaker, I thank honourable members for their support of this bill. It is an important bill. The welfare of children in the Northern Territory is of extreme interest to all honourable members and this bill certainly assists with that.
I am very pleased that the opposition is supporting the bill. I will take onboard the comments from the member for Araluen. I must say that she has not actually approached me in the time that the bill has been on the Table, but I would be happy to have an approach from her in the future.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mrs AAGAARD (Health and Community Services)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time
Continued from 15 October 2002.
Mr HENDERSON (Business, Industry and Resource Development): Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the ministerial statement and broader comments on the final report of the Task Force on Illicit Drugs handed down just recently in this House.
At the outset I will say that if there is one suite of government initiatives that we proposed that I am very pleased to see enacted in a totally combined and structured manner, it is our commitment that we made in opposition in the lead-up to the election to introduce our tough on drugs and drug crime strategy, to actually look at the whole issue of the level of harm that illicit drug use was causing to our community, and to look at a structured suite of policy initiatives that we could introduce in government to start to get on top of some of the issues that were really escalating out of all proportion given the size of our community here in the Northern Territory, and had been totally neglected over many years by the previous government despite …
Mr Dunham: Not true. That is a falsehood.
Mr HENDERSON: … despite numerous debates in this House that were run over the last couple of years alerting parliament and the people of the Northern Territory to the escalating harm that this illicit drug use was causing in the Northern Territory.
It is always good to hear the former health minister say ‘not true’, ‘a falsehood’. I do not know if he has spoken in this debate yet, but he may care to follow me to put his message on the record.
I do commend the health minister in the work that she and the department have done in structuring public policy to get on top of the health side of these issues. We did run very hard on it in the lead-up to the last election and I believe we received a very strong mandate from the people of the Northern Territory to move forward and implement the initiatives that we have.
I would like to remind the House of our mandate to implement our tough on drugs three-point plan. The three points were: law enforcement with zero tolerance on drug production and distribution. We have seen a vast suite of legislation introduced into this House by my colleague, the Attorney-General, in trying to get on top of the people in our community who are profiting by the illegal production and distribution of illicit drugs, peddling these drugs in our community, the insidious activities of some of these people by introducing our young people to illicit drugs, and this behaviour cannot be tolerated in any society. I believe that we are duty bound as legislators in this parliament to do everything we can and to give the police every ammunition that they can use at their disposable to apprehend and bring to justice these people who profit from the addiction and misery of people they coerce to use their substances.
I have been around this town for a long time and members can see from the Parliamentary Record, it is something that I am very passionate about. We will continue to amend and introduce legislation as is necessary in consultation with our police force to give them the weapons they need through legislation to deal with these evil people who prey and profit from drugs and the misery that they cause.
The second point of our plan was compulsory treatment of addicts arrested on drug-related crimes. Again, my colleague the Attorney-General is moving to implement Drug Courts to do that. We are not reinventing the wheel here; we were so far behind other jurisdictions in legislation, justice provisions and public health provisions, that we can and do have the opportunity to look at what is working around Australia and the western world. There is no silver bullet.
That is not to say that what we are doing is going to eliminate it, but we are going to try, and I really think that is the difference between this government and our predecessors: (a), we acknowledge the extent of the problem and (b), we are trying to do something about it as opposed to our predecessors failing to acknowledge the extent of the problem or that there was a problem at all and relying on the Commonwealth through the HIC to intervene and on a range matters and we will get to that in a minute.
We are trying to do something, and I would have thought that the initiatives that we have put in place would have been wholesomely and fully supported by the opposition. Unfortunately, and if we go back through the debates in terms of a lot of the criminal legislation that we have introduced into the parliament, we have received very much less than fulsome support from some of those initiatives. Ultimately, those members opposite will be judged by some of their comments because I do believe that we have the community on side in these issues.
Mr Burke: And we’ll judge you on how the crime levels drop.
Mr HENDERSON: Well, we will, and if …
Mr Burke: And how the level of illicit drug use improves or doesn’t improve in the Territory. That is how you will be judged.
Mr HENDERSON: If members opposite - they are obviously a bit touchy about this, Madam Speaker. They are obviously a bit touchy.
Mr Burke: You want to read your own report. Have you read your own report?
Mr HENDERSON: This is the man, Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Brennan, who is so out of touch - he can speak in this debate. I am happy – I can yell louder than he can.
He can contribute to this debate, but he is the man who stood in parliament and said, and he is on the Parliamentary Record, that drug-related crime in the Northern Territory was minuscule. That is not the view of the Northern Territory police; it is not the view of all the statisticians in the western world that can very clearly link the incidence of property crime directly to the use of illicit and addictive drugs in our community.
We would have though that if there was one issue that we would bring into this House in terms of a suite of public policy that would have wholesome support from each and every one of our 25 members in this parliament, illicit drug use and drug-related crime would be it. Unfortunately, that has not been the case but we will continue to move on nonetheless.
So the Drug Courts are going to occur and there is funding in this budget and $300 000 ongoing to establish those. We will be looking at proposals and how they are used in other jurisdictions.
The third part of the three-point plan is to look at the health issues and we said that we would properly resource a drug prevention strategy including family support and school education programs. My colleague the police minister, member for Nhulunbuy, spoke about the DARE programs in schools My colleague the member for Johnston has done a lot of research on this issue and it there is certainly further work we need to do in our schools and with our young people, alerting them to the dangers of dabbling in these substances. We have to through our school systems and as parents. I would say that each and every one of us as parents, as our kids are growing up, probably one of the biggest single fears we have is that our kids are going to get mixed up in experimenting with these substances. It is a fact of life that kids experiment, but at least let’s give them both sides of the story so that they can make informed decisions and hopefully make the right decisions.
The report of the Task Force on Illicit Drugs is a substantial report from a wide ranging and diverse body of people who have contributed to that report. The task force was chaired by Dr Valerie Asche, an eminent professional and academic in her own right who has done a marvelous job in compiling this report. Certainly, nobody could claim that Dr Asche has radical views in terms of public policy. There was a substantive and well-respected range of professionals who have contributed to this report. What we had to do on the public health side of this equation is take it out of the realms of politics, where it was so insidiously played previously, with their social vandalism that was caused by members opposite failing to acknowledge these issues, and actually look at the public health issues and go to the professionals, not the rank amateurs that we had legislating opposite.
It is interesting when you come to government - and I wouldn’t embarrass those wonderful public servants - but some of the briefings we have had from public servants who had to work with the previous legislation made it very clear that advice to the previous government from a professional point of view was that we had to move and do some of the things that we are doing now. They were totally devastated, as professionals, about the harm in terms of public policy being created in our community by not moving. There is very strong support …
Mr Dunham: You should hear what they are saying now.
Mr HENDERSON: The former health minister knows this. He knows this implicitly because was the one in receipt of so much of that advice. We have had our stoushes in here over the years, and I can say that the previous health minister did try and take those health issues through Cabinet. I believe that he was rolled. We will get on to the treatment issues at the moment, but he did move, and the previous health minister did establish a methadone treatment regime here in the Northern Territory. One of the former health ministers, the Hon Fred Finch, had the disgraceful public policy of a one-way bus ticket! I do not know who dreamed that one up, but it was certainly not a public health policy; that was a political strategy. But the previous health minister, the member for Drysdale, did move the debate forward some degree. However, he did not get it all of the way there, and he was advised from the professionals in the department that we had to move on from where we were in the past.
If we just go through some of the recommendations of the task force that the government will be picking up.:
That is absolutely what we have to do, what the previous government failed to do. The age-old adage that if you don’t measure it, you cannot manage it – we have to do that and we will be putting that collection and information into the arena.
Mr Dunham: Like the police stats? We know about them.
Mr HENDERSON: Well, they are not just police stats. I pick up on the interjection from the member for Drysdale. There is a whole range of statistical information that government is in receipt of to determine the extent of illicit drug use in the Territory. If we look at the specific issue of opiate use and morphine use in the community, as Schedule 8 drugs, each and every one of those prescriptions that are written by medical practitioners are registered with the health department. So the statistics are all there in terms of the use of these drugs in the community. With those statistics, you can benchmark those against averages in other states and start to compile a picture of the use of opiates in our community. That is what the previous government failed to do. They either turned a blind eye to it, which I believe is what occurred which was absolutely negligent in terms of responsibilities of members of parliament, particularly ministers, or they didn’t have the processes in place to indicate exactly what was happening.
We had the appalling figures in the second quarter of 1999, as I recall, where we had morphine prescription rates in the Northern Territory that were nearly 15 times higher than the per capita national average. That was an extraordinary statistic that government and departmental officials were in possession of, and it was totally ignored. It was ignored because, what the failed to realise, were not smart enough to realise, is that these statistics are also reported to the Health Information Commission, the HIC. It was the HIC that rang the alarm bells and actually sent people up here to the Northern Territory to examine what the heck was going on.
Mr Dunham: Not true. If you are being briefed by health people, get the facts.
Mr HENDERSON: We have had the briefing. The member for Drysdale forgets that we are in government now, and we have had the briefings.
They did nothing and it was the HIC that insisted on reforms being introduced. We have seen that gradual reduction over time. However, we have had debates in this House in the past about why we got to that level and the motivation behind it, and why our physicians were prescribing morphine in such great quantities. We are moving to address that public policy issue through initiatives that are contained in this report.
In terms of actions speaking louder than words, there certainly was failure, even in acknowledging the extent of the problem we had in the Northern Territory here until it was sprung by the HIC in the public arena and then, even when it was, failing to introduce public policy to address that issue.
It is part of the Commonwealth government’s Tough on Drugs strategy that we do collect data sets; statistics across Australia, to look at the patterns of illicit drug use in our community. So at a national level through the Tough on Drugs strategy - and all credit to the Prime Minister for developing that strategy with the states and the territories, one that was not fulsomely backed by the previous government - to actually try and get a combined Commonwealth and state position on this issue. Part of that is through supporting the illicit drug reporting system.
It was the member for Katherine, I believe, when the initial findings from this report came out in 1999-2000, who totally derided that set of statistics that started to alert the community in the Northern Territory about the extent of illicit drug use here. He made wild accusations like: ‘You are paying people for information; they cannot be trusted’. This is a reporting regime that has been acknowledged as at least available to get some sort of coherent data across Australia, but the member for Katherine knew better than all of the professionals around Australia and totally derided them and then failed to support, though ministerial councils, subsequent IDRS surveys.
Well, we will do that; we will work with the Commonwealth Liberal National Party government to address this issue. Certainly, through the Tough on Drugs strategy, there was Commonwealth money available - quite a large amount of Commonwealth money. When we made inquiries about what submissions the Northern Territory government, at the time, had made in terms of working with our non-government organisations to develop strategic proposals to access some of this money, the answer was: nothing. No submissions from the previous Northern Territory government to access Commonwealth funds that were available to support NGOs and governments with dealing with this issue. So again an abject failure of desire to get on top of some of the problems that we have in our community.
Again, we have to get on top of this issue to determine the amount of harm that is being caused in our community, rather than pretending that from the fifth floor of Parliament House here in the bunker that is the Cabinet office we know best, which was the attitude of the previous government.
There are a number of recommendations here and my colleague, the health minister will take us through all of those at a later date. However, I would urge honourable members to read this. It is not a radical document. Again, the cry from members opposite was that we were going to …
Mr Dunham: Introduce the methadone maintenance program, which you did.
Mr HENDERSON: … establish bloody intravenous bloody drug houses, or whatever, the farthest from the truth.
I pick up the member opposite that we will introduce a methadone program. Short memories, once they are in opposition. I would like to quote from a statement in this House, 18 October 2000, just a couple of years ago, the honourable Minister for Health, Family and Children’s Services:
So the cry is ‘Oh, you are going to introduce methadone’.
Mr Dunham: Methadone maintenance. You have forgotten the word, haven’t you?
Mr HENDERSON: Here we go, we are starting to get the weasel words out now. We will get to the maintenance side in a moment.
Mr Dunham: Yes, go on, start there. You have only half a minute. Tell us about maintenance.
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Speaker, I just - when you are ready. Since 1996 they did not get out with a big press release: ‘We are going to introduce a methadone program here in the Northern Territory’. They snuck it in under the cover of night because they knew they had to do it.
Mr Dunham: Rubbish!
Mr HENDERSON: I challenge members opposite - they should keep the records - to table the press release that announced the establishment of this program here in the Northern Territory because I bet London, to a brick, that there was no such press release.
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, I move that the member be granted an extension of time in order to complete his remarks.
Motion agreed to.
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Speaker, this is important. In terms of we were going to establish a methadone program - we were going to establish shooting galleries as well, but we have not done that and we certainly will not do that.
We have the members opposite - and this is where I give some credibility to the previous Health Minister - there was no philosophical objection to methadone as a drug in its own right. They knew that this drug had a role to play in stabilising people as a withdrawal agent, as a stabilising agent, but we just could not go that one step further. But methadone being the big bad monster that was going to create havoc and lead our streets to be some sort of replica of Cabramatta, which was one of the favourite pictures that was painted from members opposite, that certainly was not the case. We did have not as broad a program as we should have had, but we did have a methadone program here in the Northern Territory.
We also had, when we managed to get to the statistics, a methadone program that was being dispensed in tablet form as opposed to a liquid form at pharmacies across the Northern Territory at about two times the national average. Again, as a Schedule 8 drug, information that government was aware of and certainly if the stance was an anti-methadone stance, nothing was done.
Let us move forward. Let us get away from the politics of this and look at the issue of a large number of Territorians - and let us not forget that these people are Territorians and we have a responsibility in this parliament for all Territorians - do have significant problems with opiate addiction. It is a problem that is causing significant social devastation in our community, not only for the individuals but for their families, for the broader communities, for the criminal activity and prostitution that is associated with it, and give these Territorians an opportunity to escape their addiction. Let us untie the hands of our medical professionals, the people who have had the training, who have done the study, and allow them to use all of the interventions that are available, approved by the Commonwealth - and by ‘the Commonwealth’, I mean this great socially reforming Commonwealth government that is way ahead of public opinions on a whole range of issues including drug reform, if you believe members opposite. Let us allow our professionals to deal with the problem and allow those Territorians who are struggling with addiction access to programs to assist them to escape their addiction and return them to a normal life.
It is not going to be easy. We have had debates in this House and there are no magic solutions to this matter and whether it is buprenorphine, whether it is naltrexone, whether it is methadone, whether it is going cold turkey, there are no magic solutions and no government in the world has derived a magic solution. People have personalities that allow them to get associated and addicted to drugs, they have pressures in their personal lives for whatever reason, but it is a very complex area and what we have to do is acknowledge the complexity of the area, to have public policy that allows our medical practitioners access to interventions to deal with that and acknowledge the extent of the problem. That is what we are doing. It is nothing radical, it is nothing new. It is something that should have been done many years ago when all the advice that the previous government had was that this was the path that we needed to go down.
Page 21 of the report is headed Treatment - the role of practical application of pharmocotherapies. I quote:
The report goes on to say:
other intervention;
So this is the report from these eminent people. I would have thought you could not accuse this body of people of having the wool pulled over their eyes by some public policy radicals, and their report says that the pharmocotherapy replacement treatment is ‘compelling’.
I would have thought, in light of such a report from such eminent Territorians, that we would not be having this debate about whether methadone as a maintenance program should be allowed in the Northern Territory. I would have thought, once again, it would have been an opportunity for members opposite to start with a clean slate in terms of public policy positions and admit that maybe they did get this one wrong.
In terms of our professional health community, the representative peak bodies, the AMA, the Top End Division of General Practice, the Australian Physicians Association, certainly from my time as shadow health minister I spoke to them all and they all supported this public policy. I would have thought in light of all of that respected body of opinion from eminent Territorians who work in this field, it would have been an opportunity, and it is an opportunity that has been sadly lost, for members opposite to say: ‘Well, maybe we did have this wrong. We think this is the way to go, but we challenge the government to come back with statistics and reports in terms of efficacy, the changes that are happening in that part of our community. Is it working? Is it not working? What is happening with statistics for property crime? We are prepared to give it a go’.
But, no, they continue down that same path, crying in the wilderness with nobody out there to support them. I challenge members opposite to come up with any practising health professional in the Northern Territory who is on the public record to say that …
Mr Dunham: You would shoot them. You would have a purge.
Mr HENDERSON: Well, there is the challenge. I am making the assumption, but I challenge, because the professionals to whom I have spoken and certainly their professional peak bodies have supported this range of initiatives that we are bringing into the House. There is some public debate, obviously, about funding, whether we are putting enough money towards it or not. That is another debate. There is always the cry, as the previous health minister said, for more money for health across all areas. But we believe that we are making a start and it is a very important start.
The task force also recommends, at 5.1:
So we have the previous government going 50% of the way, taking the great, bold policy leap forward in 1996, but didn’t tell anybody about it for fear of compromising their public position. This is the other 50%. Ministerial guidelines have been approved and put in place to allow those pharmocotherapies for the treatment of both maintenance and withdrawal. We have moved forward and we believe that we had the mandate from the people of the Northern Territory to do that.
It will be interesting to hear what members opposite have to say about this report and the recommendations, particularly chapter 5 on the treatment, the role and practical application of pharmacotherapies. I would really like to hear the critique as to why this committee has got it wrong and why they believe, from a public policy point of view, they have it right and they have a better solution to this issue.
So the challenge is there for members opposite. Come on board, come on board and support the policy initiatives and change. Challenge us in terms of providing data back to the Assembly and Territorians that we are moving forward in this area, but admit that you have it wrong, admit that you were behind the times, admit that this is the way forward. Madam Speaker, I speak in full support of the health minister’s statement.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Madam Speaker, I would like to speak briefly on the report of the Task Force into Illicit Drugs. The member for Wanguri has probably draw on his view of the history. The history is important, we could get bogged down on it, but I honestly feel that this report is a way forward. It has been a vexed subject for quite some time. I think the recommendations that come out of this report are very balanced. They have been made by an expert panel. I commend Dr Valerie Asche. She was a colleague of mine at the Menzies School and I have always had immense respect for her.
There was some criticism to begin with, when she took on the chair of this committee, that she knew nothing about drugs. I think she, in a candid fashion, said so in the media and it is true. It was probably better that way because as a chairperson, she came there with no preconceived ideas. She did a fantastic job and drew together a very good report. Looking at the composition of the task force, it was made up of many different groups, probably with diverse opinions, and Valerie Asche has been able to draw those opinions together.
However, I think it is more than the opinions of the committee. What this committee did was to go out and seek the views of the community. They travelled all throughout the Territory, and there were concerns voiced by the community. The task force report has tried to address those concerns.
Mr Burke: Sixty-seven people turned up.
Dr BURNS: I am not going to belittle - whether it was 67 or 167 or 670, the opportunity was given to people to have feedback and put their views. If you read what the community concerns are, right up front in the document, from what I know of the community and their concerns over these issues, they do echo it.
One thing I really picked up on was that alcohol is the major drug of concern, and I think sometimes with illicit drugs …
Mr Elferink: Hear, hear!
Mr Dunham: Gee, where did that come from?
Mr Burke: So I was right, was I?
Dr BURNS: Can the members opposite give me a go? I am just trying to lay on the record my feelings. I was on the public record at the Substance Abuse Committee the other day. Yes, illicit drugs have been a very important issue in our community for a long time, but underneath it - what I am trying to say is that this report has addressed major issues related to illicit drugs, but we have a very big issue out there: alcohol and alcohol abuse.
I once again consulted the book that was taken from me here in my first week, all I got was a photocopy, Morbidity and Mortality in the Northern Territory. It is very obvious from that report that death from injury and poisoning is way out of control in the Territory. As I have laid on the record many times, alcohol is the basis of it; alcohol abuse. I am not just talking about the Aboriginal community here; I am talking about the non-Aboriginal community. It is an issue we are going to have to address, and it is an issue that we have been looking closely at within the Select Committee on Substance Abuse.
Returning to the other community concerns, there is concern about the escalation of cannabis use, and certainly in the Substance Abuse Committee, we have heard concerns from a whole range of people about this issue and the impact it is having, particularly on remote Aboriginal communities. It is an important issue and those people who run around the place saying that cannabis is a harmless drug should think twice.
Mr Dunham: Like Clare Martin? Just like a glass of plonk!
Mr Elferink: No worse than a glass of Chardonnay!
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: Well, I think what you will find now is that the varieties …
Mr Dunham: She’s changed her mind.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, member for Drysdale!
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, I hoped the members opposite would show me some courtesy. I am being as candid as I can here. They can pick up on what they want to, I suppose, in what I have to say. However, what I was about to say is that it is well known that, over the years, the portions of the cannabis plant that are now sold are the most potent forms - the sepals and the parts of the flowers that contain a lot of cannabinoids. When people get this into their system they can have psychotic attacks and it can even precipitate schizophrenia. A lot of the suicides that I have heard about on remote Aboriginal communities are as a result of chronic ingestion of cannabis, and at high levels. So, we should never underestimate the contemporary use of cannabis and its harms. I just want to lay that on the record.
Also a community concern was poly-drug use. This is a big issue. People who to tend to abuse one drug - that is, alcohol - also tend to be abusers of other drugs. The combination of these drugs certainly has a major health impact. The community concerns were also about education: education for young people and for parents. Interestingly, there was talk in the community about resilience to drugs. Coming back to the DARE program, we know the DARE program has operated in the Territory for quite some time. However, the international literature is very clear that the DARE program is either nil in its effect, or it actually has a negative effect in driving young people to try drugs by demonising them. That is what the international literature has shown. The literature and the practical experience show that the best people to deliver drug education in schools are adequately trained and resourced teachers and, certainly, I concur with that.
Dr Lim: What evidence?
Dr BURNS: Well, the evidence in the literature. I am more than willing to send that over to the member for Greatorex.
Dr Lim: I think you will find that uniformed policemen do a much better job.
Dr BURNS: Well, I will pick up on that interjection. I suppose I am shooting myself in the foot here with an interchange, but the literature - I will say it again - emphatically shows that basically what I have said is true: the best people to deliver drug education in schools are adequately trained and resourced teachers who can call on the expertise of people like police. I am not saying police have no role in drug education. They have a role along with other people, but it has been shown and proved and demonstrated that that is the case. I am more than willing to send that literature and those critical reviews to the member for Greatorex if he desires.
Dr Lim: Why do you think Life Education works so well? Because they have health professionals providing health-type lessons, not teachers.
Dr BURNS: I pick up on that again. Apart from policemen, it could also include health professionals. I am talking about in the context of the school. Obviously, health professionals have a major role in terms of interventions - whether it is with people’s drinking or drug use – as they interact with those people. I am not denying that, either. However, I have been doing quite considerable reading on this issue and I am very interested in it.
In the time that remains, I would like to go through some of the major points of this report. The member for Wanguri raised the issue that indicators of drug use are very important for us to know as a community, as a government, about what is going on out there - how to combat some of this drug use, how to develop policy around the treatment; and counselling around drug trends. It is very important to have that information. I will not go back into the sorry history of what happened to Dr Bridie O’Reilly. I will lay on the record again that it was a shameful exercise Researchers have a hard enough job as it is without copping the sort of flak that she copped.
We are getting onto recommendations in relation to health education in schools and this is a very important aspect. We have an opportunity now to look at our health promotion, our drug education in schools and look at what is occurring elsewhere. I was fortunate enough to go to Western Australia and look at their system and their curriculum, and they have a very worthwhile model there; it is well worth looking at. I spoke to many different people about it and they were all full of praise and belief that they were moving along the right direction with their drug education in schools. There is an opportunity for us, and we have to move on.
Recommendation 4.2 is:
Out of that we need to look at our whole delivery of drug and alcohol-related services because, as I have said before, both of those things and poly-drug use are a major health and legal problem in our community as people interact with the criminal justice system.
The aspect of pharmacotherapies - I could never really understand what all the fuss was about methadone. When I was much younger I had a friend who was addicted to opiates. Dan was his name - I will not say what his second name is - and Dan had this problem. His family knew he had this problem. He underwent methadone maintenance - it took him a number of years - his life was stabilised. He is now a very successful businessman in Queensland, drug-free and he would say that it is not for everyone. It is a hard road and methadone is a difficult drug, but it does provide some hope for some people. I believe the evidence also shows that it keeps some people out of trouble. It is not the most desirable thing, but what we have to do is …
Dr Lim: Have you ever dispensed it yourself?
Dr BURNS: Of course I have.
Dr Lim: You have. In what context?
Dr BURNS: I have dispensed methadone as a pharmacist in another state for a maintenance program and for a withdrawal program. So I do know a little bit about methadone.
As a community, as a society, we have to look at all the different ways. It would be great if everyone could get off drugs cold turkey or just through counselling, but it is like treatment of any disease or malady, you need to have a whole range of treatment options that suit different people. Methadone maintenance is something that does suit some people and it does give them and their families some relief.
I welcome the introduction of buprenorphine; that is a way forward as well. The Territory has actually come into line with what happens in the rest of Australia. Let’s try to leave the history behind. I suppose members opposite are yet to have their say on this issue …
Mr Henderson: They have been silent.
Dr BURNS: Well, I would just hope that they would say: ‘Well okay, the past is the past. Let us move onto into the future’. Part of the future, as I said before, is for us to start really trying to address alcohol issues in the Territory because that is crucial. I would like to see a bipartisan approach in that because it is such an important issue for the Territory, but it is going to be a difficult issue.
There are a whole lot of recommendations about general practitioners and people receiving training and of course that is essential for such a system to work well, and I applaud that. I know that families are highlighted within the report. I was always a bit bemused or a bit upset in some ways that at various times in drug treatment and education that families were left out of the picture. That was a very bad thing. Parents have a crucial role to play in building up resilience in their children against drug use. However, if people are affected by drug use, the family once again has a crucial role in supporting that person to get off drugs and to get on with life, just as my friend Dan’s family did.
There was one specific set of recommendations I wanted to talk about, and they are:
Those recommendations on page 23 are crucial because it is important for the health department to be aware of what is going on, who is being prescribed these illicit drugs, which doctors are prescribing them and if there is a problem. Let us face it: doctors and, to a lesser degree, pharmacists, come under inordinate pressure by these people who are after these drugs and it is very difficult. Doctors need some protection, some peer review, so that they can say to these difficult patients: ‘Well, this issue of prescribing this Schedule 8 drug for you has come to the attention of the Health Department and it is being reviewed’ and that takes a lot of the pressure off. This was sorely needed. I have felt for quite a number of years that the prescription monitoring system within the department wasn’t up to scratch. This is a very positive step forward.
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I commend this report and the task force. I believe the recommendations go quite a way to us as a Territory taking some fairly worthwhile steps forward with the issue of illicit drugs, treatment and prevention of illicit drug use amongst young people. I commend the report to members.
Debate adjourned.
Madam SPEAKER: I advise honourable members of the presence in the gallery of Year 11 students from Casuarina Senior College accompanied by their teacher Graham Parker. On behalf of all members I extend you a warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I rise today to make a significant statement about indigenous people and the justice system of the Northern Territory, which I am sure will be of interest to members of this House. Indigenous Territorians make up quarter of our population yet they are still significantly over-represented in our justice system, in our court hearings and in particular in our prison population.
I do not want to dwell on the statistics; we know the figures all too well - so well, in fact, that we are in danger of no longer being troubled by them. It is important to briefly outline where we are today and why we must take action. Only two in five indigenous Territorians have a job. Indigenous Territorians in remote areas often leave school with no better ability to read, write or count than an urban eight year old. Indigenous Territorians are nine times more likely to be bashed than non-indigenous Territorians. Indigenous women are 33 times more likely to be murdered. Indigenous Territorians are nine times more likely to go to gaol than non-indigenous Territorians and two prisoners in three are Aboriginal. Indigenous Territorians who do not finish school are 13 times more likely to go to gaol than those who do and indigenous Territorians who are unemployed are 19 times more likely to go to gaol than those with a job.
That many of the people who make up the Territory’s indigenous population live in circumstances of gross disadvantage is nothing new. Previous governments have known about this situation for a long time. The Martin government understands we must tackle the problems that underlie those statistics. We will not back simplistic answers that in the end answer nothing. This government has a strong commitment to a new approach.
The Minister Assisting the Chief Minister on Indigenous Affairs, the Minister for Employment, Education and Training and the Minister for Health have already made statements on the actions they will take within their own portfolios. The statement I present today sets out the last part of this government’s policy framework and outlines our commitment to tackle the disadvantage that many indigenous Territorians face in all facets on their life.
Indigenous leaders, organisations and communities must make a commitment as well. They must acknowledge the degree to which some lifestyles and practices have contributed to the state we find ourselves in. Today I call on indigenous and indigenous Territorians to commit to working with the government in partnership to tackle these problems together. In partnership, we have the best chance of success; apart and in conflict, we will fail.
I would like to address the House about a significant event that happened at lunch time today, when this government proudly signed the communiqu from the October 1997 Ministerial Summit on Indigenous Deaths in Custody. I signed the communiqu as Minister for Justice and Attorney-General, together with my colleague John Ah Kit, the Minister Assisting the Chief Minister on Indigenous Affairs.
Dr LIM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I draw your attention to discussions we had earlier today about members using names of other members in this Chamber. This continues to be a problem for members of the other side, and we should draw that to their attention. The Leader of Government Business agrees with me.
Madam SPEAKER: It is a standing order that we do not use surnames or christian names. You should refer to members by their electorate or ministers by their port folio. I expect everyone to adhere to that. So, Attorney-General, if you could make sure that when you’re referring to anyone in your statement, you do it by portfolio.
Dr TOYNE: It would be my pleasure, Madam Speaker.
We were joined at the signing ceremony by the Chair of the National Aboriginal Justice Advisory Committee, Tauto Sansbury, the Chair of the Northern Territory Aboriginal Justice Advocacy Committee, Doug Walker, and Eddie Taylor, the former Chair of the Northern Territory Aboriginal Justice Advisory Committee who signed the original communiqu.
I was also particularly pleased that many peak indigenous organisations and senior members of the legal fraternity were able to attend. The signing of the communiqu is a symbolic act which demonstrates this government’s new approach to indigenous justice issues. But it is more than that; it is also a demonstration of this government’s commitment to concrete action.
As many members here will recall, the communiqu was signed by all other jurisdictions in 1997. That signing was a demonstration of the continuing commitment of governments around Australia to the final recommendations of the 1991 Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. Many of the members here will probably recall that the Attorney-General and now Leader of the Opposition represented the Northern Territory at the ministerial summit. Despite that, and despite having proportionally the highest indigenous population in Australia, the former CLP government refused to sign the communiqu, even though every other government in this country, regardless of political affiliation, did so. The word ‘shame’ comes to mind, as it did at the time. I am proud this embarrassment and the abandonment of government responsibility for indigenous Territorians it represented has at last been rectified.
As I said, the signing of the communiqu commits the government to concrete action in partnership with peak indigenous organisations and communities. Through the communiqu, the 1997 ministerial statement indicated its resolve to develop Aboriginal justice plans to reduce over-representation in the criminal justice system by taking action on underlying social, economic and cultural issues as well as justice issues, the role of customary law, matters of law reform and funding arrangements.
Those plans, established in partnership with peak indigenous organisations and with communities, include two-way accountable outcomes for addressing the disadvantage faced by indigenous people. Governments and indigenous organisations are equally responsible for achieving outcomes. The communiqu commits us to dealing with underlying social, economic and cultural issues which this government sees as essential elements of strategies to reduce the over representation of indigenous people in our justice system.
As Territorians, we are proud of our lifestyle, our diverse multicultural population and our tolerance - in essence, our belief in equality. Building on these values, this government wants to ensure that the indigenous population of the Territory can participate as full and active members in our community rather than, as many do now, live on the fringes and rely on government services to keep going.
As a community that believes in equality, we must act on the problems identified in indigenous education, health, housing and employment. If we succeed, the result will benefit every Territorian. The ministerial statements made by my colleagues during the year have set part of the framework for progress in those areas. The Minister assisting the Chief Minister on Indigenous Affairs received national acknowledgment in March when he talked about some brutal truths. He told us many Aboriginal people acknowledge that the problems lie within their own community.
He said that governments, in partnership with Aboriginal people, must allow the development of forms of governance that allow Aboriginal people to control their lives and their communities. He emphasised the critical importance of developing economic partnerships with Aboriginal people and announced some important initiatives that will contribute to the approach of the Martin government. These included: improvements in indigenous housing and infrastructure; the establishment of on-line indigenous knowledge centres in Aboriginal communities; and the commitment of $600 000 for community capacity building.
The Minister for Education, Employment and Training, in his statement on indigenous education and the implementation of the Learning Lessons report, told this House that the lack of education is the single most important factor in the poor employment record of indigenous people. The recommendations of the Learning Lessons report are being worked on through this government’s Implementation Steering Committee, co-chaired by Bob Collins and Esther Djayhgurrnga, where the focus is on immediate implementation of key programs and initiatives.
In accord with the comments I have already made about working with indigenous people, minister Stirling recognised that true change will only occur in indigenous education in partnership with indigenous parents, communities, service providers and industry, with indigenous people involved in the decision-making processes at all levels.
The Minister for Health also set out another element of the Martin government’s indigenous policy agenda in her statement on Indigenous Health in May. She highlighted the toxic mix of junk food, tobacco, cannabis and alcohol in our Aboriginal communities which, together with environmental factors such as inadequate housing, unemployment, poor education and a maze of unintegrated funding arrangements were leading to the health crisis being faced by many indigenous Territorians.
She proposed changes to service delivery arrangements to see indigenous people finally taking full control over the allocation of primary health care funds in their region as well as the development of a strategic plan to upgrade bush health centres and the streamlining of funding arrangements. The government’s focus on the importance of developing economic partnerships with Aboriginal people has been highlighted in some of these statements and was a major theme at the Economic Development Summit.
One of the key elements of our economic development strategy is to improve the economic outcomes for indigenous Territorians and enable them to participate fully in mainstream economic activity. There are strong common themes which are at the core of these statements and policy positions. First, that this government is realistic. We cannot deliver on the commitments alone and we would not be effective if we tried. We must work in partnership with indigenous Territorians and their organisations.
Second, we need to work on the fundamental services for indigenous people and involve them in mainstream economic activity to achieve sustainable change in other areas. Indigenous Territorians must have the same access to services as the rest of Australia considers a fundamental right: good housing and infrastructure, sound education, relevant training opportunities and access to health care services.
Third, that real and lasting change can often be delivered through local control and local solutions reached in agreement with individual communities and regional areas.
I would like now to turn to other justice system commitments flowing from the communiqu. The communiqu committed all governments across Australia to look at the role of customary law. In conjunction with the signing of the communiqu today, I would like to take this opportunity to announce the government’s inquiry into Aboriginal customary law in the Northern Territory.
Entitled Toward Mutual Benefit - An Inquiry into Aboriginal Customary Law in the Northern Territory, the inquiry will be co-chaired by the eminent Territorian and Chair of the Northern Territory Law Reform Committee, Hon Austin Asche AC QC, together with an indigenous co-chair. Alongside the co-chair will be a membership of the inquiry which will be equal in number between indigenous and non-indigenous people.
I look forward to announcing the name of the co-chair and membership of the subcommittee which will assist with the inquiry in the coming weeks.
Before I go to the terms of reference of the committee, I would like to place on the record the framework within which the inquiry will be operating. There are many parts of both statutory and common law already operating in the Northern Territory, as well as in other state jurisdictions and the Commonwealth, that incorporate or take into account elements of Aboriginal customary law. Police have rules known as the Anunga Rules, which apply to Aboriginal people being held in custody for questioning, particularly where English is not their first language. These rules have operated since 1976. Existing Territory statute laws, which were created by the former CLP government, expressly require the relevant authorities to take into account customary practices. Some examples are the Evidence Act, the Community Welfare Act, the Adoption of Children Act, the Crimes (Victims Assistance) Act, the Compensation (Fatal Injuries) Act, the Status of Children Act, the Administration and Probate Act, the Mental Health and Related Services Act, as well as various community government schemes which have been passed by this House.
Traditional punishment can be and has long been taken into account in sentencing in our courts, but it is important to place this recognition in context. However, I would like to quote here from a Federal Court decision by Jadurin v R, handed down in 1982, where three judges, including Justice Toohey, found that:
The federal court judges went on to state that:
Aboriginal law is commonly misunderstood as relating primarily to issues of punishment and payback and its interface with the Criminal Code. This perception is simply untrue. Aboriginal law encompasses an extremely broad and complex set of rules and unwritten legislation which govern social relationships, economic rights, land ownership and management, wildlife conservation and intellectual property rights.
This government believes that, in accordance with Australian and international law, Aboriginal customary law should be recognised to the extent which is consistent with universally recognised human rights and fundamental freedoms. Let me say that again: Aboriginal customary law should be recognised to the extent which is consistent with universally recognised human rights and fundamental freedoms.
Given the statements and comments that have been made in the House over the past week, I would also like to place on the record that this government affirms that the Northern Territory Criminal Code applies to all citizens of the Northern Territory without exception. This means that the Northern Territory government does not condone any of the crimes in that code including but not limited to murder, manslaughter, dangerous act, rape, incest, carnal knowledge, kidnap, assault and theft.
Let me also place on record that this government believes there is much value to be gained in supporting and sustaining Aboriginal customary law, and that the knowledge contained in Aboriginal customary law can be of mutual benefit to all citizens of the Northern Territory, as well as to its traditional custodians.
The inquiry has been asked to inquire into the strength of Aboriginal customary law in the Northern Territory. Specifically, it has been asked to report and make recommendations:
on the capacity of Aboriginal customary law to provide benefits to the Northern Territory in areas
including but not limited to governance, social wellbeing, law and justice, economic independence,
wildlife conservation, land management and scientific knowledge;
Northern Territory.
In conducting this inquiry, the committee has been asked to have regard to:
the views of Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory, particularly those who are custodians
of Aboriginal customary law;
Territory and other jurisdictions;
Committee NT, the Australian Law Reform Commission 1986, and the Royal Commission into
Aboriginal Deaths in Custody; and
The government has asked the committee to report back by the middle of next year.
I would like now to set out other initiatives this government has started work on. In the area of crime prevention, many of these initiatives flow from our election commitments which pledge us to work not just on crime and on better law enforcement but also on the causes of crime. Our six-point plan to tackle property and other crime recognised that an
A common theme identified in the statements presented to this House to address indigenous disadvantage and consequences which flow from it including offending behaviour.
Like in all other elements of our social policy program, we believe that the most effective way we can attack crime and its causes in the Territory is in partnership with the community. The establishment of Crime Prevention NT is about building partnerships against crime. The government is also working on specific initiatives through its crime prevention programs which will target crime and disadvantage both in our urban and rural centres and on our remote communities.
We are determined to regionalise our crime prevention work. In urban and rural areas, negotiations are under way with the Palmerston Crime Prevention Committee on that committee taking on responsibility for Palmerston and the surrounding region. In Alice Springs, the Alice in 10 Quality of Life Committee is looking at taking on the role of crime prevention council. Work is also starting soon on establishing regional crime prevention councils in Katherine, Darwin and Gove.
I take this opportunity to highlight the activities of the first regional Crime Prevention Council to be established in the Northern Territory, the Tennant Creek Youth Initiatives and Safe Communities Committee. I also congratulate the member for Barkly for his work in helping to establish that committee. In January this year, around 50 Tennant Creek residents attended a meeting at the Council Chambers to voice their concerns about crime and antisocial behaviour in the township. By February 2002, the Tennant Creek committee had been formed. I congratulate the people of Tennant Creek for moving quickly and acting on their concerns. Early results show that they are actually starting to pay off.
Since February, the Tennant Creek Youth Initiatives and Safer Community Committee has:
identified the need for a community safety plan for the region;
secured funding of $11 000 from ATSIC for interim employment of a
project officer;
secured funding of $260 000 over two years from the Commonwealth to
provide ongoing money for a project officer to implement the regional
safety plan;
established a youth initiatives working group and secured a commitment from
ATSIC to provide resources. The group has already conducted youth consultations,
peer skills training and forums to engage with local youth and to improve youth-police
relationships in the town;
amalgamated with the existing NT Police Community Safety Committee;
looked at ways to interact with and represent the interests of other communities within the
Barkly region; and
represented the Barkly region at the recent Australian Institute of Criminology National Crime
Prevention Conference through joint Commonwealth and NT government sponsorship. Funds
were found for the committee’s project officer and another Tennant Creek indigenous person
from Julalikari Night Patrol to attend.
I hope that activities and the successes of Tennant Creek will act as an inspiration to others as committees are established across the Northern Territory.
I would also like to report this afternoon on crime prevention work in Alice Springs to take action on two issues of great concern to residents there: the effect of alcohol consumption on the community; and the initiatives on juvenile crime. As I reported to the House last week and this week, the evaluation of the 12 month trial of alcohol restrictions in Alice Springs, which started on 1 April, showed some early positive results:
compared to the same periods of the previous two years, the amount of pure alcohol sold
was 4.6% lower in the months April to June;
police report an 11% reduction in alcohol-related incidents;
the number of protective custodies have dropped by 15%;
ambulance call-outs related to alcohol have dropped by 5%;
selected presentations to the emergency department are 16% lower; and
fewer people have been placed in the sobering-up shelter.
It is encouraging that the overall level of violence has fallen and there are reports of some surrounding Aboriginal communities having fewer alcohol-related problems.
As you would be aware, in Alice Springs in early 2002, there was a spate of juvenile antisocial behaviour including vandalism and property crime which impacted heavily on the community. Following a series of meetings in Alice Springs with our Office of Crime Prevention, service deliverers, government agencies, family members and business people, the Safe Families framework has been developed.
Safe Families is an approach which supports and strengthens indigenous family protocols and extended family networks in the community, eliminating the need to use outside and inappropriate intervention. It focusses on an early response to these young people who may be at risk, identifying what needs to be done, prioritising and coordinating actions to assist parents and extended family to care for their children.
Safe Families must help those kids. If we can, we stand a good chance of reducing the offending behaviour. Safe Families is also about protecting our community. The police in Alice Springs are working closely with the Safe Families project and are often the initial point of contact with offenders and kids in need. Like with all offending behaviour, the police determine the best approach to each case including laying charges where appropriate. Our courts are also playing an active role and we are looking at ways in which the courts can order kids to be involved in these programs. I am encouraged by the unprecedented inter-agency and community cooperation which has generated the Safe Families approach.
The Northern Territory’s Aboriginal Law and Justice Strategy is also a key element of our Crime Prevention Strategy and our work to reduce the over representation of indigenous people in our gaols. As a model for tackling law and justice concerns, and for social change in remote communities, it is recognised as a success by both government and Aboriginal communities. It promotes the devolution of responsibility for law and justice issues from agencies to community organisations where that is both relevant and appropriate.
Aboriginal dispute resolution and customary decision making mechanisms are tools which can be used locally for dealing with law and justice matters. An across government response to issues identified by communities can be employed, including interventionary, crisis, preventative and education programs to deliver both short-term and long-term solutions. The Aboriginal Law and Justice Strategy is a working example of the success of the partnership approach that we are committed to promoting.
I would like to talk about the Kurduju Committee in this context. The Aboriginal Law and Justice Committees of Ali Curung, Lajamanu and Yuendumu have joined together to form the Kurduju Regional Crime Prevention Committee, the first indigenous crime prevention regional council. This committee will help to realise our vision of crime prevention councils spread across the Northern Territory in urban, rural and remote areas. The Kurduju Regional Crime Prevention Committee will be supported by our Office of Crime Prevention, and I will be chairing its first meeting on 31 October. It will continue its work on the Aboriginal Law and Justice Strategy, encourage community-based decision making as well as working on local crime prevention measures specifically targetted at those communities.
The broad range of initiatives I have just outlined are working examples of the strength of our partnership approach to crime prevention and to addressing disadvantage. Taking steps to stop crime before it starts and addressing the underlying dysfunction in Aboriginal communities are two of the ways this government hopes to reduce Aboriginal over-representation in our prisons.
Where possible, we will look at increasing the input from Aboriginal people in the criminal justice system and in the sentencing processes of our courts. This is nothing new; it just helps the courts to understand circumstances of the commission of the offence in much the same way as pre-sentence reports or submissions. We will ensure that indigenous people know about and use Victim Impact Statements. The Victim Support Unit of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions performs a critical support role in our criminal justice system for victims, witnesses and their families. The unit has been actively working to increase their services in the bush, to give victims in rural and remote areas the necessary support and to increase the opportunities they have to prepare the Victim Impact Statement. I would like to take this opportunity to commend the work of Nanette Hunter, the Director of the unit, and her team, particularly Colleen Burns, the Aboriginal Support Coordinator, in this difficult and important area.
This government will continue to engage community elders through Aboriginal law and justice committees. We are considering ways that elders can satisfy the need for traditional obligations for persons in custody, particularly youth and younger prisoners. Especially important is the need to maintain obligatory relationships and develop cultural knowledge which would otherwise be lost. This approach will help to ensure the successful reintegration of the offender on release providing the best possible chance for not reoffending.
The government will develop a system that suits individual communities. They will be linked to the crime and justice strategies and to local law and order plans enabling the local community to have input into the sentencing process.
The Kurduju Committee that I have already talked about will be working with my department to actively pursue such mechanisms. The Kurduju Committee has called this ‘New Start Community Sentencing’. It is modelled on aspects of ‘circle sentencing’ practiced in Canada and the United States, and is being trialled in New South Wales at present.
Circle sentencing is a powerful process that brings together the victim, the offender and their supporters, together with court officials and senior community members, to work through the issues and determine the appropriate sentence for the offender. In this particular type of sentencing, everyone comes to a consensus as to the outcome that would best satisfy the needs of the offender and, importantly, the sense of justice of the whole community including the victim. Not all cases are suited to this sentencing approach, but certainly many offences committed locally in the community could be dealt with in this manner. I commend the Circuit Court magistrates, and in particular Deputy Chief Magistrate Cathy Deland, who sits in Yuendumu, for the effort they have put into the work with the community while they have been visiting on circuit.
The proposals my department are considering also include looking at community decisions to supervise or re-integrate a past offender back into the community following a custodial term. The activities of the Indigenous Community Correction Officers will play a vital role. Seven officers completed the first component of their training last Friday on the delivery of community-based corrections programs. These programs are used when a court determines that a Community Work Order is an appropriate punishment. Officers from Ngukurr, Yuendumu, Lajamanu, the Tiwi Islands, Wadeye, Groote Eylandt, and West Arnhem region completed this training. Indigenous Community Corrections Officers play a valuable role in providing service, advice and counsel to their communities, the courts and the Parole Board. They also support this government’s approach to crime prevention through partnerships, community engagement and local solutions, and I commend them for their unstinting work.
Another initiative we are working on is the introduction of the Integrated Offender Management System into our prisons. I believe this system could well have the ability to impact positively on the over-representation of indigenous people in our prison systems. Integrated Offender Management is based on a New Zealand model. It aims to manage an offender and their sentence from the time of first contact with the correctional system, through their prison sentence or community order, and on into re-integration with their family and community on completion of their sentence. Integrated Offender Management represents the first formal targetted strategy to be used by Correctional Services, and I am very excited about its introduction.
It targets offenders who present a significant risk of re-offending and coordinates all their contacts and programs, aiming to reduce the likelihood of offending behaviour recurring. Through comprehensive assessments, a case management plan is developed which establishes personal rehabilitation development goals. The plan incorporates programs to address specific problems like drug and alcohol abuse and anger management. It can also include educational and vocational training. A pre-release community re-integration plan will assist successful return to family and to the community which has been identified as a key factor in reducing re-offending.
I am pleased to report the New Zealand Department of Correctional Services has offered us open access to their operations. This will allow Northern Territory Correctional Services to benefit from New Zealand’s extensive developmental research and work on the Integrated Offender Management System. I believe that an integrated program-driven approach to rehabilitation and re-integration to family and the community will not only benefit the offenders themselves, but their families, the victims and the Northern Territory community as a whole if this system proves to be an effective tool to reduce the level of re-offending in our community.
I will be travelling to New Zealand for a few days later in the year to view their system first hand. I hope to be able to visit the male maximum security prison in Wellington, as well as the women’s prison there, and I look forward to reporting to the House on the results of these investigations.
I have also asked my department to consider practical alternatives to incarceration for appropriate cases. These alternatives might include diversionary programs for adults, upgrading the Community Work Order program, increasing the use of home detention orders which currently have the highest success rate in any Australian jurisdiction, and providing weekend and period detention as an option for certain types of offences.
Another area of the communiqu commits us to justice issues and law reform. Legislative reform of relevant laws will be driven by my department over the next three years. Specifically, reviews and reforms are currently planned for the NT Criminal Code, the Justices Act, the Magistrates Act, the Juvenile Justice Act, and the Prisons (Correctional Services) Act.
I would like to take this opportunity to talk briefly about some other related initiatives that this government is undertaking. They do not directly relate to justice issues, but they are important components of our plans to tackle underlying disadvantage suffered by many indigenous Territorians. A critical area that this government is committed to tackle is domestic and Aboriginal family violence, and we have increased the funding for this work. Domestic violence is an issue that is, unfortunately, endemic in many of our communities. Violence will not be tolerated, and the lives and wellbeing of those most affected will be protected. Too often, this is the women and children. New domestic and Aboriginal family violence strategies will be released in November. These will put in place a coordinated, multi-faceted whole-of-government and whole-of-community approach. Priority actions will centre on integrating community and regional views, a strong criminal justice and legal response, educative programs, and intervention for the victims and children and offenders.
A new community-based advisory structure will be integrated and provide government with independent advice. The cornerstone of the Aboriginal Family Violence Strategy will be a project which will genuinely be developed in partnership with communities, to engage in viable community building, create local employment opportunities, and to provide training for the communities involved, and produce a set of principles and practices that can be applied across a range of Northern Territory community contexts. This is from the Victim Support Unit of the Office of Director of Public Prosecutions, that I mentioned earlier, will complement the strategy. These strategies have as their foundation true community engagement and development principles. Responses will be delivered in a collaborative partnership with the wider community. Monitoring and evaluation will be ongoing.
Our government has taken a new approach to native title and Aboriginal land rights, which we believe is in the interests of all Territorians and which, in some cases, can form the basis for active participation by indigenous communities in our economy. We believe that when the law is clear, many cases can be resolved by negotiation between the parties rather than engaging in protracted litigation. The Kenbi land claim is one such example of extended litigation. The former government litigated that claim for 20 years at a cost to the NT taxpayer of around $20m - and no resultant resolution. That approach benefits no one. Negotiated settlements, on the other hand, can be mutually beneficial. Not only can expensive litigation be avoided, but indigenous land use agreements are very flexible and can include a range of initiatives such as Aboriginal Night Patrols or juvenile justice initiatives that can help address disadvantaged and community dysfunction.
We will not negotiate all cases, however. This government is also said we will continue to litigate cases where there are new points of law that need to be tested. The Larrakia claim is an example of this approach, as is the announcement I made early in October that an application had been filed for special leave to appeal to the High Court to test the decision of the Federal Court on the river beds and banks claim.
The government will increase its effort to educate indigenous Territorians about consumer and business affairs issues. This is vitally important to prevent rip-offs and to ensure that community leaders are aware of their responsibilities and obligations. As part of this effort, we are also looking at restructuring our Consumer Affairs Council, to broaden its membership and include membership of indigenous people. This has not been done previously, yet indigenous Territorians are constantly taken advantage of by some businesses and individuals, in many cases to the point of outright fraud.
In conclusion, I have asked my department to draw up an implementation plan for the initiatives I have outlined in the statement. That plan will contain time frames for action, as well as evaluation strategies so we can find out what is working, and what is not. I look forward to reporting back to the House periodically on progress we are making. As I draw this statement to a close, I am sure honourable members have noted that we have a tough job ahead of us. This is not about throwing more money at the problem. We need to form productive partnerships with indigenous communities and their peak bodies and leaders if we are to succeed. Even then success will not come quickly. We must be determined and we must persevere. We must not lapse into easy cynicism. We must be hard-headed and goodwilled.
I look forward to working with all members on both sides of this House, with government agencies and with indigenous leaders, organisations and communities, and with the broader community on this vitally important task. Together, I believe we can turn around the disadvantage and dysfunction that currently exists in much of the Northern Territory indigenous community in ways that will benefit the entire community of the Northern Territory.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I listened to and read the statement in some detail. I am quite pleased to be able to say a few words in response to this statement - a statement that will, I imagine, provoke a fair amount of debate in this Chamber, particularly from the members of the government who, I am sure, will take the opportunity to speak at length on all the things the government intends to do for Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory. No doubt, as the minister could not resist, take all the opportunity in the world to criticise the former CLP government by reinventing history and suggesting that nothing was ever done by the CLP government to help the advancement of Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory.
One of the problems we have with this Labor government is that, on the one hand it makes grand statements about how much they are going to do, how little the CLP government did to the point of saying did nothing. When you look through the statements you see that the programs and initiatives they point to have all been in place for some time and in fact some of those programs that he refers to were referenced to the Summit on Indigenous Deaths in Custody in 1997. So it is not as if they are new; it is not as if they are inventions of this new Labor government. It is not as if they are somehow initiatives that suddenly came to the Northern Territory. They were actually referenced to the summit that the minister spoke about at the beginning of his statement.
The other thing that happens so much in this House since the change of government - and I have never heard the word ‘indigenous’ mentioned so much in my life since the government has changed. That is fair enough. I know it is a very important part …
Dr Burns: They are 30% of our population.
Mr BURKE: … of the fabric of Territory life. They are, as the member for Johnston said, almost 30% of the Territory population and it is important that we do refer to it in this Chamber. The challenge and opportunity that this Labor government has is unique because for the first time you do have, supposedly, the alignment of all of those interest groups that should be able to effect real change in the Northern Territory. You have a Labor government that is focussed on indigenous issues; you have the support of the land councils and cooperative arrangements for freeing up Aboriginal land; you have real money coming through from ATSIC in programs that the minister has pointed to in his statement; and supposedly you are working in cooperation with the federal government on a range of issues.
So the opportunity for real change is there, and I wish you well. I hope at the end of this first term of the Labor government we do see the sorts of changes that you believe you can achieve. It is going to be extremely difficult, but you certainly will not get opposition from this side of the House because like it or not, we did try and tried very hard. We could have done better, as everyone could have done better. We were frustrated on many occasions by the lack of change that we hoped would have occurred in various areas. Too often we were called racists for pointing out what I believe were self-evident facts. Yet at the same time, if those same statements are made by an Aboriginal politician in the Northern Territory, all of a sudden they are statesmen-like.
It is a real problem because we all want to advance the Northern Territory together. One of the things that is good about Territorians, and Territory politicians from both sides, is that generally they are a pretty pragmatic bunch. Unlike so many others, we tend to speak the facts as we see them. I do hope the Labor government does not too often fall for the continuing bellicose rhetoric of blaming others - somehow, if you are not Aboriginal, you don’t know what you’re talking about - and elevating this whole issue to a status that is nothing more than symbolism, weasel words and rhetoric and not addressing the real issues on the ground. That is what we all want to achieve, and we want to achieve it quickly because it is frustrating for everyone. It is frustrating for all Australians and all Australians want to play a greater part, but they want to play a realistic and practical part. If I have gone wrong in the past, I have not gone wrong for being a racist. I have gone wrong, if I have gone wrong, for speaking the truth as I saw it.
When I look around the Northern Territory and see some people who had more opportunities in life than I had by virtue of the circumstances and the generosity of the governments and the people of Australia, it behoves all of us to work together and move forward together without an issue of them and us, without being labelled racist if I make a comment in a pragmatic way but, because I am Labor, socialist, ATSIC, NLC, I can say what I like about white people, which too often happens.
In fact, that is what happened at that ministerial conference that I attended. The Attorney-General talks about the symbolic act that he has just gone through of signing this communiqu. I was not interested in symbolism. When I went down to Canberra, I went down there as the health minister and the Attorney-General for a ministerial summit that involved all of the Aboriginal Affairs ministers, health ministers and Attorneys-General from throughout Australia. I was looking for something that would really achieve progress. I was looking for real dollars on the table from the Commonwealth, and real effort from all the states. I will tell you who else was looking for the same thing: Michael Mansell, Gatjil Djerrkura, Mick Dodson. None of them signed for the same reason. They came at it from a different point of view from me.
I came from this perspective: the Northern Territory had nothing to be ashamed of when it came to Aboriginal deaths in custody. You can read the $400m worth of Royal Commission studies and see how the Northern Territory pegged against the other states. We pegged quite well. There was no way in the world that the Territory was going to be cobbled up in terms of the lack of effort of other states, some of the larger, in relation to dealing with Aboriginal deaths in custody and their high incarceration rates around Australia. I simply was not going to stand for it. Neither was I going to stand for the fact that there would be somehow a centralised committee that would dictate to the states and territories what their outcomes would be, how they would lower the incarceration rate of indigenous people and tell us the programs that we would put in place in the Northern Territory. I would not have it. That was the reason the communiqu was not signed.
This was a very important meeting that had all of these ministers from around Australia, and guess what the outcome of that summit was?:
That was self-evident. Everyone knew that. We have been reporting every year as a result of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. There was nothing mind blowing about that as a statement for ministers to commit to. The second one:
Sure, everyone knows that. The minister said that in his statement. I had been saying it in various statements as the health minister. The underlying issues needed to addressed, but you had to say how you were going to address them. Where were the dollars that were going to be there to address them? Nothing. The fourth one was:
If that is not self-evident, I am not here. To my mind it was a talkfest, it was a waste of time, and it is hypocrisy, minister, for you to come in here and somehow say you were shamed - shamed because I did not stand up for the fact that Territorians were doing their very best. Given the circumstances that we have in the Northern Territory, the significant demographics of the Northern Territory, which were unique from those in other states and territories, and somehow you were ashamed I was standing up for the fact that we would not be dictated to by others.
Certainly not from a minister - one was a Liberal health minister from Tasmania, she started standing in there and lecturing the committee about all of these Aboriginal issues that they were addressing in Tasmania, for God’s sake. They are poles apart. There is no way in the world that the Territory could be cobbled up into that sort of arena and I would not have it.
I said at the time the communiqu was a waste of effort and it was a waste of words, it did not have the outcomes that were needed in terms of getting real progress, and I stand by those comments today. The minister himself has basically said it because it is symbolic. The facts are there on the table because in terms of over-representation, nothing has changed. From 1997 to 2002, pull out your ABS reports and see what the states have actually achieved – nothing! They have gotten worse.
So signing that communiqu was just another example of more words and no action for Aboriginal people, and I was not going to be a party to it. I have also had a look at some of the things I said. If you think these are words that were racist, these are words that you are ashamed of today, listen again because I am as confident to say them today as I said them then in that conference. I have said here in the conference:
I went on to say – and this is in 1997:
I said:
I continued:
It sounds familiar, member for Arnhem?
I went on to say:
That was the tone of my comments to that conference. I read them today, and I tell you what: I still stand by them, and you can call me what you like.
If we then say all of these jurisdictions signed up for all of these wonderful outcomes they are going to achieve, except this terrible Northern Territory, it is pretty interesting to look at the ABS figures to see how these jurisdictions have fared since 1997. If you look at the ABS figures for Queensland, in 1998 it was 1065 indigenous persons in custody - the comparable figure for June 2002 is 1176. In Western Australia in 1998, 785 indigenous persons were in custody - the comparable figure for June 2002 is 868. South Australia in 1998 was 213 and in June this year 239. New South Wales figures are not available for earlier years but in 2000 the figure was 1143 and in June 2002 it was 1367. Tasmania has risen from 30 in 1998 to 64 in 2002, and I imagine the real answer there is that so many more people in Tasmania are claiming to be Aboriginal. Victoria in June 1998 was 127 and in June 2002, it was 164.
So all of those jurisdictions that signed to lower the over-representation of indigenous persons in custody have increased despite the fact that they signed the communiqu. In the Northern Territory, it is interesting. In this shameful Northern Territory the comparable figures are 439 in custody in 1998 and 459 in June this year. I would point out that the figure in the Northern Territory for the September quarter of 2001 when government changed was 422 and had dropped as low as 398 in 2000.
Under the previous government, the Northern Territory was the only jurisdiction where the numbers fell since the signing of that symbolic communiqu.
If you turn to the ratio of indigenous to non-indigenous rates of imprisonment, again it is the Northern Territory that in fact leads the way compared to the rest of Australia. In 1998, the ratio in the Northern Territory was 8.1, that is indigenous persons were 8.1 times more likely to be gaoled than non-indigenous persons. In September 2001, this had fallen to 5.1 but has since, under this new government with this focus on indigenous incarceration, risen to 6.8. Across Australia the figures have remained static or slightly decreased in the case of Western Australia where it has dropped from a rate of 20.4 in 1998 to 18.2 in the June quarter of this year.
So what was achieved by all those states and jurisdictions which did sign the communiqu? What have they done in the words of the communiqu ‘to address the over-representation of indigenous people in the criminal justice system’?. I can tell you that whatever they have done, it has not worked.
In contrast, the Territory has achieved a substantial drop - or it did until a change of government in August last year. But of course, when it comes to real facts, they get lost when it is compared to the rhetoric that is peddled by the Minister for Justice and his government. No wonder, minister, you call it a symbolic act because that is all it is and that is why it is not worth signing. We did not sign it but we achieved a drop in over-representation because we preferred to continue the action and programs that we had in place in the Northern Territory, not being dictated to by others or symbolism.
Another little bunch of statistics that were tabled in this parliament last week - and they were addressed to the Minister for Justice - are interesting, too. They are the reports of the Juvenile Justice Boards of Management for the northern and southern regions. For example, they reveal that the monthly daily average of juveniles being held in various detention centres has risen from 9.4 in July last year to 23.4 in June this year. They show that the number of Juvenile Diversionary Orders has declined from 12 in 2001 to 1 in 2001-02. So, when the minister says he does not want to dwell too much on statistics, I say no wonder because you certainly do not have anything there that you can lay on the Table that shows real tangible outcomes apart from words at this stage.
You also say on page one of the statement the rate of unemployment among indigenous Territorians is 60%. You are pretty selective there, too, and you might want to consult with the Chief Minister because she was crowing in the Chamber today that the unemployment rate in the Northern Territory is 4.2%. So you want to count Aboriginal people as unemployed when it suits you, and you want to count them as employed when it suits you as well. That is the sort of stuff you used to criticise the CLP government for. You are certainly not demonstrating that you are doing any different. At least we stood up and said what we thought.
The other thing I wonder, too, is whether the minister or some of his advisors have ever bothered to look at the speeches and presentations that I made, and the papers that were provided by the government to that summit in 1997. If you did not have a look at it, certainly the person who wrote your speech must have had a bit of a sneak, a bit of a look because most of your speech refers to the programs that were tabled at that summit.
One paper I presented related specifically to the over-representation of indigenous persons in custody. The headings of papers were Community Justice Program of Diversionary Conferencing: Tangentyere and Julalikari Night Patrols, Aboriginal Family Violence Strategy and Living with Alcohol Program, a paper on Customary Law, and Alternative Dispute Resolution in Aboriginal Communities. So it should sound familiar.
Before moving on, there is another issue I would raise in relation to this and that is customary law. The government continues to peddle the mistruths that the CLP threw out the work of the previous Constitutional Development Committee when it comes to customary law. They conveniently forget the clause that …
Mr Ah Kit: You drew a line through it and rewrote it overnight. I was there. I was there. I was a witness.
Mr BURKE: Well, have a listen. Tell the truth. You know what happened.
Mr Ah Kit: I am telling the truth. I know what happened.
Mr BURKE: Yes, okay. Were you in the meetings with Gatjil Djerrkura and Djinniyini Gondarra? I do not know whether Djinniyini had you in the room, did he? I do not think he had you in the room. He would not have you there.
Mr Ah Kit: Don’t worry about Jack, mate. Jack was about.
Mr BURKE: They conveniently forget the clause that was included in the constitution relating to customary law, and that is a clause I worked long and hard on with Reverend Djinniyini Gondarra and other Aboriginal delegates, a clause that Bob Collins described, at the conference, as the one of the most significant achievements. It is interesting that the member for Arnhem now seems to want to belittle it so easily.
Mr Ah Kit: I was here. They walked. They walked.
Mr BURKE: Well, I did not realise that the member for Arnhem was such a significant traditional elder.
Mr Ah Kit: The delegation walked.
Mr BURKE: Now, this is where I really need to be educated because I always thought that when it came to status, Djinniyini Gondarra had some status.
Mr Ah Kit: How did the vote go?
Mr BURKE: Maybe the Chairman of the Northern Land Council has greater status than Aboriginal law does. I am here to be instructed on these issues, but certainly, from the Aboriginal delegates at that convention, they did not point to the member for Arnhem as being the person to talk to on these issues. Djinniyini Gondarra was the one we spoke to.
Mr Ah Kit: And where was Gatjil?
Mr BURKE: He was the one selected by all of the delegates
Mr Ah Kit: And where was Gatjil?
Mr BURKE: And I think you might have been one also who endorsed him to stand up and give the presentation on customary law. He was the authority.
Mr Ah Kit: On the second day. They walked on the first day.
Mr BURKE: He is the one I worked with. He is the one I spoke with and I am sure if you checked with him …
Mr Ah Kit: They walked on the first day before the voting for the resolution started.
Mr BURKE: … because when he retired recently, he wrote me a letter and in that letter he reflected on the work that was done at that convention. But I am happy to stand corrected by the member for Arnhem. If you have status as an Aboriginal elder and traditional owner greater than him, then I will be the first to apologise and stand corrected because I am only an ignorant white fella in this sort of business.
I thought it was a very important clause to have inserted in that draft constitution. I worked hard to achieve it. There were a number of delegates, Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal, who were worried about the ramifications of such a clause, but insert it we did, and Mr Collins described it as one of the most significant achievements.
I began my comments talking about the hypocrisy expressed in the minister’s speech and, while I believe I have dealt with specific instances of that, it is the general tone of what the minister said that I was referring to. He constructs a framework that says the previous government did nothing and then fills it in with what has been achieved by the previous government and how his government is going to continue that good work. He has spoken about how:
For that I was called a racist. One of the unfortunate things about being white is that if I say the same things as the member for Arnhem said, I am a racist. You are a statesman. That is the way it falls, I guess. That is life.
We support moves, as I said, that will address the over-representation of Aborigines in our gaols. We have acted on it in the past and we were having some success, and the minister eventually acknowledges that. But our concern is that the main emphasis must be on preventing Territorians coming into the justice system, not interfering once they are there. We cannot have one law for one group of Territorians and other laws for other groups.
Once a person breaks the law, is convicted by a court and then sentenced, there should be no discrimination evident in any of those processes. All must be equal before the law and subject to the law. The Attorney-General puts on record that his government affirms that the Northern Territory Criminal Code applies to all citizens of the Northern Territory without exception. Well, the challenge is that he must ensure that this is not just a principle that will be more observed by its abuse than by its implementation. We must never entertain a system where a person can commit a crime, but whether he or she is charged and sentenced, depends on the colour of his or her skin or any other form of discrimination, nor should we have a system where the punishment meted out to offenders can be carried out in a criminal fashion. All should be equal before the law.
As I said earlier, we support any moves that will improve the health, education, housing and social development of any Territorian. We actively pursued such policies over a series of CLP governments, and I reject totally and resent fully the implications and insinuations of those opposite that generations of dedicated public servants, non-government organisations and ministers did otherwise. As your icon, Bob Collins commented …
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, your time has expired.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I move that the Leader of the Opposition be granted an extension of time in order to conclude his remarks.
Motion agreed to.
Mr BURKE: It was Bob Collins, the icon of the Labor government, who commented a few years ago: ‘If you think things ain’t better today, you weren’t there in the past’. If you want to come in here with policies to pursue your objectives, why taint them with blinkered and false views of the past? Put them forward, as is your right, you are the government, and stand by them.
You talk about moving forward, but you are unable to resist scoring political points about what you have convinced yourselves happened in the past. You have a false perception, and you do yourselves no good by concentrating so much of your effort and rhetoric on it. You are the government, just get on and get it done.
Mr AH KIT (Community Development): Madam Speaker, I would prefer to speak to my paper and then come back and pick up some of the comments by the Leader of the Opposition because, if we are going to tell the story, we might as well tell the whole story and not parts of it. I thought he actually started off well in making statements about ‘the opportunity for change, and we had our go, and it is your turn, all the best, and 30% indigenous, and you will not get opposition from this side of the House’. I thought that started off really well, and as he started to go through it, it brought back a few memories and he decided to dig a bit deeper and then started to become adversarial about the statement presented by the Minister for Justice.
I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate on Aboriginal customary law. I name the papers I present and this one is called Not Just Passing Through. I thank the Minister for Justice for his contribution to tackling what must be seen as among the most enduring stains on the history of relations between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians: the failure of the justice system to properly serve all our citizens. On both sides of this House, we sit here as legislators. As parliamentarians, we make the laws, but the mere making of laws does not guarantee justice.
Indeed, our experience of law making here in the Northern Territory over the last quarter century has too often seen the creation of injustice. I speak not only about regressive laws such as mandatory sentencing, but of a structure of laws and their administration which has too often meant that indigenous Territorians have seen justice as something that does not belong to them, but as something that is the privilege of non-indigenous people. The high levels of incarceration of indigenous Territorians that the Attorney-General has outlined here today is but one symptom of an almost complete denial of law and justice here in the Northern Territory for Aboriginal people over a quarter of a century of CLP rule; a quarter of a century of neglect of Aboriginal people at the hands of a system that served us so poorly; a quarter of a century of contempt for the values and knowledge that can be found in so much of Aboriginal customary law, values and knowledge that can benefit us all.
This did not have to be so. Under the Martin government’s administration, it will not be so. As the Australian jurisdiction with the highest proportion of indigenous people, the Northern Territory has perhaps the greatest opportunity to get it right. Indeed, at various times we have got it right.
The 1976 Anunga Rules that the Attorney-General cited earlier was an example of a judicial ruling that sought to resolve major difficulties facing indigenous people in confronting the white man’s law. Judge Forster’s Anunga Rules set a benchmark for Aboriginal people dealing with the police that has been recognised internationally. But note the date: 1976. The first precept set by the Anunga Rules said the following:
The response of the CLP? Dumb ignorance! It would be 25 years - in the face of international condemnation for their mandatory sentencing policy - before they could be dragged kicking and screaming into starting to provide a half-way adequate Aboriginal Interpreter Service.
The Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody was finalised a decade ago and, as the Attorney-General pointed out, five years have gone past since every government in Australia, except that of the CLP overseen by its former Attorney-General, signed the communiqu from the October 1997 Ministerial Summit on Indigenous Deaths in Custody. The Justice Minister this afternoon called it a shame that the Northern Territory alone did not sign this document. I go further and call it moral bankruptcy by the previous Attorney-General. Thank God, we set that right this afternoon by finally signing the communiqu.
In 1991, the Northern Territory Special Issues Unit of the Royal Commission published Too Much Sorry Business. It is a report that damned the Northern Territory then, and should have been the catalyst for widespread change in Aboriginal/non-Aboriginal relations in the Northern Territory. Too Much Sorry Business painted a bleak picture of excessive substance abuse, appalling health outcomes, of lousy educational attainment, and of rock bottom relations between Aboriginal Territorians and the police, justice and correction systems. That was 11 years ago. It outlined then the continuing tragedy - which it pains me to point out - has not been even remotely resolved over that period. Indeed, in some areas, it has got worse. Virtually everything that was said in Too Much Sorry Business has had to be repeated in this place since the coming of the Martin government. It was said in my ministerial statement in March, and in the respective statements of the ministers for Education and Health, and here again today in the words of the Minister for Justice.
We are not just looking at a quarter of a century of lost opportunity and having now to deal with a legacy that will take years to overcome; we are looking at a regime that was immoral in its negligence. They were told the truth 11 years ago in Too Much Sorry Business, yet they refused to acknowledge the truth. An important element of Too Much Sorry Business was its discussion of Aboriginal customary law and its potential role in contributing to social harmony within the Northern Territory. I quote:
This was a submission to government 11 years ago. Too Much Sorry Business made the same point back then that the Attorney-General made today, and which I reiterate. This government does not condone violence and would never seek to decriminalise, let alone legalise, physical assault being used as punishment. The law in the Northern Territory reflects the High Court’s 1994 Walker ruling that English criminal law extinguished customary criminal law in Australia.
The law in the Northern Territory reflects Australia’s obligations under international laws and its commitment to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The law in the Northern Territory will not support practices that are not consistent with universally recognised human rights and fundamental freedoms.
One thing I want to make very clear is that this government, and myself as an Aboriginal person, would never tolerate an attempt to hide behind traditional law or punishment as an excuse for drunken, violent assault. That denigrates Aboriginal law and traditional practice. I go further. Indigenous people increasingly rely on a body of international law to protect and extend indigenous rights. The Northern Territory government is not going to be in the business of allowing appeals to apparent traditions of righteous violence to override the international humanitarian law, for that would diminish the rights of indigenous people everywhere.
For this reason I would like to comment briefly on a recent case here in the Northern Territory. I believe our legal system here failed in its humanitarian responsibility for the protection of children. While I appreciate the judge in question took questions of tradition into account in sentencing, I believe he failed in his broader duty to the law of the Northern Territory, the nation and the international community.
In welcoming the inquiry instituted by the Minister for Justice appropriately entitled Toward Mutual Benefit, I would like to turn to the benefits the Northern Territory community can expect from a serious appraisal of Aboriginal customary law.
It should be understood that Aboriginal customary law is not, as the Attorney-General pointed out, narrowly confined to violent crime and violent punishment. The real guts of Aboriginal customary law is about social relationships and economic rights. It is for this reason that Aboriginal customary law reflects the entirety and complexity of Aboriginal society.
Over the years I had the privilege of spending many hours with the late Big Bill Neidje of Kakadu National Park. As anyone who spoke to him or had the pleasure of reading his work will know, the law of the Gagadju people he represented is of profound importance to our understanding of the lands of his forefathers. It is a law that continues through Jonathan Samson and Big Bill’s other descendants. It is a law, for example, that he showed me dictated the right times of year that one must carry out the kinds of cool burnings that would protect the environment, a law that will renew country year after year and protect it from the kinds of wild fires that seem now to be threatening the bush lands of South Australia.
This is not mere touchy feely stuff. It is law-based knowledge that western scientists are utilising across northern Australia and beyond to protect the environment. It is law-based knowledge that might allow us to manage the sustainable harvesting of wildlife, as groups such as the Djelk Rangers around Maningrida are currently working towards. It is the kind of law-based knowledge through which Yolngu people working with Dhimurru in north-east Arnhem Land are monitoring the sustainability of turtle and other marine populations of the region as well as the appalling levels of marine pollution that plague our northern waters. It is the kind of law-based knowledge that provides real hope for the future of the lands and seas we all share.
It is the law of peoples who, unlike many who spend just some of their life in the Northern Territory, are not just passing through. They are here to stay. The holders of these laws are not tourists. They are custodians of the future of the Northern Territory and their custodial role is represented by their traditional law. It is while we support indigenous input to the work of the Desert Knowledge Centre on the one hand and to that of the Garma Festival held at Nhulunbuy on the other.
Each of these organisations and many others are integral parts of a future in which we seek a balance, a balance of mutual benefit between Aboriginal customary law and our European legal heritage.
These are the kinds of outcomes we are looking for from this inquiry, outcomes that support Aboriginal customary law for the benefit of the custodians of that law as well as all other citizens of the Northern Territory. It is a support for Aboriginal customary law that might be able to contribute to economic independence for Aboriginal Territorians rather than face the dead hand of welfare.
We do not need to be rocket scientists to work out that support for Aboriginal customary law is of benefit to us all. The culture of indigenous Territorians is not just the immediate surface beauty of paintings, sculpture, song and dance. The cultural integrity and pride that is represented by Aboriginal artists is based on Aboriginal customary law, from the painters of the desert to those creative workers who live in urban settings. This is not the plastic of fakes and reproductions that sully the souvenir shops; it is creativity that is based deeply in Aboriginal customary law from artists who know where they come from.
We do not need to be art critics to figure out that Aboriginal customary law is of critical importance to the cultural future of the Northern Territory as well as its economic future. We must commit support to indigenous creative workers both in practical terms as well as the support we must give to them in the field of intellectual property protection.
As the terms of reference to this inquiry spell out, we are looking to ways in which Aboriginal customary law might formally or informally be recognised within the Northern Territory. Some of that recognition will indeed be formal. For example, the work my department is carrying out with the Kurduju Law and Justice project at Ali Curung, Lajamanu, and Yuendumu I see as a way forward in moving towards resolving some of the contradictions between Aboriginal customary law and the way justice might be delivered in the mainstream. Other projects will see formal relationships develop between elders, male and female, in summary jurisdictions such as magistrates courts.
Projects such as these recognise within the framework of human rights law the traditional authority structures that can nurture and strengthen Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory rather than adhere to colonial structures that disenfranchise, disempower and alienate Aboriginal people. Such projects will vary from place to place to take into account local Aboriginal customary law. Some will be formalised; some will be more spontaneous. Fundamental to these approaches will be the fact that they will be rooted in a culture of capacity building and community development rather than a narrow delivery of non-indigenous judicial and mainstream legal expertise, let alone Aboriginal communities being swamped by the bureaucrats.
Twenty years ago, the eminent historian Henry Reynolds wrote an important book entitled The Other Side of the Frontier. It spoke of a period in history which was characterised by conflict and opposition, confrontation and inequality, conflict and opposition between two cultures and two laws, confrontation and equality between peoples of different world views.
In many important respects, the history of the first 24 years of self-government here in the Northern Territory has perpetuated the idea of the frontier of us and them, of one set of laws that were acceptable and another set that were to be rejected at any cost, where the ideology of the frontier remains steeped in the ideology of conflict and inequality.
What I am arguing this afternoon, to take those words from Too Much Sorry Business, is for ‘Aboriginal Law and white law to work together’, a phrase the report said was unusual at that time. Let’s make it a usual idea at this time. Let us make the Territory a place where frontiers, where they exist, and as they often will, no longer exist as arenas of conflict between two laws, but of worlds of creative engagement and mutual benefit.
Madam Speaker, I come back to the comments made by the Leader of the Opposition …
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, I move that the member be granted an extension of time in order that he may complete his remarks.
Motion agreed to.
Mr AH KIT: I just wanted to come back in and pick up those comments because, as I said before …
Mr Elferink: Probably he is going to ruin a great speech now. That is the problem. That is the shame of this. He is going to take a great speech and ruin it.
Ms Scrymgour: We gave your leader an extension.
Mr Elferink: You are going to take what was essentially a good speech and you are going to ruin it.
Mr AH KIT: The member for Macdonnell can wait his turn for when he contributes. It would be remiss of me to allow, given that I have been here for seven years, what the Leader of the Opposition had put on record to go unchallenged.
I was here at the Constitutional Convention. In fact, I represented our Caucus along with John Bailey. We sat in this very room when the debates were conducted over those eight, nine days. I was also, as you are aware, a member of the Constitutional Development Committee on Statehood. The exercise that happened here, and it was driven by the Leader of the Opposition who was the Chief Minister elect and in waiting, was to come into this convention and to torpedo and push through at any cost, at any pace, the agenda that the government had at that time. We witnessed the 30-odd people who sat across there who were mostly card carrying members of the CLP, and how they block voted. Then he came in and said, this is the Leader of the Opposition, I worked overnight on this draft constitution about Aboriginal customary law and all that. I have got it all fixed; it is all sorted out, and he wanted us to believe that.
It was no wonder that the Aboriginal delegation, or a majority of them, walked out. They were not silly; they were not going to participate in the process when the numbers were stacked against them because once they got locked into the voting, they could not get out. That was the problem. Regardless of what Bob Collins said - I disagreed with him then and I disagree with him to this very day about what they were saying in respect of customary law. There was no consultation. The consultation process happened for about 15 years. The former member for Arnhem was on it with the former member for Nightcliff who chaired it for most of that time. But he got shunted sideways very quickly because the former member for Port Darwin and Chief Minister at the time had a different agenda. We saw what happened to him after the vote on the referendum because of how he conducted himself here. So it is not good enough for the Leader of the Opposition to say: ‘I got it right and everyone else got it wrong’.
I was encouraged by the first few sentences he uttered about working together and no opposition from us. I have had a look at the statement that I signed today, and I was very proud to participate with the Minister for Justice and the national chair, Tauto Sansbury, the former Chair of the NT AJAC, Eddie Taylor, and the current Chair, Douglas Walker. This asked the then Chief Minister, in 1997, to show a bit of heart, to show a bit of commitment, to work towards coming together. Every other state and territory signed off on it. But I suppose at that point and time, being advised by the member for Katherine who has also stood up in this House on a couple of occasions and said how proud he is to be a redneck, that they had that political position and that was one to oppose - to oppose.
Today, it is not a matter of arguing about what were the good things to come out of it and we have proved them all wrong. The former Chief Minister talked about some stats, 6.8%, 2000. If he was committed to this and signed off on it, all those stats would be a lot better than they are today. But he did not commit on principle; he did not commit and he is to be condemned.
I welcome from him, if he is serious about working with us and moving things forward, because that is what we want to do. We are not on about two laws; we are on about working together to make the Territory a great place. I am not going to sit in this Chamber and hear this stuff being trotted out in defence of the actions he took then. He should take it on the chin; he was not a good Chief Minister; they were arrogant; they got caught out. We are going to go to the next election and be judged on what we were able to do, but we are going to work hard to make sure that we turn things around.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, it always saddens me when I see the member for Arnhem stand up and give what I consider a very good speech and a very good perspective, with a few areas where I take exception, and then, because he feels the urge to lash out, he turns what should have been a terrific speech into a shame.
Nevertheless, there is a lot to get through and I have only have 20 minutes. So I will plough on with this. I would start by saying thank you to the Attorney-General for bringing this matter to the parliament today. Indeed, as the Attorney-General is fully aware, last week in this Chamber I called upon this government to engage in an inquiry because of the result of a bail application on a murder charge in Alice Springs. As a footnote to that adjournment debate, the minister may be aware - I am unsure if other members are aware - the gentleman concerned who was granted bail has since been speared seven times and had his ankle broken and is back in custody after receiving treatment. In fact, I believe he still may be in hospital. I could be corrected on that.
It is that timely the minister brings this matter before the Chamber today and, as I say, I am grateful for it. The minister started by making some comments about Aboriginal employment and I am on the record on numerous occasions in relation to Aboriginal employment in this House. It would be an interesting exercise if we changed the yardstick of measurement from time to time and removed the word ‘indigenous’ and placed the words ‘welfare recipient’ as the tester and, just out of curiosity, see how that would overlay in terms of incarceration rates. Because I am not entirely sure whether or not it is welfare which is the destructive force or whether being indigenous is in some way a shortcoming.
The question is worth visiting because the process of welfare payments have to be, by far, the most destructive force operating in remote and regional Australia today. It is not only me saying it. If it was just me, I would be a voice in the wilderness, but there are many people who are saying it now and there are indigenous people who are saying it. Pointedly, I mention Aden Ridgeway, the Democrat senator and indeed Noel Pearson who has made the observation on several occasions. He says that the abuse that comes from welfare dependency is a disease. I still think that it is the abuse, the alcohol abuse, the drug abuse, the petrol sniffing is a symptom, but the symptom is so chronic that for all intents and purposes it may as well be a disease in its own right.
The process of welfare and the way it is being dished out is destructive and it is singularly the largest cause of poor indigenous outcomes than any other government policy. This is the reason the former state governments, both territory and state, have struggled with the outcomes in the past and I am afraid that unless the way that welfare is dealt with in the community nowadays changes, the outcomes will continue to be as poor no matter what state and territory governments do in relation to welfare payments. I encourage the Attorney-General to pursue this course because, as I said last week in adjournment debate, I believe that there is good cause to go down this path.
I am not qualified to say which individual legal system is the best in the Northern Territory in the sense that there are some 40 or 50 indigenous groups all with their own languages, all with their own legal systems, some similarities, some marked differences. I also know that to learn the songs for one’s country and to learn the stories for one’s land and the stories of one’s own law is a process which takes an individual anything up to 20 or 30 years to study. Because so little is written down, so much has to be committed to memory and so much as to be committed to song in an effort to remember so much of the law, and this deals with all manner of laws. Not only the criminal law in the Aboriginal systems, but also issues of land rights, intellectual rights, property ownership rights, all of those sorts of things are dealt with. It takes a whole process of learning, decades of learning, to be able to get to a point in Aboriginal culture, in one of the many Aboriginal cultures - I can only speak for the conversations I have had with people in my own electorate to get any sense of depth or understanding. But it takes 20 or 30 years to get to the point where an elder, be they male or female, can sit down and talk about the laws for their country. I am not qualified to talk for any of those laws.
So what is my role to assist a process in which we as this Chamber can help accommodate Aboriginal law? That is for us to create a framework which will accommodate as much Aboriginal traditional law as possible and that is law which is not inconsistent with the laws of this Chamber, and, as the Attorney-General has pointed out, not inconsistent with the principles of accepted international human rights. Now, that framework is something that we have the potential to create and indeed have created in the past. The Attorney-General points it out himself, something that the member for Arnhem seems to take issue with him on, but we as a former government in part of our moral neglect, as the member for Arnhem has accused, have made amendments to the Evidence Act, the Adoption of Children Act, the Crimes (Victims Assistance) Act, the Compensation (Fatal Injuries) Act, the Status of Children Act, the Administration and Probate Act, the Mental Health and Related Services Act as well as various government and community schemes. Indeed, Justice Forster’s guidelines from R v Anunga have been in subordinate legislation in the Northern Territory since the time that those guidelines were handed down from the bench, since the time before self-government, and something that has been maintained since self-government by the CLP.
Now, I do not know where the member for Arnhem is coming from. On one hand he says that the Attorney-General can say that all of these acts have been changed to accommodate as much as we can; and on the other hand, we are immoral in our negligence. Well, that is not true. The accommodation of Aboriginal law is something that the CLP has in former times worked very hard to achieve.
The other comments by the member for Arnhem are also surprising. He referred to Judge Forster’s guidelines specifically in relation to the requirement for an interpreter for the purposes of interview. Bearing in mind that Judge Forster’s guidelines would simply have meant that if an interpreter was not present, then the likelihood of any confessional evidence would be ruled inadmissible is not effectively a comment as to whether or not an interpreter service is a necessary part of the government approach.
I am clearly on the record as being a great supporter of the interpreter service, and indeed, the very Minister for Community Development who criticises the former government for being so lax in terms of providing an interpreter service, which it did, also omits to say that Budget Paper No 3 of the mini-budget cut the funding to the interpreter service. The minister has been too cute by half.
Now, in terms of a communiqu which was signed today, the Minister for Community Development called the CLP ‘moral bankrupts’ for not signing the communiqu. I wonder what Mick Dodson would feel if he knew that for not signing the communiqu, the Minister for Community Development thought he was moral bankrupt or, for that matter, Gatjil Djerrkura or, for that matter, Michael Mansell, all of whom refused to sign that communiqu. It would be very curious to hear whether or not the Minister for Community Development actually believed that those individuals were moral bankrupts. There may be any number of reasons for which a person will not sign a document. However, to come into a Chamber like this and carte blanche make an allegation of any person who fails to sign a particular document is a moral bankrupt, well that is something that the minister has to be very careful about because, in the process of making allegation about the Leader of the Opposition, he also casts a slur upon indigenous leaders in this country and it is something that he will want to consider.
I am curious about the processes that the Attorney-General is proposing in relation to in relation to revisiting traditional law. I actually believe that some 90% - I would be guessing, but from my limited understanding - of traditional law would fit quite comfortably within the framework of what the Attorney-General is saying. Indeed, I have had many things about the care of land, the laws in relation to relationships and those sorts of things explained to me and I believe that large parts of that traditional law would fit quite comfortably within the framework of law that exists in the Northern Territory because whether the members opposite like it or not, the laws of the Northern Territory are designed to create a civil society which works for the benefit of …
Mr Kiely: You wanted to go down and cream a whole community! You said it in Hansard, ‘I was gonna go down and nuke a whole community’. You’ve got no respect for the law.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, the …
Mr Kiely: Do you want me to get the Hansard for you?
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Sanderson.
Mr ELFERINK: This is extraordinary, Madam Speaker. The comments I made last week in relation to the Bail Act - and this is one thing that I do want to hear from the Attorney-General today - is that the legislation to which the Attorney-General refers is not limited to the Criminal Code, but all legislation which is passed through this House and sits on the statute books, legislation that the Attorney-General is duty bound to protect.
To confine his comments only to the Criminal Code leaves me with some concern that the Bail Act and other such legislation will become subject of judicial discretion which is not reflected by this House. I specifically refer to the matter I referred to in the adjournment debate last week where the lists of criteria that the magistrate may turn their attention to when bailing, does not include sending a person to liberty for the purposes of receiving traditional punishment. The obvious and most glaring aspect of this problem is that a magistrate cannot send a person to punishment if they have not been convicted of an offence. The process is that the charges are laid, the charges proved, the person is convicted, and then they are punished.
In this instance, a person was set at liberty for the purposes of being punished, and I would be curious to see what would occur if the person who had been punished, for whatever reason, was found to be not guilty of the crime that they had been charged with. It is an area that I would hope to hear something back on from the Attorney-General.
The other thing that concerns me is that one of the criteria in the Bail Act for being set to liberty is that a person may go about their lawful business. I would point out to the Attorney-General that section 26 of the Criminal Code means that a person cannot consent to being subject to grievous harm unless it is for medical attention. This means that a person who claims to be going about their lawful business - that is, receiving punishment - may not be able to consent to that harm being done and, therefore, the criteria that is being considered is not immediately lawful.
At the end of the day, what I am really concerned about is that this form of punishment, spearing, albeit in the legs, will eventually see a person killed and reflect very badly on the court that sets that person to liberty for the purposes of being punished. The physical nature of a severed femoral artery means that you bleed to death very quickly, and it is a very difficult injury to treat because the femoral artery is a piece of tissue that is very elastic. When it is severed, it is not just a matter of clamping it, because it actually shoots back up into the groin and it is almost impossible to control the bleeding, even with the best medical attention. So it is something that the courts ignore at their peril, and if a person should die as a result of such a decision, it would reflect very badly on the courts indeed.
The Kurduju Council is a great initiative, and it is an extension of an initiative that was started by the former government in Ali Curung, and has resulted in almost, as I understand it, rendering the policeman at that location being essentially – well, I won’t say essentially, but being largely - redundant because their workload has so fundamentally diminished since the community took over its own crime issues.
The Ali Curung community did have a very serious crime problem, and it is a clear example of where a community decides to take control of itself, it can do so and do so wonderfully well. When they choose to do it and they get the results that they are after, it is almost like the European court system does not really need to interpose itself at all. So, there is a lot to be said for these ideas, and I congratulate the current government on continuing and, indeed, expanding an initiative which seems to have achieved great outcomes for the people of Ali Curung. I hope that they can continue to have those sorts of successes.
I am also grateful that the minister talked about domestic violence. I am wholly sick of domestic violence as I see it perpetrated around my electorate. I have seen it perpetrated in some dreadful ways over the years. When I was a police officer, from time to time, I had to put people in body bags as a result of domestic violence. Often, the argument was over something utterly stupid. What springs to mind is one event a few years ago, when a fellow decided to take to his wife with the aluminium bottom half of an umbrella stand; beat her around the head; then jumped on her when she was lying down, cracking several ribs; and then running her through with a knife through the back under the shoulder blade, puncturing her right lung - if memory serves me, yes right lung. When I finally caught up with the fellow and said: ‘Why did you do this?’, it came down to the fact that she had some loose change which was sufficient to purchase liquor and, because she did not immediately hand it over because she wanted to do something nave like feed her children, that was the penalty she suffered. That is not a question of traditional law or European law, that is just somebody who behaved in an unspeakable way to another person and deserved the full penalty of the law.
It is something that the Attorney-General touched on, it is something that I promise the Attorney-General I will be looking at very, very closely and hard over the next few years. I hope that the Attorney-General will continue to pursue the matter with not only rhetoric, but also substance in getting the right numbers, the right staff, and the right sort of funding going to it because it is one of the most pressing health issues in remote communities.
There is another aspect I want to touch on, and that was in answer to a question that the minister was asked last week in relation to a particular incident. The quote I extract from the minister’s answer is this:
The Attorney-General has come a long way since he uttered those comments. The fact of the matter is the Attorney-General has obviously gone back and thought about it and said that there can only be one superior law in the Northern Territory, and that is the law that he is bound by his oath of office to protect. That is the law which is passed and made by the parliament of the Northern Territory. The Attorney-General has come a long way since last week - I am grateful that he has - in terms of the commitment he is prepared to give in relation to laws which are passed by this Chamber. I also hear that the Attorney-General is planning to travel to New Zealand in the near future, and I have spoken to him about that trip and I look forward to his response.
There are many more things I could say in relation to what is in this statement. Unfortunately, the time I have has expired, and I look forward to continuing debate.
Mrs AAGAARD (Health and Community Services): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I speak in support of the statement by my colleague, the Minister for Justice, on indigenous people and the justice system. This is an historic occasion. By pledging to sign the communiqu from the October 1997 Ministerial Summit on Indigenous People in Custody, this government is once again demonstrating its commitment to the rights of indigenous Territorians.
The Minister for Justice drew attention to the underlying social, economic and cultural dimensions of the disadvantage suffered by indigenous people. We know that the high exposure of Aboriginal people to the criminal justice system stems from a complex set of circumstances. The likelihood of an individual becoming involved in criminal activity and/or substance abuse is compounded by their exposure to risk and resilience building experiences in early childhood. It is a relatively simple formula. Growing up in safe, secure, nurturing and stimulating environments improves one’s chances in life immeasurably. Risk factors include family violence and conflict, substance abuse, poor supervision, and monitoring of children and social or cultural discrimination. Protective factors include strong self-esteem, resilience in the face of difficulties, and an ability to reach out to others for good help and good health.
These factors interact to either undermine or create a solid foundation for a child’s future. A pioneer of early intervention as an effective method of preventing crime and violence, Professor Ross Hommel has noted:
His landmark report, Pathways to Prevention, found much scientifically persuasive international evidence confirming that interventions early in life can have long term impacts on crime and other social problems. Overseas research also indicates the cost effectiveness of early intervention strategies when compared to the long-term costs of crime and the criminal justice response.
Given this evidence, I would like to take this opportunity to briefly describe a few examples of initiatives that reflect the themes mentioned by the Minister for Justice. They aim to prevent problems emerging in the first instance, and to respond early when they do arise. Over the next few years, access to parenting, eduction and support programs in the Territory will be improved by further development of indigenous parent education programs such as the Beyond Blue program operating on the Tiwi Islands, strengthening and targetting of parent programs, assessing the effectiveness of the Good Beginnings programs which currently operate in the Berrimah and Alice Springs gaols with a view to partnering with the Commonwealth to extend these programs to a broader target group.
Early childhood education and care services will be improved through development of new services in Central Australia. Six new and expanded child and family centres are to be developed in Central Australia that will provide child care together with other programs aimed at supporting the healthy development of young children. These services, funded primarily by the Commonwealth, not only provide for young children’s care, they also create employment opportunities, and training for local Aboriginal people in early childhood education and care. Continued collaboration between the Health and Education portfolios which, amongst other things, will see a stronger focus on early childhood literacy, numeracy and social skills. Already there are three new mobile preschools taking structured programs into remote communities, while local initiatives are emerging that create stronger links between young children’s care and early childhood education programs.
Securing the safety and wellbeing of young people is, after all, one of the surest ways of allowing them to reach their full potential. We do not want to waste our time on this most important of all social policy areas. Already plans are in hand to evaluate the impact of new early childhood programs for indigenous children living in remote communities, and work is continuing to come to grips with ways of translating parent education programs across culturally different contexts. This is not an academic exercise; it is an essential part of ensuring the things we do make a difference.
It is the same principle that underlies the statement made by the Minister for Justice. It is a principle that commits us to a real pursuit of social justice for indigenous people. I commend the statement to the House.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise to make observations and comments about the ministerial statement presented by the Attorney-General entitled Indigenous People and the Justice System. I must say, as a fellow who has been born and bred here, I grew up in Humpty Doo and Howard Springs, and I have lots of friends, some are Aboriginal, some are coloured, some are white, of all different races and derivations. I never really thought too much about the colour of a man’s skin or where he was from until coming to this parliament. Suddenly, there is this massive divide between black and white. When I played rugby and Aussie Rules, it wasn’t an issue - if you are a good bloke, you are a good bloke irrespective of your colour. It is in one sense a bit disappointing when people are put in categories, but in another sense, if there is a genuine need and if we can help a section of our community and they happen to be a particular race, that is a positive step, but I am just taken aback a little by some of the comments about ‘us’ and ‘you’ and just the fact that people are in different categories. Ultimately …
Ms Scrymgour: It is not just from this side. It is both sides. It is that side as well. It is not just this side.
Mr MALEY: I am saying as a general observation, just as a bloke who has never really thought about people as black and white, just as people, to come here and to cop it day in day out is very disappointing. I do not know if it is just the people from down south that have that mentality, but I am telling you from the locals I know, we know the truth. The truth really is that there is no difference between a black person and a white person because people are people. That is the fundamental tenet.
There are many different cultures and I think that everyone should have respect for cultures and tradition, and I think that encouraging traditions is an important thing, but creating a divide between people because of some perceived race thing is, I reckon, a step in the wrong direction. If someone is poor, if someone lives in a community and they need help, then we should do all we can to help them irrespective of their race and derivation. It does the whole issue a bit of a disservice. A person objectively listening to what we have said - and perhaps not understanding that ultimately, everyone has a fairly good motive - could be forgiven for thinking: ‘Oh, look, there is a bit of a racial thing happening’ because there probably should not be, and the terminology we have been using is fairly average.
On the face of it, it is a statement of fairly positive intent. There is a fair bit of rhetoric. I have been to Maningrida and Port Keats, and I have gone out to visit friends and have spent time - the longest was a couple of weeks - roaming through the bush hunting animals and the like and just catching up with blokes from school who said: ‘Come out, you should see my country’, and we have taken them out to our country down near the Mary. The real problem, I reckon, with these remote communities, irrespective of the colour of the people who live there, is that if you do not have got a real industry there and a job. You can educate people all you want, you can have the flashest health clinic, you can have a brand new police station, but if you have mum and dad at home who do not work, and then you have someone who goes home and there is no work ethic and there is no real drive to go out and - well, there is the drive there, especially in the young people, but there is no opportunity for a person in some of these communities to get a job in private enterprise, a fulfilling job where you can earn good money and then have a family, and then his kids can see that occur.
I reckon that all the flowery talk about spending money certainly has the right motivation, but ultimately, if we are going to deal with the problem, if you want to address the real tiger, then you have really got to look closely at things like some sort of economic independence, creating a sense of self-esteem in people. The other things that we talk about, the social agenda, will all follow that.
An example is on page 9 of the statement. I am interested in this subject matter not just because of my background and my friends, but it is something which is crucial to the ongoing prosperity of the Territory, that everyone has the right opportunities. At page 9, the learned minister does mention economic partnerships in the second paragraph but:
the commitment of $600 000 for community capacity building.
They are all very noble ideas, but at the end of the day, a place like - well Port Keats I am probably most familiar with. There might be 1000 there during the Dry and perhaps 2000 people during the Wet Season, but there will be, one day, 10 000 people living there. This cycle of ‘we will have another school, another police station, another health clinic, another 20 houses and another contractor going around doing the houses’ is a cycle which is not going to be broken unless you quite genuinely have some sort of economic impetus there; some sort of worthwhile employment-creating opportunities for people.
I had the opportunity to read what the former Chief Minister had said - in fact, not only the most recent former Chief Minister, the member for Brennan, but another Chief Minister. You could really have taken most of the words in those statements - and they were not identical, they were not plagiarised, but I am saying the sentiment is exactly the same; often the same noises have been made. There is really absolutely nothing new in this document, there is no initiative here that has not quite genuinely been discussed, put into Hansard and debated in this parliament, from my limited reading. I only had this of course, from yesterday afternoon on.
So there is work to be done. There is, unfortunately, nothing new. There is no brand new initiative in this document, but it is certainly making the noises which indicate that the Attorney-General is certainly looking closely at the problem and is aware that there is a problem and it has to be addressed.
The other matter - which I don’t think I made a comment on in parliament - the Minister assisting the Chief Minister on Indigenous Affairs did receive a fair bit of acknowledgement when he talked about some ‘brutal truths’, and certainly a fellow for whom I have respect, but I was contacted by people at ANSTI. There is an Aboriginal lady there I have known most of my life, and she was of the view that a lot of the initiatives that were contained even in that statement, they had been putting into place for years. ANSTI - I think it is an acronym for ‘a new start’. It is a drug and alcohol rehabilitation centre. People live there. It is a showcase of what we can do. It can help itinerant people - it has helped itinerant people if they have serious drug and alcohol problems - enter back into mainstream society. They have animals, pig pens and chooks and horses and all the usual, set on a large block and it really creates some hope.
The thing that I really wanted to comment upon is at page 12 of the statement under the heading ‘Customary Law Inquiry’. You would think, at first read of the document: ‘Gee, that sounds like a sensible thing to do. What a great initiative’. I asked one of the librarians to help me, and I went down and spent some time trying to look at whether this issue has been addressed. Has it been looked at in other jurisdictions? What was the result of those inquiries? There is a huge amount of material. There must have been inquiries on this exact topic in every other jurisdiction, Aboriginal Customary Laws report by the Commonwealth. We have Recognition of Aboriginal Customary Laws, and really detailed reports costing hundreds of thousands of dollars, prepared by public servants. Anyway, the list goes on. There is one: Recognition Given to Aspects of Indigenous Customary Law in Queensland, Indigenous Customary Law Forum. And there are a whole lot of really good articles in the alternative Law journal, Aboriginal Law Bulletin, really good reading, but I tell you: this issue has been addressed, and addressed, in every other jurisdiction.
The recommendations make sense and, in one sense, I get the feeling there may have been a bit of political posturing and some grandstanding to try and send out the message that we are doing something new. Well, quite frankly, that it is arguably a waste of taxpayers’ money to reinvent the wheel which looks like it has been rebuilt about 10 times - that is in the past 10 years - in almost all other jurisdictions. The Commonwealth, including the Australian Law Reform Commission, flew people up, they went and visited - you know as southerners do, they come up here and go to communities - and they have taken evidence.
It is quite surprising that this government and this minister would hold himself out to be doing something new. I really do not think he can honestly believe that anything that is contained in this document is new. There really are no initiatives. The one initiative that I reckon would assist people - and I am not going to say Aboriginal people or white people - in remote communities who are doing it tough, taken from the position they are in and likely to stay in, is a real effort to create some sort of economic driver, a real attempt to create some sort of employment and not just CDEP. With no disrespect, but I have seen some jobs which I thought were fairly tokenistic. They do not need jobs for the sake of having jobs for two hours a day, but a job which is well paid, a real industry, hopefully private enterprise so government is not footing the bill. The opportunities are there and I am firmly of the view that it is government’s role to assist people in those communities and try and put more resources into economic development.
All the things we have talked about - and I suspect all the things we want on both sides of the House - will be achieved if we can deal with that fundamental issue; that there is some sort of independent economic prosperity. It is complicated because if you are going to spend money in those areas, there has to be a review of the Land Rights Act. You have to empower traditional owners and people who own the land, and give them the ability to make decisions about their land. As it turns out now, you have people in town who are not traditional owners, who really do not have any traditional affiliation with a group of people, telling them what they can and cannot do. That is not the way forward. The way forward is to say: ‘Look, we respect you as an individual. This is your land; this is your country’, and perhaps some encouragement down the road of an independent economic, wealth creating, job creating driver.
I certainly support the sentiment contained in this document, there is absolutely no doubt about that. I am disturbed at some of the terminology in terms of the racial overtones which I have not been exposed to until I came to this place. It missed, quite genuinely, the number one difficulty; that is, the creation of some wealth-creating type projects, jobs, and incentives. If you really want to empower people, you have to get a community working for themselves, not working on this welfare mentality we have heard about; not wandering around not sure what is going to happen next, but create some sort of economic certainty.
Mr McADAM (Barkly): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, the signing this afternoon, after almost five years of delay, of the government Communiqu on Aboriginal Deaths in Custody perhaps has the capacity to be a real turning point in relation to indigenous people in the Northern Territory.
I would very much like to think it is a move away from the wasted years of the previous government; that basically was a time of waste, political humbug, and, sadly, ad hoc responses to a lot of the social crises faced by many indigenous people in the Territory. Central to these social crises has been the alienation of so many indigenous people, especially our young people, from mainstream society. Nowhere is this clearer than in the alienation felt by so many young people when it comes to the justice system.
On the one hand, indigenous values have been denigrated for many years, so much so that many young people now feel worthless. On the other hand, institutions of justice, from the police to the court system and even the Legislative Assembly, have not always been able to understand or gauge in a real way what is happening out in our indigenous communities. I say this despite the very real intentions of the police and, of course, the magistrates. Basically there has been lack of resources in respect of these issues.
In many ways, the electorate of Barkly is representative of some of the problems that indigenous people have with the justice system. Employment opportunities in the pastoral industry have been in general decline since the late 1960s, and opportunities in the mining area have also been dramatically reduced. Unfortunately, Tennant Creek has not experienced the growth industries that have occurred in other places like Alice Springs, Katherine and Darwin, and I refer to the tourism industry, but I guess that is another issue which can be debated at another time.
The effects of this on the people of the Barkly region, especially our younger people, have manifested themselves in substance abuse, notably alcohol, poverty, homelessness, and a sense of despair. Problems with alcohol, especially during the 1980s and the 1990s led to what were quite aptly described as the ‘Grog Wars’. It was a phrase that characterised the incredible damage grog was doing to people and also the battle by the community to do something about alcohol. It led to the first community initiated alcohol sale restrictions in Australia. The introduction of these restrictions – they were controversial at the time - achieved a number of profound results. First, they brought the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal institutions and people together in Tennant Creek for the first time in very significant ways. AlAid, with the campaign to rein back on the social damage caused by grog, was the establishment of Julalikari Night Patrol, and this really meant that Aboriginal groups and the police, for example, were brought together in a common cause rather than conflict, as was the case perhaps in the past.
Second, the trial restrictions have also brought significant social change and indeed financial results. Violence and related issues such as hospitalisation have been lowered significantly as has antisocial behaviour in the community. Perhaps this will be vindicated in the future by the police report, when they bring it out in the next month or so, as I understand it. Third, and most importantly, the process led to indigenous people taking control and responsibility in partnership with the non-indigenous groups in a community capacity building process that showed that things could be done.
There are two major initiatives involving law and justice issues in the Barkly which signal that this community capacity building process can benefit us all. The first is a Tennant Creek Youth and Safe Community Strategy. The Safe Community Strategy is a result of the ground-breaking partnership agreement signed between the Yapakurlangu Regional Council and the Tennant Creek Town Council in December last year. The purpose of this agreement was to formalise a common commitment to working together in shared leadership. Within six months of this agreement being signed, the Yapakurlangu Regional Council and the Tennant Creek Town Council were able to develop the alliance for the adoption of the strategy to develop Tennant Creek as a safe community.
With support from the Northern Territory government, the strategy encompasses the full participation and cooperation of all relevant government agencies based in or providing services to Tennant Creek; advice as required from the Northern Territory police and the Office of Crime Prevention in the Department of Justice; and funding for a consultant or project staff to undertake development of the strategy in Tennant Creek. The development of this Safe Community Strategy is a first for the Northern Territory and is indicative of the high priority placed on community safety by our government.
Along with these crime prevention activities, a youth sub-committee has been established. Both these groups are already creating strong networks in the community. The federal Department of Family and Community Services has also granted $260 000 over two years to employ a Community Development Officer to advance the project. The NT Office of Crime Prevention is involved in the strategy and has nominated the management committee as its Regional Crime Prevention Committee covering the Barkly. Representatives on the committee include the Tennant Creek Town Council, the Yapakurlangu Regional Council, Northern Territory police, other government agencies including the Education department and, of course, Health, the Tennant Creek High School, Julalikari Council, and Anyinginyi Congress. ATSIC has also provided a grant for a consultancy to gather crime and demographic profiles of Tennant Creek, as well as identifying training needs for the committee to ensure that the committee is building its capacity to plan strategically and work together as a team.
The second major initiative with regards to indigenous people and the justice system is the Law and Justice Program that has been under development for some years, and was previously mentioned by the member for Macdonnell. We refer to the Kurduju Committee which has representatives from Ali Curung, Lajamanu and Yuendumu. The Kurduju Committee, I believe, can be the foundation of new approaches to law and justice across the region. This is not just a Territory first, but an Australian first. It will entrust traditional authority structures firmly in the hands of the communities while acknowledging the mutual regard that both Aboriginal customary law and western law can develop between each other.
I would particularly like to pay tribute to the staff in the Department of Community Development, Sports and Cultural affairs, Peter Ryan and Jackie Antoun who have been at this task for quite some time and have developed some real expertise which could become applicable to some of the other communities throughout the Northern Territory. In acknowledging Peter and Jackie, I would also like to take this opportunity to thank other people involved in this area of work. I would like to thank Tauto Sansbury, the national Chairperson of the Australian Justice Advisory Committee who was here today for the signing. I have known Tauto for something like 25-odd years and his commitment and dedication to this cause is something that serves as a lesson to us all because Tauto has never been one to give in. The fact that he was up here today with his colleagues to sign the communiqu with our government bears testament to the sort of bloke that he is.
I would also like to pay a tribute to Eddie Taylor who was actually born near Elliott. I do not know if Eddie is up there, but I would just like to thank him for all the hard work that he has done, too. He was the NT chair of the advisory committee between 1999 and 2001, and I know Eddie has been very supportive and committed. I know he has taken up a whole lot of issues on behalf of the indigenous community in Central Australia. Eddie mentioned to me this morning that he is very pleased at what was occurring in Tennant Creek and in Alice Springs, and paid tribute to the police and to the other agencies in those two communities. Also to Dougie Walker, who is the present chair of the Justice Committee.
In respect of the Northern Territory police service, I would also like to express my appreciation to Steve Edgington, who is not only the chair of the Crime Prevention Committee in Tennant Creek, but was also instrumental in the early establishment of the Kurduju project. Steve is a young man who has been involved over a very long period of time, has a real understanding and feeling in terms of some of the issues that exist in indigenous communities, and does a wonderful job right across the board in the Barkly. And also to Gary Manison, who is the Southern Commander for the Barkly region. Gary visits Tennant Creek and the other communities within my electorate on a regular basis and plays a very supportive role in the development of law and justice issues in the region.
It is my hope that the lessons learnt and still being learnt in the Barkly region can perhaps be replicated elsewhere in the Northern Territory, and that is very much subject to communities and people wanting to go down that track. Certainly in Darwin, it is good to see that night patrols have been set up and been linked to the itinerants project. I know that other communities are experimenting with different ways to control the wholesale, unrestricted availability and supply of alcohol, and I guess that what is occurring here in Darwin is their way of tackling that and I applaud everyone in respect to that.
The capacity building projects being undertaken by the Minister for Community Development are part of an increasing recognition by this government that community involvement and control are critical in developing local and regional solutions. It would be my hope that the law and justice projects such as the one I mentioned previously, the Kurduju Committee, can be built on, but of course there is a lot more work to be done.
One of the areas I would like to see more effort put into is in respect to cross-cultural training, especially for non-indigenous staff who go out to remote communities. Those of us who have been in remote communities will be aware that a lot of people do not stay a long time so, therefore, they are not in a position to undertake what I would see to be appropriate training. In most instances, they go out there with absolutely no training at all, and it makes it just so much harder, not only in respect to themselves and their ability to perform their role, but equally, it applies to the indigenous community. So that is something that should occur. I know that it has been tried in the past; I know that it has been found wanting in the past, but, if we are going to be fair dinkum in this area, then it is something that we should look at again.
The other area that warrants further consideration is that we must elevate the role of Aboriginal Community Police Officers in communities. I do not precisely know how we do it, but I would trust that this exercise, the review, would incorporate some of that. I would like to see more indigenous police officers, community policing officers, actually go on to become constables in the police force or police officers. I am not certain as to why this does not occur, perhaps there may be some structures in place. I have been advised that this is certainly not the case, but I know that there are lots of people out there who would like to join the mainstream police force and contribute at that level. Perhaps we should look at that.
Equally, we should also be looking at - not in a discriminatory way but in a favourable way - how we can provide cadetships in respect of indigenous people to join the police force. That would go part of the way to many of the problems that we face in the Northern Territory. The other thing I have raised previously in this House - I have raised it with minister Stirling, and I believe I have probably raised it with the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General - is we have to have a look at the establishment of an Indigenous Advisory Board to the police service similar to the Ethnic Advisory Board which exists. They play a critical and important role, and I suspect into the future they will play an even more important role, working in with the police, community and government. Given the very high percentage of indigenous people in the Northern Territory and their interface and linkages or contacts with the police, it would be appropriate to have a look at the advisory board to advise the police. It is something that I have raised previously, and I hope it is taken up at some time in the future.
I refer to the Learning Lessons report. That becomes very, very important, and we have to provide a real focus in ensuring that actually gets rolled out on the ground in the communities. I am not being critical, but we have lost that focus. It has to be driven at a regional level, but that is something that we could take up at some time in the future.
Of course, Minister Stirling’s announcement of a secondary schools review is also, I believe, a step in the right direction, particularly in respect of communities in the bush, both indigenous and non-indigenous.
Finally, I welcome the announcement of the Aboriginal customary law review, Towards Mutual Benefit. I know there will be Aboriginal men and women of high degree who will want to contribute to this process. I trust this will lead to a greater understanding of the role of Aboriginal customary law and the way in which it may contribute to social harmony in the Northern Territory. I am certain it will allay some of the irrational prejudices and fears - none more evidenced than the article by Col Newman in this morning’s NT News which was just plain wrong, as was the decision by Mr Justice Gallop in respect of the Pascoe matter.
Aboriginal customary law is part of this government’s whole-of-government, whole-of-community approach. It is a tribute, certainly, to the Northern Territory government, and to the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General, who is prepared to take this up. I am of the view that it will make a difference to the Territory.
I want to respond to a point raised by the member for Goyder when he referred to a whole lot of reports that have been done in the past. That is very true; we can learn a lot from those reports. Clearly, they would have been commissioned by governments, both Commonwealth and state, over a long period of time. The challenge for us, as a government - and I invite the opposition to become part of this – is to take it a little further and not let this report, like those reports, just gather dust.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I commend the statement to the Assembly.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, first, I welcome any statement or initiative from any government that is aimed at, or otherwise directed at, addressing the issue of violence in any community in the Northern Territory or Australia. I look forward to the outcome of the review, and wish the government and members of the review well in what I am sure will be a difficult undertaking.
I want to have a thoughtful and constructive input to this debate. I might say I am very pleased with the contributions that I have observed this afternoon in this place. It is important that all of us as elected members make a contribution – that is certainly what my constituents expect, both indigenous and non-indigenous.
The statement acknowledges on the first page that indigenous people are over-represented in the prison population. I would suggest that is no surprise at all for any of us living in the Northern Territory. Indigenous people are nine times more likely to go to gaol than non-indigenous Territorians. Again I say those figures are not surprising, and it is because indigenous people commit more crimes. I speak from experience. I have spent a lot of time in the Local and Supreme Courts in the Northern Territory. Most of the matters dealt with are criminal matters, and most of those criminal acts are committed by indigenous people and any judge or magistrate in the Northern Territory will tell you that.
The figures, however, are tragic. What we as a parliament need to do is look at who are the victims and who are the perpetrators, and of course the answer is fairly obvious. We should be honest about who we are talking about. Indigenous people are being bashed by indigenous people. Indigenous women are being beaten by indigenous men and for the sake of this debate we should not mince words - we should be very clear about who we are talking about both in terms of perpetrators and offenders.
My fear, though, is that the statement provides little in a way that is new that will address the problems. Some of the matters contained in the statements, as the member for Goyder and the member for Brennan have said, have been lifted from other ideas in other places. Some of those ideas were the ideas of the previous administration, so it really is trite to suggest that the former administration did not do anything. It did, and the member for Brennan quite rightly said that it was difficult and it will continue to be difficult regardless of which party is in government in the Northern Territory.
The government obviously thinks that it is time for a review; that is fair enough. If the government believes that this review will go some way to improving the disgraceful situation that we see around us and that exists in Aboriginal communities, then I will be the first one to applaud it.
Interestingly, though, I see again - I think on the first or second page of the statement - the reference to only two in five indigenous Territorians having a job. That is very interesting given what has been said in this parliament last week about the fact that the Northern Territory has the lowest unemployment rate in Australia. Clearly, the indigenous population needs great attention and I am very pleased to see the government gives indigenous people the attention, but it is not the case that the previous administration did not.
In 12 months of this ALP government there have been no outcomes, no reduction in crime, no reduction in indigenous people committing it. Now there is a review. So be it. I look forward to its outcome. I would hate to think that this government comes from a political standpoint that is supportive of an absurd proposition and that is that indigenous people should not go to gaol. That is certainly not a view I share. I say, and the CLP says, and I think the wider community says, that if anyone commits a crime they should be punished. I note with interest that the word ‘punish’ does not appear anywhere in the statement. Prisons are there for a reason. I would have thought that this was an opportunity for the government to scratch below the surface a little and perhaps direct the review team to inquire as to why such a high percentage of indigenous people are in gaol; in other words, look behind the figures and look to the causes.
I support the view that everyone knows what is right and wrong. Some people crash through regardless, whereas others elect not to because they have a sense of what is right and proper. People are in gaol for reasons, and it is with a little disappointment that there is no exploration of this in the minister’s statement. I would suggest that instead of simply giving the figures, the Attorney-General would have asked the review panel questions such as: ‘Why is it that Aboriginal men beat their wives more than non-indigenous men?’ ‘Why is it that some Aboriginal men are repeat offenders, some of whom have killed a wife and then reappeared before the courts on new crimes of violence on another wife?’ ‘Why is it that child incest in the Aboriginal community is endemic?’
The former government did what it could, and I wish this government well in its attempts to break the cycle of violence. I say very sincerely and very genuinely that I look forward to the review’s recommendations. I note that one co-chair of the review team has not yet been announced. Obviously when that person is announced, he or she will be only too well aware of the many different cultures that exist in the Northern Territory. A person in the position of a co-chair of a group like this may not be acceptable to some members of the Aboriginal community, but he or she might be to others.
I do hope that Aboriginal peoples from around the Territory are represented very broadly on the review panel, that is from all regions of the Northern Territory. Of course, it is important for all of us here to remember that there are so many customary laws from so many communities and cultures in the wider Aboriginal community, it would really be remiss of the minister if he did not ensure that representation was extensive.
There have been a number of references in the minister’s statement to indigenous leaders and indigenous communities, and I think we should try to be a bit clear on who we are talking about. We all know that like any community, in the Aboriginal community in that wider sense, there is not always agreement on a range of matters. Who represents who, and on whose say so? For instance, some members of an indigenous community somewhere in the Northern Territory might say that a particular course of action is reasonable and appropriate. What happens if other members of that Aboriginal community or the wider Aboriginal community disagree? Whose voice will be heard?
I note that on page 17 of the statement the Attorney-General says that the inquiry will look into ‘the strength of Aboriginal customary law’. In some areas in the Northern Territory, customary law is very strong. In other areas it is not. It is not a ‘one size fits all’ proposition. Culture and custom are not generic or homogenous. They are complex and that is the reason why people of the Northern Territory need to be broadly represented and the panel needs to be broadly representative. In any event, I am sure that the co-chair will be aware of those issues and he or she has a very difficult task.
It is important that the review team has a good representation of indigenous women on the team. So much of the statement affects women; it is imperative that women are represented, and I implore the Attorney-General to do so. If he does not, he will run the risk of having a team of men, indigenous and non-indigenous, providing government with recommendations, thereby passing women and women’s issues. The most important issue for Aboriginal women is violence by Aboriginal men. The men are beating them, and bashing them, and destroying them. I support any attempts to overcome this problem, but it must include attitudinal changes within the communities.
I note that on page 3 of the statement the Attorney-General says that indigenous leaders, organisations and communities must make a commitment to this process as well. Indeed, they must. If they do not, what will the Attorney do? What if, for instance, as may happen, some members of the indigenous community say: ‘This is none of your business. This is our business. This area does not need to be reviewed. We are fine’? Will the Attorney-General stand up to be counted and take action? I do not know. That, of course, is a matter for him and the government.
At pages 26 and 27 of the statement there is a reference to the Aboriginal Law and Justice Strategy as being a key element of the government’s crime prevention strategy and its work to reduce the over-representation of indigenous people in our gaols. The only way to reduce indigenous representation in our gaols is to stop Aboriginal men committing crimes of violence, and there is nothing in the statement aimed directly at that. Certainly there are some other steps that have been undertaken by this government which may assist that area, but we have to be - all of us - honest about addressing this issue and the fact is that there will be lower Aboriginal representation in our prisons if Aboriginal people stop committing acts of violence.
This government now has the opportunity to do what it can to stop violence and other criminal acts, and I wish it luck. As part of an attitudinal change, the government may wish to consider minimum sentences for crimes of violence. I say that in a very serious way. Personally, I have long held the view that there should be minimum sentences for aggravated assaults, and the government, subject to the outcome of the review, may wish to consider this proposition in due course.
Some areas are complicated and others are not. I note that the Attorney-General said in the statement:
I am very happy to hear that today, but cannot help but wonder why, when I asked him a simple question last week, he did not answer it. That question was:
The Attorney-General did not answer the question, and I cannot for the life of me work out why he was unable to say the word ‘no’ at that time. Thankfully, he has, as I understand it, from the words in his statement, clarified that position today. Curiously, though, on at least two occasions in the answer provided in Question Time last week, he referred to two systems of law working in the Northern Territory. That is wrong, and I might say it was a little surprising to hear the Territory’s first law officer say such a thing.
Happily now, one week later, he comes back with a different and, I might say, a correct view. I do not know why the Attorney-General took a week to answer the question I asked him. I am pleased to say that I do not need to dwell on it because his position is now clear. At page 16 of the statement, the Attorney-General says that the government affirms that the NT Criminal Code applies to all citizens of the Northern Territory without exception, and I am very pleased to hear that. It makes me think, on that basis alone, that the DPP or indeed the Attorney-General himself, as he has the capacity to do, will appeal the decision in the Jackie Pascoe case.
I notice, by way of somewhat of a digression in today’s Australian newspaper, an Aboriginal leader, Kim Hill, says:
I would suggest that that is a fairly disturbing logic, because the extension of it is that if Aboriginal men have been bashing their wives for a very long time, then it is okay simply because it has been happening for a very long time. The inference, of course, is that Aboriginal men giving, promising or selling Aboriginal girls to other Aboriginal men is also a reasonable proposition. I point to this article in The Australian today because it shows that, in my view, there are irresponsible members of the indigenous community just as there are irresponsible members of any other community. That is the problem the minister has, and as far as I could see, there is no way around the sorts of obstacles and difficulties he will experience in the course of his review. Also in the same article in The Australian today, ATSIC Chairman Geoff Clark refused to condemn parts of customary law permitting sex with minors or rape in marriage, according to that report. I would suggest that that is an outrageous position for anyone to take.
So the Attorney-General says in his statement that Aboriginal customary law should be recognised to the extent which is consistent with universally recognised human rights and fundamental freedoms. We know that it is both illegal and wrong to commit rape in marriage, and it is also illegal and wrong to have sex with minors. It is implicit from the Attorney-General’s statement that he shares those views but in light of the Pascoe case, my question is: will he ask the review panel to consider legislating against men promising girls to other men, or perhaps even amending the Criminal Code so that judges and magistrates do not take into account things like selling children and having sex with them because we know that those things are not, using the Attorney-General’s language, ‘consistent with universally recognised human rights and fundamental freedoms’.
The Attorney-General and the government now have an opportunity to address the outrage of the Jackie Pascoe case but, unfortunately, there is no mention - not of that case so much - but the issues raised by that case. I might say I was a little surprised by it.
The Attorney-General, as I have said, will face various obstacles that others will create for him. Some members of an Aboriginal community think that the things that I have mentioned are reasonable, others do not. Even if heinous crimes are not incorporated into our justice system, others will be. What type of matters will be incorporated into the one justice system that we have here in the Northern Territory? There is unlikely to be an agreed position, so there will not, or may not be, universal agreement. It follows from that, that the next question is: who decides? Will it be the Attorney-General; will it be his Cabinet colleagues? At what risk will they make a decision that may alienate some parts not just of the Aboriginal community, but the wider community. So who will draw the lines; and what lines will be drawn? This is the question that I ask today in the context of this debate.
Decisions on these issues as a fundamental proposition should not be made on whose voice is loudest because there will be no universal agreement. So I urge the Attorney-General to ensure that Aboriginal women are represented and represented well on the review panel so that we do not have a bunch of black and white men telling people in the community what is right and what is wrong.
Matters that go before the courts are dealt with on a case by case basis. That is right and proper. However, what Territorians will not tolerate is one law for some and another law for others. They will not stomach some criminals being dealt with differently from others; they will not stomach two sets of laws, one for one group, one for another.
Having made those comments, I will conclude by making some others in a more specific sense, although the Attorney-General may not consider them as important as some of the matters I have already dealt with. He has referred to the court initiatives on page 29 of his statement, and I note the reference to the Victim Support Unit of the DPP and in particular his reference to the Darwin office for its work in what he described as ‘this difficult and important area’. I was saddened and surprised, as a member of parliament from Central Australia and, indeed, the Minister for Central Australia, at his failure to mention the great work performed by the Aboriginal Support Worker in the Alice Springs Office, Merle Thomas of the DPP in Alice Springs. Merle has worked in that office for a little over five years. Since the Attorney-General did not see fit to thank her in the context of this important statement, I would certainly like to express my thanks to her on the Parliamentary Record for her work in this difficult and important area.
I might say also that in relation to the Integrated Offender Management System, I was not surprised to see that in there. I received a very detailed briefing some time ago, and it looks like quite an exciting area. I look forward to more statements being made by the Attorney-General as to its progress in this House. It is a New Zealand model and, if the results are as encouraging there as I understand they are, then it may well come up trumps for us in the Northern Territory.
In terms of the domestic violence strategy, again, I had a briefing on that very recently. That strategy was implemented, as we know, by the CLP. It was always well funded and I am very happy to see that it has received even more funding from this government. Again, I look forward to more progress reports from the government in due course.
In conclusion, I wish the government well. I look forward to reading the panel’s final report which I hope the Attorney-General will make available to all of us. In essence, I support anything that has a go at reducing crime and violence, but we do not want a system that provides for some people to be treated very differently from others.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise in response to the Minister for Justice’s statement on indigenous justice in the Northern Territory. The leading announcement in the minister’s statement is that the Northern Territory government has signed a communiqu that other states and territories signed in 1997. It is a worthwhile exercise for us to pause momentarily and think back to the world we lived in before the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody were published in 1991, or even to the world we lived in before the Deaths in Custody Commission commenced its inquiry in 1988.
The catalyst for the establishment of the Deaths in Custody Commission was the rash of Aboriginal deaths in custody over the preceding decade or so. In many cases, the circumstances of the death raised suspicion of mistreatment or worse and reflected incremental resentment and distrust on the part of Aboriginal people, especially young men. This resentment and distrust was felt in relation to white society generally, and police forces in particular. In other cases the deaths were tragic end plays of long-term alcohol abuse or family breakdown which just happened to take place in a police lockup or prison. As the Deaths in Custody Commission’s work progressed, the focus gradually shifted from the suspicion of police or prison staff and misbehaviour in individual cases to the underlying patterns of over-representation of indigenous people in the criminal justice system. A theme and an urgent call for change emerged.
The Deaths in Custody recommendations covered not just the full range of reforms that were needed to the criminal justice system but also reforms that were needed to address what was identified as underlying issues. For most Aboriginal people throughout Australia, the establishment of the Deaths in Custody Commission in 1988 came as something of a surprise. We were all so used to taking it for granted that many police and prison officers were unsympathetic and racist; that random violence from people in authority was a grim reality of life; and that any hope for remedial action by governments to address injustices of this kind were vain and futile.
When Commissioner Elliott Johnson QC’s national report, which included both an overview summary of the Deaths in Custody Commission’s work and a list of its recommendations, was finally handed down in 1991, we were grateful for the comprehensive and progressive way in which the problem faced by Aboriginal communities in modern Australia had been addressed and optimistic that governments would take careful note and start implementing the needed programs. Some of the contents of Commissioner Johnson’s overview need revisiting. At paragraph 1.7.21, he said:
Paragraph 1.730:
It is also important to revisit some of the particular recommendations that followed the overview report. Recommendation 104 dealt with community consultations in relation to sentencing. It reads as follows:
Recommendation 219 related to the Australian Law Reform Commission’s report on the recognition of Aboriginal customary law. The text of that recommendation was:
Recommendations 275 and 276 sought to address the scourge of alcohol abuse in Aboriginal society. Recommendation 275 states:
Recommendation 276 reads:
There are three kinds of Aboriginal interaction with the criminal justice system. The first is offences committed in mainstream towns. I am cautious and somewhat skeptical about our ability to make quick changes and improvements in the situation that we find ourselves in, where Aboriginal people make up far too many of the numbers appearing before the criminal courts and far too many of those serving sentences in our prison. This statement, wisely, does not promise any overnight miracles. It merely sketches out some paths that we need to set out on if we are going to start the journey of making Aboriginal society whole and healthy again.
One thing we need to do at the outset is to recognise that there are three fairly distinct kinds of scenarios that have been replayed over and over again which are leading to Aboriginal people being charged with offences against Territory laws. The scenario which is probably the most apparent to most non-Aboriginal Territorians is that of offences committed against property and public order by Aboriginal people living in the major population centres where the mainstream authority systems are dominated and controlled by non-Aboriginal people. This scenario in fact occurs far less frequently in the Territory than in the mainland states, but is one that in some cases reflect the inevitable frustration and inability to cope of some Aboriginal people when confronted with lifestyle rules and regimentations of an alien culture.
In other cases, it may be just common or garden juvenile delinquency, with comparatively little cultural overlay. Consistent with our claimed pride in our plural society, we as Territorians need to work at addressing this sort of criminal offending, which can range from comparatively minor offences like vagrancy to the worst and most disruptive of property offences and crimes against the person. The police, the courts and the prison system need to be sensitive and attuned to the motivating factors behind this kind of Aboriginal offending scenario, but the majority law abiding Aboriginal population of the Northern Territory is not asking for special treatment for those who stray, just fair and open-minded treatment.
The second kind of Aboriginal interaction with the criminal justice system is offences committed in Aboriginal communities. I move now to consider another scenario, that is what I will call public offences, as opposed to offences committed within families or family groups, that take place in Aboriginal communities. The law and order dynamic here is very different in that Aboriginal communities should be given a substantial measure of input and determination over how offenders are dealt with. This does not mean that Aboriginal communities do not want and need the assistance of qualified and culturally harmonised police officers. In many cases, they are calling for more police assistance, not less.
In the early years of the creation of a new nation called the United States of America, native Americans exercised their own laws on recognised Indian reservations. In due course, this arrangement was modified by legislation called the Seven Major Crimes Act which sets out a list of serious offences that would be dealt with pursuant to United States law rather than Indian law. This list was expanded in time to cover the following serious offences: murder; manslaughter; kidnapping; rape; assault with intent to commit rape; carnal knowledge of any female other than a spouse who has not attained the age of 16 years; incest; assault with intent to commit murder; assault with a dangerous weapon; assault resulting in serious bodily injury; arson; burglary; robbery; and larceny.
In the case of the offences in the list at the less serious end of the scale, there has been some scope for Indian courts to exercise concurrent jurisdiction with the federal courts, but in the case of the most serious offences, native American tribes have on the whole tended to neither have the capacity nor the inclination to investigate, prosecute and pass sentence in relation to such crimes, and have been content to leave them to the apparatus of the mainstream criminal justice system.
This principle of distribution of legal authority between the mainstream criminal justice system and indigenous local or regional justice authorities is one that can have some application in the Territory. Most Aboriginal people are not rejecting the mainstream criminal laws set out in our Criminal Code, but what needs to be explored and worked out as a matter of urgency is the devolution to appropriate community governance entities such as the law and justice programs. The communities are embracing these programs as they are able to take responsibility for dealing with minor offences committed in Aboriginal communities. What is also required is recognition and empowerment of those entities to also deal with breaches of Aboriginal law in certain circumstances.
The third kind of Aboriginal interaction with the criminal justice system is Aboriginal family violence. That scenario, which I must regretfully turn to now, plays itself out in both mainstream towns and in Aboriginal communities. It is an epidemic that Aboriginal families and communities need to address if the next generations are to survive and prosper. There are no short cuts or escape routes that can or should be made available to offenders to enable them to avoid the full brunt of the general criminal law. While tough sentencing is a necessary part of the solution, the real innovations need to come at a point in time long before the offending actually takes place: in the areas of health and education.
We need to focus our resources on boys and young men to ensure that they do not fall into the same abusive patterns that characterise their fathers and uncles. A big part of this necessary pre-emptive rehabilitation is a hard-headed and uncompromising strategy targetting substance abuse, especially alcohol abuse. I applaud the Minister for Justice for his commitment and work in this area; in particular in signing the communiqu, a step in the right direction to address a critical issue.
Before I finish, I want to make some brief comments about the concern I have about the Pascoe case that may be used as an example for the purpose of considering Aboriginal customary law and Aboriginal self-governance. It is, in fact, a singly inappropriate and dangerously misleading case to use in any debate. However, I do believe the judge’s comments as reported by the media were of a misogynous nature. Women, particularly young women, deserve our protection. I believe that the great majority of Aboriginal people do not want to lose the assistance and protection of mainstream criminal law in relation to the enforcement in Aboriginal communities of the criminal law in respect of the offence with which Mr Pascoe was charged, let alone in respect of the even more serious offence of rape.
Aboriginal customary law is primarily and predominantly about land and water and the relationship between Aboriginal people and their natural resources. It is the foundation for economic rights that Aboriginal people have been denied and when it comes to the coastal people of my electorate, they are still being denied. While a focus on the extent to which Aboriginal customary law intersects with the issues of sexual relationships or violent punishment may satisfy a prurient curiosity on the part of many non-Aboriginal people and may sell lots of newspapers, that is not the area that needs to be urgently addressed by the proposed inquiry into the interaction between indigenous customary law and the mainstream legal system. The truth is that we need to start looking and genuine and realistic self-government arrangements for Aboriginal people living on Aboriginal land.
I will finish with a quote from the 1986 Summary Report of the Australian Law Reform Commission into the Recognition of Aboriginal Customary Law. This is the second of three dot points in paragraph 133 of the report:
Mr BONSON (Millner): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise to speak on a very complex social, economic, community and legal issue: indigenous people and the justice system. It encompasses many things and the discussion in this House today reflects that. I will attempt to deal with the legal issues and briefly outline the history of this relationship.
I have heard many members speak on this important issue today, and I have noticed that many members of this House have offered opinions that are varied, both in background and in their content. In particular, I would like to thank the Attorney-General and the member for Arnhem for their localised examples of possible models that we as a government, as a Territory, can use in future.
This only highlights one thing: that no member of this House has all the answers. It highlights that there is a long way to go to resolve adequately this important issue that not only affects Territorians but all Australians as a nation. I will attempt to show that the experience of Aboriginal people is not unique to the Australian context. In fact, it has been played out many times all over the world. Over the last few days, I have spoken to many learned and respected community members. What I have learned from watching and listening to my colleagues and other members of this House, family and friends, which includes eminent community members, is as follows: I believe in some ways we are missing the point in this debate on indigenous customary law and possibilities of different models; I believe the question to be asked is whether the predicament of Aboriginal Territorians as Australian citizens is acceptable to the moral and ethical principles we hold dear as human beings in a just society; and I believe the answer is a resounding no, not because of some ideological reason, but because it is the right answer for all human beings.
One of the reasons for this answer is the relationship between Aboriginal people and the Australian legal system. This is by no means the only reason, but it is a very important reason. The single, most compelling argument that indigenous Australians can put forward is that traditional methods of justice and policing have had little or no effect on improving justice to individuals and communities. This is supported by a high number of indigenous Australians who have had negative experiences with the legal process as either victims or offenders. Though the reasons are varied and complex, the current and traditional method of dealing with crime has been unsuccessful. This is supported by the incredible statistics that the Attorney-General has outlined in his statement. The Attorney-General said:
I have visited the Berrimah gaol many times, and it is an overwhelming feeling to look at all the faces and see that two out of three people incarcerated at Berrimah prison is of Aboriginal descent. He continued:
Some people will say Aboriginal problems can not be resolved, that there are no solutions. I argue against this attitude. As a community, we cannot throw our arms up in despair and give up. The saying ‘Evil prevails when good men do nothing’ summarises why we as a parliament must attempt in a fair, equitable and determined manner to address this matter.
As a person of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander descent, I often contemplate the plight of Aboriginal people and the history of this country. I do not pretend to like what has occurred between Aboriginal people and European Australians since colonisation. However, I do accept that it has occurred and it deserves recognition, and the proper recording of its real history of this country.
At this time the community and parliament cannot change the past because it is unchangeable. The ripples of acts in the past still affect the generations, white and black, in negative ways. This is reflected by the social issues of substance abuse, petrol sniffing, and alcohol and drug abuse, domestic violence, murder, assault and high incarceration rates. What is important to remember is these social issues are not confined to indigenous Australians. They are just magnified many times over. I listened to the member for Araluen pose the question: why? Why is this the case? Members in this House need to research the history of this country and put it in context with what is happening overseas and what has happened over time immemorial. I am going to try and put some clarification on this issue in the context of the human race.
I ask that members in this House and the wider community recognise that yes, Aboriginal Australians are over-represented in all these categories when compared with the mainstream society. What must be clearly stated is that this over-representation is a reflection of all minority groups that have been ignored or marginalised by wider communities around the world. I will repeat that: what must be clearly stated is that this over-representation is a reflection of all minority groups that have been ignored or marginalised by the wider community around the world. This is not an indictment on Aboriginal people; this is not a reflection on Aboriginal people as a race of human beings.
Examples that you can look for, if people are willing to do the research - and I have a number of papers there that members are welcome to read, and I will talk about that in a minute. In particular, African Americans or black Americans. Their experience is very similar in the case during the 1960s. Before the 1960s people were being classified as quadruples, quarter-caste, half-caste, etcetera. During the 1960s, however, black American people got together and they said: ‘Well, instead of calling ourselves quarter-castes or half-castes or whatever, we are going to call ourselves black Americans or African Americans’. Those terms are still being bandied around in Australia, by indigenous and non-indigenous people, should be chucked out the window. We have to make a decision: we call ourselves black Australians or indigenous Australians or Aboriginal Australians.
Mexican Americans faced the same type of experience, and native Americans, of course, who some members have touched on in this debate. I was lucky enough to travel to North America and attend the first ever Indigenous Youth Conference in Quebec City, and when you closed your eyes and you heard people speak, they were speaking the same story, no matter where they came from – South America, North America, Australia - there were Samis from Finland. If you closed your eyes and forgot their accent and you listened to what they were saying, it was the same story repeated over and over again.
That goes for South American indigenous people, Asian migrants, European gypsies, Kurds in Iraq and, of course, Maori and other islander people and various minority religious groups. I could go on and on, but I believe it is unnecessary. This is a human trait; this is a reflection of human relations. It is a social issue affecting all people no matter what their skin colour – black, white, green or blue. Its roots are founded in cultural ignorance and discrimination all around the world. I believe that Aboriginal people and the Australian citizens’ relationship is not unique to Australia or necessarily unique to our century or our millennium. It is vitally important to the debate the role of traditional law and introduced law.
There are many examples of minority groups being overwhelmed by an overpowering, unstoppable, conquering force. For example, the biblical story of the Babylonians and the Jews; the Roman invasion of Palestine recorded in the Bible. Fast forward several hundred years and we see the invasion and colonisation of England by Normans, two different tribes, but they happen to be white European tribes with social and cultural differences, tribes of Europe known as Saxons, Normans, Gauls, Franks, similar to tribes known as Gurindji, Warlpiri, Larrakia, Jawoyn.
Just like Aboriginal people, the people of the British Isles suffered for centuries under cultural and social legal discrimination. How did they resolve their differences over time? History shows people adopted laws and cultures and cultural traditions out of necessity by agreement or under persecution, pain and suffering. What I mean by that statement is that they never had a choice. In Australia, we are supposed to be an intelligent, learned, resourceful population. Surely we can learn from the European and other examples around the world and improve on the way people interrelate with each other.
That is the point I want to get through in this message, that this has been occurring over and over and over for centuries around the world, for thousands of years and, for some reason, we have not learned anything. We have the resources, we have the will. I believe we have the political will, the knowledge, and we just need to address this issue properly.
Just as an example of where that has been used around the world, I would like to comment on a paper by David Woodroffe that he produced while we were at university together. He is an indigenous solicitor. The paper was entitled From Assimilation to Admissibility – the struggle of the Northern Territory Stolen Generation. A model communication under the First Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This is a fantastic description of the relationship between Stolen Generation people and experiences around the world and international law. Under the heading, Colonial Dispossession:
This is a comment from a scholar that is recognising what we are still talking about today, nearly 200 years later.
Sometimes in harmony, sometimes in war. I propose that we aim for harmony.
I do not purport just to chuck it in as a concept because it is ideologically correct. I believe it must be considered because the status quo right now is not working. So not because it is the ideologically right thing to do, not because it is a last resort or that we have got no other place to turn. The reason it must be considered is because the status quo is not acceptable by any human concept of right and wrong. That is what we should be asking ourselves in this parliament. That is what we should be asking ourselves as a community: is the status quo acceptable by any human concept of right and wrong? Of course, the answer must be no.
I have a number of articles that I have relied on when considering this matter, and I recommend all these articles and documents as reading material to all members of this House. I will read them out to you in due course.
A quote I have used describes the responsibilities we have as members of an educated civil society, and it is drawn from a paper entitled Restorative Justice and the Contest between the Relational and Institutional Paradigms; by J O’Connell and J Richie, NSW Police:
The struggle between competing cultural tradition and laws are incorporated in that quote.
Members of this House, members of the Territory communities, must always consider their traditional loyalties to clan or section or family or state and territory. All must bear those with us. We grow up with them. We come from a tribe, a culture somewhere in the world. However, we owe it to our communities and to people we represent to think about the other side of the fence; the concept of neighbour is important to the life we share with others.
At present, western democracies rely on a combination of retributive and rehabilitative model of criminal justice. I would like to contribute to the Attorney-General’s initiatives along the line of a restorative justice approach. The differences, though technical, are important. I encourage all members to look at the following article: Revisiting a Relationship between Retributive and Restorative Justice by Kathleen Day, School of Criminology and Criminal Justice. There are two headings, and it is a chart. On one side is retribution and rehabilitative thoughts, and on the other side is restorative. On the retribution side:
The focus on repairing the harm.
It is my belief that members of this House have a responsibility to tackle their community responsibilities. Depending on figures, 25% to 30% of the Territory population is of indigenous background, and they are suffering as a community under the most horrendous conditions. This is not a political game with points awarded to the party or group that can score the most points for making this a political issue. As the Attorney-General has stated, partnerships and working together are the only way forward. Equal partners bring mutual respect to each others’ cultural traditions and beliefs. This concept has been long overdue in the Territory as a possible opportunity to improve people’s lives, and that is what it is all about: improving people’s lives. The status quo does not work; let us think out of the box, let us try something.
As the member for Arafura has said, the project was first articulated in a recognisable framework after the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody published in 1991 which established a theme of over- representation of indigenous people in the criminal system, and an urgent call for a change in the way legal business occurred. I suggest to this House restorative justice principles need to be further investigated.
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, I move that the member be granted an extension of time in order that he may complete his remarks.
Motion agreed to.
Mr BONSON: Braithwaite, another learned academic on criminology, suggests restorative justice in Australia offers an opportunity - and that is one of my favourite words, the word ‘opportunity’ – for a very different way of thinking about traditional notions such as deterrence, rehabilitation, incarceration and crime prevention. It also means transform foundations of criminal jurisprudence and of our notions of freedom, democracy and community. These concepts are new, and the Territory has an opportunity to try new things to deliver real outcomes of benefit to everyone.
The signing of the communiqu is a symbolic act which demonstrates the government’s new approach. However, I reiterate that any new program, scheme or justice model must be constantly reviewed to ensure it works to achieve its designed outcome to improve the social, economic, health and education strategy of Territorians. I am pleased to see the minister and this government has committed to developing an evaluation of strategies.
I would like also to put on record my belief that if indigenous people solely rely on the Territory and Commonwealth governments to improve their lifestyles, then we will be talking about these same issues in the future. However, Territory and Commonwealth governments have a duty to supply the same access to services that the rest of Australians consider a fundamental right. That is the role of government, to lift the standard and give everyone an opportunity within their community, within their citizenship of their country, an opportunity for the same access to resources. This is what the whole issue is about. There has been a denial of resources and obviously the biggest denial has occurred with disposition of land which has affected people for many years. We are slowly seeing the return of resources to a section of the community and hopefully over the next 200 years we will see and improvement. Of course, it is government’s responsibility to provide good housing, as stated by the Attorney-General, and infrastructure, sound education, relevant training opportunities and access to health care services. This is what governments have a duty to supply to indigenous Australians and all Australians. It is up to the Aboriginal people to take steps to gain the respect that they deserve from the wider community.
I believe if these strategies outlined by the Attorney-General are implemented properly, this could represent a major step forward in enabling communities to deal with their own problems in their own way. This could allow, where appropriate and agreed upon by all parties, an opportunity for communities to choose their own methods of dealing with disputes inside an agreed framework. It also represents a step towards self-determination and community self-management. I will argue in this House that without returning some political and legal control to indigenous communities, problems such as substance abuse and domestic violence will remain. These problems are the product of both past and present indigenous disempowerment.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I commend the statement to this House.
Finally, I would like to refer to some articles which I would like people who are serious about this debate to have a look at, and I am talking about members on both sides of the House. The first paper is Genocide, Reparations and Restorative Justice: Responding to the Stolen Generations. It is a paper presented to the Restorative Justice and Civil Society Conference, University House, Australian National University in 1999. Its author is Chris Cuneen. I notice under ‘Trivialisation of the Issue of the Stolen Generation’, we have one ex-member of the CLP and one current member of the CLP and sitting member referred to in this fantastic document. It states:
Trivialisation can be seen in some of the arguments for refusing to apologise. For example, in the parliamentary
debate in the Northern Territory, government members refused to apologise and noted that they were sorry about
the removals but also about many other things which had occurred.
This was the member for Drysdale:
I am sorry the Titanic sank, I am sorry about World War 1 and I am sorry about the bombing of Darwin,
but I feel no need to apologise for any of these occurrences.
And the ex-member for Goyder:
I regret the trauma that has been caused to all children and all parents who have been forcefully and wrongfully
removed and separated. I refer, of course, to those thousands of people Aboriginal, European, Australian and British.
I am not discriminating on the base of colour of people’s skin.
It is a fantastic article which deals with possibly restoring victims of that policy to where they should be in community.
Another fantastic article is entitled Aboriginal Community Participation in Sentencing written by Neil Loftron. One of his offerings is:
This is a fantastic outline of legal principles and decisions that have effect today. Another article I found amazing was called Crime in a Conflict Republic by John Braithwaite, Australian National University. What I found amazing about it was the comparisons he had of American slaves and convict Australians, the basic difference between the two and why black Americans still suffer the same problems that indigenous Australians face today. Convicts were allowed, once they had served their sentence, to get land, they were allowed to get jobs and they were allowed to take up opportunities while American slaves were not. Convicts took up the opportunity to have a better life, and obviously the descendants of many of these are probably in this House today. It just shows that people do achieve if you give them the opportunity. Black Americans are still facing many of the problems that indigenous Australians are facing. It is a fantastic article which also runs through the Western sequence of history of different types of punishment. It is something that the member for Macdonnell should really have a look at and put in perspective what this debate is all about.
Madam Speaker, as you can see I have researched my contribution to this debate diligently because I believe that right now, we are stuck in a situation where the status quo is socially unacceptable by any human standard. I am not interested in ideologies any more. I am not interested in bagging the opposition about the past. I am just interested in finding out how we can improve the future. If this is an option, if this is something out of the box that we can look at, maybe it offers an opportunity to people. If it does not work, all right, we will try something else. But we have to give this an opportunity to work. We will review it, and if it is not working, we change it again and we change it again until we find something that is working.
The idea behind concepts of partnerships between whoever is in government and indigenous people, there needs to be recognition because we have a 30% population here in the Northern Territory. I do not care what ethnic group they are; they just happen to be Aboriginal people. It is important to recognise that part of the reason why we love the Territory is because these people have a history in this land. I know this history. I talk to my parents. You know, they could not vote until they were 25 years old, but they went to school, they worked with people, they married into families, they welcomed people to Darwin and to the Territory, and they worked up and down in the bush. The one thing that Aboriginal people were able to give to the Territory was, yes, we have been disadvantaged, yes, these things have happened to us, but guess what? Still come into our land, still come and be welcome.
Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate that status quo cannot be maintained. Let us look towards the future.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I should preface my words by saying that my comments do not relate to the whole statement, but to the question of the inquiry which the minister has stated will to be conducted in the near future.
Are we just reinventing the wheel? Is this a feel good exercise? What is a review of this issue going to achieve that all the other reviews have failed to achieve? Many people, communities, inquiries, academics, politicians have debated this issue of customary law. Take our own Sessional Committee on Constitutional Development. This one here, Discussion Paper No 4, Recognition of Aboriginal Customary Law. Surely, instead of having another review, we should look at this report and see whether it can be used as a basis for any changes one way or the other, or leave things as they are.
There is no doubt that it is important that Aboriginal customs and traditions are encouraged, but like all customs and traditions, times change, and what may have been acceptable 100 or 200 years ago, may not be acceptable today.
As well, there is no doubt that traditional Aboriginal societies are becoming fewer and fewer simply because of the breakdown of that society through the good and bad influences of the greater non-Aboriginal community in Australia. Some may see this as western influence. I see it as the influence of technology which has spread across the world. People are now influenced through television, radio, music, computers, videos, travel, sport, housing, motor vehicles, schooling, money, religion, food, alcohol, social security, and the list goes on. Most of these influence all societies and are difficult to control. We all live in a materialistic and consumer driven society.
The question is whether under these circumstances, can customary law be relevant? Is it appropriate, will it survive, and who should it apply to? When the member for Millner was talking about who is Aboriginal, that in itself is a question as to whether customary law should apply to all Aboriginal people. I look at the example of my own family. my daughters. If I went to them and said: ‘You will marry the one you are promised to,’ I know what they would say to me. It reminds me of a particular show that is coming up soon in Darwin called Fiddler on the Roof. I am not giving it a plug, but there is a song called Tradition, and part of the reason that song is in there is because the father, who you might say was a customary Jew, wished that all his daughters would be married off to promised people.
What happens through the story is that three of his daughters all fall in love with particular people and want to marry them, and they are all very strange people: one is a revolutionary, one is a worker out in Siberia, and one is not even a Jew or a Russian. He is struggling to come to terms with tradition and what is happening in these newer times. This is a similar to that; he is telling a similar story.
Before we answer any of these questions, we need to define what is customary law. Here I refer to page 8 of the Sessional Committee on Constitutional Development, under The Nature and Role of Customary Law. I will read one paragraph - there are quite a few paragraphs on this issue - which says:
So one key factor is whether traditional Aboriginal society exists. Certainly, in some parts of the Territory it does, but I believe that because of the changes I mentioned previously, it is difficult to say whether in general, traditional societies still exist. If they do not, should customary law apply?
The key to what should apply must be based on what the minister himself has said: that any law should universally recognise human rights and fundamental freedoms. One of the dangers in recognising customary law can be the misuse of this law based on the pretext that what has been done is done in the name of tradition. I know the issue has been raised about domestic violence and under age sex. I can name an issue that was called ‘Sunday business’ at Daly River. It was a problem when I first went to Daly River, and it became another issue later on, where basically a bull roarer, which was the man’s penis, was placed in positions where the men would know that an Aboriginal woman was going to go down to the river, say to wash or whatever, and they would place it where she would see it, and if they saw that she had seen that bull roarer, they could basically do what they liked with that person. So there was an abuse of the tradition. That is one of the sad things that has happened to customary law; some people have used it for their own power instead of the reason for which it was originally intended. In some cases, even women have been put down, basically by that same male dominance of using customary law and not letting women speak. That is why these recognised human rights and fundamental freedoms must be paramount in whatever we decide.
I believe that for the above reasons, we should be wary of where we are going. Should we make the distinction between law, tradition and customs? Can traditions and customs be retained without the need for laws which do not recognise human rights and fundamental freedoms?
When I was with the Substance Abuse Committee at Lajamanu, some people said that promised marriages should be recognised. So what happens if the girl does not want to marry that person? In Lajamanu, they believe she should be punished. What are her human rights? If we accept that she should be punished, then do we accept that she has no human rights? What if the person does not want to live a traditional life?
It reminds me of another clash. If my children do not want to follow my Catholic culture, do I make them do it - if I could - or do I allow them to do as they want even though I might be sad they don’t? The times, they are a’changing, and these changing times affect us all. Nothing stands still. So, perhaps customary law is not the answer, but instead more local empowerment of their future through the ability to run their own affairs – real empowerment, whether as councillors or Aboriginal community police officers, correctional officers, nurses, teachers, traditional land owners, women. This empowerment, of course, will never happen if people are not educated; if there are no real jobs; if alcohol and drugs control any future advancement; if suicide, sickness and premature death are constantly hanging over the communities. Education and real jobs is the only way to real empowerment.
At a recent Substance Abuse Committee meeting on the Tiwi Islands, a young articulate Tiwi Islander said two things that struck home to me. He said: ‘We need to be more educated, or well educated, and at least to a secondary education standard, with the emphasis on speaking English’. Second, that his people - and he was perhaps referring to himself, I am not sure whether he was speaking in general terms - ‘have spoilt their own by giving them what they wanted instead of being strong. I saw that as recognising a two-way street; that part of our responsibility from a government point of view is to provide the opportunities through education, but also recognises that Aboriginal people have a responsibility themselves that no matter what we do, we cannot give them - they have to stand up and try to solve some of these issues themselves. It is a partnership, but it is not a one-way street.
I believe this gentleman was right. He recognised that he lives in a dominant non-Aboriginal culture, and for his people to survive and to keep their identity and, at the same time, take their rightful place in modern society, they need to be educated and educated well.
The member for Arnhem said customary law does not just cover issues that I have raised, and also have been raised in the paper. It does allow ownership of land and without land, it is difficult to see Aboriginal people continue their traditions and customs. What is probably so annoying today is that the group set up to protect those who are the traditional owners - the land council - sometimes do not respect the traditional law themselves, and do not protect the traditional owners. It seems in the case of the Wagait people, who I know well, the land councils have made their own version of customary law to allow people who are not traditional owners to have a say in land which is not theirs. It seems that customary or traditional law, sadly, is not always supported by those who should know better.
Perhaps this inquiry should look at issues such as the manner in which the land councils make their decisions when it comes to who they recognise and how they came to recognise those groups. If you believe that land is the basis on which traditions and customs can at least have a basis for existence, and improve its chances of survival, then those who make decisions about the land should do so honestly.
I would like to mention - and I think it was mentioned today - that there is customary law which covers other areas like who you can speak to, use of a name when someone has died, ceremonies, marrying into the wrong relationship; those are laws and rules which are traditional. Their survival will be up to Aboriginal people; perhaps they will be adapted and changed as the years go by. I do not believe that it is a matter for anyone to enforce. This is an internal matter, a bit like the Catholic matter I referred to before.
This whole issue is complex. Just read this Document No 4. Many people have tackled it, and in just under 24 hours, one has to put down on paper a response. I feel that is impossible to do this issue justice, and so I hope members take that into account. The minister’s statement covers many issues and if I was to tackle all the things that are in here, I would have to take a couple of months off work.
The member for Arafura made some very good points about those who came to the country and how there was a law here when they came. That is a good point, and needs to be recognised. But now we are in the year 2002. As seen by Bali, the world has changed. Time has not stood still. We are all affected. Many things we cannot control. In the end, whatever path the future leads to, we must observe a belief in the protection of human rights, that we treat each person with dignity, and to those who control the law, no matter what law, they are not able to abuse that power by violence and control of others, especially women. Perhaps we already have one law: love thy neighbour. I am still not sure we need to review the already reviewed, but if we do, I hope we look at the present and future because too much living in the past can only come up with conclusions based on past glories rather than anything of worth. Education, real jobs and land, is the only way to self-empowerment and empowerment to retain tradition and customs if that is what the people want.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Madam Speaker, I rise to support the minister’s statement on indigenous people and the justice system. The minister has outlined the sad facts relating to the way in which Aboriginal people are over-represented in the justice system, and how Aboriginal people in the Territory are much more likely to suffer physical violence than their fellow citizens. He also outlined the underlying social, economic and cultural issues contributing to the current situation and reiterated this government’s initiatives to redress these underlying issues. These initiatives include:
development of more effective forms of governance for Aboriginal communities;
improvements in housing and infrastructure;
implementation of the Collins report to improve Aboriginal education outcomes;
regional approaches for the improved delivery of health services for Aboriginal people; and
a commitment to achieve effective economic development outcomes for Aboriginal people in the Territory.
The major themes underscoring these initiatives, and others outlined in the minister’s statement, is commitment and effective partnerships not only from the government, but also from Aboriginal communities and their organisations.
I would like to focus on one important aspect of the minister’s statement because of the mischievous politicisation of the issue of Aboriginal customary law in this House last week. In his statement, the minister made several things very clear and I quote, as other people have done, from his written statement:
Given the statements and comments that have been made in this House over the past week, I would also like to
place on the record that the government affirms that the Northern Territory Criminal Code applies to all citizens
of the Northern Territory without exception. This means that the Northern Territory government does not condone
any of the crimes in that code, including, but not limited to, murder, manslaughter, dangerous acts, rape, incest,
carnal knowledge, kidnap, assault and theft.
Again in relation to the recognition of Aboriginal customary law:
Next week your government intends to unveil plans for the integration of traditional Aboriginal law into the
justice system. Do you intend to include the acceptance of Aboriginal men having sex with children?
What a provocative thing to say! I was offended by that. The member for Araluen then followed up with a number of related questions to the Chief Minister.
First, it is obvious from the minister’s statement today that this government does not plan the wholesale integration of customary law into our justice system as suggested by the member for Araluen. Rather, we aim to facilitate the recognition of customary law which is quite different from what the member for Araluen and, to some extent, the member for Macdonnell were describing.
As the minister has stated, this will be consistent with the Criminal Code applying to all citizens of the Northern Territory without exception and consistent with universally recognised human rights and fundamental freedoms. This is an important issue which I will turn to later.
What I wish to do now in a most emphatic way is to place on the public record my personal repugnance at any adult having sex with a child. Such sexual relations can never be condoned. The Chief Minister stated this in her reply, and the minister’s statement here today certainly makes it clear that such crimes and others in the Criminal Code will not be condoned by this government. This government certainly does not condone child sex and I find it offensive that the member for Araluen should suggest that we would. It is an important issue. There was a question that needed to be asked, I do not deny that, but I believe it had to be asked in a different and less aggressive and offensive manner than the member for Araluen did.
One can only speculate on the motives of the member for Araluen for asking the question in the way that she did. From her maiden speech, child welfare and issues related to sexual assault of women and children are obviously matters she cares deeply about, and I commend that. Nevertheless, given these deep concerns, I question why the member for Araluen did not even speak in the parliamentary debate concerning the Stolen Generation. Indeed, the only person who spoke from her side was the Opposition Leader who opposed the motion. It is a complex and important issue relating to the welfare of Aboriginal children, how they were forcibly removed from their parents, how many of them suffered physical and sexual abuse, and how the emotional scars remain to this day. Yet the member for Araluen was silent and therefore lacks some credibility on this issue.
I listened to the member for Araluen when she talked about how the predominant violence within Aboriginal communities is men towards women and children. That is true. But we have to ask why that is true. There is a whole body of knowledge about this that relates to how when a group is weak, when they are oppressed themselves, who do they turn their violence to? Those who are weaker and more oppressed than themselves. That is the sad fact of it.
What concerns me about the questions asked by the member for Araluen last week and the speech last week from the member for Macdonnell is the underlying hint of Aboriginal privilege under the law and the suggestion that this government would countenance criminal acts such as violence and sex with children on the basis of race or culture.
In a speech on Tuesday, 8 October, the member for Macdonnell highlighted an issue related to bail for a person reported to be facing tribal punishment and the responsibilities of courts in relation to those matters. Fair enough. But I was surprised that in no way did the member for Macdonnell try and put on the record his understanding of customary law and its primacy in the lives of the traditional Aboriginal people he represents, or suggest useful remedies to address the wider issues. On the basis of that speech, he does not appear to believe that customary law has any value whatsoever. When it suits him, however, he does appear to appreciate the traditional system of reciprocity as evidenced by his gifts of frozen kangaroo tails at the last election.
This is a sad situation, given that he represents a predominantly Aboriginal electorate, and I would suggest that that electorate consider these matters very carefully at the next election. Is this someone who generally respects Aboriginal traditions and culture? That is a question that the voters in Macdonnell are just going to have to ask themselves at the next election.
The mischievous use of Aboriginal issues or the race card has long been a favourite political tactic of the CLP. It might not necessarily be overt. It is something that has been referred to. I have read a book by Don Watson. It is a biography of Paul Keating, and it is a very interesting book. I will quote from him on page 712. He said:
Now he talks about what dog whistling is:
Well, I would suggest that there is a bit of dog whistling going on over this issue of one law or two laws. I can hear the whistles loud and clear, and I hear them from the members for Araluen and Macdonnell. Some of the dogs have responded to the whistle, and this message about Australia needs one law for everyone and accusations that this government is putting forth two laws is offensive. That is not what we are about. That is not what the minister said today, and the dog whistlers should take note because their picture is plastered all over this sort of stuff. And I am on to it. Does a leopard change its spots? No, and I am listening for the dog whistles.
The issue of customary law in the Territory is an important issue and deserves a considered response. Instead of simplistically reducing the issues, I believe it is incumbent on us as parliamentarians to try to understand them and find a way forward. It is especially important when you consider that Aboriginal people comprise 30% of the Northern Territory population, and it is likely that customary law plays a prime role in the lives of a significant number of these people, especially the 70% who live in remote areas and many who live in the towns and regional centres.
As the minister has stated, Aboriginal law is more than payback. It encompasses an extremely broad and complex set of rules and unwritten legislation which governs social relationships, economic rights, land ownership and management, wildlife conservation and intellectual property rights. Far from being a legal code, Aboriginal law is a social process, and as Deborah Rose-Bird notes in her excellent paper Indigenous Customary Law and the Courts, the functions of Aboriginal law are to protect the integrity and rights of individuals and groups to deal with offences in a lawful and balanced way, and in a manner acceptable to the Aboriginal community as a whole; that is, the affected community, and ultimately to ensure a lawful society.
Historically, Aboriginal people lived in small groups which were often aggregated into larger groups within a region, so every offence was a group offence. There were no gaols, no appeals to higher courts, wrongdoers had to be managed through the law and, as Rose-Bird points out, the troublemaker has to face those he or she has harmed and to experience, on their body, the right of those he or she has harmed to inflict harm in return. Payback is meant to be roughly equivalent to the offence. The purpose is to restore a sense of balance and to effect a form of closure.
When looking at other systems of law, we should also contemplate the philosophical and moral basis of our own system of justice which, in many respects, arises from biblical law. A strong foundation indeed, and one for which I have the greatest respect, but I quote from Exodus 21:23, verses 23 to 25:
As is evident, there are strong parallels with customary laws, and for centuries, common law reflected this approach to justice. Nevertheless, over the past two centuries, there have been many reforms in our justice and penal systems, with some vestiges remaining in recent history. Indeed, I can remember the last execution in Australia. Recently, on a tour of Old Melbourne Gaol, I saw first hand abundant evidence of the barbarity of capital punishment, the severity of corporal punishment and the human degradation of the penal system even well into the 20th century.
My underlying message is to those who would assert an overwhelming cultural superiority of our legal system. We should also reflect on how well the interests of Aboriginal people have been served by our own justice system. Under this system, they were dispossessed, hunted like animals, murdered, poisoned, raped, enslaved, treated as less than human and taken from their mothers, all with relative impunity from the law.
To return to Aboriginal law and the way forward, it is evident that Aboriginal law is highly structured, with complex negotiations between the various parties, often with mediators handling the negotiations. This is an important aspect - just picking up on some of the content that the member for Nelson spoke about - here we have an existing system where there is negotiation and mediation. With this exhortation to move into the 20th century and leave everything behind, I think we would be leaving a very important structure - a structure and process that is already of prime importance to Aboriginal people. It is something that we should be entering into a dialogue about; we should be fostering for resolution, for closure, on a whole series of issues related to justice and law.
However, I believe that customary law is under extreme stress from a number of factors, and these include: escalation of alcohol-related violence and accidents - and I am pleased to hear today that the issue of alcohol has figured very largely in what a lot of the members have had to say. It is a very important issue that we need to address. Alcohol-related violence and accidents certainly overburden the Aboriginal customary law. Another factor is sudden deaths of relatively young people from cardiovascular disease and stroke. Often when this occurs, there are allegations of sorcery and then there is trouble that starts up and there is a cycle of payback and suspicion. There are also increasing numbers of suicide, particularly amongst young people, and the Substance Abuse Committee has been hearing a lot about this. This also causes incredible problems and conflict within communities.
As the member for Nelson said, there has been a breakdown of traditional authority and I do not really have the time here to fully analyse that. The issue of welfare was mentioned by the member for Macdonnell. I believe welfare has been a very corrosive influence where formerly people were hunters and gatherers and there was this system of reciprocity, although not always with frozen kangaroo tails, but people exchanged; there was this economic and social link. Unfortunately, welfare has been very corrosive to those links. These things lead to further conflict and accusations of sorcery.
In Aboriginal communities, there is a continual cycle of such conflict meaning that there can be no closure under the law. This is why I believe the minister’s statement is welcome as an overall strategy to address fundamental issues of law and justice. In relation to customary law, I commend the terms of reference outlined by the minister, namely to report and make recommendations on first, the capacity of Aboriginal customary law to provide benefits to the Northern Territory in areas including but not limited to governance, social wellbeing, law and justice, economic independence, wildlife conservation, land management and scientific knowledge.
The second one is to what extent Aboriginal customary law might achieve formal or informal recognition within the Northern Territory. This issue of recognition rather than integration is an important one because of the issue of maintaining equality under Australian law and international covenants on human rights. It is crucially important for the reason that in such arrangements, customary law would be likely to lose its integrity as an instrument to mediate the social relations of Aboriginal groups. Furthermore, it has also been argued that it would amount to further hegemony of Aboriginal society. The way forward is through recognition and dialogue: dynamic jurisprudence at a local and regional level, as one commentator has described it, exactly the sort of initiatives that are occurring through Kurduju Committee. The role of traditional mediators should not be underestimated in this process. Furthermore, by upholding the Criminal Code and international covenants on human rights, there is also certainty given to Aboriginal people on a number of matters including customary marriage.
The issue of upholding and enforcing the legal marriageable age and the age of consent, has been made perfectly clear by the wider community over the last week. I know traditional Aboriginal families, along with the wider community, will welcome the clear statement of this government that it is not legal or acceptable for any person to have sex with a child inside any marriage relationship, or, for that matter, under any circumstances whatsoever. However, to be effective, such understandings must occur through mutual respect and dialogue.
Along with these Aboriginal families, I hope the legal marriageable age and age of consent are the issues rather than the issue of customary promised marriages themselves. These practices are practiced in a number of cultures in the Territory, apart from Aboriginal people and including Aboriginal people, and like many members in this House, I know a number of couples from a whole range of cultures who were married in this fashion and are very happily married and have been for many years. So we just need to be a little bit careful if we are getting into the issue of promised marriages because, as I say, there are a lot of Territorians who have been married, and are happily married, through this process. We should not sit as cultural judges, but if a practice transgresses the law, well then it is unacceptable.
To summarise, this government is concerned about the over-representation of Aboriginal people in the justice system. We recognise the underlying causes and have already introduced a number of initiatives to redress the situation. We have also commissioned an inquiry to examine constructive ways in which a plural approach for mutual recognition to occur between customary law and Australian law to our mutual benefit. However, there should be no doubt that this government is committed to equality under the law. We are not introducing two laws, and we have affirmed the primacy of the Criminal Code and international covenants.
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I welcome the minister’s statement on indigenous people and the justice system.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, what a lively debate it has been. I thank all members who contributed to the debate on these very important issues.
I would like to start with the core matter in the statement and that is today’s signing of the communiqu as a result of the Summit on Indigenous Deaths in Custody, and to take the comments of the Leader of the Opposition that this signing is an empty or purely symbolic exercise. First, while the member for Brennan may well argue that he was quietly beavering away at reforms within the justice system in the Northern Territory with the aim of achieving lower incarceration rates for indigenous people, he clearly does not understand the very important part that symbolism, public acknowledgement, plays for indigenous people in this country.
Through a series of tests of our maturity as a nation, and our maturity here in the Territory, we have to be able to get up on occasions and say sorry to the Stolen Generation, to reaffirm the very important agenda that the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths In Custody brought to the attention of this country. We have to make it very clear to indigenous people that our support and understanding is there, and is going to be renewed.
The second point is that it is a little cute for the Leader of the Opposition to present the communiqu purely in terms of the preamble without mentioning that there is a very real and practical agenda attached to the resolution of that document. That resolution calls on the signatories not to just simply acknowledge the over-representation of indigenous people in the criminal justice system throughout Australia, but to develop plans for the reduction of that over-representation, based on justice issues, customary law, law reform, funding levels, and the setting of jurisdictional targets, reducing the rate of the over-representation of indigenous people in the criminal justice system.
This is a practical resolution. It is a resolution that we will take into our commitment and we intend to work, as I have outlined in the statement, step by step, day by day, year by year, to try to gain ground on this very important aspect of the commission findings.
I would like to show how serious we are on this by tabling up to date figures on the total prison population in the Northern Territory and the total indigenous prisoner population not only for now, for the June quarter of this year, but right back to March 1996. There is our benchmark. This is where we are starting from. We are quite happy, as the quarterly statistics go out from the Office of Crime Prevention, to be judged on how we are going with the initiatives that we put into play as a result of this statement.
I will take the Leader of the Opposition’s assertion on board, that there was some reduction in indigenous imprisonment rates over the last couple of years of the CLP government. If that is due to their work, they are to be commended for it because I am more than happy to say this is a very difficult task and the fact that there was, certainly against national trends, a reduction in the imprisonment rates in our prisons over that period of time - okay, that is fine and good on you. But we have a lot of work to do and we will be prepared to, in an objective way, come back to this House and update members on the outcomes.
There has been a lot of talk about what this inquiry should deal with and how it should go about its work. I want to make a few things clear in answer to some of the members’ concerns. First of all, it will not be another exercise aimed at increasing the height of the pile of paper that has accumulated, and I think the members for Goyder and Nelson made that point.
We are aware of the vast amount of work that has been done both in the Northern Territory, around Australia and overseas on customary law issues. In fact, the reference to the inquiry specifically says that they are to review earlier work that has been done and to take that as a starting point in developing their recommendations. It will build on earlier work. We are looking to have both indigenous women and men represented on that inquiry, probably in equal numbers. Certainly, there will be equal numbers of indigenous and non-indigenous membership, and a co-chair arrangement so that we not only announce the exercise as a balancing exercise between the two world views, but we embody that in the membership and composition of the inquiry. Who those people are will be worked out in the near future. We want to get this group working as quickly as possible.
I think there was a point made that we have to move beyond the earlier reports which may have thrown a huge insight and provided a lot of information about customary law, but they did not distil down into practical things that we can do in the way of reform to give the operation of customary law a more secure and defined place within our overall justice arrangements. I will be asking the inquiry to have a pragmatic and practical approach to what they are doing. We do not want a whole lot of theories and generic statements; we want practical things that can be done within our justice system to avoid some of the conflicts and tensions that surface at regular intervals at the moment, and to give all Territorians a much more secure sense of how these matters are going to be progressed.
I really feel for our magistrates and our judges working in that frontier zone. I feel for our police and our Correctional Services people who have to, at a very personal level, deal with these unresolved, unreconciled elements within our justice arrangements. We have to try and do what we can to provide greater clarity, and harvest the enormous benefit that is on offer from both approaches that are present here in the Northern Territory.
I believe that the recognition and integration of customary law into the overall justice arrangements of the Northern Territory would go a long way to helping with the long-term survival of traditional Aboriginal culture, and that is a priceless resource within the Northern Territory. It is a unique resource and it is a resource that all Territorians can draw strength and identity from to a greater or lesser extent.
There was a very minor point made by the member for Araluen that I do want to pick up and respond to. Merle Thomas, member of the Victim Support Unit in Alice Springs, I would like to specifically acknowledge her work as well, along with the other members of the VSU that I mentioned in the statement. I believe the Victim Support Unit and victim support groups have a large part to play. There is a growing boundary now coming out of the urban or more conventional settings in which this type of work is pursued into more remote and indigenous contexts. It has been made very clear in the statement that we do need to find more extensive and more appropriate ways of supporting indigenous victimisation as well as what we do about minimising offending and re-offending. So the Victim Support Unit has a large role to play in this, and I would hope to see, along the lines of the reforms within our court system, a more effective set of arrangements, particularly in our circuit courts.
With those remarks, Madam Speaker, I again thank the members. This has been a very constructive debate. I will certainly be going through the contributions of members in more detail at the time that the Parliamentary Record becomes available. We will certainly make sure that the constructive ideas, comments and insights that have come out of this debate will be built into the implementation of the elements of the statement.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
Mr HENDERSON (Business, Industry and Resource Development): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I wish to speak fairly quickly tonight on the motion I propose for the next General Business Day to give some idea to the government especially as to why I have re-introduced it. It …
Madam SPEAKER: Did you seek leave?
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Speaker, I seek advice. The member has an item of business foreshadowed for parliament. He has put that item on the Notice Paper. Can he foreshadow debate on a matter …
Madam SPEAKER: Standing Order 68 says that no member shall anticipate discussion of any subject that appears on the Notice Paper.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Madam Speaker, I had the wonderful opportunity on Monday, 2 September to represent the Minister for Employment, Education and Training at the official launch of Literacy and Numeracy Week in the Smith Street Mall in Darwin at lunch time. I seek leave to table the Literacy and Numeracy Across the Learning Areas 2001-02, the rundown of Literacy and Numeracy Week. It is a document that I recommend members take the time to read.
I officially launched the week. The MC of that event was Mr Phillip Jones from the department, and I had a good opportunity to talk to Marg Littler whom I know very well, who heads up the IT educators’ group which meets in my electorate office. I also had the delightful task of presenting Raylene Bailey with the IT Educators’ Association of the Northern Territory Teacher of Excellence Award. Marg pointed out that Raylene Bailey is the Secretary of the IT Educators’ Network. Raylene, being a woman of great humility suggested that maybe she got the award because she was bossy. I said: ‘No, no, it is actually the role of a very good secretary to keep everyone moving forward and to often do the hard yards behind the scene that gets areas progressed’. So I extend my congratulations to Raylene Bailey on her award. I also extend my regards and thanks to Marg Littler who I know has worked tirelessly for students, teachers, administrators and education to progress IT in our schools.
I also had the pleasure of listening to the combined Anula and Wulagi Beat Choir, who performed Welcome to All the People. They were conducted very ably on the day by Judy Weepers. It was a nice gathering in the mall to highlight the importance of literacy and numeracy and specifically the celebration of lifelong learning and the Asia in Schools Week. These were all celebrated in conjunction with Education Week from 2 to 8 September this year. There were activities held throughout schools right across the Territory. I congratulate the minister for Education, Hon Syd Stirling, for the effort he went to in ensuring that the promotion of Education Week, the focus on literacy and numeracy, lifelong learning, and Asia in Schools Week all helped to enhance the recognition of the hard work done by teachers in our school communities.
I agree that lifelong learning is a subject that people often do not take seriously enough but in a society where we have an ageing demographic throughout the nation, we should be paying far more heed to it than we do. So, it was really quite nice to see the element of lifelong learning being combined into Education Week.
The Asia in Schools Week always has a very enjoyable range of activities for our students, so I congratulate the staff of the Education Department who worked tirelessly to put this week together to coordinate the activity throughout the schools across the Territory. I congratulate the staff and students of the various schools who participated in this week, and I look forward to seeing another week celebrated next year.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I gather I can have another try as it is only a notice, not a motion.
Madam SPEAKER: Perhaps I might explain to members that it was pointed out to me that I did jump the gun. In fact, the notice that the member for Nelson was referring to is actually not on the Notice Paper at the moment. He foreshadowed that today. So, in light of that, I have accepted the member for Nelson’s argument and he will proceed.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for your wise ruling.
Madam SPEAKER: Well, I did not want the member for Macdonnell jumping up and down.
Mr WOOD: Just quickly: I want to explain why I put this on the Notice Paper. When we had the debate before, I do not believe the government had sufficient time to debate this issue. I am hoping that, in light of what I believe is a fair amount of support from many people in the Labor Party, the government would re-think their attitude to having a moratorium on industrial development in the middle of the harbour.
I do not mind if the government wants to take this motion over; I am quite prepared for them to have their name behind it because I think it is a very sensible compromise. Personally, I do not believe we should have industrial development there, and this notice is a compromise. I do not think the issue will go away if people have seen the amount of support that has been generated about protecting the harbour at the present time.
But I just thought I would raise just one quick matter. The Minister for Lands and Planning did say that one of the reasons they wanted this piece of land kept was for the railway marshalling yards. Well, it’s funny: I came across this document yesterday. I have been looking for it. It is called the Darwin Arterial Roads Tiger Brennan Drive Planning Statement. My original reason for looking for this was to see how we are going to avoid all the traffic lights on the Stuart Highway. This grand document is the one that shows you all the roundabouts, the four-leaf clovers, and all the new types of intersections that will go on Tiger Brennan Drive. I have not seen too many of them in construction yet. But the one thing that I did notice is there is a map of the proposed railway line into Darwin, and on that map they have marked at what you would call the 11 Mile the proposed terminus and marshalling facilities. The document states:
Madam Speaker, I seek leave to table this document.
Leave granted.
Mr WOOD: This map shows an area set aside at around about the 11 Mile on Tiger Brennan Drive, showing the marshalling yards and the proposed terminus. It also shows a spur line into Darwin and a spur line to the East Arm Port. While I am speaking on this subject, while I am trying to say to the government: ‘Look, you have already designed an area for the railway marshalling yards, and you don’t have to put it on Middle Arm’ you have also proposed a site for the passenger terminal.
So, if any members are interested in the 1987 version of the passenger terminal and the line into Darwin, it was designed at that time by the Department of Transport and Works. I hope that when we get into this debate we can redebate where these proposed areas for the trains are going, and why they could be put here, where they were originally were meant to be, instead of the middle of the harbour.
Ms MARTIN (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to note the passing of two of the Territory’s most important artists, Kumatjayi Possum Tjapaltjarri and Ginger Riley Mundawalwala.
Tjapaltjarri was born in 1932 in the heart of the Anmatjere country at Napperby station, 200 km north-west of Alice Springs. His first contact with Europeans was at the government and mission trading stations where his family swapped dingo scalps for rations. His father was taken prisoner in the 1928 Conniston massacre and although he survived this ordeal, he was to die of thirst while Possum was still a child.
It was Pastor Albrecht of Hermannsburg Mission who nursed the young Tjapaltjarri back to health before he was able to return to his mother. With no formal education, Possum began his working life while still a boy, as a general hand at Hamilton Downs Station where he worked in the cattle industry for nine years. He returned to Napperby, where his traditional education was taken over, on his father’s behalf, by One Pound Jimmy Tjungarrayi, who imparted the enormous amount of knowledge about law and country that was to feature in Possum’s later artistic work. It was around this time, while working on Glen Helen, Mount Wedge, Mount Allan and Napperby stations, that Possum became renowned for his carving skills. It was at Glen Helen that Albert Namatjira noted his talent and tried to persuade him to take up water colour work. Namatjira, the century of whose birth we celebrated on 28 July this year, was later cited by Possum as an inspiration in his work, although he was not to take up the Arrernte style of painting.
In the late 1950s, Possum was recruited as part of the labour force that built the government settlement at Papunya and it was here that he married Emily Nakamarra, an Anmatjere woman from the Mount Allan area. It was here too, that Possum commenced full-time work as a painter in the acrylic dot style of painting that was pioneered by artists such as Kaapa Tjampitjinpa and Possum’s brother, Tim Leura Tjapaltjarri. Possum rose to prominence as one of the leaders of the Western Desert art movement, and was to be Chairman of Papunya Tula Arts in the late 1970s and early 1980s.
Possum’s fame as an artist went far beyond his traditional Anmatjere lands. From the time of his winning the Alice Springs Art Prize in 1983, his work captured an admiring public throughout Australia as well as overseas. In 1988, the Institute of Contemporary Art held a retrospective of his work, his first solo show and the first time an Aboriginal artist received such international attention.
His work is held in major public and private collections throughout the world. He was also the subject of the first biography of an Aboriginal artist since Namatjira. As his biographer, Vivian Johnson, said of Possum:
It is a mark of the international respect Tjapaltjarri had gained in his lifetime that an obituary for him was published in the New York Times, something I doubt has ever occurred for a Territorian. Possum was appointed as an Officer of the Order of Australia in this year’s Queen’s Birthday Honours List for service as a contributor to and pioneer of the Western Desert art movement, and to the indigenous community through an interpretation of ancient traditions and cultural values. He was to have received the honour on the day he died.
On behalf of the people of the Northern Territory, I would like to pay tribute to this great man, this great artist, and I would like to extend our sympathy to his two surviving daughters, Gabriella and Michelle, son Lionel, and 11 grandchildren.
Ginger Riley Mundawalwala was born around 1937 at Limmen Bight in the Gulf Country. From the early 1950s to 1969, he worked as a stockman on Lord Vestey’s Nutwood Downs property. It was during this period, while droving cattle from Nutwood to Central Australia that, like Clifford Possum, he encountered the art of Albert Namatjira.
He tried to achieve similar paintings but was dissatisfied with the results. It was not to be until 1986 that he returned to painting as part of a Northern Territory TAFE print maker course at Ngukurr. The availability of acrylic paints, canvas and good quality artist paper at Ngukurr TAFE helped Ginger Riley make the transition from stockman to artist. He was at the forefront of the explosively coloured Ngukurr art scene of that period. He and other artists, like Sambo BarraBarra, Moima and Willie Gudubi, pioneered the use of the brightest of colours to traditional subject matter. Of these, Ginger Riley was the most natural of the colourists, and was sometimes referred to as ‘The boss of colour’.
Ginger Riley’s agent for much of his career was the well known Melbourne gallery owner and Director of the Essendon Football Club, Beverley Knight. After they met at Ngukurr in the late 1980s, Ginger Riley’s work began to receive considerable attention from collectors both in Australia and overseas. During the 1990s he won several prestigious awards, including the 1992 Alice Prize, the inaugural National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Commission Award in 1994, and in the same year he was the winner of the John McCaughey Memorial Art Prize sponsored by the National Gallery of Victoria.
Ginger Riley was also commissioned by Australia Post to design an Australian stamp and was also successful in winning a major commission to provide paintings for the newly opened Australian Embassy in Beijing. In 1997, the National Gallery of Victoria held a large retrospective exhibition of Riley’s work.
Ginger Riley was not only a great Australian artist. He was also a strong Aboriginal law man who fought hard to secure his traditional salt water lands at Maria Lagoon for future generations of his Mara countrymen and women. He was also a senior witness in the Limmen Bight land claim of the 1980s.
Those who are familiar with Ginger Riley’s work would recognise that nearly every painting he did was a triumphant statement about his ownership of the Four Archers country that he loved so much. In 2000, the Federal Court recognised Ginger Riley’s native title rights to his extended homelands on St Vidgeon Station.
He died at Borroloola on 1 September this year following a long illness. On behalf of the people of the Territory, I offer my sincere condolences to the family of this great artist, especially the Riley families of Borroloola, Limmen Bight and Ngukurr, Roy Hammer, Roddy Friday and families, and to Beverley Knight and family.
I would like to place on the public record my appreciation of a significant initiative organised by the Filipino Australian Association of the Northern Territory. From 25 September to 6 October, a study tour group from Kabankalan Catholic College visited Darwin. Kabankalan Catholic College, KCC, located in Kabankalan City in Southern Negros Occidental in the Philippines, is the gateway to Dumaguete City and the hub of the sugar barons in the region. Kabankalan City is 96 km south of Bacolod City, capital of Negros Occidental.
KCC is a co-educational college with three departmental areas: primary, secondary and tertiary. The aims of the tour were to provide the students of the Filipino community in Darwin and those at KCC with an opportunity to learn about each other’s way of life; to provide students with a learning experience in travel and tourism which can be best achieved through a study tour; to expand the existing links between the Northern Territory and Filipino governments in the area of cultural education; and to pave the way for more cultural development between the two participating Filipino communities, one in Darwin and the other in Kabankalan City, particularly in the area of extended scholarship to future students.
Eight students travelled to Darwin from KCC and were accompanied by Mrs Nomy Muhal, who is the college principal, and Dennis Christian Martir, tour coordinator. The students were exposed to a range of local cultural and educational activities. I was delighted to support this initiative with a government grant of $5000. I congratulate John Rivas, study tour coordinator and the Filipino Association President, the organising committee, all those involved from Kabankalan Catholic College, and the generous Darwin families who provided accommodation to the students and to the visiting delegation.
It was also my great pleasure on 31 August this year to attend the sixth Barrio Fiesta organised by the Filipino Australian Association. The evening was a wonderful display of the Philippines rich and diverse cultural heritage, festive, colour, music and talents in performing arts. Congratulations to the major fund raisers because the Barrio Festival is a fund raiser for the Filipino community: to Nerissa Fenis, Ivy Liza Keane, Airah Javorski, Charllene Elambo, Caitlin Bernabe and Tara Robertson. The parents of the fund raisers should also be recognised for supporting the hard work of their daughters, and congratulations to the Filipino community for this sixth Barrio Festival, to the president, John Rivas, to the organising committee, to the award winners and all those who participated in the fund raising activities. It really is extraordinary how much money those Filipino fund raisers can raise, and to what a worthy cause they go.
Another wonderful cultural event also occurred at the end of August. The Mini-Glenti, organised by the Cyprus community, was a night of colour, traditional cuisine, dance and music. I thoroughly enjoyed the evening after first going to the Barrio Festival, and particularly the traditional dancing of the Cypriot, Ellas, Pan Hellenic and Kalymnian dance groups. Congratulations to the Cyprus community, President Leo Cleanthous and to the organising committee. Special thanks to Kerrie Kyriacou for the wonderful photographs, and the Cyprus community in general for its generous hospitality.
On 30 August this year, a small ceremony was held on the banks of the Daly River at Wooliana Road. The family and friends of Allan McLeod gathered there to remember a colourful Territorian and witness the scattering of his ashes in his beloved Daly River.
Allan McLeod, a long time Territory resident, died on 31 August 2001. The scattering of his ashes occurred a year and a day after his death, and the day before the 77th anniversary of his birth. It has become a clich to use the phrase ‘the Territory is full of characters’, but Allan McLeod was one who was definitely worthy of the title of being a true Territory character.
While it is true that Allan was probably always a character, he wasn’t always associated with the Territory. He was born on 1 September 1925 in Gundagai, New South Wales, famous for the dog on the tucker box. But to Allan, Gundagai meant the Murrumbidgee River, one of only two rivers he ever acknowledged Australia had. The other, of course, was his beloved Daly, the best of them all.
Allan went to school in Sydney but, by the time he was 14, Australia was at war. Two years later, the war was much closer to home, with the Japanese spread throughout South-East Asia and the Pacific. Only three weeks after his 18th birthday, on 22 September 1943, Allan enlisted in the Australia Army, the AIF, with the enlistment number NX202362. Allan served in the Solomon Islands campaign and the jungles of Bougainville from 1944 through to the Japanese surrender in August 1945.
The following quote is from page 77 of My Battalion by WB (Bill) McLeod, Allan’s brother, who was a Lance Sergeant in the same campaign. It goes:
Mid May 1945 - in action near Torokina, Bougainville, Solomon Islands
We can all see that character coming out.
After the war, Allan returned to the Gundagai district and worked as a stockman, back in the bush he loved so well. In 1948, he married Norma, first in a Registry Office and then, just to make sure the knot had been well and truly tied, in a church. Norma never left his side and the strength, respect and understanding evident in their partnership over the following 51 years is a fine example to us all. Allan and Norma’s three sons, Peter, Phillip and Des, were all born in Gundagai before the family decided in 1955 to move from the lush green hills of Gundagai to the less than lush, and not very often green hills of the MacDonnell Ranges and Alice Springs where Allan took a job with NT Correctional Services as a prison officer, a job he was to keep for the rest of his working career.
After eight years in the Alice, Allan and family transferred to Darwin, establishing themselves at Basedow Street in Fannie Bay, just behind the Fannie Bay Gaol.
Allan’s ability to work with people, and often some of the most difficult people to deal with in our society, black, white and brindle, is legendary. He was entrusted to take a small band of prisoners to Gunn Point in the early 1970s to establish the Gunn Point Prison Farm, clearing the scrub and erecting a base camp in the absence of established security. Gunn Point was a highly effective alternative to incarceration in Fannie Bay. He was at Gunn Point when Cyclone Tracy struck on Christmas Eve 1974, devastating Darwin and blowing down the walls of Fannie Bay Gaol, only 100 m or so from the McLeod house in Fannie Bay.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I am just about to run out of time. I wonder, since this is really non-controversial, whether I could have this incorporated, if that is okay?
Leave granted.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Mr Deputy Speaker, tonight I rise to speak about a response the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure made this afternoon to a question about what he intends to do with the commercial passenger vehicle industry. I note that the minister issued a media release, plus some half a dozen fact sheets on the CPV Board on taxis and executive taxis, on minibuses and limousines.
I do not know whether the minister has himself read through the paperwork thoroughly prior to his release of the papers, but it raises quite a few concerns. First, in his response to the question put to him by a member on his side, the minister said this government is taking measures to fix the industry that the previous government managed to nearly ruin. Then he went on to say that the former CLP government gave his government an extra $20m in debt.
I assume by his statement he meant that there is $20m owing somewhere because the CLP government bought back the taxi licences. Obviously, this minister does not really understand business. The government used money to buy an asset; the government now owns the asset. The government has the asset in its back pocket. If the government does have the $20m debt and wants to get rid of it, sell the plates back, sell the assets back and you have the money. So there is no debt. Whatever the minister says, if he gets his business right, there is no debt. The licences are in the hands of the government, so that is not an issue. I think the minister needs to understand that.
The minister went on to say that he also intended to introduce in the November sittings a detailed ministerial statement to allow all members of this House to air their views on this matter. More procrastination? The minister has had industry consultation for nearly 12 months. In fact, November last year it started, and every six months he was going to release a paper to the industry and until today, really there was nothing. Today’s fact sheets I will come to shortly. There are quite a few errors, in fact.
The minister went on to speak about having a Commercial Passenger Vehicle Board. Now, the industry, both major groups in Darwin and Alice Springs, has canvassed the minister on many occasions suggesting that he should have at least two regional boards so that local issues can be considered thoroughly by those local boards. A single board with one or two representatives from various sectors of the industry would not be able to represent adequate views from each of the regions.
Let me just read to you the composition that the minister proposes for an interim board which he intends to appoint some time this month. He recommends that membership of the board will include representatives of the taxi and executive taxi operators, not from any region; minibus operators, not from any region; limousine operators, not from any region; regional industry operators. I suppose there is the Darwin region, the Katherine region, the Tennant Creek region, the Alice Springs region and the Nhulunbuy region. So are they all going to come from there? The tourism industry, two representatives; disabled access advocacy, without brackets so I suppose there is one representative there; consumers, two representatives; and drivers, and I have no number. So how big is this board going to be? It is going to be a minimum of 10 people, if not more.
We have ‘s’ at the end of the operators, I assume that being plural, it will be at least two. So if you count that, it is two, four, six, eight, 10, 12, 14, 15 minimum, plus an independent chair, a very large board. You will find that with that sized board, you still will not get adequate regional representation. The industry wanted two boards with a common chairman, perhaps even a common deputy chairman, so that the overall umbrella view of the Territory can be carried across regions by the chairman and his deputy and then the regional members can concentrate just on local issues. That would be better because it will give the boards in those regions a better focus in their own area. They can monitor the quality of the drivers, determine the numbers that are required in terms of taxis, minibuses and limousines. They will have much better knowledge than would this umbrella body that sits across the Territory in numbers that will not be able to adequately represent the regions.
The rest of the fact sheets state fairly standard matters there which I will not go into until we come to the taxis and executive taxis fact sheet. It goes through some of the standard things that were canvassed in the earlier fact sheet on the CPV Board. Let me come to the section on training requirements, and this is also a common box for the three categories – taxis and executive taxis, minibuses and limousines - and I will read it:
These are not supposed to come in until March 2003. Now, that is an oxymoron statement as far as I am concerned. You cannot have something starting today that does not apply until March 2003. Where are the courses? The courses are going to be run by organisations outside of the industry in the two regions, Darwin and Alice Springs, but in smaller regions, they will be conducted by the base operator.
So in the bigger centres, where you have better training, they must be done outside the industry, and in the smaller centres, don’t worry about it, the local base operator can do that. Wouldn’t it be better to have a regional board that would look after the training and can contract trainers from Centralian College, NTU, wherever, to go to whatever region to do the training? That would be more objective and better training than that provided by the base operator. And, the timing. Where do the drivers go now? Do they start training as of tonight on a course that is not available which will not become effective until March 2003? The minister needs to go back and read his paperwork before he hands it out. The minister here, giggles and laughs away. Doesn’t he understand?
Another matter that is an issue is that in entry standards and codes of conduct for drivers:
That is fairly onerous. I know it is important. Somebody at 16 can get a driver’s licence, and five years later at 21 you can drive a taxi, executive taxi, limousine or minibus, but there are other people who would have received their driver’s licence when they are 35. They cannot go into this industry until they are 40. That is unreasonable.
There are many regions that are screaming out for taxi, limousine and minibus drivers. The resource is very small, and to limit the pool of drivers by insisting that they must have at least five years of a driver’s licence prior to their applying makes it even harder. The industry is already screaming about that. The minister says he wants better quality drivers. Yes, but there has to be give and take, and five years is really unreasonable. He needs to reconsider that.
The charges that are being put are reasonable in that, say for instance with the minibuses, at the moment, they are paying a much smaller rate than taxis. Over the next three years, their rates will slowly increase to match the CVLs for taxis. That will bring them at least on a reasonable playing field. The only thing that the minibuses will not have is a meter, but they will be able to pick up from anywhere in a street just like a taxi can, but there are no meters so we will have to make sure that the policing is adequate so that minibuses are operating within the rules.
When it comes to limousines, the government now intends to introduce essentially three categories. It will have an executive taxi, a limousine service, and a special function car. When I spoke to operators from the private hire industry today, they were under the impression that if they run a limousine, they can use the same vehicle as a special function car. So when I asked them the question: ‘Are you sure?’, they stopped and thought about it. I said: ‘Well, let me read this to you, and then you can decide for yourself: “The fees and charges for commercial passenger licences …”
That is in a separate box in the fact sheet under limousines. And I will read these two lines:
So a person who has vehicles operating as limousines cannot use the same vehicles to operate as a special function car unless that vehicle has two separate CVLs. Here comes the difficult part: that a CVL will now be attached to a vehicle. Now, can a vehicle have two CVLs? Well, the minister has to answer that. We do not know, but the minister did not explain it in his answer to the question. So where do we go from here? It is a very confused minister for transport who has sat on this for 12 months, who still comes out with a hodge-podge of a decision on what is going to happen which is not going to take place until he delivers his statement in November so that all members of this House can comment further. Well, if he is going to deliver that, I suppose, on the first day, maybe we can finish the debate on this matter by the Thursday. If not, does it go over to next year again?
I do not think the minister is stupid; I think he is just incompetent. He is really incompetent. He has allowed this thing to go on for so long, he has not been able to pull together a fairly simple matter like this. The LCOP has opened up the market. It was up to market pressures to determine the level of entry that people wanted. If people want to take the risk to go into business, that is fine, that is entirely up to them. Nobody tells anybody whether they should open up a service station or a corner supermarket or a corner deli. That is free enterprise and this is exactly the same.
What the minister has done is introduce a factor in there that has caused more confusion than he started with. Unfortunately, the way he has conducted this tells me that he is very confused about the industry. He needs to make time to sit down and talk to the people who are really in the know, and hopefully, come out with something before it is too late. Now, we have an issue here. He has to fix it up tomorrow. You cannot have people having to conform to driving requirements or training requirements as of today, which are not supposed to come into effect until March 2003. This just does not make sense. I look forward to hearing his response tomorrow.
Mr Kiely: Get a briefing.
Dr Lim: It would be nice if I could get a briefing from him. I have asked for a while.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr STIRLING (Nhulunbuy): Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to put on the record a response to the member for Blain’s question today in relation to teacher students on exchange throughout the eastern provinces of Indonesia. There are two exchange teachers in Bali and one in Lombok. There was a brief from the department very early on the Monday that they had been contacted very early on in the piece and their good welfare was confirmed very early and the situation remains under monitoring.
The teachers in Bali live and work well away from tourist areas and were not immediately affected by Saturday night’s horrific attack, although how you can say that about anyone is probably begging the truth a bit because I think everyone is affected by what occurred. The teacher in Lombok is also not in a tourist area. The teachers have indicated their wish to stay and complete their work. The government will continue to monitor it and if the situation were to deteriorate at all or there were further events of this nature, at any time that the teachers feel unsafe or wish to return home, they simply need to contact the department and that will be arranged immediately.
All school excursions to Indonesia have been postponed. That has resulted in the immediate cancellation of at least one excursion of 18 students from Darwin High School, and letters to parents and students have gone home. The government is not aware of any students from the government or non-government sector in Bali at this time. The NTU advises that they currently do not have students in Bali either. So there is good news on that front. But those teachers know that they simply need to contact the department.
In relation to the last part of the question as to whether these exchange programs proceed, I do not think you would want to make a call right at this moment because there is so much strength and goodwill and learning that comes out of these exchange programs, you simply would not make a call until the situation returns to normal. That would remain an open question at this stage. However, the fact that the three teachers themselves are prepared to stay at this stage speaks well for the continuation of such a program. You can understand, given the situation and the Department of Foreign Affairs warnings on further travel to Indonesia, and particularly Bali and the eastern provinces, at this stage that you would not want any students heading off for those parts in the foreseeable future. It is a shame for Darwin High School because an enormous amount of work goes into the preparation of those trips.
I wanted to recognise also tonight a couple of employees, Robyn Nuttall, formerly Turnbull, who has been with the government in the Northern Territory for 34 years in various Commonwealth and Northern Territory agencies. She commenced her career as a teacher with the Commonwealth government and the Commonwealth Teaching Service in 1968, culminating this career in a senior management role with the NT Department of Employment, Education and Training in the Employment and Training Division in September 2002.
Robyn’s significant achievements during her public service career included development of a strategic plan for health, safety and environmental management across government, industry and business; coordination and writing duties to prepare the Foundations for Our Future Booklet No 5; diversifying the economy through service and industry growth; development and implementation of an award system for the mining industry; being recognised by professional colleagues as a leader in education in Australia, including receiving the award of a Fellowship of the Australian College of Education; the award of the inaugural Northern Territory Chapter Medal for services to the college and education in the NT.
Alcan Gove’s success is largely due to its great employees, and recently Alcan paid tribute to 14 of its longest serving employees, each having served 30 years. This group of people have dedicated the best part of their working lives to Nabalco, now Alcan.
Amongst the group, interestingly, were people from Wales, Norway, Finland, Austria, Switzerland, Albania, England, New Zealand and Australia which indicates the cultural diversity of Nhulunbuy. People reaching their 30 years of service include: Othmar Rutishauser, Graeme Sullivan, Gary O’Gorman, Ralph Campbell, Peter Beha, Bob Demiri, Helmut Gruber, Terry Spears, Harry Stabler, Jim Walsh, John Seem, Leo Dichtl, Henga Pirini and Gary Sullivan. Thirty years is a long time with one employer, particularly in this day and age, and I congratulate each of those employees for their loyalty, their diligence, their longevity, and I wish each of them all the best for the future.
I also want to congratulate the Nhulunbuy Community Library, named the Northern Territory winners of the 2001 Prime Minister’s Employer of the Year Awards. The awards, which recognise small and large businesses that employ people with disabilities, has been running for 11 years. The library was very pleased to accept the award, which recognised their commitment to employing people with disabilities. Ongoing training and support is provided to Jennifer Robertson so that she can participate in a Certificate of Library Studies through the Northern Territory University. Jennifer is also the library’s second-longest serving employee. This question of employment of disabled people is something that challenges me as minister responsible for public sector employment. It is something that I am having the Commissioner for Public Employment look closely at because I think that in a public service of some 14 500 employees, we ought to have more spaces dedicated to those people unfortunate enough to be disabled to some degree and in some category. So we will be working away at that, and I hope to be able to bring something concrete in the new year.
I am pleased to acknowledge and congratulate Ben O’Brien, the Northern Territory’s top Year 12 student for 2001 with a near perfect score of 99 out of 100. Ben was also awarded the Alcan Gove Dr Doettling scholarship for 2002. That scholarship will provide Ben with a generous annual bursary while he undertakes studies to complete a Bachelor of Engineering (Minerals Process Engineering) at the University of Queensland. He has lived in Nhulunbuy for eight years. He completed his secondary schooling at Nhulunbuy High School where he excelled academically and was involved in many facets of school life including membership of the student representative council, editor of the school magazine and house captain. I keep an eye out for Ben through constant checking with his dad, John O’Brien, and I am told he is going every bit as well at university in a challenging course such as that as he was at Nhulunbuy High School. He is a bright kid, he has a great future and he will use it to the best of his ability; he is just one of those kids.
Nhulunbuy Primary School Year 7 student Sean Coffey was selected to attend the National Cross-Country Championships held in Sydney recently after competing in the Northern Territory Schools Championship held in Darwin. Along with several other students from Nhulunbuy Primary, Sean impressed the selectors by coming second in the 3 km run, securing a place in the team that went to Sydney. He did compete in the National Championships and was well placed in all events.
The first week in October had sporting competitors going to Gove in droves. Gove hosted the Northern Territory Junior Eight Ball Championships, the Northern Territory BMX Age Titles and the Gove Sprint 2002 swimming titles all on the one weekend. The Junior Eight Ball Championships brought around 100 junior competitors, officials, parents and supporters from Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Katherine, Groote Eylandt, Litchfield Shire and of course Gove itself.
On the same weekend, Nhulunbuy BMX hosted the Northern Territory BMX Age Titles with 117 competitors from six NT BMX tracks competing. Sponsors and volunteers contributed greatly to what was a hugely successful event followed up by the best fireworks display I have ever seen. We all get a bit blas about fireworks display but this was just right on top of you, and it was a sensational finish to a great weekend’s racing. I must congratulate the Nhulunbuy BMX Club for winning the NT BMX Club for 2002 at the championships. An enormous amount of work and effort goes in by a lot of people to successfully stage a championship such as those. One hundred at the eight ball, 117 at the BMX, all with adults and parents - a lot of people to put up in a small town. Once again, the township of Nhulunbuy showed just what a great and hospitable place that is by hosting so many people on the weekend.
The other event on the same weekend was the Gove Spring Swimming Titles. Whilst I congratulate all winners of the various age categories, there were competitors also from the swim clubs in Darwin there as well. All up, probably something like 250 kids alone and then adults on top of that, making their way, one way or another, to Gove for that weekend to participate in those championships. So well done, Nhulunbuy.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Mr Deputy Speaker, from time to time we have debates in this House that deal with emotional topics and topics that raise the ire of people. At those times, more than ever, we require restraint in this House because when we do not engender an atmosphere of restraint, debates quickly dwindle into screaming matches and common abuse. That is not constructive for the process of debate, the formulation of government policy and for our image as politicians in the eyes of the public.
Tonight I was called a racist by the member for Johnson, and it is exactly that sort of unrestrained …
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I would ask the honourable member to withdraw that allegation. It is factually wrong. It is certainly offensive. Unless he can point to specifically the record in the Hansard, I ask him to withdraw that allegation.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Deputy Speaker, speaking to the point of order, I did not necessarily say it was in here or it was on the record. Now, Mr Deputy Speaker …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Macdonnell, first, the member is not here so we are discussing someone who is not in the House at present. The other thing is if it is not on the public record, then it may be more prudent to withdraw that statement.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Deputy Speaker, all right, I will withdraw the statement.
Tonight, despite of the fact that I am not going to reflect on the presence in this Chamber of the member for Johnson, he condescended to come into this Chamber and suggest that my motives were race-based for raising a few issues. Now despite that, I had another conversation with the member for Johnston, and during that conversation, he made certain statements upon which I based my last comment. By the by, the issue of this allegation requires - I need to put my anger at being called that into some sort of context.
I was brought up by parents who were familiar with the term, or my father was familiar with the term ‘unter-mensch’ which is a German term. That term was applied by the Nazis to people who were not in their mould or who were not of German origin, often applied to Jews.
My mother spent four years in a Japanese concentration camp where she was treated in some of the most inhumane ways, and the secrets as to how my grandmother was able to keep those children alive during those years in that concentration camp died with my grandmother a few years ago. The crime that my mother and my grandmother had committed was simply not to be Japanese. That was the crime that got them interned into a concentration camp. My uncle, shortly after the war, died as a result of being in that camp.
However, did my parents bring me up to hate Germans? Did my parents bring me up to hate Japanese? On the contrary. My father had many German friends, both here in Australia and in Europe. My mother certainly did not bring me up to hate Japanese. They gave me a yardstick by which I should live my life, and that is to measure each person and each set of circumstances on nothing else than the merits. That is how I try to live my life, and despite the fact that I am given to moments of emotion, and sometimes anger, it is still the yardstick by which I try to live.
The process of allowing ourselves to get caught up in emotional debates and call each other all sorts of names really does diminish us. I was also brought up not to be dragged along by hysteria or a fashion or a trend of the time, but to think about those issues we face on a regular basis in life. These are moral issues, emotional issues, ethical issues and other issues - spiritual issues, if you like.
I was also taught by my parents not to bend like a reed or keep my silence when I saw something wrong. When I see things that are wrong, I either report them to the appropriate authorities or, if they are issues of public policy, I bring them into this House and I talk about them. I try to talk about those issues rationally, without abuse or name calling, without being personal. Do I achieve that all the time? No, but I do try.
I saw something wrong last week. The member for Araluen saw something wrong last week. Both the member for Araluen and I stood up and we said that it was wrong. We believed that it was wrong, and we said so publicly and loudly, and the media did report on those things that we believed were wrong. Now it is in the public domain and the public may decide that. It is in the government’s domain to decide whether or not what we observed was wrong, and the government has responded accordingly.
The Attorney-General came into this Chamber today and agreed that the issues that we raised last week were wrong. In fact, the Attorney-General, no less, complimented me on the issue that I raised in Question Time in the last couple of days. The fact that the Attorney-General has listened to what we have had to say and has agreed with it surely should put the issue to bed.
But no. Unfortunately, the member for Johnston came in here and pulled this whole debate down into the level of hysteria. He is trying find racism; he is trying to find some sort of racist agenda …
Mr Henderson: Like Col Newman’s article in the paper today.
Mr ELFERINK: … but the fact of the matter is we have done nothing more than is incumbent upon us. I hear the minister opposite who has repeatedly tonight interfered with, or attempted to interfere with, members speaking. He has to understand that we will not back away from our responsibilities as elected members of this Chamber just because it does not suit you, and nor will we allow ourselves to be dragged into the hysterical rantings of a man who, because he is fawning to a particular opinion, cannot bring himself to see the world clearly and see the motives that we have for raising particular issues.
Members interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: Now, if the member for Johnston has a sense of outrage, then what should he be outraged by? The issues that we raised last week, or the fact that we raised them? So far, the member for Johnston has done nothing more than become outraged at the messenger. He does not want to hear the message, so what does he do? He tries to shoot the messenger. If the member for Johnston thinks it is appropriate that a child should not be protected by the courts, then let him stand up and say so, but don’t shoot the messenger. If he believes that we should not be outraged by the comments from Justice Gallup, then he should say so, but not shoot the messenger.
This process of allowing ourselves to descend into this sort of abuse is an affront to the efforts that my parents put into bringing me up as a decent person in this global community, to try and exercise tolerance, to try and exercise some understanding. My father would be most upset if he heard the accusations that have been levelled against me today by the member for Johnston. What does the member for Johnston base his accusations on? He bases them on a twisted interpretation of what the member for Araluen and I had to say. Because he wants to put his spin on it, he is prepared to engage in what is essentially common slander and common libel. The process that he is engaging in is the same sort of process of denunciation which was used in other places to ruin and sully people’s reputations. Well, if that is the penalty …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! The member for Macdonnell has accused me of criminal acts in here, and I would ask that he withdraws.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Deputy Speaker, the member for Johnston may choose to try and denounce me publicly. I will stand judged by the public. I accept that as a natural consequence of the role that I have, but common slander, especially in these sorts of debates, diminishes him. He presents himself to us in this Chamber as a man of intellect, a man of reason and a man of consideration, but the spurious, twisted way in which he interpreted the intentions of the member for Araluen and myself for his for his own political end, diminishes him as a man of reason, as a man of intellect, as a representative of the people, and, what is worse, diminishes us all.
Mr HENDERSON (Wanguri): Mr Deputy Speaker, tonight I would like to put on the record my commendation of a remarkable public servant who has served the Territory so very well for 37 years. That is an enormous amount of service to the people of the Northern Territory.
I would like to talk briefly tonight about the retirement of Mr Tony Errity, Director of the Titles Division, the division responsible for the grant and maintenance of mineral exploration and mining titles across the Northern Territory.
Tony arrived in Australia from Ireland in 1963 and, after a two year working holiday, settled in Darwin. In 1965, he started his long and successful career with the Territory government. He commenced in Water Resources where he spent the next 15 years chasing surface water all over the Territory. During this time, Tony also developed a lifelong love of the Territory outback and fishing.
In 1979, he joined the former Department of Mines and Energy as a mining technical officer. Tony took this opportunity to attain tertiary qualifications in administration, then proceeded to gain a Master’s Degree in Public Policy.
In 1997, Tony was appointed to the position of Director of Titles. His first day in the job was 17 March, St Patrick’s Day being an apt day for an Irishman. As director, Tony made a significant contribution in leading the division into the 21st century. A major achievement was the introduction of an Integrated Title Management System, a system which was built on leading edge components that won an award at the World Conference on Information Technology in Adelaide this year. The Territory’s titles and mapping Internet system is widely used by the public and private sectors, both locally and interstate.
He also managed the introduction of a system for dealing with the grant of exploration and mining applications that were affected by native title.
Tony had an even-handed approach to his work, with a high regard for integrity and business ethics. Through both his public and private life, Tony made an important contribution to the Territory. In retirement, Tony and his wife will continue to reside in the Territory. He plans to travel, fish, and work voluntarily in the community through the Anglican Church. Tony Errity retired from the post of Director of Titles Division of DBIRD on 27 September this year after 37 years in the Territory government.
It is important for members of this House, particularly ministers, to put on the record this parliament’s thanks for the great service that our public servants provide the people of the Northern Territory, particularly after such an extraordinary length of time. I would like to personally wish Tony - I have not known him for very long - all the best in his retirement. It is great to know that he and his wife are going to have their retirement here in the Northern Territory, and I look forward to catching up with them around the traps.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Mr Deputy Speaker, tonight I bring the attention of all members to an important local issue in Alice Springs; in particular an issue that relates to the women of Alice Springs. It is the Women’s Information Centre, known as WIC. I am told, on advice recently provided to me, that there is some concern that WIC may be at risk of closure under this government. I am advised that the position of coordinator has not been advertised, that it has been vacant since April, and that there is widespread concern for the services at risk. I hope that, appropriately, after I have raised the matter in this parliament, the government can assure those for whom I am raising this issue tonight that, in fact, WIC is safe.
WIC has provided an invaluable service to women in and around Alice Springs for a very long time, certainly as long as I have been in Alice Springs. Some of its services are free and confidential counselling; information and referral service; networking opportunities for women; resources such as an impressive library; facilities for mothers to breastfeed and change their babies; meeting facilities for community groups and a host of other invaluable services.
WIC has traditionally been instrumental in organising the Reclaim The Night events in Alice Springs, and last year played an integral role in the creation of the Women’s Services Card. It has, over the years, worked closely with the Women’s Advisory Council on a number of matters and in particular the Reclaim The Night and the Women’s Services Card.
WIC serves more than just a useful function in Alice Springs, and it is not replicated in any way. It is a shopfront service and it is pivotal for women in the town and, indeed, has been pivotal for many years. Its shopfront provides a welcoming atmosphere, a welcoming environment for women and by any measure, it is a much easier service for women to access than a dull government department or office building.
The service deals with approximately 200 clients per month, and 50% of those, generally speaking, are by telephone. The Women’s Information Centre in Alice Springs is the only centre of its type in the Territory so it follows that it assists women from all around the Territory and is often the first point of contact for many women wanting information and services that the Women’s Information Centre provides. It does not duplicate the work of the Women’s Legal Service or the Women’s Shelter, but performs work that complements those services as well as performing work that neither of those services perform. Both the Women’s Legal Service and the Women’s Shelter will be worse off if WIC no longer exists.
I do not know why it is that the position of coordinator has not been filled or why it has been vacant since April of this year, an unprecedented vacancy I would suggest. I hope, as a result of raising this matter, that the Chief Minister or the minister assisting her can assure the parliament and in particular the women of Alice Springs that the Women’s Information Centre is not at risk or facing the possibility of closure. If that assurance is not given, then I would predict that the women of Alice Springs will basically take to the streets and do whatever is necessary to get this government to affirm its commitment to the women of the town and ensure that the Women’s Information Centre remains open.
I urge the government, if it does not plan to close the service, to advise the people of the Northern Territory that that is not the case. I would ask the government to assure us that the Women’s Information Centre is not at risk. If it is not, then why hasn’t the position of coordinator been advertised? If it has been advertised, why is the position vacant and why has it been vacant since April?
With those remarks, I hope that perhaps tomorrow in this parliament either the Chief Minister or the minister assisting her can advise or assure me that the service is not facing closure.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Mr Deputy Speaker, on 21 September, I attended the men’s basketball final trophy presentation and the match where the TV Jets defeated the Eagles. I appreciated the warm welcome by President, Paul Rousham. The umpires for what was really a great game were Steve Cubillo, Errol Thorne, Jason Ivinson and Mark Hillebrand. It was a very close game, and the crowd really enjoyed it. It was a great testament to the standard of men’s basketball here in Darwin.
On 25 September, a few of us gathered together to meet Professor Babiniotis who is Rector of the National University of Athens. The professor is a very well known and learned scholar in the Greek language, but unfortunately he was delayed in Bali. We had a few drinks there, and it was great to catch up with a few people, but mostly Tony Miaoudis and his daughter Effie. It was a pleasure to meet Effie because she is a very pleasant young woman currently studying pharmacy at James Cook University in Queensland. She and I were able to have a great conversation about pharmacy and she certainly has a great future in that profession. It was great to meet Effie and I can see why Tony is very proud of his daughter.
On 26 September, there was a meeting in my electorate office of the Wagaman Residents Committee. It was great to see Lord Mayor Peter Adamson there. He was welcomed along with the rest of the meeting by Asad Mohsin who is the chairman. Asad, as everyone knows, is very active in the Islamic Society and he is also active in many community groups. He is a very popular personality and he did a great job this night of chairing a meeting which was a little bit controversial because it was discussing the closure of laneways in the Amsterdam Circuit area.
Zita Hall was there, as she always is, ably taking notes, being the secretary. Kate Ganley, Paul Hempstock, Tony Eckert, Patrick Daly and his mum June Daly were there, and they are long time residents of the area. Wendy Johnson, Ray Barnes, Poppi Gatis, Simmy Lee, George Lambrinidis, Garry Lambert came along with the Lord Mayor and also represented the council, Senior Constable Tony Pederson, known to many people, Mal and Marg Stewart, Ron and Kathleen Lawrence who have also lived in the area for many years and they have very strong feelings about the closure of the laneway and about the behaviour of young people in the area and how more should be done to engage these young people.
Eliza Tchung was there, Bruce Parvin, Kev Baker, John Skinner, Quintin Denis, who is Manager of the Casuarina Shopping Square, Christina Birch and Terry Morgan. It was a very successful meeting. There were some opposing views to begin with, but people worked through that and came up with a very wise proposal that the council is now considering about the opening and closing of those laneways, so all credit to the Wagaman Residents Committee.
On 27 September, along with other members here, I attended the National Police Remembrance Day. You cannot say it is a fantastic service, but it is very important. I noticed that you were there, Mr Deputy Speaker, singing in the choir. It is a church service that is full of sorrow, but it is also full of respect for the work that our police do in our community and how they put their lives on the line all the time for the safety and the security of our community. We all appreciate the fantastic work that the police do in our community.
On 27 September I presented a cheque for $1770 from the Lottery Fund to the Jingili BMX club for lighting. Craig Cousins was away, he is the President, but I was ably looked after by all the rest. I managed to have one beer while I was there and watch a few races. Those kids really get around those humps and lumps and bumps and corners. It is tremendous to see young people doing something good for their bodies and in a good spirit of competition. There was one little fellow there, he must have been three years of age, on a little bike, probably about nine inches high, he’s peddling away, and then his dad has to push him up over the hump. He actually beat a few home in a couple of races, a few had spills and he just kept on cycling, so that’s fantastic.
On 27 September, I was privileged to draw the Scout’s raffle at Karama Shopping Centre. I am sorry to tread on the turf of the member for Karama …
Ms Lawrie: You are more than welcome.
Dr BURNS: I think she was away. I have had a bit to do with the Scouts and they are a great group. This was the Scout Association’s major raffle which has been held for the last 15 years. They do the show circuit starting at Alice Springs and culminating in the draw. It was won by Mr R Sullivan of Humpty Doo who may be known to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, but maybe not. The prize was $13 500 worth of prizes made up of a 13.5 m boat on a very nice trailer with an outboard, plenty of safety equipment and camping equipment and a Trailblazer fridge. The Executive Officer of the Scouts, is Margaret Vigants, and the main fundraising organiser is John Doidge, who organises the prizes, tickets, distribution, retrieval and also the draw.
At the draw was Ted Kilpatrick, Assistant to the Commissioner. Ted has been a Scout for most of his life; he has the Scout law, it is just embedded in him, and he is a tremendous example of the Scouting movement. He is someone who helps young people and is absolutely committed to the Scouting movement. It is great to see people with that whole ethic of service to the community and caring for youth. Ted Kilpatrick does a fantastic job.
On 28 September I attended the Australian, Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union branch meeting. I will have to lay it on the table in the Chamber here, I am a member of that union and I am proud to be a member of that union. They have been very active in lobbying in relation to tobacco issues and they are very concerned about the health and wellbeing of their workers, particularly in smokey environments. They are a great group of people.
Apart from Jeff Jones who is the Branch Secretary, Jeff Lawrence was in attendance, he is the National Secretary. Others who were there are Amanda Rigby, Dianne Yali, Geoff Hull, Noel Treharne, Rebecca Collopy, Mark Eisen, Glenis Bingham, Michael Howe, Miguel Ociones, Dennis Allen, Janette Coles, Aaron Murnane, Michelle Peek, Barbara Mills, Donald Henwood, Jodi Belbin, Kevin Flood, Jason Smith, Paul Williams, Denise Ah Sam, Kevin Fletcher and Paul O’Loughlin.
On 5 October, I attended a great night, the prize giving for the Territory Amateur Soccer League, or TASL, the fourth annual presentation night. It was ably run by Adrian Moscheni. It was great to see all the clubs there, and they were cheering their different people on as they received prizes for best and fairest, and fairest player and best team and that sort of thing, and it was a great spirit. There were many supporters of TASL there including Gay and Mark Finocharrio and Mrs Scaturchio.
On 7 October, Paul Henderson, along with myself, hosted drinks for business people in the Johnston electorate. There was Mr Greg Flood from Just Coffee and his wife Julie, they attend a lot of the markets around town. He has been in business for a long time. John Nicolakis is my landlord and a very well known business person in town, Jim and Peter Carew, I will have to say that they are actually my brothers-in-law. They run a pretty successful business in town called Integrated Technical Services, Brian Measey I have known for a number of years, and he runs Thrifty Rent-a-Car. Irene Burns and her husband Bill live in the electorate. They have had earth moving business, but now they are getting a charter boat together, and that sounds like a very exciting venture. Mr Dick Ash, who lives in the electorate, is a primary producer. He is a bee keeper and he is currently managing a melon farm. He Dick does a great job and has a great sense of humour. Mr Alex Rajkovich from Readymix, Peter Jones from Hotshots Photography, Sheryle Dillon and Dennis Matthews from Ace Cabling, and my old friend Mr Alex Tsopanoglou. Tom Ganley from airport management was there representing them. Rod Hicks, yes he lives in the electorate, he runs a very a great business for visual arts, advertising and marketing and that sort of thing called ROKA Graphics. Mark Sweet who was acting for Daniel Honan from Telstra. Peter Johnston who has an earth moving business in the electorate also. So it was good that people got to meet the minister and had a good talk with him, and I think people really enjoyed the night.
Moving to Casuarina College, the college was saddened by the death of long-term teacher Mr John Richardson, who taught science at the college for many years and enjoyed an excellent relationship with both students and staff. From what we understand, he unfortunately suffered a stroke in the early hours of Thursday 29 August, and although he was able to ring 000 for assistance, he subsequently collapsed and could not be revived. John is survived by his parents and two brothers, and the college was able to put together support and counselling services for students and staff because they were very deeply affected by John’s passing because he was very popular and a great teacher.
Deevya Desai is going to attend the Model UN opening at the Hague and is very busy fundraising. I think I talked about that in an earlier adjournment. This is an honour for Casuarina Senior College, as this is the second year one of their students has been selected to attend this UN meeting for youth, and Sid Vemuri represented them last year.
Jingili Primary School - students from Years 5, 6 and 7 participated in The Beat Goes Wild at the Amphitheatre this year as part of the 600-strong primary school choir from Territory schools. There is also a new fitness track, which has become a focus at lunch time for students enjoying this new facility. It has a water bubbler, trees for shade and seating, and the installation of some of this infrastructure has been assisted by a Lotteries Fund grant.
At a special morning tea at the preschool on 31 July, I delivered a cheque for much needed shade cloth over the pool area. There is a large tree that had to be removed because it was a danger to students so the government was able to support the preschool in getting some much needed shade cloth.
On 20 September, the preschool had a very successful fancy dress disco and the children looked amazing. They all had a wonderful time, and over 90 children enjoyed the sit down dinner.
At Moil Primary School, they celebrated National Tree Day on 25 July which involved planting bush tucker food trees in a corner of the school to promote an appreciation of the legacy inherited in the Territory from indigenous people and their knowledge in terms of food and medicinal products.
Moil also had a science fair on 4 September, a large event the whole school was involved with, to celebrate National Science Week. Nineteen Darwin community and government organisations such as the Mineral Council, Health Department, police, St John’s, Parks and Wildlife and Greening Australia provided talks and hands-on displays for the children. As part of the fair, students were asked to submit entries into a competition where they had to create a bush beast using only recycled materials and tape and glue or velcro to hold it together. Individual winners were: Roechelle Attwood from Transition/Year 1; Imogen Campbell from Years 2/3; Jonathon Dyer from Years 4/5; and Khan Maxfield, from Years 6/7.
In the Australian Schools’ English Competition, Puanna Kapi achieved the highest mark in her year level in the NT, and received a special English Medal in recognition of her outstanding achievement. High Distinctions were awarded to Phoebe Martin, Christopher Frew and Paul Anderson, along with Distinction and Credit certificates to 28 other students.
In the NT Athletics Championships, Isaac Taulelei won gold medals for the 800 m, 400 m, discus, shot put, long jump, and high jump for 10-year-old boys. Isaac also won silver in the 60 m hurdles.
Finally, for Moil Primary School, Kiana Fiorenza made it to the national Taekwondo Championships to be held in Queensland this month.
Mr BONSON (Millner): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise briefly tonight to pay tribute to the Darwin Basketball Association which successfully held their grand finals recently.
As people would know, I have been very heavily involved in basketball all through my life, and definitely grew up down at the courts. I am looking forward to the government’s proposition of bringing wooden springboard rings and courts to Darwin basketball at Marrara. I coached one of the grand final teams, University Rebels, in the women’s league, and I have been coaching them for the last four years. In that four year period, like I said to the girls, if we were to say at the beginning of that period that we were going to play in four grand finals, win three and lose one, would that be a successful outcome? Of course, the answer is yes.
Unfortunately, on the day, we were not able to win. Due to the much publicised run-in that I had at basketball earlier on this year, the girls, unfortunately, did not have me for a number of weeks, and due to work and other commitments, our team was not as fit as it should have been. The successful team, Ansett, were superbly fit, undefeated, and their coach has done a fantastic job. Special mention of players Yasmin Seden and Megan Starr who played outstanding games. Of course, the number of girls from the Defence Forces joined them this year and participated very well.
In my team, of course, there were a number of players. Probably the best player to play in Darwin for the last 10 years is a relation of mine called Vanessa Clark who has a fantastic record in winning grand finals and, obviously, if opportunities were different could easily have played in competitions down south. There is also Maclean Brown, Gemma Brogan, Christine Rioli, who is obviously a daughter of Maurice Rioli, and her talent, arguably, is probably in the top two best players in Darwin. Michelle Brown, Chantelle Lee. I have a bit of a mental block at the moment, but they have done a fantastic job all year and over the last four years have been a very successful club. Congratulations to them.
In the men’s competition was Tracy Village Jets, or TV Jets as they are known. They are captained by Wayne Lyle who is a good friend of mine and obviously a competitor for many, many years and a very successful basketball player. He played an outstanding game and easily, in my eyes, was the best player on the court. There is also Cain Ellis, Travis Ellis, a young fellow who is about 6 foot 9 inches and he has the potential to go down south. The opportunity is there; it is just a matter of concentrating on his basketball skills. Also in that team was Ryan Marshall, Clinton Kononen, Jason Ah Sam, a constituent in my area. Fred Adams was the coach. David Cole is another constituent in my area and very successful, and well done. They defeated the Eagles who were unlucky but obviously Matthew Bakunowicz – I will not even try and spell that name or pronounce that name correctly - and Anthony Denham played very well for that team.
The umpire, as mentioned by the member for Johnston, was Steve Cubillo, an outstanding gentleman who has been involved with basketball for 50 years. He is a Life Member of the Australian Basketball League and the Darwin Basketball Association, and he is the reason why people get involved in sport as a player, coach and referee. I think he is 60-odd now, and played basketball with and against my parents and other members of my family. He has represented the Northern Territory in a number of sports including Aussie Rules. Fantastic effort.
Errol Thorne, arguably the best umpire at present in Darwin, did a fantastic job in that game. Also Jason Ivinson, one of the up and coming umpires in the competition. He is also a coach and player.
I would like to thank 94.58 K&B Larrakia Radio. I was the broadcaster there with Shane Garvey, the first time in the history of DBA basketball that anyone has broadcast their game. I am happy to say that it is another first that I was involved with, and guest speakers, of course – I can’t remember his name off the top of my head, but an AIS Junior Coach who is travelling all around Australia basically identifying talent to train up and maybe make NBL players for Australia, and Travis Ellis was one of the young fellows who he was in town looking at.
The member for Johnston did a fantastic job of presenting trophies. Well done to him. Paul Rousham was absolutely delighted that he had some media coverage because it is one of those sports in Darwin that is fighting for recognition, even though it has one of the greatest participation rates in the Northern Territory. So he was delighted that I was three and of course he is a big supporter of me getting back involved with basketball. As I have mentioned before, there would not be a person – as the member for Johnston would agree – who I did not know or who did not know who I was. Certainly, I have been involved with basketball for at least 20 years.
I also had the opportunity to broadcast and present trophies at the Darwin Soccer Association grand final between Hellenic and Palmerston. It was the first time Palmerston made the grand final and their coach, Michael Durakis, did a fantastic job in getting them to the grand final. He also took the opportunity to let me know both on radio and in person that they need a home to play soccer, and I am very supportive of that.
Manny Kulakis was the coach of the Olympic soccer team, first year coach. He is a very good friend of mine and it was a very proud moment for him that in his first year as coach he could lead them to a grand final victory. They were nearly undefeated all year and won every competition. Very proud Greek soccer club in the Northern Territory. Costa Karaolias, the President of the Darwin Soccer Association, was very happy that I was able to broadcast a game with Tim Byfield, the President of the Casuarina Soccer Club. We brought to the listeners of the Northern Territory soccer on radio, and that was the first time that was done.
So as you can see, I have been heavily involved in sports and no doubt tomorrow I will be able to bring you the next instalment.
It would be remiss of me not to mention the Nightcliff Dragons, the rugby league club that I grew up playing with and won a couple of grand finals with. The Dragons won the premiership for the fourth year in a row. I believe they will be going for the Litchfield Bears record of five years in a row, the grand final. My cousin, Kane Bonson, was the captain there and he has done a very good job, a hard working job over the last four years. He has shown a lot of commitment to his sport and it has paid dividends. It was Joe Romelo’s last year of coaching. He is now leaving us to go to Queensland. His son is in well with the Brisbane Broncos in junior development down there. He has gone there to open up a fish and chip shop and hopefully give his family a real opportunity to make it in the big grade.
There are of course other people involved in the Dragons Rugby League Club who deserve recognition. Allen Corry, the Reserve grade coach, was very successful and they won the grand finals as underdogs there. Well done to them. Commiserations go to the University Sharks coached by Rod McQueen, a la Michael McQueen fame, the Australian All-Stars coach for this year in the up and coming game against Carlton. Rod did a fantastic job. It was the first time in 20 years that they finished minor premiers and University was unlucky not to win this year’s grand final. Commiserations go to one of my best friends who was the captain of the University Sharks, Paul Seden, and to Russell May, Daniel Seden and other people who were involved. I know that is their club and they have been supporting them through juniors for many, many years.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I would like to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of ESL students from Nungalinya Theological College accompanied by their teacher, Amanda Donahue. On behalf of all members, I extend a warm welcome to our visitors.
Members: Hear, hear!
MINISTERIAL REPORTS
School-Based Police Officers
School-Based Police Officers
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I table a copy of the report of the review of the Northern Territory school-based policing scheme. I sent a copy across to the shadow minister this morning.
School-based police officers have played an invaluable role in Territory schools since the scheme began as a one-off as a pilot in 1984. The Territory now has 20 school-based police officers servicing 135 of our 182 primary and secondary schools, each officer regularly visiting an average of seven schools.
Earlier this year, the government asked DEET and the police to conduct a joint review into the current roles and responsibilities of school-based officers. We wanted to see how the scheme could be enhanced to best serve Territory school communities. We wanted to ask parents, educators and police officers for their views on how they felt the scheme was running and how it could be improved. To do this, DEET and police conducted a round of extensive consultations throughout the Territory; a series of public forums attended by 215 people - many parents, students and other interested members of the community - in Katherine, Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Nhulunbuy, Darwin and Palmerston. Stakeholders including educators, police, school council representatives and the Chief Minister’s Youth Round Table were asked for their views. Throughout all phases of public consultation, the review team received firm Territory-wide support for the continuation and possible expansion of the scheme. School communities clearly value the presence of uniformed police in the schools and the proactive approach to policing they represent.
The primary recommendation made by the review team is that the school-based policing scheme should continue with its present resources and within the present framework. The government wholeheartedly embraces the finding which will ensure police continue to hold this important place within Territory school communities. The review team further recommended the scheme should be structured around a number of core themes. These themes would help to better define police officers’ roles in the school community and, importantly, help with the development of our young people’s life skills. Those themes are: the role of police in society; the legal system; rights, rules and responsibilities; consequences of our actions; keeping ourselves and others safe; drug and alcohol education; and personal development. A range of issues were discussed at the forums and have now been presented to government as part of the review report.
One of these issues was the delivery of health and drug education in schools; specifically the delivery of DARE. DARE NT was originally designed as a joint delivery program between school-based police officers and classroom teachers. Police advised the review team that delivery of DARE absorbs 5000 hours annually, a considerable amount of time. Because of the pivotal role they play in schools, police officers have the difficulty of dealing with competing demands on their time. What came out of the review was that the most valuable contribution our school-based police officers make is the positive interaction they have with students. Also of vital importance is their proactive and responsive police work in the school environment.
Police officers clearly have a role in delivering drug education in schools but it is widely recognised that, to meet national best practice, classroom teachers need to take primary responsible for drug education. It is something all state and territory governments have agreed with in their combined push for a nationally consistent approach to addressing drug issues in schools. As such, the team has recommended that school-based police responsibility for the delivery of DARE should be withdrawn when a suitable alternative program is ready to be implemented that will see the load better balanced between teachers and police. DEET is currently working on a comprehensive drug education strategy in keeping with the national approach. Within that strategy, police officers will continue to support teachers in the delivery of drug education.
Another issue raised during the review was the possibility of extending it to more Territory schools. Consensus was that this was a desirable option, as long as it did not divert resources from schools currently benefiting. I understand police are interested in investigating options to enable the servicing of more schools in remote localities, and that is something that may occur in the future.
I would like to thank the many people who have shown interest in this. The government is grateful for their contribution to strengthen the scheme. In line with my earlier commitment, a copy of the review report will be made available on the NT government web site. It should be available on the DEET web site later today.
I would like to reiterate the government has accepted the key recommendation of the review that the school-based policing scheme be continued with the same resources and framework. The review team has recommended ways to improve the scheme; these have also been accepted by government. The government will now continue to work with school communities and police on enhancing the scheme to ensure it continues to meet the needs of the community, students, schools and police.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, I welcome the response to this review which indicated just how dearly we hold the school-based constable scheme. It highlights the aspect that was always being endeavoured to be raised; that it was the interaction of the school-based constable with students that was the key in all this. So I note with some concern the reference to the DARE program.
I understand, educationally, there may be issues in terms of appropriate delivery of drug education, but the principle strength of the school-based constable scheme is their direct connection with students. Therefore, in any review of that we must make sure that that inherent aspect is preserved.
With those words, I support the review. It does seem that this whole exercise has resulted in affirming the existing position within our community. On the issue of more schools, well, of course, we know that the school-based constable scheme was initiated here in the Northern Territory and is seen as a model for other jurisdictions. For it to receive additional support would be welcomed on this side of the House.
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his comments. I would like to hear from him after he has had a chance to read the report and come back to us. In relation to DARE, it originally was conceived as a joint operation, in front of the classroom - classroom teacher and police. Over time, classroom teacher disappeared from the scene; all left to police. It never was the original intention of the scheme. We want to get it back on a more balanced workload for these people, with police supporting the primary role of the classroom teacher because, quite clearly, they have a role in it.
The other point in relation to DARE is that there has never been a considered evaluation of the outcomes of the program. Does it achieve what it sets out to achieve? Difficult, probably, to assess that. It certainly was not in the scope of this review to determine the effectiveness of DARE. However, DEET will continue to work on its strategy and we will see more of a balance between the school-based constable and the classroom teacher; which is how it was set up and how it always should have been.
Dreamtime Tourism Trade Show
Mr HENDERSON (Tourism): Madam Speaker, I would like to brief the House on the Dreamtime tourism event that was held in Alice Springs over 16 and 17 September 2002. Dreamtime is the premier incentive travel showcase for the Australian Tourism Commission on an annual basis, and the Northern Territory won the bid this year to the tune of $150 000 for the right to host. I can say it is an investment that will reap great rewards for the Territory tourism industry.
Alice Springs won based on the following criteria: destination, appeal, sponsorship facilities and an event program to showcase the appeal of the destination. There have been a number of firsts as a result of Alice hosting Dreamtime. It is the first year that the event has been held outside of a capital city and the first year that it has been held entirely in the Northern Territory. Alice Springs certainly put on its best, and the feedback that we have had from international buyers and sellers and from the media has been absolutely extraordinary. I will go to some of those quotes in a couple of minutes.
The last time Dreamtime was held in Sydney in 2001 about $40m confirmed value of generated business came to that destination. The Australian Tourism Commission does actually track the business that is written as a result of Dreamtime. We estimate about $1.6m worth of media coverage was generated for the Northern Territory for hosting the event. We played host to 129 international incentive buyers from 22 countries. Significant business has already been flagged as a result of those buyers. We hosted 21 members of the international media, 180 sellers and 13 NT operators participated versus a total of 54 companies from other states. So a very high profile for NT product there and it went down very well.
I would like to thank the 13 Tourist Commission staff who managed the logistics of the event; they did an exceptional job. There were five optional activities for buyers that people participated in. I spent a day in Alice Springs talking to people; they had a great time.
There was a mock Henley-on-Todd at Simpson’s Gap staged by the local Rotarians on a private basis, and thanks to them that was an event that was enjoyed by all; dinner at Ooraminna Homestead, lots of local entertainment; an outdoor lunch at the Telegraph Station; a spectacular gala on the fourth night showcasing local acting talent and, again, a great night with a big fireworks display. Then everybody was off out to Uluru and an al fresco lunch at Kata Juta and a Sound of Silence dinner. If people have not done the Sounds of Silence dinner, it is a spectacular event and my colleague, the member for Casuarina, certainly has potential for business outside of his career in politics because, when we went there, his description of Greek mythology of the sky at night was absolutely fantastic. It was awesome, so get Kon to do the sky at night. It was very good.
We will be conducting a survey amongst participating buyers to determine the value from this event. But I would just quickly like to go back to some of the comments, and this actually pays huge tribute to the people of Alice Springs and the people from the Tourist Commission who assisted with this event. I will quote some of the letters and e-mails we have received:
- Dreamtime Australia 2002 was one of greatest experiences I’ve ever had. I congratulate you for your
professionalism, friendship and sincere smile in every single moment. I would also like to thank you for
all the attention you have dedicated me and for the finesse which you have presented your services and
activities intelligently elaborated by ATC and the people from the Northern Territory Convention Bureau.
Mr Ibrahim Tahtouh, an incentive buyer from Brazil.
- A big hello from Toronto, Canada, where I am having a difficult time getting back into the work mode after
this very “wowing” experience in the Outback. You people from the Northern Territories really dazzled us
all with your warm hospitality, great accommodations, your great conference centre, your special event venues
and the many varied attractions. You and your Northern Territory Convention Bureau associates are to be
congratulated for an unforgettable experience in the Outback. For future incentives to Australia, we would
certainly recommend the Outback to our clients. Thanks again, we’ll be in touch.
Albert Hummel, incentive buyer from Canada. The last one:
A quick note to thank you so much for a great Dreamtime. Already some of the suppliers I met have come in
handy as we prepare quotes; the events have certainly given me lots of ideas for future NT proposals. It’s a
massive job to coordinate and design a program such as Dreamtime, and you did a fabulous job. I appreciated
every minute of it.
Suzanne Baker, incentive buyer from New Zealand.
They are just some of the many comments we have received. I put on the record my thanks to the Tourist Commission staff and to all the volunteers in Alice Springs. It really was a fantastic event and it is going to repay handsomely for the tourism industry in the Northern Territory.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his statement and also endorse his comments in relation to the staff of the Tourist Commission and the countless volunteers and members of in the industry who did contribute to the success of the event. Unfortunately, I was not able to make a couple of the functions. However, the feedback I have received has been positive.
A couple of local people who have businesses in the heart of Alice Springs, however, have said that they were a little bit disappointed - and I say this in a constructive way - that many of the Dreamtime participants did not spend too much time spending their money in the CBD. Now, that is not a criticism of government; it is just the way these things go. But in terms of the future, it would be good if perhaps the minister could do what he can with the assistance of his staff to address what was put to me as a shortfall.
Nevertheless, it was an outstanding event, so I am told. Thank God for the tourism industry because it has been motivated by this event; it was motivated before, during and after. Thank God that the industry has the ability and capacity to get itself together to promote the Northern Territory in the way it always has. Thank God for the industry when we have a minister and a government who has consistently cut and slashed and burnt everything there is in terms of government assistance to this tourism industry. We are facing unprecedented closures, unprecedented lack of specific funding made available by Treasury in a time when the tourism industry is doing it tough. So thank God for the industry because the industry certainly does not thank God for the minister.
Mr HENDERSON (Tourism): Madam Speaker, I thought we might have had a bit of bipartisan support for the tourism industry there for a moment, but the honourable member just could not help herself.
This was a great initiative by government. We fought really hard for this bid and put in the money and attracted the event that will return the investment 10 and 20 times. It was government who actually went out there and secured this event for Alice Springs and put the money on the table to secure the event against very stiff competition.
In terms of the cuts to the industry I take the honourable member to the fact that in the last 18 months we have put in additional $3m directly and indirectly into the tourism industry here in the Territory with $2m to secure Virgin Blue, with the additional $1m for international marketing. If we just compare that with the ATC and the federal government, post 11 September last year, we put in $3m in 12 months. The Commonwealth government have only give the ATC an extra $6m so our credentials are on the line. I just wish that the members opposite would talk up the tourism industry instead of talking it down.
Gay and Lesbian Law Reform
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, it is clear that the people of the Territory are committed to their individual and collective rights. They rightly believe in equality. Many recent political and social debates have revealed this commitment. To take just one example, look at the intense interest Territorians displayed in their rights during the statehood debate. There has been a keen sense that Territorians did not enjoy the same rights as other Australians.
This government believes that Territorians value their rights as fundamental to their way of life and want fairness and equity. This brings me to a very important question about people’s rights under Territory law.
It is a well known fact that our laws contain a number of areas in which gay and lesbian Territorians do not have equal rights with their fellow Territorians or with gay and lesbian men and women in other parts of Australia. This government, from the start, has shown its commitment in establishing the rights of Territorians. We saw a prime example last week with the passage of our historic Information Bill. This government is keen to see the Territory’s laws in relation to gays and lesbians examined and amended where appropriate to bring the Territory into line with the rest of Australia.
The Darwin Community Legal Centre released a paper earlier this year containing some proposals and ideas about law reform, including issues such as bringing the age of consent into line with other laws, extending domestic violence laws to homosexual couples, reforms to the Anti-Discrimination Act, access to adoption and reproductive technology, reform of the homosexual panic defence, and access to de facto property settlements and other general property rights and benefits such as superannuation.
The government is considering the recommendations of this paper and I want to thank the centre and those involved for their work on the submission. We want to examine these matters carefully. We do not think it is wise to rush into these important areas without proper consideration. I expect that the government will be in a position to outline its plans for legislative reforms in the first half of 2003. We have modest but important goals. We want to develop modern and fair laws which reflect the general Territory attitude of a fair go for all Territorians. I have brought this matter to the House because I think members need to be kept informed of the government’s intentions, and I know that there are members with a particular interest in the reforms in this area.
Where the process is further advanced, briefing opportunities will be provided to all members of parliament. In the opposition’s reply to this report, I would hope they would place on the record their support for the principle that Territorians should be equal under the law, and that gay and lesbian Territorians deserve equal treatment.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I can indeed indicate that equality before the law is a fundamental tenor of the CLP’s platform. There is absolutely no doubt that the submissions that were submitted to government by the Darwin Community Legal Service will be carefully reviewed. We look forward to seeing the response that government has to those submissions, and I can indicate that the CLP will be working closely with government to look at those issues. Upon the formal response by government, we will address each of them. I think there are several submissions and you cannot talk globally, but we will look at each one of those separately and individually having regard to the merit.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I thank the opposition’s constructive response to the agenda I have drawn attention to today, and I look forward to working with them through briefings to resolve these issues.
Battery Hill Mining Centre
Mr AH KIT (Regional Development): Madam Speaker, I would like to report on progress that the government has made in assisting the Battery Hill Mining Centre. The Battery Hill Mining Centre is an important tourist attraction, reflecting the rich heritage and mining history of Tennant Creek. The centre’s significance is noted in the region’s development plan, the Barkly Blueprint, where a proposal to create a tourist precinct for Tennant Creek includes the battery. Battery Hill has received a considerable amount of support from government over a period of 20 years. Most of this has come from the Northern Territory government, however funding has also been received from private industry as well as the Commonwealth government.
The facility is currently in financial difficulty and urgent action has been required to address the problem. It is a matter of great concern and I, together with my colleagues the Chief Minister as the Minister for Arts and Museums, and the Minister for Tourism, have directed officers from our respective departments to work together to consider the best interests of the region. This government has approved funding of $30 000 to enable a scaled down operation to be maintained for the next three months.
During that period, a review will be undertaken by an independent consultant. The review will consider the Battery Hill Mining Centre’s relationship with other key bodies in the region and how it might be better integrated with a wider tourist precinct. The review will also identify possible directions for a more sustainable future, considering the most appropriate mix of public and private monies. Because, of course, the only way for operations like the Battery Hill Mining Centre to survive and prosper is through the innovation and energy of local people. No amount of money can prop up a facility that does not have the support and interest of the community.
This is a most important issue in terms of protecting and promoting the Barkly region’s assets. This government is taking a responsible and considered approach to this very issue. We will support Battery Hill in its bid to forge a path to a viable and sustainable future. I intend to inform members of the review’s recommendations after the process has been completed.
Mr REED (Katherine): Madam Speaker, the member for Barkly, I noticed, was listening with great interest to the words of the minister. The government is going to find that there are cases across the Northern Territory where there is no alternative but for government to support them, and that can be difficult at times and it can be expensive. However, in the case, and this is a good one, of the battery at Tennant Creek, Tennant Creek has a limited number of attractions to attract tourists and to keep them in the town. The battery has been exceedingly successful at that, and the tourism industry - not only in Tennant Creek but across the Territory - is going to be exceedingly disappointed to learn that the government by its actions - or in this case inaction - is going to allow a reduction in activity at that centre. That is not the way to support a tourism industry.
The tourism industry is Territory-wide. The destinations not just here in Darwin, or Katherine or Alice Springs. If the government allows this particular facility to fade away through lack of support …
Mr Henderson: Wrong!
Mr REED: … that is going to create a very clear difference between the CLP’s policies and the government’s policies.
I hear the interjection of ‘wrong’, but that is just what the minister has told us. By virtue of the government’s actions, it is clearly demonstrating that there is going to be a reduction of activity here. The thing that was needed for the people of Tennant Creek and the Territory tourism industry was continued support and to ensure that the facility continues to operate rather than doing what this Labor government does so frequently: ‘Let us have another review; let us look at this all over again’; and leave the people responsible for these actions and the tourism industry in the wilderness, hanging on a string, not really knowing what is going to happen for month after month after month, and not being able to promote it successfully for the tourism season next year and the benefit of the overall tourism industry across the Territory.
Mr AH KIT (Regional Development): Madam Speaker, those nice words uttered would be lovely to send off to the Battery Hill people and the people of Tennant Creek, because it is a change of heart, most definitely. When the CLP was in power they neglected the Tennant Creek region, and that is all we have ever had …
Mr Dunham: Not true!
Mr AH KIT: … feedback from. It is wrong! It is wrong what you are assuming. I am not sure whether the member for Katherine is shadow minister for regional development. I noticed when he got to his feet, he had a look around to see if anyone else was jumping.
Now, let us be quite clear about what this government intends to do. What this government intends to do is to ensure that the sustainability is there. It is definitely a project that is worthwhile supporting, but we are not a government that is going to continue to throw money at these types of headaches that are a legacy of the former government. We will go in and check it out, and ensure that it is operating in a viable manner. That is what this government intends to do.
Reports noted pursuant to Sessional Order.
MOTOR ACCIDENTS (COMPENSATION) AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 102)
(Serial 102)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill now be read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to amend section 13 of the Motor Accidents (Compensation) Act 1979 to confirm that:
- the calculation of the benefit payable under section 13 is based on the average weekly earnings for all
employees’ total earnings in the Territory;
that a variation or cessation of compensation is based on a medical assessment that the person has an
earning capacity to a specified extent, whether or not the person does actually engage in employment;
that the medical assessment of earning capacity will only have regard to any residual disabilities arising
from the accident, and will not have regard to factors such as the availability of employment or the
person’s education, vocational skills, numeracy and literacy levels, or employment or other experience;
the manner in which the compensation scheme has been administered by TIO, prior to any doubt arising as
a result of tribunal case of Collman v TIO, was the manner intended by the Legislative Assembly; and
the operation of section 13 will be clarified in accordance with these factors by applying the amendments
retrospectively, as if section 13 had originally been enacted in that form.
Section 13 provides compensation to Northern Territory residents whose earning capacity is reduced as a result of being injured in a motor accident. Since the inception of the compensation scheme in 1979, it has been practice that a person’s entitlement to section 13 benefits has ceased or reduced when that person has regained his or her earning capacity, as evidenced by a return to work or by a medical clearance.
The Motor Accidents Compensation Appeal Tribunal, as constituted by a judge of the Supreme Court, has recently interpreted section 13 in such a manner as to introduce doubt on how the section should be applied. The government takes the view that it is appropriate that the doubts be removed. As no appeals can be made against the tribunal and because other legal avenues are difficult, the only option for removing the doubt is legislative reform.
There are two options for clarifying the legislative intent. They are to either amend the legislation to clearly state that (1) the assessment of ongoing benefits should have regard to the employment opportunities and the potential income of each individual as interpreted by the tribunal; or (2) that the manner in which the scheme has been administered since 1979 correctly reflects the legislative intention when establishing the scheme.
If the assessment of ongoing benefits is to have regard to employment availability and other factors as outlined by the tribunal, people with only minor injuries will remain entitled to benefits either in full or on a top-up basis despite regaining the capacity to work full-time. This would result in large increases in contribution rates payable on registration of all motor vehicles to ensure that the scheme should continue to afford to pay for past and ongoing benefits or the long-term viability of the compensation scheme being placed in jeopardy in the absence of such increases. The alternative is to confirm that the practice adopted by the scheme administrator since 1979 is the correct interpretation.
The government has adopted the second option for the following reasons: that it meets the original intention of the Motor Accidents Compensation Scheme to ensure that compensation for injuries would provide a fair level of compensation to injured residents on a no fault, no litigation basis at an affordable price both now and into the future; that it clearly highlights that the benefit is a capital payment and is not a replacement of earnings which protects the tax free status of the benefit; and that it does not reduce the level of compensation or the duration of compensation paid to people with major injuries.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
PAY-ROLL TAX AMENDMENT BILL (No 3)
(Serial 103)
(Serial 103)
- Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms MARTIN (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill now be read a second time.
The Pay-roll Tax Amendment Bill (No 3) will put in place two minor amendments to the Pay-roll Tax Act to clarify anomalies that could potentially hinder the recovery powers under the act.
The first amendment addresses the commissioner’s powers to recover tax liabilities from members of a payroll tax group. Where persons are grouped for payroll tax purposes the act allows a tax liability of a group member to be recovered from other members of the group. This amendment clarifies that this power includes the recovery of further and additional tax which is typically imposed as a penalty for the underpayment of tax from any member of a payroll tax group.
The second amendment relates to the commissioner’s power to recover tax owed by an employer by way of requiring a person who owes money to any member of the payroll tax group to pay that amount to the commissioner. However, an anomaly in the act only allows recovery in this manner to be made in respect of a group member who is also an employer. Therefore, while all group members are jointly and severally liable for tax, the commissioner’s recovery powers are limited to those group members that are also employers at the time of the recovery. Accordingly, this amendment ensures that payments of money owed to any group member may be recovered to satisfy the group’s payroll tax liability regardless of whether the group member is an employer.
These changes align the Northern Territory’s recovery provisions more closely with the majority of states. Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
LIQUOR AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 105)
(Serial 105)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr STIRLING (Racing, Gaming and Licensing): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time. The bill proposes an amendment to the Liquor Act to make changes to the objection process in determining applications related to liquor licenses.
The Liquor Act is important legislation designed to protect the community from the harm associated with the abuse of liquor and to ensure the amenity of the community is maintained. The act allows any person to object to the granting of a new liquor licence unless the objection is made on commercial grounds. There is no other limitation currently contained in the act as to the grounds on which an objection can be made.
The act requires the Northern Territory Licensing Commission to consider a number of criteria when determining an application before it, including the location of the subject premises, the location of other licensed premises in the vicinity, the needs and wishes of the community, whether the applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a license and any other matter that the commission thinks fit. The breadth and vagueness of the current objection process has allowed objectors to question each and every aspect of an application, often resulting in long delays in the handing down of decisions by the commission. The result can be a costly and drawn out proceeding for both applicant and objectors alike.
The bill aims to bring certainty to the liquor licence application process by defining who can object to the granting of a liquor licence application and on what grounds an objection can be made. The bill will allow for objections to be made by: persons who reside or work in the neighbourhood of premises the subject of the application; 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 organisations or groups carried on for purposes that are connected with the amenity of the neighbourhood.
The term ‘neighbourhood’ is a subjective one and should be taken to mean the area 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 city blocks whilst the neighbourhood surrounding a take-away liquor facility in a remote place may encompass an area of hundreds of kilometres. In each case, it will be a question of fact to be determined by the Licensing Commission.
The bill also has the effect of limiting the grounds upon which an objection may be made to that of adverse affect of the licence application on the amenity of the neighbourhood. An objector will be required to clearly show on the face of a written objection lodged with the Director of Licensing that the amenity of the neighbourhood to which the application applies will be or is likely to be adversely affected by the introduction of new a new liquor licence of the type applied for in that neighbourhood.
It is the intention of this legislation that the term ‘amenity’ be read narrowly. 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. Objections shall 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. Those objections found wanting will be refused leave to be heard, whilst those considered by the commission to have sufficient merit to be considered will be referred to the commission for hearing as part of the application process. Objectors, when addressing the commission at an oral application hearing, will be limited to presenting evidence supporting the grounds of objection contained in their written submissions and recognised by the commission as being relevant to the application before it.
The Liquor Act, through section 31, compels the Licensing Commission to turn its mind to all aspects of a liquor licence application that it is considering before it makes a decision on that application. That will not change with the passage of this bill. What will change is the focus on how an objection to an application is handled by the commission.
The purpose of this bill is to provide a better and more streamlined system for liquor licence applications whilst maintaining effective harm minimisation and protection of public amenity. I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
PETROLEUM (SUBMERGED LANDS) AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 104)
(Serial 104)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr HENDERSON (Energy): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill now be read a second time.
The main purpose of this bill is to mirror the provisions of the corresponding Commonwealth Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act (1967) and provide for more efficient title administration. The Northern Territory Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act applies to the coast line of the Northern Territory at the mean low water mark to the three nautical mile limit, also referred to as the adjacent area.
With the Offshore Constitutional Settlement of 1967, the Commonwealth, states and Northern Territory agreed to, as far as practicable, administer the exploration and exploitation of petroleum resources with common principles and practices. Therefore, the Northern Territory offshore legislation should be as consistent as possible with the provisions of the corresponding Commonwealth PSLA.
With the possibility of an offshore pipeline project to bring gas from the Bayu-Undan field in Area A of the Zone of Cooperation, it is necessary to update the corresponding Northern Territory PSLA. The pipeline will run through both the Commonwealth and Northern Territory offshore areas.
Turning to the actual amendments, there are three main provisions. First, it is proposed that the term of the pipeline licence remain in force indefinitely. Second, amendments are included to make possible the conveyance of petroleum from outside the adjacent areas covered by the Northern Territory PSLA, including the area in which the Bayu-Undan field is situated. Third, the amendments will incorporate the shift to a new datum, the Geocentric Datum of Australia, GDA94, to describe the position of titles. These amendments are relevant to the project.
The term of the pipeline licence will be indefinite as it will correspond to a similar section under the Commonwealth PSLA. This amendment will enable consistency in the grant and administration of the pipeline licences in both jurisdictions. With the amendment to an indefinite pipeline licence, the consequential amendment is the removal of renewal provisions relating to pipeline licences. Whilst the term is indefinite, a provision is included to terminate the pipeline if no work has been conducted, or if there was no use of the pipeline for a continuous period of five years without justification. These amendments would provide security for the pipeline holder, and ensure there is no warehousing so the pipeline licence holder will commence activities on the pipeline licence as authorised by its grant.
I would also like to flag to honourable members that I will be introducing similar amendments to the Energy Pipelines Act early next year, so that the portion of the pipeline from the low water mark to where it enters the LNG plant has the same term for its licence.
On 1 January 2000, Australia adopted a new worldwide coordinate system called GDA94, to replace the existing Australian Geodetic Datum, AGD66. Put simply, the position of the existing grid will remain, but it will be referenced to the GDA94. The new datum is based at the earth’s centre of mass and is linked directly to the orbit of satellites. The change will allow Australian latitude and longitudes to be integrated in the new global system for greater accuracy and efficiency.
The Commonwealth PSLA has adopted this system and has provided the relevant amendments to the Northern Territory PSLA to mirror these provisions. In principle, the amendments provide for the description of a point line, block or other area in a title or instrument in latitude and longitude, under the GDA94. This shift in datum means that the physical position of the title will remain the same on the earth’s surface, but its coordinates will change as they will be referenced under the new datum. The distance between the same set of coordinates for a position on the different datums will be approximately 200 m to the north-east. The advantages of this shift are that it is compatible with modern survey techniques, it provides for the integration and compatibility with an international global system, and it includes the direct use of satellite positioning systems.
With these changes, the opportunity has been taken to amend the penalty regime to conform with the Northern Territory government policy of establishing a penalty unit structures for offences.
With the exception of a pipeline licence application, there are no other titles under the Northern Territory PSLA. The existing transitional provisions and the corresponding schedules, which were relevant in 1985, are proposed to be repealed to avoid confusion, particularly if there is need for new transitional provisions in the future. A corresponding savings clause for the pipeline licence application has been included so that the grant of the pipeline will be subject to the amended act.
The amendments also include the update of gender provisions to keep in line with existing Northern Territory government policy.
The Commonwealth PSLA is currently being rewritten and a more extensive amendment to the Northern Territory PSLA would be appropriate at a later stage so that the mirror legislation principle, pursuant to the Offshore Constitutional Settlement, is maintained. As the project is under way to repeal and replace the Commonwealth PSLA, recent proposed amendments in the Northern Territory PSLA have been included to cover the existing Commonwealth act and the act that will be re-enacted in the future. There are pre-emptive changes and the Northern Territory will be the among the states and territories to include these amendments. These amendments will ensure that the references to the Commonwealth PSLA and the Northern Territory PSLA will remain valid if and when the Commonwealth act is rewritten and renamed.
Getting the Northern Territory act consistent with the Commonwealth Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act is an important element in ensuring the harmonisation of the offshore regulatory regime, and it would avoid any impediments arising from inconsistencies that may disrupt the eventual arrival of offshore gas to the Northern Territory mainland. It is important we act now to amend our legislation, and I comment this bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
TOBACCO CONTROL BILL
(Serial 101)
(Serial 101)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mrs AAGAARD (Health and Community Services): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
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 50% 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 NT. It is directly related to one in 20 hospitalisations and one in five deaths. Half of long-term smokers die from their habit.
Yet, despite the enormous impact of tobacco on the health of Territorians, the Territory has had the weakest tobacco regulation of any Australian jurisdiction. The Northern Territory Tobacco Act 1992 mandates health warning requirements on cigarette packets and vending machines, and prohibits the sale or supply of tobacco products to children, but these measures have, in isolation, proved ineffective in reducing tobacco related harm.
This bill aims to reduce the impact of smoking on the Territory community by discouraging the uptake of smoking, particularly by children; supporting those who wish to quit smoking; and reducing exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. A range of measures are introduced to support these strategies. The measures are based on proposals outlined in a public discussion paper released in March 2002. The response to that paper indicated overwhelming community support for the proposals, with 90% of the 190 submissions received expressing overall support. The proposals have been subject to an independent regulatory impact analysis which found that the benefits to the community associated with any restrictions on competition outweighed the costs, and that no less restrictive measures were likely to be effective in achieving the objectives of the proposed legislation.
Exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, or passive smoking, is a serious hazard. Unlike residents in all other Australian jurisdictions, Territorians remain at risk of tobacco-related injury by exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in their workplaces, shopping centres and restaurants. Apart from the subjectively unpleasant effects of breathing other peoples smoke, passive smokers are at higher risk of serious illness including heart attack, stroke, cancer, lung disease and acute asthma attack. In addition, a range of problems in pregnancy and in children are associated with passive smoking including meningococcal disease and sudden infant death syndrome.
The bill will reduce involuntary exposure to environmental tobacco smoke by deeming a range of areas to be smoke-free. The regulations will, however, authorise occupiers of certain smoke-free areas to designate them as exempt areas. Implementation of smoke-free areas is staggered over two key dates: New Year’s Day, traditionally a time when many smokers contemplate quitting; and 31 May 2003, World No Tobacco Day. On 1 January 2003, completely smoke-free areas will include restaurants, cafes, shopping centres, public transport and domestic premises being used to provide commercial child care. Domestic premises, generally, will not be deemed smoke-free. Areas that may be designated exempt areas from 1 January will include: licensed premises except enclosed areas where meals are prepared or served; workplaces which are not generally accessible to the public; within educational facilities, and where staff agree an outdoor smoking area that is concealed from the view of children, and restricted to adults; personal living areas in shared accommodation facilities; 50% of fixed seating at outdoor public venues; and the upper decks of vessels.
The general workplace’s exemption will continue until 31 May 2003, World No Tobacco Day. The licensed premises exemption option will remain, but from 31 May 2003, the regulations will require the provision of a non-smoking area of equal amenity. It will be an offence for a person to smoke in a smoke-free area, and for an occupier to allow smoking in a smoke-free area. It will be a defence for a smoker that prescribed signage was not displayed; that there was no other indication displayed that the area was a smoke-free area; and that the smoker could not reasonably be expected to know the area was a smoke-free area.
It will be a defence for an occupier that the prescribed signage was displayed; the occupier did not encourage smoking; that within a reasonable time of becoming aware that a person was smoking, the occupier had asked the person to stop smoking; and if applicable, the occupier had stopped providing goods and services to the smoker.
The measures I have just mentioned will, for the first time, allow people to shop, eat and work in enclosed spaces without the discomfort and risks associated with passive smoking. In achieving this aim, the bill does not prevent persons who wish to smoke from doing so, but it does recognise that the freedom to smoke is not absolute, and must be balanced with the right of non-smokers to breathe fresh, clean air.
The bill introduces a simple tobacco retail licensing scheme, and from 31 May 2003 it will be an offence to sell tobacco without a licence. The licensing provisions will commence at an earlier date to allow time for lodgment and processing of applications. The Director of Licensing may, on application, grant a licence to any adult in respect of specified premises. The Director of Licensing may cancel or suspend a tobacco retailer’s licence if the retailer is convicted of selling tobacco to a child, or has been issued with two or more infringement notices within 12 months. Decisions made by the Director of Licensing may be reviewed by the Licensing Commission under Part 4 of the Northern Territory Licensing Commission Act. The licensing scheme will not restrict competition. There will be no limit on the number of licenses that may be issued, no restrictions on the amount or variety of tobacco products that may be sold and no licence renewal fee.
Research shows that the earlier a person commences smoking and becomes addicted, the longer they will remain a smoker, and the greater their chance of dying from smoking. Smoking-related illness accounts for the death of half of all long-term smokers. Current legislation makes it an offence to sell tobacco products to a child. Unfortunately, a significant number of retailers continue to do so. The economic incentive to sell to children apparently outweighs the risk of a fine. The licensing scheme provides a key economic disincentive to sell tobacco products to children. It allows for a simple and cost-effective enforcement by police and other authorised officers as anyone selling tobacco who cannot produce a license without reasonable excuse is easily identified as trading illegally. It will also bring tobacco regulation into line with similarly harmful substances such as alcohol, kava and pharmaceuticals, and assist reputable retailers by excluding irresponsible sellers from the tobacco retail market.
The bill also strengthens existing measures. The offence of selling tobacco to a child is retained, and the liability for the offence is extended to the tobacco retail licensee and where the seller is a child, to the adult person, if any, directly supervising the seller. The child, however, is deemed not to have committed the offence.
The bill recognises that in some circumstances it may be unjust to prosecute all parties deemed liable for the offence. Some flexibility is therefore provided so that the prosecuting agency may prosecute any person being liable for the offence without prosecuting any other person. For example, where the tobacco retail licensee has coerced an adult into selling to a child, the prosecuting agency can choose to prosecute only the licensee. Where a child obtains a tobacco product from a vending machine, the person in charge of the bar area, that is the manager, and the tobacco retail licensee are deemed to have sold the tobacco product to the child. Again, the prosecuting agency may prosecute either the person in charge of the bar area or the licensee or both.
The current defences of selling or supplying tobacco to a minor that the defendant had reasonable cause to believe that the buyer was not a child or had taken reasonable precautions to ensure the tobacco product was not sold or supplied to a child limit the effectiveness of the offence provision and will be replaced.
The new defence will be that the person had sighted a driver’s license, passport or other approved form of photographic identification and had no reason to believe the identification was false. The defence will not apply, for example, where a child who is obviously under age uses his or her elder sibling’s driver’s license or identification.
The regulations will provide for the issuing of on-the-spot fines for offences committed under the act and regulations. This will minimise enforcement costs. Another measure aimed specifically at limiting the supply of cigarettes to children is the prohibition on selling single cigarettes. This profitable practice provides children who could otherwise not afford to buy a packet of cigarettes with access to tobacco products.
Advertising at point of sale is clearly influential in attracting new smokers and tends to undermine the resolve of people attempting to quit. The bill therefore introduces measures to limit the impact of advertising, including displays at point of sale. The bill prohibits from 31 May 2003 all forms of tobacco advertising except for limited displays of tobacco products at points of sale. It prohibits sponsorship of public events if a tobacco product or brand is advertised as part of the sponsorship arrangement.
Redistribution of things such as T-shirts and caps that bear tobacco advertisements by, or on behalf of, tobacco product manufacturers, distributors, wholesalers or retailers will be an offence. Engaging in a value added marketing scheme, such as providing free gifts with each purchase of a tobacco product, will be an offence. These measures complement Commonwealth legislation with respect to television and radio broadcasting.
From 31 May 2003 only one point of sale will be allowed per premises except liquor licensed premises. Each adults only bar area of a liquor licensed premises will be permitted to have two points of sale provided that one is a vending machine. Displays of tobacco products will only be permitted at points of sale. The maximum number of each type or brand of tobacco product which may be displayed will be prescribed in the regulations. As tobacco companies have worked around similar restrictions in other jurisdictions by increasing the number of types and brands of tobacco products, a maximum total display size will also be prescribed.
The use of certain visual effects to enhance a display such as bright lighting or a moving display would defeat the purpose of the above restrictions. The bill therefore prohibits their use. Vending machines, which are a key source of cigarettes for minors, will be restricted to adults only sections of licensed premises and, except on those premises which are completely inaccessible to children, must be kept within line of sight of a bar service area. The person generally in charge of the bar area will be responsible for sales from the machine.
The allowable number of vending machines will be one per bar area. If the vending machine is the second point of sale within a bar area, advertising on the machine will be restricted to availability and price. As per the current legislation, the regulations will require licensees to display standard health warnings at each point of sale.
The government recognises that the display and point of sale restrictions introduced by the bill may have a proportionately greater impact on specialist tobacconists. The bill is not intended to render such business non-viable or to unduly restrict competition. The bill therefore provides for the issuing of a specialist tobacconist license to those retailers whose business wholly or predominantly consists of retail trade in tobacco products.
The regulations may exempt specialist tobacconists from certain restrictions and impose others. Thus the normal display restrictions can be lifted to allow the tobacconist to display a broad range of imported cigars and new conditions may be imposed. For example, that the premises be established so that tobacco products are not visible from outside the premises, similar to adult shops, and that children not be allowed on the premises. The exact nature of the substitute restrictions will be determined well in advance of the commencement of the display and point of sale provisions.
Madam Speaker, this bill is an important and long overdue step towards reducing the devastating impact of smoking on the health of Territorians. I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
PRIVATE HOSPITALS AND NURSING HOMES AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 79)
(Serial 79)
Continued from 20 August 2002.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): My contribution will be short, Madam Speaker, on the basis that the opposition supports this bill.
I thank the minister and her staff for a fulsome briefing which was provided to myself and two of my colleagues, the members for Greatorex and Port Darwin. The bill essentially moves to align the Northern Territory with recent moves, mostly initiated by Commonwealth regional national moves, which are to be commended because, essentially, the differentiation between nursing homes and nursing hostels did cause some problems, particularly for married couples, where one member of the relationship was nursing home appropriate and the other one was not. Often, these marriages of some decades standing saw, for the first time, couples split on the basis of the level of care that was required.
The move now, obviously, is to allow high-care and low-care clientele into the same facility, so a nursing hostel now can have a person who is nursing home appropriate in the old jargon. The names have also been changed to get rid of that obsolete nomenclature.
There is also a very good amendment to the act which allows that the matron or person in charge of a nursing home can now be advised after the fact that they have been replaced, whereas prior to this there was a very difficult administrative procedure of alerting the Chief Health Officer that a replacement was imminent. Often, unforeseen vacancies meant that this was very difficult to achieve. We now have the happy circumstance where a week is provided to alert the Chief Health Officer on the basis that the person has the prescribed qualifications that are required.
This is an area that needs continual analysis and investigation. Issues relating to supported accommodation for our elderly and people who are frail or have dementia are moving fairly quickly. It is an area where, even with these amendments, we are going to see that there is a continuing need for the community to voice its concern and amend the statutes that apply in this particular area.
The opposition supports the bill and thanks the government for the briefing.
Mrs AAGAARD (Health and Community Services): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Drysdale for his comments and the opposition for their support of this bill.
It is an important bill and will bring us into line with national competition policy, and it will have a significant effect on the care of people in aged facilities in the Northern Territory.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mrs AAGAARD (Health and Community Services)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill now be read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
COMMUNITY WELFARE AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 96)
(Serial 96)
Continued from 22 August 2002.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): As with the previous bill, Madam Speaker, the opposition supports this bill and, as with the previous bill, we thank the government for the opportunity of a briefing.
This is a very important area because it deals with children and children’s rights, and children who have a connection with the government because of want of care or some other reason. Again, this is derived from national moves of several years ago. The amendments seem logical and workable. They have come from the advice of practitioners, not just the lofty wordings of a ministerial council, and they are entirely supported by the opposition on the basis that the best interests of the child are paramount.
The bill also includes several pages of statute law revision, if you like, in the sense that the gender specific terminology has become gender neutral. The amendments are entirely and absolutely supported by the opposition.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Madam Speaker, in relation to the amendments to the Community Welfare Act, I have made the point in the place - and I will continue to make it - that our children are our most important resource. The primary responsibility for developing that resource rests, in most cases, with a child’s parents. But when parents are unavailable, be it because of death, disease or social dysfunction, other arrangements need to be put in place.
Sometimes such alternative arrangements involve other family members stepping into the shoes of absent or incapable parents. Sometimes, the circumstances in which a child finds itself are so dire and the reliability of any actual or potential family care is so uncertain that the government, through the agency of the minister responsible for Community Welfare, needs to step in. Sometimes it is possible to find a satisfactory halfway house between these two kinds of arrangements, involving joint guardianship shared between a particular family member on the one hand and the minister and her delegates on the other.
The Northern Territory is a big place and shares borders with Western Australia to the west, South Australia to the south and Queensland to the east. Each of these border areas is remote and predominantly populated by Aboriginal people. We are talking about Aboriginal people whose ancestors have lived there prior to the establishment of such borders. Unsurprisingly, the contemporary Aboriginal population in each of these border areas lives in and travels frequently back and forth between communities on both sides of the border. The artificiality of the states and territory jurisdictional boundaries, when considered from an Aboriginal point of view, has caused hardship and confusion in the past in respect of children whose care and upbringing is shared amongst family members.
The benefits of this amending legislation will flow, in particular, to Aboriginal children who are either in the care of the minister or under joint guardianship arrangements, and who come from places like the Gulf country, the Pit lands or the Keep River National Park area. The amended legislation will enable flexible and effective care arrangements to be put in place by government on both sides of the border.
In terms of the consultation with indigenous stakeholders, there has been - with all the information that I have been provided and sought out - that after the Community Services ministers meeting in July 1998, an outcome was the approval in principle for a set of protocols. These protocols were given to the secretariat of the National Aboriginal Islander Child Care which provided comments. Some of SNAICC’s suggestions are reflected in those protocols. Also, there has been some consultation carried out with KARU, the local body responsible for placement of children.
Madam Speaker, I support the amended legislation.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I wanted to assure the minister that I have more than just a keen interest in this area. For some years, I practised in Alice Springs in this area which I invariably describe as my favourite area of practice.
There have been a number of matters over the years that, in my view, have warranted a review. I remind members of this House that, in my maiden speech made one year ago today as it so happens, I referred to this area. I was, with the greatest of respect, slightly disappointed to see the government propose amendments to the Community Welfare Act - which, in my view, is well overdue – but which do not go further.
I gave, very early on - in fact , I think it was not long after my maiden speech last year - to a representative from the Attorney-General’s office or department a number of submissions that I had prepared some years prior that I thought should be incorporated into any reform of the Community Welfare Act. I am, again with respect, disappointed to see that none of those were picked up. Obviously, it may be something that on a General Business Day at some point in the future I will bring those amendments to the House. Without pre-empting the contents of those amendments, I would just like to assure the minister that I have a very strong interest in this area, and I look forward perhaps to working with her as the months advance.
Mrs AAGAARD (Health and Community Services): Madam Speaker, I thank honourable members for their support of this bill. It is an important bill. The welfare of children in the Northern Territory is of extreme interest to all honourable members and this bill certainly assists with that.
I am very pleased that the opposition is supporting the bill. I will take onboard the comments from the member for Araluen. I must say that she has not actually approached me in the time that the bill has been on the Table, but I would be happy to have an approach from her in the future.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mrs AAGAARD (Health and Community Services)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time
MOTION
Note statement - Illicit Drugs and the Report of the Task Force
Note statement - Illicit Drugs and the Report of the Task Force
Continued from 15 October 2002.
Mr HENDERSON (Business, Industry and Resource Development): Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the ministerial statement and broader comments on the final report of the Task Force on Illicit Drugs handed down just recently in this House.
At the outset I will say that if there is one suite of government initiatives that we proposed that I am very pleased to see enacted in a totally combined and structured manner, it is our commitment that we made in opposition in the lead-up to the election to introduce our tough on drugs and drug crime strategy, to actually look at the whole issue of the level of harm that illicit drug use was causing to our community, and to look at a structured suite of policy initiatives that we could introduce in government to start to get on top of some of the issues that were really escalating out of all proportion given the size of our community here in the Northern Territory, and had been totally neglected over many years by the previous government despite …
Mr Dunham: Not true. That is a falsehood.
Mr HENDERSON: … despite numerous debates in this House that were run over the last couple of years alerting parliament and the people of the Northern Territory to the escalating harm that this illicit drug use was causing in the Northern Territory.
It is always good to hear the former health minister say ‘not true’, ‘a falsehood’. I do not know if he has spoken in this debate yet, but he may care to follow me to put his message on the record.
I do commend the health minister in the work that she and the department have done in structuring public policy to get on top of the health side of these issues. We did run very hard on it in the lead-up to the last election and I believe we received a very strong mandate from the people of the Northern Territory to move forward and implement the initiatives that we have.
I would like to remind the House of our mandate to implement our tough on drugs three-point plan. The three points were: law enforcement with zero tolerance on drug production and distribution. We have seen a vast suite of legislation introduced into this House by my colleague, the Attorney-General, in trying to get on top of the people in our community who are profiting by the illegal production and distribution of illicit drugs, peddling these drugs in our community, the insidious activities of some of these people by introducing our young people to illicit drugs, and this behaviour cannot be tolerated in any society. I believe that we are duty bound as legislators in this parliament to do everything we can and to give the police every ammunition that they can use at their disposable to apprehend and bring to justice these people who profit from the addiction and misery of people they coerce to use their substances.
I have been around this town for a long time and members can see from the Parliamentary Record, it is something that I am very passionate about. We will continue to amend and introduce legislation as is necessary in consultation with our police force to give them the weapons they need through legislation to deal with these evil people who prey and profit from drugs and the misery that they cause.
The second point of our plan was compulsory treatment of addicts arrested on drug-related crimes. Again, my colleague the Attorney-General is moving to implement Drug Courts to do that. We are not reinventing the wheel here; we were so far behind other jurisdictions in legislation, justice provisions and public health provisions, that we can and do have the opportunity to look at what is working around Australia and the western world. There is no silver bullet.
That is not to say that what we are doing is going to eliminate it, but we are going to try, and I really think that is the difference between this government and our predecessors: (a), we acknowledge the extent of the problem and (b), we are trying to do something about it as opposed to our predecessors failing to acknowledge the extent of the problem or that there was a problem at all and relying on the Commonwealth through the HIC to intervene and on a range matters and we will get to that in a minute.
We are trying to do something, and I would have thought that the initiatives that we have put in place would have been wholesomely and fully supported by the opposition. Unfortunately, and if we go back through the debates in terms of a lot of the criminal legislation that we have introduced into the parliament, we have received very much less than fulsome support from some of those initiatives. Ultimately, those members opposite will be judged by some of their comments because I do believe that we have the community on side in these issues.
Mr Burke: And we’ll judge you on how the crime levels drop.
Mr HENDERSON: Well, we will, and if …
Mr Burke: And how the level of illicit drug use improves or doesn’t improve in the Territory. That is how you will be judged.
Mr HENDERSON: If members opposite - they are obviously a bit touchy about this, Madam Speaker. They are obviously a bit touchy.
Mr Burke: You want to read your own report. Have you read your own report?
Mr HENDERSON: This is the man, Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Brennan, who is so out of touch - he can speak in this debate. I am happy – I can yell louder than he can.
He can contribute to this debate, but he is the man who stood in parliament and said, and he is on the Parliamentary Record, that drug-related crime in the Northern Territory was minuscule. That is not the view of the Northern Territory police; it is not the view of all the statisticians in the western world that can very clearly link the incidence of property crime directly to the use of illicit and addictive drugs in our community.
We would have though that if there was one issue that we would bring into this House in terms of a suite of public policy that would have wholesome support from each and every one of our 25 members in this parliament, illicit drug use and drug-related crime would be it. Unfortunately, that has not been the case but we will continue to move on nonetheless.
So the Drug Courts are going to occur and there is funding in this budget and $300 000 ongoing to establish those. We will be looking at proposals and how they are used in other jurisdictions.
The third part of the three-point plan is to look at the health issues and we said that we would properly resource a drug prevention strategy including family support and school education programs. My colleague the police minister, member for Nhulunbuy, spoke about the DARE programs in schools My colleague the member for Johnston has done a lot of research on this issue and it there is certainly further work we need to do in our schools and with our young people, alerting them to the dangers of dabbling in these substances. We have to through our school systems and as parents. I would say that each and every one of us as parents, as our kids are growing up, probably one of the biggest single fears we have is that our kids are going to get mixed up in experimenting with these substances. It is a fact of life that kids experiment, but at least let’s give them both sides of the story so that they can make informed decisions and hopefully make the right decisions.
The report of the Task Force on Illicit Drugs is a substantial report from a wide ranging and diverse body of people who have contributed to that report. The task force was chaired by Dr Valerie Asche, an eminent professional and academic in her own right who has done a marvelous job in compiling this report. Certainly, nobody could claim that Dr Asche has radical views in terms of public policy. There was a substantive and well-respected range of professionals who have contributed to this report. What we had to do on the public health side of this equation is take it out of the realms of politics, where it was so insidiously played previously, with their social vandalism that was caused by members opposite failing to acknowledge these issues, and actually look at the public health issues and go to the professionals, not the rank amateurs that we had legislating opposite.
It is interesting when you come to government - and I wouldn’t embarrass those wonderful public servants - but some of the briefings we have had from public servants who had to work with the previous legislation made it very clear that advice to the previous government from a professional point of view was that we had to move and do some of the things that we are doing now. They were totally devastated, as professionals, about the harm in terms of public policy being created in our community by not moving. There is very strong support …
Mr Dunham: You should hear what they are saying now.
Mr HENDERSON: The former health minister knows this. He knows this implicitly because was the one in receipt of so much of that advice. We have had our stoushes in here over the years, and I can say that the previous health minister did try and take those health issues through Cabinet. I believe that he was rolled. We will get on to the treatment issues at the moment, but he did move, and the previous health minister did establish a methadone treatment regime here in the Northern Territory. One of the former health ministers, the Hon Fred Finch, had the disgraceful public policy of a one-way bus ticket! I do not know who dreamed that one up, but it was certainly not a public health policy; that was a political strategy. But the previous health minister, the member for Drysdale, did move the debate forward some degree. However, he did not get it all of the way there, and he was advised from the professionals in the department that we had to move on from where we were in the past.
If we just go through some of the recommendations of the task force that the government will be picking up.:
- Recommendation 2.1 - That key indicators of drug use and associated harms need to be consistently
collected, compiled, analysed and reported to government and the community.
That is absolutely what we have to do, what the previous government failed to do. The age-old adage that if you don’t measure it, you cannot manage it – we have to do that and we will be putting that collection and information into the arena.
Mr Dunham: Like the police stats? We know about them.
Mr HENDERSON: Well, they are not just police stats. I pick up on the interjection from the member for Drysdale. There is a whole range of statistical information that government is in receipt of to determine the extent of illicit drug use in the Territory. If we look at the specific issue of opiate use and morphine use in the community, as Schedule 8 drugs, each and every one of those prescriptions that are written by medical practitioners are registered with the health department. So the statistics are all there in terms of the use of these drugs in the community. With those statistics, you can benchmark those against averages in other states and start to compile a picture of the use of opiates in our community. That is what the previous government failed to do. They either turned a blind eye to it, which I believe is what occurred which was absolutely negligent in terms of responsibilities of members of parliament, particularly ministers, or they didn’t have the processes in place to indicate exactly what was happening.
We had the appalling figures in the second quarter of 1999, as I recall, where we had morphine prescription rates in the Northern Territory that were nearly 15 times higher than the per capita national average. That was an extraordinary statistic that government and departmental officials were in possession of, and it was totally ignored. It was ignored because, what the failed to realise, were not smart enough to realise, is that these statistics are also reported to the Health Information Commission, the HIC. It was the HIC that rang the alarm bells and actually sent people up here to the Northern Territory to examine what the heck was going on.
Mr Dunham: Not true. If you are being briefed by health people, get the facts.
Mr HENDERSON: We have had the briefing. The member for Drysdale forgets that we are in government now, and we have had the briefings.
They did nothing and it was the HIC that insisted on reforms being introduced. We have seen that gradual reduction over time. However, we have had debates in this House in the past about why we got to that level and the motivation behind it, and why our physicians were prescribing morphine in such great quantities. We are moving to address that public policy issue through initiatives that are contained in this report.
In terms of actions speaking louder than words, there certainly was failure, even in acknowledging the extent of the problem we had in the Northern Territory here until it was sprung by the HIC in the public arena and then, even when it was, failing to introduce public policy to address that issue.
- Recommendation 2.4: That the Illicit Drug Reporting System (IRDS) continue to be conducted in the
Northern Territory.
It is part of the Commonwealth government’s Tough on Drugs strategy that we do collect data sets; statistics across Australia, to look at the patterns of illicit drug use in our community. So at a national level through the Tough on Drugs strategy - and all credit to the Prime Minister for developing that strategy with the states and the territories, one that was not fulsomely backed by the previous government - to actually try and get a combined Commonwealth and state position on this issue. Part of that is through supporting the illicit drug reporting system.
It was the member for Katherine, I believe, when the initial findings from this report came out in 1999-2000, who totally derided that set of statistics that started to alert the community in the Northern Territory about the extent of illicit drug use here. He made wild accusations like: ‘You are paying people for information; they cannot be trusted’. This is a reporting regime that has been acknowledged as at least available to get some sort of coherent data across Australia, but the member for Katherine knew better than all of the professionals around Australia and totally derided them and then failed to support, though ministerial councils, subsequent IDRS surveys.
Well, we will do that; we will work with the Commonwealth Liberal National Party government to address this issue. Certainly, through the Tough on Drugs strategy, there was Commonwealth money available - quite a large amount of Commonwealth money. When we made inquiries about what submissions the Northern Territory government, at the time, had made in terms of working with our non-government organisations to develop strategic proposals to access some of this money, the answer was: nothing. No submissions from the previous Northern Territory government to access Commonwealth funds that were available to support NGOs and governments with dealing with this issue. So again an abject failure of desire to get on top of some of the problems that we have in our community.
- Recommendation 2.6 - That economic research to determine the social costs of drug use in the
Northern Territory is conducted building on comparable national studies.
Again, we have to get on top of this issue to determine the amount of harm that is being caused in our community, rather than pretending that from the fifth floor of Parliament House here in the bunker that is the Cabinet office we know best, which was the attitude of the previous government.
There are a number of recommendations here and my colleague, the health minister will take us through all of those at a later date. However, I would urge honourable members to read this. It is not a radical document. Again, the cry from members opposite was that we were going to …
Mr Dunham: Introduce the methadone maintenance program, which you did.
Mr HENDERSON: … establish bloody intravenous bloody drug houses, or whatever, the farthest from the truth.
I pick up the member opposite that we will introduce a methadone program. Short memories, once they are in opposition. I would like to quote from a statement in this House, 18 October 2000, just a couple of years ago, the honourable Minister for Health, Family and Children’s Services:
- The guidelines set by Cabinet in 1996 permit the use of methadone for treatment of opiate dependence for a
limited number of patients. Patients who are opiate dependent, injecting drug users may be prescribed
methadone on a decreasing dose schedule for up to a maximum of 12 weeks.
So the cry is ‘Oh, you are going to introduce methadone’.
Mr Dunham: Methadone maintenance. You have forgotten the word, haven’t you?
Mr HENDERSON: Here we go, we are starting to get the weasel words out now. We will get to the maintenance side in a moment.
Mr Dunham: Yes, go on, start there. You have only half a minute. Tell us about maintenance.
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Speaker, I just - when you are ready. Since 1996 they did not get out with a big press release: ‘We are going to introduce a methadone program here in the Northern Territory’. They snuck it in under the cover of night because they knew they had to do it.
Mr Dunham: Rubbish!
Mr HENDERSON: I challenge members opposite - they should keep the records - to table the press release that announced the establishment of this program here in the Northern Territory because I bet London, to a brick, that there was no such press release.
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, I move that the member be granted an extension of time in order to complete his remarks.
Motion agreed to.
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Speaker, this is important. In terms of we were going to establish a methadone program - we were going to establish shooting galleries as well, but we have not done that and we certainly will not do that.
We have the members opposite - and this is where I give some credibility to the previous Health Minister - there was no philosophical objection to methadone as a drug in its own right. They knew that this drug had a role to play in stabilising people as a withdrawal agent, as a stabilising agent, but we just could not go that one step further. But methadone being the big bad monster that was going to create havoc and lead our streets to be some sort of replica of Cabramatta, which was one of the favourite pictures that was painted from members opposite, that certainly was not the case. We did have not as broad a program as we should have had, but we did have a methadone program here in the Northern Territory.
We also had, when we managed to get to the statistics, a methadone program that was being dispensed in tablet form as opposed to a liquid form at pharmacies across the Northern Territory at about two times the national average. Again, as a Schedule 8 drug, information that government was aware of and certainly if the stance was an anti-methadone stance, nothing was done.
Let us move forward. Let us get away from the politics of this and look at the issue of a large number of Territorians - and let us not forget that these people are Territorians and we have a responsibility in this parliament for all Territorians - do have significant problems with opiate addiction. It is a problem that is causing significant social devastation in our community, not only for the individuals but for their families, for the broader communities, for the criminal activity and prostitution that is associated with it, and give these Territorians an opportunity to escape their addiction. Let us untie the hands of our medical professionals, the people who have had the training, who have done the study, and allow them to use all of the interventions that are available, approved by the Commonwealth - and by ‘the Commonwealth’, I mean this great socially reforming Commonwealth government that is way ahead of public opinions on a whole range of issues including drug reform, if you believe members opposite. Let us allow our professionals to deal with the problem and allow those Territorians who are struggling with addiction access to programs to assist them to escape their addiction and return them to a normal life.
It is not going to be easy. We have had debates in this House and there are no magic solutions to this matter and whether it is buprenorphine, whether it is naltrexone, whether it is methadone, whether it is going cold turkey, there are no magic solutions and no government in the world has derived a magic solution. People have personalities that allow them to get associated and addicted to drugs, they have pressures in their personal lives for whatever reason, but it is a very complex area and what we have to do is acknowledge the complexity of the area, to have public policy that allows our medical practitioners access to interventions to deal with that and acknowledge the extent of the problem. That is what we are doing. It is nothing radical, it is nothing new. It is something that should have been done many years ago when all the advice that the previous government had was that this was the path that we needed to go down.
Page 21 of the report is headed Treatment - the role of practical application of pharmocotherapies. I quote:
- Pharmacotherapies are medications used in the treatment of drug dependence. For opioid dependence
these include buprenorphine, methadone and naltrexone. There has been considerable research,
nationally and internationally, into the use and effectiveness of this type of treatment.
The report goes on to say:
- Evidence for the efficacy of pharmocotherapy replacement treatment is compelling with respect to:
other intervention;
So this is the report from these eminent people. I would have thought you could not accuse this body of people of having the wool pulled over their eyes by some public policy radicals, and their report says that the pharmocotherapy replacement treatment is ‘compelling’.
I would have thought, in light of such a report from such eminent Territorians, that we would not be having this debate about whether methadone as a maintenance program should be allowed in the Northern Territory. I would have thought, once again, it would have been an opportunity for members opposite to start with a clean slate in terms of public policy positions and admit that maybe they did get this one wrong.
In terms of our professional health community, the representative peak bodies, the AMA, the Top End Division of General Practice, the Australian Physicians Association, certainly from my time as shadow health minister I spoke to them all and they all supported this public policy. I would have thought in light of all of that respected body of opinion from eminent Territorians who work in this field, it would have been an opportunity, and it is an opportunity that has been sadly lost, for members opposite to say: ‘Well, maybe we did have this wrong. We think this is the way to go, but we challenge the government to come back with statistics and reports in terms of efficacy, the changes that are happening in that part of our community. Is it working? Is it not working? What is happening with statistics for property crime? We are prepared to give it a go’.
But, no, they continue down that same path, crying in the wilderness with nobody out there to support them. I challenge members opposite to come up with any practising health professional in the Northern Territory who is on the public record to say that …
Mr Dunham: You would shoot them. You would have a purge.
Mr HENDERSON: Well, there is the challenge. I am making the assumption, but I challenge, because the professionals to whom I have spoken and certainly their professional peak bodies have supported this range of initiatives that we are bringing into the House. There is some public debate, obviously, about funding, whether we are putting enough money towards it or not. That is another debate. There is always the cry, as the previous health minister said, for more money for health across all areas. But we believe that we are making a start and it is a very important start.
The task force also recommends, at 5.1:
- That the necessary amendments be made to the NT Poisons and Dangerous Drugs Act to enable
pharmocotherapies for the treatment of opioid dependence for both maintenance and withdrawal.
So we have the previous government going 50% of the way, taking the great, bold policy leap forward in 1996, but didn’t tell anybody about it for fear of compromising their public position. This is the other 50%. Ministerial guidelines have been approved and put in place to allow those pharmocotherapies for the treatment of both maintenance and withdrawal. We have moved forward and we believe that we had the mandate from the people of the Northern Territory to do that.
It will be interesting to hear what members opposite have to say about this report and the recommendations, particularly chapter 5 on the treatment, the role and practical application of pharmacotherapies. I would really like to hear the critique as to why this committee has got it wrong and why they believe, from a public policy point of view, they have it right and they have a better solution to this issue.
So the challenge is there for members opposite. Come on board, come on board and support the policy initiatives and change. Challenge us in terms of providing data back to the Assembly and Territorians that we are moving forward in this area, but admit that you have it wrong, admit that you were behind the times, admit that this is the way forward. Madam Speaker, I speak in full support of the health minister’s statement.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Madam Speaker, I would like to speak briefly on the report of the Task Force into Illicit Drugs. The member for Wanguri has probably draw on his view of the history. The history is important, we could get bogged down on it, but I honestly feel that this report is a way forward. It has been a vexed subject for quite some time. I think the recommendations that come out of this report are very balanced. They have been made by an expert panel. I commend Dr Valerie Asche. She was a colleague of mine at the Menzies School and I have always had immense respect for her.
There was some criticism to begin with, when she took on the chair of this committee, that she knew nothing about drugs. I think she, in a candid fashion, said so in the media and it is true. It was probably better that way because as a chairperson, she came there with no preconceived ideas. She did a fantastic job and drew together a very good report. Looking at the composition of the task force, it was made up of many different groups, probably with diverse opinions, and Valerie Asche has been able to draw those opinions together.
However, I think it is more than the opinions of the committee. What this committee did was to go out and seek the views of the community. They travelled all throughout the Territory, and there were concerns voiced by the community. The task force report has tried to address those concerns.
Mr Burke: Sixty-seven people turned up.
Dr BURNS: I am not going to belittle - whether it was 67 or 167 or 670, the opportunity was given to people to have feedback and put their views. If you read what the community concerns are, right up front in the document, from what I know of the community and their concerns over these issues, they do echo it.
One thing I really picked up on was that alcohol is the major drug of concern, and I think sometimes with illicit drugs …
Mr Elferink: Hear, hear!
Mr Dunham: Gee, where did that come from?
Mr Burke: So I was right, was I?
Dr BURNS: Can the members opposite give me a go? I am just trying to lay on the record my feelings. I was on the public record at the Substance Abuse Committee the other day. Yes, illicit drugs have been a very important issue in our community for a long time, but underneath it - what I am trying to say is that this report has addressed major issues related to illicit drugs, but we have a very big issue out there: alcohol and alcohol abuse.
I once again consulted the book that was taken from me here in my first week, all I got was a photocopy, Morbidity and Mortality in the Northern Territory. It is very obvious from that report that death from injury and poisoning is way out of control in the Territory. As I have laid on the record many times, alcohol is the basis of it; alcohol abuse. I am not just talking about the Aboriginal community here; I am talking about the non-Aboriginal community. It is an issue we are going to have to address, and it is an issue that we have been looking closely at within the Select Committee on Substance Abuse.
Returning to the other community concerns, there is concern about the escalation of cannabis use, and certainly in the Substance Abuse Committee, we have heard concerns from a whole range of people about this issue and the impact it is having, particularly on remote Aboriginal communities. It is an important issue and those people who run around the place saying that cannabis is a harmless drug should think twice.
Mr Dunham: Like Clare Martin? Just like a glass of plonk!
Mr Elferink: No worse than a glass of Chardonnay!
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: Well, I think what you will find now is that the varieties …
Mr Dunham: She’s changed her mind.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, member for Drysdale!
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, I hoped the members opposite would show me some courtesy. I am being as candid as I can here. They can pick up on what they want to, I suppose, in what I have to say. However, what I was about to say is that it is well known that, over the years, the portions of the cannabis plant that are now sold are the most potent forms - the sepals and the parts of the flowers that contain a lot of cannabinoids. When people get this into their system they can have psychotic attacks and it can even precipitate schizophrenia. A lot of the suicides that I have heard about on remote Aboriginal communities are as a result of chronic ingestion of cannabis, and at high levels. So, we should never underestimate the contemporary use of cannabis and its harms. I just want to lay that on the record.
Also a community concern was poly-drug use. This is a big issue. People who to tend to abuse one drug - that is, alcohol - also tend to be abusers of other drugs. The combination of these drugs certainly has a major health impact. The community concerns were also about education: education for young people and for parents. Interestingly, there was talk in the community about resilience to drugs. Coming back to the DARE program, we know the DARE program has operated in the Territory for quite some time. However, the international literature is very clear that the DARE program is either nil in its effect, or it actually has a negative effect in driving young people to try drugs by demonising them. That is what the international literature has shown. The literature and the practical experience show that the best people to deliver drug education in schools are adequately trained and resourced teachers and, certainly, I concur with that.
Dr Lim: What evidence?
Dr BURNS: Well, the evidence in the literature. I am more than willing to send that over to the member for Greatorex.
Dr Lim: I think you will find that uniformed policemen do a much better job.
Dr BURNS: Well, I will pick up on that interjection. I suppose I am shooting myself in the foot here with an interchange, but the literature - I will say it again - emphatically shows that basically what I have said is true: the best people to deliver drug education in schools are adequately trained and resourced teachers who can call on the expertise of people like police. I am not saying police have no role in drug education. They have a role along with other people, but it has been shown and proved and demonstrated that that is the case. I am more than willing to send that literature and those critical reviews to the member for Greatorex if he desires.
Dr Lim: Why do you think Life Education works so well? Because they have health professionals providing health-type lessons, not teachers.
Dr BURNS: I pick up on that again. Apart from policemen, it could also include health professionals. I am talking about in the context of the school. Obviously, health professionals have a major role in terms of interventions - whether it is with people’s drinking or drug use – as they interact with those people. I am not denying that, either. However, I have been doing quite considerable reading on this issue and I am very interested in it.
In the time that remains, I would like to go through some of the major points of this report. The member for Wanguri raised the issue that indicators of drug use are very important for us to know as a community, as a government, about what is going on out there - how to combat some of this drug use, how to develop policy around the treatment; and counselling around drug trends. It is very important to have that information. I will not go back into the sorry history of what happened to Dr Bridie O’Reilly. I will lay on the record again that it was a shameful exercise Researchers have a hard enough job as it is without copping the sort of flak that she copped.
We are getting onto recommendations in relation to health education in schools and this is a very important aspect. We have an opportunity now to look at our health promotion, our drug education in schools and look at what is occurring elsewhere. I was fortunate enough to go to Western Australia and look at their system and their curriculum, and they have a very worthwhile model there; it is well worth looking at. I spoke to many different people about it and they were all full of praise and belief that they were moving along the right direction with their drug education in schools. There is an opportunity for us, and we have to move on.
Recommendation 4.2 is:
- That a mapping project of all current alcohol and drug related services be undertaken to establish an
accurate picture of current service delivery.
Out of that we need to look at our whole delivery of drug and alcohol-related services because, as I have said before, both of those things and poly-drug use are a major health and legal problem in our community as people interact with the criminal justice system.
The aspect of pharmacotherapies - I could never really understand what all the fuss was about methadone. When I was much younger I had a friend who was addicted to opiates. Dan was his name - I will not say what his second name is - and Dan had this problem. His family knew he had this problem. He underwent methadone maintenance - it took him a number of years - his life was stabilised. He is now a very successful businessman in Queensland, drug-free and he would say that it is not for everyone. It is a hard road and methadone is a difficult drug, but it does provide some hope for some people. I believe the evidence also shows that it keeps some people out of trouble. It is not the most desirable thing, but what we have to do is …
Dr Lim: Have you ever dispensed it yourself?
Dr BURNS: Of course I have.
Dr Lim: You have. In what context?
Dr BURNS: I have dispensed methadone as a pharmacist in another state for a maintenance program and for a withdrawal program. So I do know a little bit about methadone.
As a community, as a society, we have to look at all the different ways. It would be great if everyone could get off drugs cold turkey or just through counselling, but it is like treatment of any disease or malady, you need to have a whole range of treatment options that suit different people. Methadone maintenance is something that does suit some people and it does give them and their families some relief.
I welcome the introduction of buprenorphine; that is a way forward as well. The Territory has actually come into line with what happens in the rest of Australia. Let’s try to leave the history behind. I suppose members opposite are yet to have their say on this issue …
Mr Henderson: They have been silent.
Dr BURNS: Well, I would just hope that they would say: ‘Well okay, the past is the past. Let us move onto into the future’. Part of the future, as I said before, is for us to start really trying to address alcohol issues in the Territory because that is crucial. I would like to see a bipartisan approach in that because it is such an important issue for the Territory, but it is going to be a difficult issue.
There are a whole lot of recommendations about general practitioners and people receiving training and of course that is essential for such a system to work well, and I applaud that. I know that families are highlighted within the report. I was always a bit bemused or a bit upset in some ways that at various times in drug treatment and education that families were left out of the picture. That was a very bad thing. Parents have a crucial role to play in building up resilience in their children against drug use. However, if people are affected by drug use, the family once again has a crucial role in supporting that person to get off drugs and to get on with life, just as my friend Dan’s family did.
There was one specific set of recommendations I wanted to talk about, and they are:
- 5.6 - That a mandatory notification or permit system be introduced in the Territory, for patient
authorisation of prescribed Schedule 8 drugs, be administered by Poisons Control, DHCS.
- 5.7 – That an up-to-date prescription monitoring system be established at Poisons Control, DHCS.
5.8 - That a panel be established to oversight policy and guidelines, deal with difficult patient issues,
and audit practice in relation to the monitoring of Schedule 8 prescribing.
Those recommendations on page 23 are crucial because it is important for the health department to be aware of what is going on, who is being prescribed these illicit drugs, which doctors are prescribing them and if there is a problem. Let us face it: doctors and, to a lesser degree, pharmacists, come under inordinate pressure by these people who are after these drugs and it is very difficult. Doctors need some protection, some peer review, so that they can say to these difficult patients: ‘Well, this issue of prescribing this Schedule 8 drug for you has come to the attention of the Health Department and it is being reviewed’ and that takes a lot of the pressure off. This was sorely needed. I have felt for quite a number of years that the prescription monitoring system within the department wasn’t up to scratch. This is a very positive step forward.
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I commend this report and the task force. I believe the recommendations go quite a way to us as a Territory taking some fairly worthwhile steps forward with the issue of illicit drugs, treatment and prevention of illicit drug use amongst young people. I commend the report to members.
Debate adjourned.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: I advise honourable members of the presence in the gallery of Year 11 students from Casuarina Senior College accompanied by their teacher Graham Parker. On behalf of all members I extend you a warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Indigenous People and the Justice System
of the Northern Territory
Indigenous People and the Justice System
of the Northern Territory
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I rise today to make a significant statement about indigenous people and the justice system of the Northern Territory, which I am sure will be of interest to members of this House. Indigenous Territorians make up quarter of our population yet they are still significantly over-represented in our justice system, in our court hearings and in particular in our prison population.
I do not want to dwell on the statistics; we know the figures all too well - so well, in fact, that we are in danger of no longer being troubled by them. It is important to briefly outline where we are today and why we must take action. Only two in five indigenous Territorians have a job. Indigenous Territorians in remote areas often leave school with no better ability to read, write or count than an urban eight year old. Indigenous Territorians are nine times more likely to be bashed than non-indigenous Territorians. Indigenous women are 33 times more likely to be murdered. Indigenous Territorians are nine times more likely to go to gaol than non-indigenous Territorians and two prisoners in three are Aboriginal. Indigenous Territorians who do not finish school are 13 times more likely to go to gaol than those who do and indigenous Territorians who are unemployed are 19 times more likely to go to gaol than those with a job.
That many of the people who make up the Territory’s indigenous population live in circumstances of gross disadvantage is nothing new. Previous governments have known about this situation for a long time. The Martin government understands we must tackle the problems that underlie those statistics. We will not back simplistic answers that in the end answer nothing. This government has a strong commitment to a new approach.
The Minister Assisting the Chief Minister on Indigenous Affairs, the Minister for Employment, Education and Training and the Minister for Health have already made statements on the actions they will take within their own portfolios. The statement I present today sets out the last part of this government’s policy framework and outlines our commitment to tackle the disadvantage that many indigenous Territorians face in all facets on their life.
Indigenous leaders, organisations and communities must make a commitment as well. They must acknowledge the degree to which some lifestyles and practices have contributed to the state we find ourselves in. Today I call on indigenous and indigenous Territorians to commit to working with the government in partnership to tackle these problems together. In partnership, we have the best chance of success; apart and in conflict, we will fail.
I would like to address the House about a significant event that happened at lunch time today, when this government proudly signed the communiqu from the October 1997 Ministerial Summit on Indigenous Deaths in Custody. I signed the communiqu as Minister for Justice and Attorney-General, together with my colleague John Ah Kit, the Minister Assisting the Chief Minister on Indigenous Affairs.
Dr LIM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I draw your attention to discussions we had earlier today about members using names of other members in this Chamber. This continues to be a problem for members of the other side, and we should draw that to their attention. The Leader of Government Business agrees with me.
Madam SPEAKER: It is a standing order that we do not use surnames or christian names. You should refer to members by their electorate or ministers by their port folio. I expect everyone to adhere to that. So, Attorney-General, if you could make sure that when you’re referring to anyone in your statement, you do it by portfolio.
Dr TOYNE: It would be my pleasure, Madam Speaker.
We were joined at the signing ceremony by the Chair of the National Aboriginal Justice Advisory Committee, Tauto Sansbury, the Chair of the Northern Territory Aboriginal Justice Advocacy Committee, Doug Walker, and Eddie Taylor, the former Chair of the Northern Territory Aboriginal Justice Advisory Committee who signed the original communiqu.
I was also particularly pleased that many peak indigenous organisations and senior members of the legal fraternity were able to attend. The signing of the communiqu is a symbolic act which demonstrates this government’s new approach to indigenous justice issues. But it is more than that; it is also a demonstration of this government’s commitment to concrete action.
As many members here will recall, the communiqu was signed by all other jurisdictions in 1997. That signing was a demonstration of the continuing commitment of governments around Australia to the final recommendations of the 1991 Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. Many of the members here will probably recall that the Attorney-General and now Leader of the Opposition represented the Northern Territory at the ministerial summit. Despite that, and despite having proportionally the highest indigenous population in Australia, the former CLP government refused to sign the communiqu, even though every other government in this country, regardless of political affiliation, did so. The word ‘shame’ comes to mind, as it did at the time. I am proud this embarrassment and the abandonment of government responsibility for indigenous Territorians it represented has at last been rectified.
As I said, the signing of the communiqu commits the government to concrete action in partnership with peak indigenous organisations and communities. Through the communiqu, the 1997 ministerial statement indicated its resolve to develop Aboriginal justice plans to reduce over-representation in the criminal justice system by taking action on underlying social, economic and cultural issues as well as justice issues, the role of customary law, matters of law reform and funding arrangements.
Those plans, established in partnership with peak indigenous organisations and with communities, include two-way accountable outcomes for addressing the disadvantage faced by indigenous people. Governments and indigenous organisations are equally responsible for achieving outcomes. The communiqu commits us to dealing with underlying social, economic and cultural issues which this government sees as essential elements of strategies to reduce the over representation of indigenous people in our justice system.
As Territorians, we are proud of our lifestyle, our diverse multicultural population and our tolerance - in essence, our belief in equality. Building on these values, this government wants to ensure that the indigenous population of the Territory can participate as full and active members in our community rather than, as many do now, live on the fringes and rely on government services to keep going.
As a community that believes in equality, we must act on the problems identified in indigenous education, health, housing and employment. If we succeed, the result will benefit every Territorian. The ministerial statements made by my colleagues during the year have set part of the framework for progress in those areas. The Minister assisting the Chief Minister on Indigenous Affairs received national acknowledgment in March when he talked about some brutal truths. He told us many Aboriginal people acknowledge that the problems lie within their own community.
He said that governments, in partnership with Aboriginal people, must allow the development of forms of governance that allow Aboriginal people to control their lives and their communities. He emphasised the critical importance of developing economic partnerships with Aboriginal people and announced some important initiatives that will contribute to the approach of the Martin government. These included: improvements in indigenous housing and infrastructure; the establishment of on-line indigenous knowledge centres in Aboriginal communities; and the commitment of $600 000 for community capacity building.
The Minister for Education, Employment and Training, in his statement on indigenous education and the implementation of the Learning Lessons report, told this House that the lack of education is the single most important factor in the poor employment record of indigenous people. The recommendations of the Learning Lessons report are being worked on through this government’s Implementation Steering Committee, co-chaired by Bob Collins and Esther Djayhgurrnga, where the focus is on immediate implementation of key programs and initiatives.
In accord with the comments I have already made about working with indigenous people, minister Stirling recognised that true change will only occur in indigenous education in partnership with indigenous parents, communities, service providers and industry, with indigenous people involved in the decision-making processes at all levels.
The Minister for Health also set out another element of the Martin government’s indigenous policy agenda in her statement on Indigenous Health in May. She highlighted the toxic mix of junk food, tobacco, cannabis and alcohol in our Aboriginal communities which, together with environmental factors such as inadequate housing, unemployment, poor education and a maze of unintegrated funding arrangements were leading to the health crisis being faced by many indigenous Territorians.
She proposed changes to service delivery arrangements to see indigenous people finally taking full control over the allocation of primary health care funds in their region as well as the development of a strategic plan to upgrade bush health centres and the streamlining of funding arrangements. The government’s focus on the importance of developing economic partnerships with Aboriginal people has been highlighted in some of these statements and was a major theme at the Economic Development Summit.
One of the key elements of our economic development strategy is to improve the economic outcomes for indigenous Territorians and enable them to participate fully in mainstream economic activity. There are strong common themes which are at the core of these statements and policy positions. First, that this government is realistic. We cannot deliver on the commitments alone and we would not be effective if we tried. We must work in partnership with indigenous Territorians and their organisations.
Second, we need to work on the fundamental services for indigenous people and involve them in mainstream economic activity to achieve sustainable change in other areas. Indigenous Territorians must have the same access to services as the rest of Australia considers a fundamental right: good housing and infrastructure, sound education, relevant training opportunities and access to health care services.
Third, that real and lasting change can often be delivered through local control and local solutions reached in agreement with individual communities and regional areas.
I would like now to turn to other justice system commitments flowing from the communiqu. The communiqu committed all governments across Australia to look at the role of customary law. In conjunction with the signing of the communiqu today, I would like to take this opportunity to announce the government’s inquiry into Aboriginal customary law in the Northern Territory.
Entitled Toward Mutual Benefit - An Inquiry into Aboriginal Customary Law in the Northern Territory, the inquiry will be co-chaired by the eminent Territorian and Chair of the Northern Territory Law Reform Committee, Hon Austin Asche AC QC, together with an indigenous co-chair. Alongside the co-chair will be a membership of the inquiry which will be equal in number between indigenous and non-indigenous people.
I look forward to announcing the name of the co-chair and membership of the subcommittee which will assist with the inquiry in the coming weeks.
Before I go to the terms of reference of the committee, I would like to place on the record the framework within which the inquiry will be operating. There are many parts of both statutory and common law already operating in the Northern Territory, as well as in other state jurisdictions and the Commonwealth, that incorporate or take into account elements of Aboriginal customary law. Police have rules known as the Anunga Rules, which apply to Aboriginal people being held in custody for questioning, particularly where English is not their first language. These rules have operated since 1976. Existing Territory statute laws, which were created by the former CLP government, expressly require the relevant authorities to take into account customary practices. Some examples are the Evidence Act, the Community Welfare Act, the Adoption of Children Act, the Crimes (Victims Assistance) Act, the Compensation (Fatal Injuries) Act, the Status of Children Act, the Administration and Probate Act, the Mental Health and Related Services Act, as well as various community government schemes which have been passed by this House.
Traditional punishment can be and has long been taken into account in sentencing in our courts, but it is important to place this recognition in context. However, I would like to quote here from a Federal Court decision by Jadurin v R, handed down in 1982, where three judges, including Justice Toohey, found that:
- To acknowledge some form of retribution may be exacted by an offender’s own community is not to sanction
that retribution. It is to recognise certain facts which exist only by reason of that offender’s membership of
a particular group.
The federal court judges went on to state that:
- … such facts are material facts which courts are bound to take into account when imposing sentence.
Aboriginal law is commonly misunderstood as relating primarily to issues of punishment and payback and its interface with the Criminal Code. This perception is simply untrue. Aboriginal law encompasses an extremely broad and complex set of rules and unwritten legislation which govern social relationships, economic rights, land ownership and management, wildlife conservation and intellectual property rights.
This government believes that, in accordance with Australian and international law, Aboriginal customary law should be recognised to the extent which is consistent with universally recognised human rights and fundamental freedoms. Let me say that again: Aboriginal customary law should be recognised to the extent which is consistent with universally recognised human rights and fundamental freedoms.
Given the statements and comments that have been made in the House over the past week, I would also like to place on the record that this government affirms that the Northern Territory Criminal Code applies to all citizens of the Northern Territory without exception. This means that the Northern Territory government does not condone any of the crimes in that code including but not limited to murder, manslaughter, dangerous act, rape, incest, carnal knowledge, kidnap, assault and theft.
Let me also place on record that this government believes there is much value to be gained in supporting and sustaining Aboriginal customary law, and that the knowledge contained in Aboriginal customary law can be of mutual benefit to all citizens of the Northern Territory, as well as to its traditional custodians.
The inquiry has been asked to inquire into the strength of Aboriginal customary law in the Northern Territory. Specifically, it has been asked to report and make recommendations:
on the capacity of Aboriginal customary law to provide benefits to the Northern Territory in areas
including but not limited to governance, social wellbeing, law and justice, economic independence,
wildlife conservation, land management and scientific knowledge;
Northern Territory.
In conducting this inquiry, the committee has been asked to have regard to:
the views of Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory, particularly those who are custodians
of Aboriginal customary law;
Territory and other jurisdictions;
Committee NT, the Australian Law Reform Commission 1986, and the Royal Commission into
Aboriginal Deaths in Custody; and
The government has asked the committee to report back by the middle of next year.
I would like now to set out other initiatives this government has started work on. In the area of crime prevention, many of these initiatives flow from our election commitments which pledge us to work not just on crime and on better law enforcement but also on the causes of crime. Our six-point plan to tackle property and other crime recognised that an
- ‘… essential part of dealing with the causes of crime is the functional network of community services including
health and education’.
A common theme identified in the statements presented to this House to address indigenous disadvantage and consequences which flow from it including offending behaviour.
Like in all other elements of our social policy program, we believe that the most effective way we can attack crime and its causes in the Territory is in partnership with the community. The establishment of Crime Prevention NT is about building partnerships against crime. The government is also working on specific initiatives through its crime prevention programs which will target crime and disadvantage both in our urban and rural centres and on our remote communities.
We are determined to regionalise our crime prevention work. In urban and rural areas, negotiations are under way with the Palmerston Crime Prevention Committee on that committee taking on responsibility for Palmerston and the surrounding region. In Alice Springs, the Alice in 10 Quality of Life Committee is looking at taking on the role of crime prevention council. Work is also starting soon on establishing regional crime prevention councils in Katherine, Darwin and Gove.
I take this opportunity to highlight the activities of the first regional Crime Prevention Council to be established in the Northern Territory, the Tennant Creek Youth Initiatives and Safe Communities Committee. I also congratulate the member for Barkly for his work in helping to establish that committee. In January this year, around 50 Tennant Creek residents attended a meeting at the Council Chambers to voice their concerns about crime and antisocial behaviour in the township. By February 2002, the Tennant Creek committee had been formed. I congratulate the people of Tennant Creek for moving quickly and acting on their concerns. Early results show that they are actually starting to pay off.
Since February, the Tennant Creek Youth Initiatives and Safer Community Committee has:
identified the need for a community safety plan for the region;
secured funding of $11 000 from ATSIC for interim employment of a
project officer;
secured funding of $260 000 over two years from the Commonwealth to
provide ongoing money for a project officer to implement the regional
safety plan;
established a youth initiatives working group and secured a commitment from
ATSIC to provide resources. The group has already conducted youth consultations,
peer skills training and forums to engage with local youth and to improve youth-police
relationships in the town;
amalgamated with the existing NT Police Community Safety Committee;
looked at ways to interact with and represent the interests of other communities within the
Barkly region; and
represented the Barkly region at the recent Australian Institute of Criminology National Crime
Prevention Conference through joint Commonwealth and NT government sponsorship. Funds
were found for the committee’s project officer and another Tennant Creek indigenous person
from Julalikari Night Patrol to attend.
I hope that activities and the successes of Tennant Creek will act as an inspiration to others as committees are established across the Northern Territory.
I would also like to report this afternoon on crime prevention work in Alice Springs to take action on two issues of great concern to residents there: the effect of alcohol consumption on the community; and the initiatives on juvenile crime. As I reported to the House last week and this week, the evaluation of the 12 month trial of alcohol restrictions in Alice Springs, which started on 1 April, showed some early positive results:
compared to the same periods of the previous two years, the amount of pure alcohol sold
was 4.6% lower in the months April to June;
police report an 11% reduction in alcohol-related incidents;
the number of protective custodies have dropped by 15%;
ambulance call-outs related to alcohol have dropped by 5%;
selected presentations to the emergency department are 16% lower; and
fewer people have been placed in the sobering-up shelter.
It is encouraging that the overall level of violence has fallen and there are reports of some surrounding Aboriginal communities having fewer alcohol-related problems.
As you would be aware, in Alice Springs in early 2002, there was a spate of juvenile antisocial behaviour including vandalism and property crime which impacted heavily on the community. Following a series of meetings in Alice Springs with our Office of Crime Prevention, service deliverers, government agencies, family members and business people, the Safe Families framework has been developed.
Safe Families is an approach which supports and strengthens indigenous family protocols and extended family networks in the community, eliminating the need to use outside and inappropriate intervention. It focusses on an early response to these young people who may be at risk, identifying what needs to be done, prioritising and coordinating actions to assist parents and extended family to care for their children.
Safe Families must help those kids. If we can, we stand a good chance of reducing the offending behaviour. Safe Families is also about protecting our community. The police in Alice Springs are working closely with the Safe Families project and are often the initial point of contact with offenders and kids in need. Like with all offending behaviour, the police determine the best approach to each case including laying charges where appropriate. Our courts are also playing an active role and we are looking at ways in which the courts can order kids to be involved in these programs. I am encouraged by the unprecedented inter-agency and community cooperation which has generated the Safe Families approach.
The Northern Territory’s Aboriginal Law and Justice Strategy is also a key element of our Crime Prevention Strategy and our work to reduce the over representation of indigenous people in our gaols. As a model for tackling law and justice concerns, and for social change in remote communities, it is recognised as a success by both government and Aboriginal communities. It promotes the devolution of responsibility for law and justice issues from agencies to community organisations where that is both relevant and appropriate.
Aboriginal dispute resolution and customary decision making mechanisms are tools which can be used locally for dealing with law and justice matters. An across government response to issues identified by communities can be employed, including interventionary, crisis, preventative and education programs to deliver both short-term and long-term solutions. The Aboriginal Law and Justice Strategy is a working example of the success of the partnership approach that we are committed to promoting.
I would like to talk about the Kurduju Committee in this context. The Aboriginal Law and Justice Committees of Ali Curung, Lajamanu and Yuendumu have joined together to form the Kurduju Regional Crime Prevention Committee, the first indigenous crime prevention regional council. This committee will help to realise our vision of crime prevention councils spread across the Northern Territory in urban, rural and remote areas. The Kurduju Regional Crime Prevention Committee will be supported by our Office of Crime Prevention, and I will be chairing its first meeting on 31 October. It will continue its work on the Aboriginal Law and Justice Strategy, encourage community-based decision making as well as working on local crime prevention measures specifically targetted at those communities.
The broad range of initiatives I have just outlined are working examples of the strength of our partnership approach to crime prevention and to addressing disadvantage. Taking steps to stop crime before it starts and addressing the underlying dysfunction in Aboriginal communities are two of the ways this government hopes to reduce Aboriginal over-representation in our prisons.
Where possible, we will look at increasing the input from Aboriginal people in the criminal justice system and in the sentencing processes of our courts. This is nothing new; it just helps the courts to understand circumstances of the commission of the offence in much the same way as pre-sentence reports or submissions. We will ensure that indigenous people know about and use Victim Impact Statements. The Victim Support Unit of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions performs a critical support role in our criminal justice system for victims, witnesses and their families. The unit has been actively working to increase their services in the bush, to give victims in rural and remote areas the necessary support and to increase the opportunities they have to prepare the Victim Impact Statement. I would like to take this opportunity to commend the work of Nanette Hunter, the Director of the unit, and her team, particularly Colleen Burns, the Aboriginal Support Coordinator, in this difficult and important area.
This government will continue to engage community elders through Aboriginal law and justice committees. We are considering ways that elders can satisfy the need for traditional obligations for persons in custody, particularly youth and younger prisoners. Especially important is the need to maintain obligatory relationships and develop cultural knowledge which would otherwise be lost. This approach will help to ensure the successful reintegration of the offender on release providing the best possible chance for not reoffending.
The government will develop a system that suits individual communities. They will be linked to the crime and justice strategies and to local law and order plans enabling the local community to have input into the sentencing process.
The Kurduju Committee that I have already talked about will be working with my department to actively pursue such mechanisms. The Kurduju Committee has called this ‘New Start Community Sentencing’. It is modelled on aspects of ‘circle sentencing’ practiced in Canada and the United States, and is being trialled in New South Wales at present.
Circle sentencing is a powerful process that brings together the victim, the offender and their supporters, together with court officials and senior community members, to work through the issues and determine the appropriate sentence for the offender. In this particular type of sentencing, everyone comes to a consensus as to the outcome that would best satisfy the needs of the offender and, importantly, the sense of justice of the whole community including the victim. Not all cases are suited to this sentencing approach, but certainly many offences committed locally in the community could be dealt with in this manner. I commend the Circuit Court magistrates, and in particular Deputy Chief Magistrate Cathy Deland, who sits in Yuendumu, for the effort they have put into the work with the community while they have been visiting on circuit.
The proposals my department are considering also include looking at community decisions to supervise or re-integrate a past offender back into the community following a custodial term. The activities of the Indigenous Community Correction Officers will play a vital role. Seven officers completed the first component of their training last Friday on the delivery of community-based corrections programs. These programs are used when a court determines that a Community Work Order is an appropriate punishment. Officers from Ngukurr, Yuendumu, Lajamanu, the Tiwi Islands, Wadeye, Groote Eylandt, and West Arnhem region completed this training. Indigenous Community Corrections Officers play a valuable role in providing service, advice and counsel to their communities, the courts and the Parole Board. They also support this government’s approach to crime prevention through partnerships, community engagement and local solutions, and I commend them for their unstinting work.
Another initiative we are working on is the introduction of the Integrated Offender Management System into our prisons. I believe this system could well have the ability to impact positively on the over-representation of indigenous people in our prison systems. Integrated Offender Management is based on a New Zealand model. It aims to manage an offender and their sentence from the time of first contact with the correctional system, through their prison sentence or community order, and on into re-integration with their family and community on completion of their sentence. Integrated Offender Management represents the first formal targetted strategy to be used by Correctional Services, and I am very excited about its introduction.
It targets offenders who present a significant risk of re-offending and coordinates all their contacts and programs, aiming to reduce the likelihood of offending behaviour recurring. Through comprehensive assessments, a case management plan is developed which establishes personal rehabilitation development goals. The plan incorporates programs to address specific problems like drug and alcohol abuse and anger management. It can also include educational and vocational training. A pre-release community re-integration plan will assist successful return to family and to the community which has been identified as a key factor in reducing re-offending.
I am pleased to report the New Zealand Department of Correctional Services has offered us open access to their operations. This will allow Northern Territory Correctional Services to benefit from New Zealand’s extensive developmental research and work on the Integrated Offender Management System. I believe that an integrated program-driven approach to rehabilitation and re-integration to family and the community will not only benefit the offenders themselves, but their families, the victims and the Northern Territory community as a whole if this system proves to be an effective tool to reduce the level of re-offending in our community.
I will be travelling to New Zealand for a few days later in the year to view their system first hand. I hope to be able to visit the male maximum security prison in Wellington, as well as the women’s prison there, and I look forward to reporting to the House on the results of these investigations.
I have also asked my department to consider practical alternatives to incarceration for appropriate cases. These alternatives might include diversionary programs for adults, upgrading the Community Work Order program, increasing the use of home detention orders which currently have the highest success rate in any Australian jurisdiction, and providing weekend and period detention as an option for certain types of offences.
Another area of the communiqu commits us to justice issues and law reform. Legislative reform of relevant laws will be driven by my department over the next three years. Specifically, reviews and reforms are currently planned for the NT Criminal Code, the Justices Act, the Magistrates Act, the Juvenile Justice Act, and the Prisons (Correctional Services) Act.
I would like to take this opportunity to talk briefly about some other related initiatives that this government is undertaking. They do not directly relate to justice issues, but they are important components of our plans to tackle underlying disadvantage suffered by many indigenous Territorians. A critical area that this government is committed to tackle is domestic and Aboriginal family violence, and we have increased the funding for this work. Domestic violence is an issue that is, unfortunately, endemic in many of our communities. Violence will not be tolerated, and the lives and wellbeing of those most affected will be protected. Too often, this is the women and children. New domestic and Aboriginal family violence strategies will be released in November. These will put in place a coordinated, multi-faceted whole-of-government and whole-of-community approach. Priority actions will centre on integrating community and regional views, a strong criminal justice and legal response, educative programs, and intervention for the victims and children and offenders.
A new community-based advisory structure will be integrated and provide government with independent advice. The cornerstone of the Aboriginal Family Violence Strategy will be a project which will genuinely be developed in partnership with communities, to engage in viable community building, create local employment opportunities, and to provide training for the communities involved, and produce a set of principles and practices that can be applied across a range of Northern Territory community contexts. This is from the Victim Support Unit of the Office of Director of Public Prosecutions, that I mentioned earlier, will complement the strategy. These strategies have as their foundation true community engagement and development principles. Responses will be delivered in a collaborative partnership with the wider community. Monitoring and evaluation will be ongoing.
Our government has taken a new approach to native title and Aboriginal land rights, which we believe is in the interests of all Territorians and which, in some cases, can form the basis for active participation by indigenous communities in our economy. We believe that when the law is clear, many cases can be resolved by negotiation between the parties rather than engaging in protracted litigation. The Kenbi land claim is one such example of extended litigation. The former government litigated that claim for 20 years at a cost to the NT taxpayer of around $20m - and no resultant resolution. That approach benefits no one. Negotiated settlements, on the other hand, can be mutually beneficial. Not only can expensive litigation be avoided, but indigenous land use agreements are very flexible and can include a range of initiatives such as Aboriginal Night Patrols or juvenile justice initiatives that can help address disadvantaged and community dysfunction.
We will not negotiate all cases, however. This government is also said we will continue to litigate cases where there are new points of law that need to be tested. The Larrakia claim is an example of this approach, as is the announcement I made early in October that an application had been filed for special leave to appeal to the High Court to test the decision of the Federal Court on the river beds and banks claim.
The government will increase its effort to educate indigenous Territorians about consumer and business affairs issues. This is vitally important to prevent rip-offs and to ensure that community leaders are aware of their responsibilities and obligations. As part of this effort, we are also looking at restructuring our Consumer Affairs Council, to broaden its membership and include membership of indigenous people. This has not been done previously, yet indigenous Territorians are constantly taken advantage of by some businesses and individuals, in many cases to the point of outright fraud.
In conclusion, I have asked my department to draw up an implementation plan for the initiatives I have outlined in the statement. That plan will contain time frames for action, as well as evaluation strategies so we can find out what is working, and what is not. I look forward to reporting back to the House periodically on progress we are making. As I draw this statement to a close, I am sure honourable members have noted that we have a tough job ahead of us. This is not about throwing more money at the problem. We need to form productive partnerships with indigenous communities and their peak bodies and leaders if we are to succeed. Even then success will not come quickly. We must be determined and we must persevere. We must not lapse into easy cynicism. We must be hard-headed and goodwilled.
I look forward to working with all members on both sides of this House, with government agencies and with indigenous leaders, organisations and communities, and with the broader community on this vitally important task. Together, I believe we can turn around the disadvantage and dysfunction that currently exists in much of the Northern Territory indigenous community in ways that will benefit the entire community of the Northern Territory.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I listened to and read the statement in some detail. I am quite pleased to be able to say a few words in response to this statement - a statement that will, I imagine, provoke a fair amount of debate in this Chamber, particularly from the members of the government who, I am sure, will take the opportunity to speak at length on all the things the government intends to do for Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory. No doubt, as the minister could not resist, take all the opportunity in the world to criticise the former CLP government by reinventing history and suggesting that nothing was ever done by the CLP government to help the advancement of Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory.
One of the problems we have with this Labor government is that, on the one hand it makes grand statements about how much they are going to do, how little the CLP government did to the point of saying did nothing. When you look through the statements you see that the programs and initiatives they point to have all been in place for some time and in fact some of those programs that he refers to were referenced to the Summit on Indigenous Deaths in Custody in 1997. So it is not as if they are new; it is not as if they are inventions of this new Labor government. It is not as if they are somehow initiatives that suddenly came to the Northern Territory. They were actually referenced to the summit that the minister spoke about at the beginning of his statement.
The other thing that happens so much in this House since the change of government - and I have never heard the word ‘indigenous’ mentioned so much in my life since the government has changed. That is fair enough. I know it is a very important part …
Dr Burns: They are 30% of our population.
Mr BURKE: … of the fabric of Territory life. They are, as the member for Johnston said, almost 30% of the Territory population and it is important that we do refer to it in this Chamber. The challenge and opportunity that this Labor government has is unique because for the first time you do have, supposedly, the alignment of all of those interest groups that should be able to effect real change in the Northern Territory. You have a Labor government that is focussed on indigenous issues; you have the support of the land councils and cooperative arrangements for freeing up Aboriginal land; you have real money coming through from ATSIC in programs that the minister has pointed to in his statement; and supposedly you are working in cooperation with the federal government on a range of issues.
So the opportunity for real change is there, and I wish you well. I hope at the end of this first term of the Labor government we do see the sorts of changes that you believe you can achieve. It is going to be extremely difficult, but you certainly will not get opposition from this side of the House because like it or not, we did try and tried very hard. We could have done better, as everyone could have done better. We were frustrated on many occasions by the lack of change that we hoped would have occurred in various areas. Too often we were called racists for pointing out what I believe were self-evident facts. Yet at the same time, if those same statements are made by an Aboriginal politician in the Northern Territory, all of a sudden they are statesmen-like.
It is a real problem because we all want to advance the Northern Territory together. One of the things that is good about Territorians, and Territory politicians from both sides, is that generally they are a pretty pragmatic bunch. Unlike so many others, we tend to speak the facts as we see them. I do hope the Labor government does not too often fall for the continuing bellicose rhetoric of blaming others - somehow, if you are not Aboriginal, you don’t know what you’re talking about - and elevating this whole issue to a status that is nothing more than symbolism, weasel words and rhetoric and not addressing the real issues on the ground. That is what we all want to achieve, and we want to achieve it quickly because it is frustrating for everyone. It is frustrating for all Australians and all Australians want to play a greater part, but they want to play a realistic and practical part. If I have gone wrong in the past, I have not gone wrong for being a racist. I have gone wrong, if I have gone wrong, for speaking the truth as I saw it.
When I look around the Northern Territory and see some people who had more opportunities in life than I had by virtue of the circumstances and the generosity of the governments and the people of Australia, it behoves all of us to work together and move forward together without an issue of them and us, without being labelled racist if I make a comment in a pragmatic way but, because I am Labor, socialist, ATSIC, NLC, I can say what I like about white people, which too often happens.
In fact, that is what happened at that ministerial conference that I attended. The Attorney-General talks about the symbolic act that he has just gone through of signing this communiqu. I was not interested in symbolism. When I went down to Canberra, I went down there as the health minister and the Attorney-General for a ministerial summit that involved all of the Aboriginal Affairs ministers, health ministers and Attorneys-General from throughout Australia. I was looking for something that would really achieve progress. I was looking for real dollars on the table from the Commonwealth, and real effort from all the states. I will tell you who else was looking for the same thing: Michael Mansell, Gatjil Djerrkura, Mick Dodson. None of them signed for the same reason. They came at it from a different point of view from me.
I came from this perspective: the Northern Territory had nothing to be ashamed of when it came to Aboriginal deaths in custody. You can read the $400m worth of Royal Commission studies and see how the Northern Territory pegged against the other states. We pegged quite well. There was no way in the world that the Territory was going to be cobbled up in terms of the lack of effort of other states, some of the larger, in relation to dealing with Aboriginal deaths in custody and their high incarceration rates around Australia. I simply was not going to stand for it. Neither was I going to stand for the fact that there would be somehow a centralised committee that would dictate to the states and territories what their outcomes would be, how they would lower the incarceration rate of indigenous people and tell us the programs that we would put in place in the Northern Territory. I would not have it. That was the reason the communiqu was not signed.
This was a very important meeting that had all of these ministers from around Australia, and guess what the outcome of that summit was?:
- Agree that the primary issues of concern are the significant over-representation of indigenous people at all
stages of the criminal justice system and the increase in the rates of indigenous deaths in custody in some
states since the release of the Royal Commission’s final report.
That was self-evident. Everyone knew that. We have been reporting every year as a result of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. There was nothing mind blowing about that as a statement for ministers to commit to. The second one:
- Acknowledge the efforts of all governments, indigenous peoples and organisations to prevent contact between
indigenous peoples and the criminal justice system.
- Acknowledge that addressing the underlying issues is fundamental to the achievement of any real long-term
solutions to the issue of indigenous incarceration and deaths in custody.
Sure, everyone knows that. The minister said that in his statement. I had been saying it in various statements as the health minister. The underlying issues needed to addressed, but you had to say how you were going to address them. Where were the dollars that were going to be there to address them? Nothing. The fourth one was:
- Recognise that it will take the combined effort of Commonwealth, state and territory governments and
indigenous peoples and the wider community to effectively address indigenous over-representation.
If that is not self-evident, I am not here. To my mind it was a talkfest, it was a waste of time, and it is hypocrisy, minister, for you to come in here and somehow say you were shamed - shamed because I did not stand up for the fact that Territorians were doing their very best. Given the circumstances that we have in the Northern Territory, the significant demographics of the Northern Territory, which were unique from those in other states and territories, and somehow you were ashamed I was standing up for the fact that we would not be dictated to by others.
Certainly not from a minister - one was a Liberal health minister from Tasmania, she started standing in there and lecturing the committee about all of these Aboriginal issues that they were addressing in Tasmania, for God’s sake. They are poles apart. There is no way in the world that the Territory could be cobbled up into that sort of arena and I would not have it.
I said at the time the communiqu was a waste of effort and it was a waste of words, it did not have the outcomes that were needed in terms of getting real progress, and I stand by those comments today. The minister himself has basically said it because it is symbolic. The facts are there on the table because in terms of over-representation, nothing has changed. From 1997 to 2002, pull out your ABS reports and see what the states have actually achieved – nothing! They have gotten worse.
So signing that communiqu was just another example of more words and no action for Aboriginal people, and I was not going to be a party to it. I have also had a look at some of the things I said. If you think these are words that were racist, these are words that you are ashamed of today, listen again because I am as confident to say them today as I said them then in that conference. I have said here in the conference:
- The issue and search for solutions does not lie with how many people are in gaol, but rather are there
identifiable and remedial reasons why the crimes were committed in the first place, and I would suggest
the answers vary greatly across Australia.
From our perspective, the Northern Territory is a totally different world to many other jurisdictions.
In the Northern Territory today, more than 70% of Aboriginal people live in remote communities, speak
English as a second, third, fourth or fifth language, and practice a lifestyle which is vastly different in its
behaviour and assumptions from the lifestyle of non-Aboriginal Australians. More than 30% of Aboriginal
persons identify themselves as not speaking English well, if at all.
There are 60 major communities and over 400 remote communities, pastoral properties and outstations in
the Territory. These vary enormously. Each has its own local custom and belief systems, community
dynamics, traditional and contemporary decision-making systems, standards of physical infrastructure
and aspirations of individuals towards social and economic development. Out there, a crime is not
necessarily one recognised by mainstream Australia, nor vice versa.
Justice is not necessarily allegations, charges, trial and decisions, nor is it a system that encompasses bail
and appeals and fine points of law turning on some technical issue. The mainstream justice system has been
imposed on a society that has its own laws. It is an alien system that, to a large extent, has disenfranchised
Aboriginal Territorians.
Any effort to redress the problems that this has caused is meaningless unless Aborigines can become part of
the system. Until Aborigines accept what a crime is in mainstream Australia, and mainstream Australia accepts
that there are laws and a justice system within Aboriginal communities, both have to be accommodated.
I went on to say – and this is in 1997:
- Let me also outline for you the statistics of the Territory’s prison population. On 27 June this year there were
594 adults in the Territory’s correctional institutions of whom 72% were classed as Aboriginal. Twenty-three
were female. There were a further 23 juveniles in detention. But the percentage of Aboriginal Territorians
compared to non-Aboriginal Territorians is vastly greater than any other state or territory. As I said, about
27% of Territorians are Aboriginal compared with the national figure of less than 2%. If you use the
over-representation statistic, the latest figure available as at December 1996, in the Territory it was 8.5
compared to the Australian average of 17.9, with the high of 24.3 in one state and a low of 5.2 in another.
The Territory’s rate, while obviously far too high, is the second lowest.
I said:
- I do not wish to draw comparisons but rather put on record at this meeting the picture in the Northern Territory,
and to stress that these are not problems that have a simple national solution. Nor am I trying to say that we do
not have a problem in the Territory. What I am saying is that we must face up to the differences that exist across
our country and realise that we are not tackling one problem but many, at least as many as there are states and
territories.
- What I am also saying is that governments cannot provide the solutions. They can help, but in the end it will be
how Aboriginal families and communities can come to terms with mainstream Australia.
I continued:
- As well, the Northern Territory is actively doing something to redress the over-representation of Aboriginal
Territorians in our correctional institutions and the most important way of doing so is to confront the problem
before people become involved in the justice system. But governments cannot solve that problem alone;
if significant improvement is to be made, Aboriginal people must also accept responsibility for the situation
and work with government and their communities to make real progress. At the community level, small steps
are being made. It can be a slow and laborious process, and we have to recognise it may take many years,
but it may be the only way to achieve real progress.
- I believe we, in the Territory, are beginning to make such progress, but we will hamper and delay any further
progress if we continue to focus simply on the offender in gaol and say he should not be there. It is time to move
on. How much longer must we have summits such as this summit and not produce concrete outcomes? Let me say
again: if we are ever to address the over-representation of Aborigines in our gaols, then we must go back to what
led the offender to choose to break the law. I believe we should stop focussing on the gaol end of the situation,
and beating our breasts and issuing finely worded communiqus, and concentrate our efforts on preventing
people from breaking the law in the first place.
- In the Territory, we must look at the health and welfare of communities, the employment opportunities and the
level of education, the clash of cultures and the enormous changes that such communities are being expected
to take on board. We must face up to the facts: employment opportunities as mainstream Australia would
recognise them are few and far between on some of the remote communities of northern Australia. Formal
education in some cases is not being actively encouraged by the community itself. We must acknowledge in
the Northern Territory, that an alien culture has been rammed down Aboriginal throats and, within the span
of a generation or two, they have been expected to adapt their culture to this new one. Such a clash has
weakened the old culture, while the new is neither understood nor acceptable. Yet, there is an expectation
that somehow great advances will be made virtually overnight.
- But if we face reality then some things become self-evident such as: calls for more autonomy and
empowerment in communities need to take into account that in some cases society has become almost
dysfunctional and elders can no longer command respect.
It sounds familiar, member for Arnhem?
- Some of our efforts at empowerment and education further undermine and are in themselves destructive of
traditional ways unless we find ways of melding the two streams of authority.
Juvenile problems such as petrol sniffing are echoed in mainstream Australia - the problem of bored, rebellious
youth. If I could just add, as an aside, the popularity of sport and particularly the role models it is producing may
prove to be one of the big pluses in helping with this situation. Jobs are just not available in many remote
communities, there is no local office block, nor retail centre, nor factory seeking employees.
Communication and cultural awareness has to be a two-way street. When programs are devised to improve the
situation, we have to ensure that the message gets through. As health minister, I know we are constantly failing
even in the area of primary health care, but together we are learning, and there have been some noticeable successes.
- So to say that it is essential for the Aboriginal community to exercise responsibility for their own and their family’s
welfare, if meaningful reductions in incarceration rates are to be achieved, it is not a case of blaming the victim;
it is facing the reality of the situation. It is saying: ‘You must take charge of your lives again’. It is refusing any
longer to pursue patronising policies that amount to saying: ‘You cannot solve your own problems, the government
will fix it’. Governments haven’t, they won’t, and they can’t. Nor will this forum.
I went on to say:
- We in the Northern Territory have not got the solution, and I am not even sure we know or at least understand
entirely, what the real problems are. But at least, let’s ask the right questions.
That was the tone of my comments to that conference. I read them today, and I tell you what: I still stand by them, and you can call me what you like.
If we then say all of these jurisdictions signed up for all of these wonderful outcomes they are going to achieve, except this terrible Northern Territory, it is pretty interesting to look at the ABS figures to see how these jurisdictions have fared since 1997. If you look at the ABS figures for Queensland, in 1998 it was 1065 indigenous persons in custody - the comparable figure for June 2002 is 1176. In Western Australia in 1998, 785 indigenous persons were in custody - the comparable figure for June 2002 is 868. South Australia in 1998 was 213 and in June this year 239. New South Wales figures are not available for earlier years but in 2000 the figure was 1143 and in June 2002 it was 1367. Tasmania has risen from 30 in 1998 to 64 in 2002, and I imagine the real answer there is that so many more people in Tasmania are claiming to be Aboriginal. Victoria in June 1998 was 127 and in June 2002, it was 164.
So all of those jurisdictions that signed to lower the over-representation of indigenous persons in custody have increased despite the fact that they signed the communiqu. In the Northern Territory, it is interesting. In this shameful Northern Territory the comparable figures are 439 in custody in 1998 and 459 in June this year. I would point out that the figure in the Northern Territory for the September quarter of 2001 when government changed was 422 and had dropped as low as 398 in 2000.
Under the previous government, the Northern Territory was the only jurisdiction where the numbers fell since the signing of that symbolic communiqu.
If you turn to the ratio of indigenous to non-indigenous rates of imprisonment, again it is the Northern Territory that in fact leads the way compared to the rest of Australia. In 1998, the ratio in the Northern Territory was 8.1, that is indigenous persons were 8.1 times more likely to be gaoled than non-indigenous persons. In September 2001, this had fallen to 5.1 but has since, under this new government with this focus on indigenous incarceration, risen to 6.8. Across Australia the figures have remained static or slightly decreased in the case of Western Australia where it has dropped from a rate of 20.4 in 1998 to 18.2 in the June quarter of this year.
So what was achieved by all those states and jurisdictions which did sign the communiqu? What have they done in the words of the communiqu ‘to address the over-representation of indigenous people in the criminal justice system’?. I can tell you that whatever they have done, it has not worked.
In contrast, the Territory has achieved a substantial drop - or it did until a change of government in August last year. But of course, when it comes to real facts, they get lost when it is compared to the rhetoric that is peddled by the Minister for Justice and his government. No wonder, minister, you call it a symbolic act because that is all it is and that is why it is not worth signing. We did not sign it but we achieved a drop in over-representation because we preferred to continue the action and programs that we had in place in the Northern Territory, not being dictated to by others or symbolism.
Another little bunch of statistics that were tabled in this parliament last week - and they were addressed to the Minister for Justice - are interesting, too. They are the reports of the Juvenile Justice Boards of Management for the northern and southern regions. For example, they reveal that the monthly daily average of juveniles being held in various detention centres has risen from 9.4 in July last year to 23.4 in June this year. They show that the number of Juvenile Diversionary Orders has declined from 12 in 2001 to 1 in 2001-02. So, when the minister says he does not want to dwell too much on statistics, I say no wonder because you certainly do not have anything there that you can lay on the Table that shows real tangible outcomes apart from words at this stage.
You also say on page one of the statement the rate of unemployment among indigenous Territorians is 60%. You are pretty selective there, too, and you might want to consult with the Chief Minister because she was crowing in the Chamber today that the unemployment rate in the Northern Territory is 4.2%. So you want to count Aboriginal people as unemployed when it suits you, and you want to count them as employed when it suits you as well. That is the sort of stuff you used to criticise the CLP government for. You are certainly not demonstrating that you are doing any different. At least we stood up and said what we thought.
The other thing I wonder, too, is whether the minister or some of his advisors have ever bothered to look at the speeches and presentations that I made, and the papers that were provided by the government to that summit in 1997. If you did not have a look at it, certainly the person who wrote your speech must have had a bit of a sneak, a bit of a look because most of your speech refers to the programs that were tabled at that summit.
One paper I presented related specifically to the over-representation of indigenous persons in custody. The headings of papers were Community Justice Program of Diversionary Conferencing: Tangentyere and Julalikari Night Patrols, Aboriginal Family Violence Strategy and Living with Alcohol Program, a paper on Customary Law, and Alternative Dispute Resolution in Aboriginal Communities. So it should sound familiar.
Before moving on, there is another issue I would raise in relation to this and that is customary law. The government continues to peddle the mistruths that the CLP threw out the work of the previous Constitutional Development Committee when it comes to customary law. They conveniently forget the clause that …
Mr Ah Kit: You drew a line through it and rewrote it overnight. I was there. I was there. I was a witness.
Mr BURKE: Well, have a listen. Tell the truth. You know what happened.
Mr Ah Kit: I am telling the truth. I know what happened.
Mr BURKE: Yes, okay. Were you in the meetings with Gatjil Djerrkura and Djinniyini Gondarra? I do not know whether Djinniyini had you in the room, did he? I do not think he had you in the room. He would not have you there.
Mr Ah Kit: Don’t worry about Jack, mate. Jack was about.
Mr BURKE: They conveniently forget the clause that was included in the constitution relating to customary law, and that is a clause I worked long and hard on with Reverend Djinniyini Gondarra and other Aboriginal delegates, a clause that Bob Collins described, at the conference, as the one of the most significant achievements. It is interesting that the member for Arnhem now seems to want to belittle it so easily.
Mr Ah Kit: I was here. They walked. They walked.
Mr BURKE: Well, I did not realise that the member for Arnhem was such a significant traditional elder.
Mr Ah Kit: The delegation walked.
Mr BURKE: Now, this is where I really need to be educated because I always thought that when it came to status, Djinniyini Gondarra had some status.
Mr Ah Kit: How did the vote go?
Mr BURKE: Maybe the Chairman of the Northern Land Council has greater status than Aboriginal law does. I am here to be instructed on these issues, but certainly, from the Aboriginal delegates at that convention, they did not point to the member for Arnhem as being the person to talk to on these issues. Djinniyini Gondarra was the one we spoke to.
Mr Ah Kit: And where was Gatjil?
Mr BURKE: He was the one selected by all of the delegates
Mr Ah Kit: And where was Gatjil?
Mr BURKE: And I think you might have been one also who endorsed him to stand up and give the presentation on customary law. He was the authority.
Mr Ah Kit: On the second day. They walked on the first day.
Mr BURKE: He is the one I worked with. He is the one I spoke with and I am sure if you checked with him …
Mr Ah Kit: They walked on the first day before the voting for the resolution started.
Mr BURKE: … because when he retired recently, he wrote me a letter and in that letter he reflected on the work that was done at that convention. But I am happy to stand corrected by the member for Arnhem. If you have status as an Aboriginal elder and traditional owner greater than him, then I will be the first to apologise and stand corrected because I am only an ignorant white fella in this sort of business.
I thought it was a very important clause to have inserted in that draft constitution. I worked hard to achieve it. There were a number of delegates, Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal, who were worried about the ramifications of such a clause, but insert it we did, and Mr Collins described it as one of the most significant achievements.
I began my comments talking about the hypocrisy expressed in the minister’s speech and, while I believe I have dealt with specific instances of that, it is the general tone of what the minister said that I was referring to. He constructs a framework that says the previous government did nothing and then fills it in with what has been achieved by the previous government and how his government is going to continue that good work. He has spoken about how:
- The Minister Assisting the Chief Minister on Indigenous Affairs, the Member for Arnhem, received national
acknowledgement in March when he talked about some ‘brutal truths’. He told us many Aboriginal people
acknowledge that the problems lie within their own community.
- It is essential for the Aboriginal community to exercise responsibility for their own and their family’s welfare if
meaningful reductions in incarceration rates are to be achieved and it is not a case of blaming the victim; it is
facing the reality of the situation. It is saying you must take charge of your lives again, it is refusing any longer
to pursue patronising policies that amount to saying: ‘You cannot solve your problems; the government will fix it’.
For that I was called a racist. One of the unfortunate things about being white is that if I say the same things as the member for Arnhem said, I am a racist. You are a statesman. That is the way it falls, I guess. That is life.
We support moves, as I said, that will address the over-representation of Aborigines in our gaols. We have acted on it in the past and we were having some success, and the minister eventually acknowledges that. But our concern is that the main emphasis must be on preventing Territorians coming into the justice system, not interfering once they are there. We cannot have one law for one group of Territorians and other laws for other groups.
Once a person breaks the law, is convicted by a court and then sentenced, there should be no discrimination evident in any of those processes. All must be equal before the law and subject to the law. The Attorney-General puts on record that his government affirms that the Northern Territory Criminal Code applies to all citizens of the Northern Territory without exception. Well, the challenge is that he must ensure that this is not just a principle that will be more observed by its abuse than by its implementation. We must never entertain a system where a person can commit a crime, but whether he or she is charged and sentenced, depends on the colour of his or her skin or any other form of discrimination, nor should we have a system where the punishment meted out to offenders can be carried out in a criminal fashion. All should be equal before the law.
As I said earlier, we support any moves that will improve the health, education, housing and social development of any Territorian. We actively pursued such policies over a series of CLP governments, and I reject totally and resent fully the implications and insinuations of those opposite that generations of dedicated public servants, non-government organisations and ministers did otherwise. As your icon, Bob Collins commented …
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, your time has expired.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I move that the Leader of the Opposition be granted an extension of time in order to conclude his remarks.
Motion agreed to.
Mr BURKE: It was Bob Collins, the icon of the Labor government, who commented a few years ago: ‘If you think things ain’t better today, you weren’t there in the past’. If you want to come in here with policies to pursue your objectives, why taint them with blinkered and false views of the past? Put them forward, as is your right, you are the government, and stand by them.
You talk about moving forward, but you are unable to resist scoring political points about what you have convinced yourselves happened in the past. You have a false perception, and you do yourselves no good by concentrating so much of your effort and rhetoric on it. You are the government, just get on and get it done.
Mr AH KIT (Community Development): Madam Speaker, I would prefer to speak to my paper and then come back and pick up some of the comments by the Leader of the Opposition because, if we are going to tell the story, we might as well tell the whole story and not parts of it. I thought he actually started off well in making statements about ‘the opportunity for change, and we had our go, and it is your turn, all the best, and 30% indigenous, and you will not get opposition from this side of the House’. I thought that started off really well, and as he started to go through it, it brought back a few memories and he decided to dig a bit deeper and then started to become adversarial about the statement presented by the Minister for Justice.
I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate on Aboriginal customary law. I name the papers I present and this one is called Not Just Passing Through. I thank the Minister for Justice for his contribution to tackling what must be seen as among the most enduring stains on the history of relations between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians: the failure of the justice system to properly serve all our citizens. On both sides of this House, we sit here as legislators. As parliamentarians, we make the laws, but the mere making of laws does not guarantee justice.
Indeed, our experience of law making here in the Northern Territory over the last quarter century has too often seen the creation of injustice. I speak not only about regressive laws such as mandatory sentencing, but of a structure of laws and their administration which has too often meant that indigenous Territorians have seen justice as something that does not belong to them, but as something that is the privilege of non-indigenous people. The high levels of incarceration of indigenous Territorians that the Attorney-General has outlined here today is but one symptom of an almost complete denial of law and justice here in the Northern Territory for Aboriginal people over a quarter of a century of CLP rule; a quarter of a century of neglect of Aboriginal people at the hands of a system that served us so poorly; a quarter of a century of contempt for the values and knowledge that can be found in so much of Aboriginal customary law, values and knowledge that can benefit us all.
This did not have to be so. Under the Martin government’s administration, it will not be so. As the Australian jurisdiction with the highest proportion of indigenous people, the Northern Territory has perhaps the greatest opportunity to get it right. Indeed, at various times we have got it right.
The 1976 Anunga Rules that the Attorney-General cited earlier was an example of a judicial ruling that sought to resolve major difficulties facing indigenous people in confronting the white man’s law. Judge Forster’s Anunga Rules set a benchmark for Aboriginal people dealing with the police that has been recognised internationally. But note the date: 1976. The first precept set by the Anunga Rules said the following:
- When an Aboriginal person is being interrogated as a suspect, unless he is as fluent in English as the average
white man of English descent, an interpreter able to interpret in and from the Aboriginal person’s language
should be present, and his assistance should be utilised wherever necessary to ensure complete and mutual
understanding.
The response of the CLP? Dumb ignorance! It would be 25 years - in the face of international condemnation for their mandatory sentencing policy - before they could be dragged kicking and screaming into starting to provide a half-way adequate Aboriginal Interpreter Service.
The Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody was finalised a decade ago and, as the Attorney-General pointed out, five years have gone past since every government in Australia, except that of the CLP overseen by its former Attorney-General, signed the communiqu from the October 1997 Ministerial Summit on Indigenous Deaths in Custody. The Justice Minister this afternoon called it a shame that the Northern Territory alone did not sign this document. I go further and call it moral bankruptcy by the previous Attorney-General. Thank God, we set that right this afternoon by finally signing the communiqu.
In 1991, the Northern Territory Special Issues Unit of the Royal Commission published Too Much Sorry Business. It is a report that damned the Northern Territory then, and should have been the catalyst for widespread change in Aboriginal/non-Aboriginal relations in the Northern Territory. Too Much Sorry Business painted a bleak picture of excessive substance abuse, appalling health outcomes, of lousy educational attainment, and of rock bottom relations between Aboriginal Territorians and the police, justice and correction systems. That was 11 years ago. It outlined then the continuing tragedy - which it pains me to point out - has not been even remotely resolved over that period. Indeed, in some areas, it has got worse. Virtually everything that was said in Too Much Sorry Business has had to be repeated in this place since the coming of the Martin government. It was said in my ministerial statement in March, and in the respective statements of the ministers for Education and Health, and here again today in the words of the Minister for Justice.
We are not just looking at a quarter of a century of lost opportunity and having now to deal with a legacy that will take years to overcome; we are looking at a regime that was immoral in its negligence. They were told the truth 11 years ago in Too Much Sorry Business, yet they refused to acknowledge the truth. An important element of Too Much Sorry Business was its discussion of Aboriginal customary law and its potential role in contributing to social harmony within the Northern Territory. I quote:
- We report the views of Aboriginal people … primarily, the argument for the need for Aboriginal Law and white
law to work together, a view rarely heard in non-Aboriginal circles, and a powerful symbol of the conciliatory
nature of the Aboriginal response to the impact of Australian society. The failure of governments to act on
the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission on recognition of Aboriginal Law is a sore point with many
Aboriginal elders, and one which must be addressed as a matter of urgency …
This was a submission to government 11 years ago. Too Much Sorry Business made the same point back then that the Attorney-General made today, and which I reiterate. This government does not condone violence and would never seek to decriminalise, let alone legalise, physical assault being used as punishment. The law in the Northern Territory reflects the High Court’s 1994 Walker ruling that English criminal law extinguished customary criminal law in Australia.
The law in the Northern Territory reflects Australia’s obligations under international laws and its commitment to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The law in the Northern Territory will not support practices that are not consistent with universally recognised human rights and fundamental freedoms.
One thing I want to make very clear is that this government, and myself as an Aboriginal person, would never tolerate an attempt to hide behind traditional law or punishment as an excuse for drunken, violent assault. That denigrates Aboriginal law and traditional practice. I go further. Indigenous people increasingly rely on a body of international law to protect and extend indigenous rights. The Northern Territory government is not going to be in the business of allowing appeals to apparent traditions of righteous violence to override the international humanitarian law, for that would diminish the rights of indigenous people everywhere.
For this reason I would like to comment briefly on a recent case here in the Northern Territory. I believe our legal system here failed in its humanitarian responsibility for the protection of children. While I appreciate the judge in question took questions of tradition into account in sentencing, I believe he failed in his broader duty to the law of the Northern Territory, the nation and the international community.
In welcoming the inquiry instituted by the Minister for Justice appropriately entitled Toward Mutual Benefit, I would like to turn to the benefits the Northern Territory community can expect from a serious appraisal of Aboriginal customary law.
It should be understood that Aboriginal customary law is not, as the Attorney-General pointed out, narrowly confined to violent crime and violent punishment. The real guts of Aboriginal customary law is about social relationships and economic rights. It is for this reason that Aboriginal customary law reflects the entirety and complexity of Aboriginal society.
Over the years I had the privilege of spending many hours with the late Big Bill Neidje of Kakadu National Park. As anyone who spoke to him or had the pleasure of reading his work will know, the law of the Gagadju people he represented is of profound importance to our understanding of the lands of his forefathers. It is a law that continues through Jonathan Samson and Big Bill’s other descendants. It is a law, for example, that he showed me dictated the right times of year that one must carry out the kinds of cool burnings that would protect the environment, a law that will renew country year after year and protect it from the kinds of wild fires that seem now to be threatening the bush lands of South Australia.
This is not mere touchy feely stuff. It is law-based knowledge that western scientists are utilising across northern Australia and beyond to protect the environment. It is law-based knowledge that might allow us to manage the sustainable harvesting of wildlife, as groups such as the Djelk Rangers around Maningrida are currently working towards. It is the kind of law-based knowledge through which Yolngu people working with Dhimurru in north-east Arnhem Land are monitoring the sustainability of turtle and other marine populations of the region as well as the appalling levels of marine pollution that plague our northern waters. It is the kind of law-based knowledge that provides real hope for the future of the lands and seas we all share.
It is the law of peoples who, unlike many who spend just some of their life in the Northern Territory, are not just passing through. They are here to stay. The holders of these laws are not tourists. They are custodians of the future of the Northern Territory and their custodial role is represented by their traditional law. It is while we support indigenous input to the work of the Desert Knowledge Centre on the one hand and to that of the Garma Festival held at Nhulunbuy on the other.
Each of these organisations and many others are integral parts of a future in which we seek a balance, a balance of mutual benefit between Aboriginal customary law and our European legal heritage.
These are the kinds of outcomes we are looking for from this inquiry, outcomes that support Aboriginal customary law for the benefit of the custodians of that law as well as all other citizens of the Northern Territory. It is a support for Aboriginal customary law that might be able to contribute to economic independence for Aboriginal Territorians rather than face the dead hand of welfare.
We do not need to be rocket scientists to work out that support for Aboriginal customary law is of benefit to us all. The culture of indigenous Territorians is not just the immediate surface beauty of paintings, sculpture, song and dance. The cultural integrity and pride that is represented by Aboriginal artists is based on Aboriginal customary law, from the painters of the desert to those creative workers who live in urban settings. This is not the plastic of fakes and reproductions that sully the souvenir shops; it is creativity that is based deeply in Aboriginal customary law from artists who know where they come from.
We do not need to be art critics to figure out that Aboriginal customary law is of critical importance to the cultural future of the Northern Territory as well as its economic future. We must commit support to indigenous creative workers both in practical terms as well as the support we must give to them in the field of intellectual property protection.
As the terms of reference to this inquiry spell out, we are looking to ways in which Aboriginal customary law might formally or informally be recognised within the Northern Territory. Some of that recognition will indeed be formal. For example, the work my department is carrying out with the Kurduju Law and Justice project at Ali Curung, Lajamanu, and Yuendumu I see as a way forward in moving towards resolving some of the contradictions between Aboriginal customary law and the way justice might be delivered in the mainstream. Other projects will see formal relationships develop between elders, male and female, in summary jurisdictions such as magistrates courts.
Projects such as these recognise within the framework of human rights law the traditional authority structures that can nurture and strengthen Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory rather than adhere to colonial structures that disenfranchise, disempower and alienate Aboriginal people. Such projects will vary from place to place to take into account local Aboriginal customary law. Some will be formalised; some will be more spontaneous. Fundamental to these approaches will be the fact that they will be rooted in a culture of capacity building and community development rather than a narrow delivery of non-indigenous judicial and mainstream legal expertise, let alone Aboriginal communities being swamped by the bureaucrats.
Twenty years ago, the eminent historian Henry Reynolds wrote an important book entitled The Other Side of the Frontier. It spoke of a period in history which was characterised by conflict and opposition, confrontation and inequality, conflict and opposition between two cultures and two laws, confrontation and equality between peoples of different world views.
In many important respects, the history of the first 24 years of self-government here in the Northern Territory has perpetuated the idea of the frontier of us and them, of one set of laws that were acceptable and another set that were to be rejected at any cost, where the ideology of the frontier remains steeped in the ideology of conflict and inequality.
What I am arguing this afternoon, to take those words from Too Much Sorry Business, is for ‘Aboriginal Law and white law to work together’, a phrase the report said was unusual at that time. Let’s make it a usual idea at this time. Let us make the Territory a place where frontiers, where they exist, and as they often will, no longer exist as arenas of conflict between two laws, but of worlds of creative engagement and mutual benefit.
Madam Speaker, I come back to the comments made by the Leader of the Opposition …
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, I move that the member be granted an extension of time in order that he may complete his remarks.
Motion agreed to.
Mr AH KIT: I just wanted to come back in and pick up those comments because, as I said before …
Mr Elferink: Probably he is going to ruin a great speech now. That is the problem. That is the shame of this. He is going to take a great speech and ruin it.
Ms Scrymgour: We gave your leader an extension.
Mr Elferink: You are going to take what was essentially a good speech and you are going to ruin it.
Mr AH KIT: The member for Macdonnell can wait his turn for when he contributes. It would be remiss of me to allow, given that I have been here for seven years, what the Leader of the Opposition had put on record to go unchallenged.
I was here at the Constitutional Convention. In fact, I represented our Caucus along with John Bailey. We sat in this very room when the debates were conducted over those eight, nine days. I was also, as you are aware, a member of the Constitutional Development Committee on Statehood. The exercise that happened here, and it was driven by the Leader of the Opposition who was the Chief Minister elect and in waiting, was to come into this convention and to torpedo and push through at any cost, at any pace, the agenda that the government had at that time. We witnessed the 30-odd people who sat across there who were mostly card carrying members of the CLP, and how they block voted. Then he came in and said, this is the Leader of the Opposition, I worked overnight on this draft constitution about Aboriginal customary law and all that. I have got it all fixed; it is all sorted out, and he wanted us to believe that.
It was no wonder that the Aboriginal delegation, or a majority of them, walked out. They were not silly; they were not going to participate in the process when the numbers were stacked against them because once they got locked into the voting, they could not get out. That was the problem. Regardless of what Bob Collins said - I disagreed with him then and I disagree with him to this very day about what they were saying in respect of customary law. There was no consultation. The consultation process happened for about 15 years. The former member for Arnhem was on it with the former member for Nightcliff who chaired it for most of that time. But he got shunted sideways very quickly because the former member for Port Darwin and Chief Minister at the time had a different agenda. We saw what happened to him after the vote on the referendum because of how he conducted himself here. So it is not good enough for the Leader of the Opposition to say: ‘I got it right and everyone else got it wrong’.
I was encouraged by the first few sentences he uttered about working together and no opposition from us. I have had a look at the statement that I signed today, and I was very proud to participate with the Minister for Justice and the national chair, Tauto Sansbury, the former Chair of the NT AJAC, Eddie Taylor, and the current Chair, Douglas Walker. This asked the then Chief Minister, in 1997, to show a bit of heart, to show a bit of commitment, to work towards coming together. Every other state and territory signed off on it. But I suppose at that point and time, being advised by the member for Katherine who has also stood up in this House on a couple of occasions and said how proud he is to be a redneck, that they had that political position and that was one to oppose - to oppose.
Today, it is not a matter of arguing about what were the good things to come out of it and we have proved them all wrong. The former Chief Minister talked about some stats, 6.8%, 2000. If he was committed to this and signed off on it, all those stats would be a lot better than they are today. But he did not commit on principle; he did not commit and he is to be condemned.
I welcome from him, if he is serious about working with us and moving things forward, because that is what we want to do. We are not on about two laws; we are on about working together to make the Territory a great place. I am not going to sit in this Chamber and hear this stuff being trotted out in defence of the actions he took then. He should take it on the chin; he was not a good Chief Minister; they were arrogant; they got caught out. We are going to go to the next election and be judged on what we were able to do, but we are going to work hard to make sure that we turn things around.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, it always saddens me when I see the member for Arnhem stand up and give what I consider a very good speech and a very good perspective, with a few areas where I take exception, and then, because he feels the urge to lash out, he turns what should have been a terrific speech into a shame.
Nevertheless, there is a lot to get through and I have only have 20 minutes. So I will plough on with this. I would start by saying thank you to the Attorney-General for bringing this matter to the parliament today. Indeed, as the Attorney-General is fully aware, last week in this Chamber I called upon this government to engage in an inquiry because of the result of a bail application on a murder charge in Alice Springs. As a footnote to that adjournment debate, the minister may be aware - I am unsure if other members are aware - the gentleman concerned who was granted bail has since been speared seven times and had his ankle broken and is back in custody after receiving treatment. In fact, I believe he still may be in hospital. I could be corrected on that.
It is that timely the minister brings this matter before the Chamber today and, as I say, I am grateful for it. The minister started by making some comments about Aboriginal employment and I am on the record on numerous occasions in relation to Aboriginal employment in this House. It would be an interesting exercise if we changed the yardstick of measurement from time to time and removed the word ‘indigenous’ and placed the words ‘welfare recipient’ as the tester and, just out of curiosity, see how that would overlay in terms of incarceration rates. Because I am not entirely sure whether or not it is welfare which is the destructive force or whether being indigenous is in some way a shortcoming.
The question is worth visiting because the process of welfare payments have to be, by far, the most destructive force operating in remote and regional Australia today. It is not only me saying it. If it was just me, I would be a voice in the wilderness, but there are many people who are saying it now and there are indigenous people who are saying it. Pointedly, I mention Aden Ridgeway, the Democrat senator and indeed Noel Pearson who has made the observation on several occasions. He says that the abuse that comes from welfare dependency is a disease. I still think that it is the abuse, the alcohol abuse, the drug abuse, the petrol sniffing is a symptom, but the symptom is so chronic that for all intents and purposes it may as well be a disease in its own right.
The process of welfare and the way it is being dished out is destructive and it is singularly the largest cause of poor indigenous outcomes than any other government policy. This is the reason the former state governments, both territory and state, have struggled with the outcomes in the past and I am afraid that unless the way that welfare is dealt with in the community nowadays changes, the outcomes will continue to be as poor no matter what state and territory governments do in relation to welfare payments. I encourage the Attorney-General to pursue this course because, as I said last week in adjournment debate, I believe that there is good cause to go down this path.
I am not qualified to say which individual legal system is the best in the Northern Territory in the sense that there are some 40 or 50 indigenous groups all with their own languages, all with their own legal systems, some similarities, some marked differences. I also know that to learn the songs for one’s country and to learn the stories for one’s land and the stories of one’s own law is a process which takes an individual anything up to 20 or 30 years to study. Because so little is written down, so much has to be committed to memory and so much as to be committed to song in an effort to remember so much of the law, and this deals with all manner of laws. Not only the criminal law in the Aboriginal systems, but also issues of land rights, intellectual rights, property ownership rights, all of those sorts of things are dealt with. It takes a whole process of learning, decades of learning, to be able to get to a point in Aboriginal culture, in one of the many Aboriginal cultures - I can only speak for the conversations I have had with people in my own electorate to get any sense of depth or understanding. But it takes 20 or 30 years to get to the point where an elder, be they male or female, can sit down and talk about the laws for their country. I am not qualified to talk for any of those laws.
So what is my role to assist a process in which we as this Chamber can help accommodate Aboriginal law? That is for us to create a framework which will accommodate as much Aboriginal traditional law as possible and that is law which is not inconsistent with the laws of this Chamber, and, as the Attorney-General has pointed out, not inconsistent with the principles of accepted international human rights. Now, that framework is something that we have the potential to create and indeed have created in the past. The Attorney-General points it out himself, something that the member for Arnhem seems to take issue with him on, but we as a former government in part of our moral neglect, as the member for Arnhem has accused, have made amendments to the Evidence Act, the Adoption of Children Act, the Crimes (Victims Assistance) Act, the Compensation (Fatal Injuries) Act, the Status of Children Act, the Administration and Probate Act, the Mental Health and Related Services Act as well as various government and community schemes. Indeed, Justice Forster’s guidelines from R v Anunga have been in subordinate legislation in the Northern Territory since the time that those guidelines were handed down from the bench, since the time before self-government, and something that has been maintained since self-government by the CLP.
Now, I do not know where the member for Arnhem is coming from. On one hand he says that the Attorney-General can say that all of these acts have been changed to accommodate as much as we can; and on the other hand, we are immoral in our negligence. Well, that is not true. The accommodation of Aboriginal law is something that the CLP has in former times worked very hard to achieve.
The other comments by the member for Arnhem are also surprising. He referred to Judge Forster’s guidelines specifically in relation to the requirement for an interpreter for the purposes of interview. Bearing in mind that Judge Forster’s guidelines would simply have meant that if an interpreter was not present, then the likelihood of any confessional evidence would be ruled inadmissible is not effectively a comment as to whether or not an interpreter service is a necessary part of the government approach.
I am clearly on the record as being a great supporter of the interpreter service, and indeed, the very Minister for Community Development who criticises the former government for being so lax in terms of providing an interpreter service, which it did, also omits to say that Budget Paper No 3 of the mini-budget cut the funding to the interpreter service. The minister has been too cute by half.
Now, in terms of a communiqu which was signed today, the Minister for Community Development called the CLP ‘moral bankrupts’ for not signing the communiqu. I wonder what Mick Dodson would feel if he knew that for not signing the communiqu, the Minister for Community Development thought he was moral bankrupt or, for that matter, Gatjil Djerrkura or, for that matter, Michael Mansell, all of whom refused to sign that communiqu. It would be very curious to hear whether or not the Minister for Community Development actually believed that those individuals were moral bankrupts. There may be any number of reasons for which a person will not sign a document. However, to come into a Chamber like this and carte blanche make an allegation of any person who fails to sign a particular document is a moral bankrupt, well that is something that the minister has to be very careful about because, in the process of making allegation about the Leader of the Opposition, he also casts a slur upon indigenous leaders in this country and it is something that he will want to consider.
I am curious about the processes that the Attorney-General is proposing in relation to in relation to revisiting traditional law. I actually believe that some 90% - I would be guessing, but from my limited understanding - of traditional law would fit quite comfortably within the framework of what the Attorney-General is saying. Indeed, I have had many things about the care of land, the laws in relation to relationships and those sorts of things explained to me and I believe that large parts of that traditional law would fit quite comfortably within the framework of law that exists in the Northern Territory because whether the members opposite like it or not, the laws of the Northern Territory are designed to create a civil society which works for the benefit of …
Mr Kiely: You wanted to go down and cream a whole community! You said it in Hansard, ‘I was gonna go down and nuke a whole community’. You’ve got no respect for the law.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, the …
Mr Kiely: Do you want me to get the Hansard for you?
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Sanderson.
Mr ELFERINK: This is extraordinary, Madam Speaker. The comments I made last week in relation to the Bail Act - and this is one thing that I do want to hear from the Attorney-General today - is that the legislation to which the Attorney-General refers is not limited to the Criminal Code, but all legislation which is passed through this House and sits on the statute books, legislation that the Attorney-General is duty bound to protect.
To confine his comments only to the Criminal Code leaves me with some concern that the Bail Act and other such legislation will become subject of judicial discretion which is not reflected by this House. I specifically refer to the matter I referred to in the adjournment debate last week where the lists of criteria that the magistrate may turn their attention to when bailing, does not include sending a person to liberty for the purposes of receiving traditional punishment. The obvious and most glaring aspect of this problem is that a magistrate cannot send a person to punishment if they have not been convicted of an offence. The process is that the charges are laid, the charges proved, the person is convicted, and then they are punished.
In this instance, a person was set at liberty for the purposes of being punished, and I would be curious to see what would occur if the person who had been punished, for whatever reason, was found to be not guilty of the crime that they had been charged with. It is an area that I would hope to hear something back on from the Attorney-General.
The other thing that concerns me is that one of the criteria in the Bail Act for being set to liberty is that a person may go about their lawful business. I would point out to the Attorney-General that section 26 of the Criminal Code means that a person cannot consent to being subject to grievous harm unless it is for medical attention. This means that a person who claims to be going about their lawful business - that is, receiving punishment - may not be able to consent to that harm being done and, therefore, the criteria that is being considered is not immediately lawful.
At the end of the day, what I am really concerned about is that this form of punishment, spearing, albeit in the legs, will eventually see a person killed and reflect very badly on the court that sets that person to liberty for the purposes of being punished. The physical nature of a severed femoral artery means that you bleed to death very quickly, and it is a very difficult injury to treat because the femoral artery is a piece of tissue that is very elastic. When it is severed, it is not just a matter of clamping it, because it actually shoots back up into the groin and it is almost impossible to control the bleeding, even with the best medical attention. So it is something that the courts ignore at their peril, and if a person should die as a result of such a decision, it would reflect very badly on the courts indeed.
The Kurduju Council is a great initiative, and it is an extension of an initiative that was started by the former government in Ali Curung, and has resulted in almost, as I understand it, rendering the policeman at that location being essentially – well, I won’t say essentially, but being largely - redundant because their workload has so fundamentally diminished since the community took over its own crime issues.
The Ali Curung community did have a very serious crime problem, and it is a clear example of where a community decides to take control of itself, it can do so and do so wonderfully well. When they choose to do it and they get the results that they are after, it is almost like the European court system does not really need to interpose itself at all. So, there is a lot to be said for these ideas, and I congratulate the current government on continuing and, indeed, expanding an initiative which seems to have achieved great outcomes for the people of Ali Curung. I hope that they can continue to have those sorts of successes.
I am also grateful that the minister talked about domestic violence. I am wholly sick of domestic violence as I see it perpetrated around my electorate. I have seen it perpetrated in some dreadful ways over the years. When I was a police officer, from time to time, I had to put people in body bags as a result of domestic violence. Often, the argument was over something utterly stupid. What springs to mind is one event a few years ago, when a fellow decided to take to his wife with the aluminium bottom half of an umbrella stand; beat her around the head; then jumped on her when she was lying down, cracking several ribs; and then running her through with a knife through the back under the shoulder blade, puncturing her right lung - if memory serves me, yes right lung. When I finally caught up with the fellow and said: ‘Why did you do this?’, it came down to the fact that she had some loose change which was sufficient to purchase liquor and, because she did not immediately hand it over because she wanted to do something nave like feed her children, that was the penalty she suffered. That is not a question of traditional law or European law, that is just somebody who behaved in an unspeakable way to another person and deserved the full penalty of the law.
It is something that the Attorney-General touched on, it is something that I promise the Attorney-General I will be looking at very, very closely and hard over the next few years. I hope that the Attorney-General will continue to pursue the matter with not only rhetoric, but also substance in getting the right numbers, the right staff, and the right sort of funding going to it because it is one of the most pressing health issues in remote communities.
There is another aspect I want to touch on, and that was in answer to a question that the minister was asked last week in relation to a particular incident. The quote I extract from the minister’s answer is this:
- Be that as it may, both systems of law exist in reality in the Northern Territory and, quite rightly, our
Chief Magistrate and Chief Justice insist on the magistracy and judiciary having full discretion in their
courts to try and deal with these issues that occur in the boundary between the two systems of law.
The Attorney-General has come a long way since he uttered those comments. The fact of the matter is the Attorney-General has obviously gone back and thought about it and said that there can only be one superior law in the Northern Territory, and that is the law that he is bound by his oath of office to protect. That is the law which is passed and made by the parliament of the Northern Territory. The Attorney-General has come a long way since last week - I am grateful that he has - in terms of the commitment he is prepared to give in relation to laws which are passed by this Chamber. I also hear that the Attorney-General is planning to travel to New Zealand in the near future, and I have spoken to him about that trip and I look forward to his response.
There are many more things I could say in relation to what is in this statement. Unfortunately, the time I have has expired, and I look forward to continuing debate.
Mrs AAGAARD (Health and Community Services): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I speak in support of the statement by my colleague, the Minister for Justice, on indigenous people and the justice system. This is an historic occasion. By pledging to sign the communiqu from the October 1997 Ministerial Summit on Indigenous People in Custody, this government is once again demonstrating its commitment to the rights of indigenous Territorians.
The Minister for Justice drew attention to the underlying social, economic and cultural dimensions of the disadvantage suffered by indigenous people. We know that the high exposure of Aboriginal people to the criminal justice system stems from a complex set of circumstances. The likelihood of an individual becoming involved in criminal activity and/or substance abuse is compounded by their exposure to risk and resilience building experiences in early childhood. It is a relatively simple formula. Growing up in safe, secure, nurturing and stimulating environments improves one’s chances in life immeasurably. Risk factors include family violence and conflict, substance abuse, poor supervision, and monitoring of children and social or cultural discrimination. Protective factors include strong self-esteem, resilience in the face of difficulties, and an ability to reach out to others for good help and good health.
These factors interact to either undermine or create a solid foundation for a child’s future. A pioneer of early intervention as an effective method of preventing crime and violence, Professor Ross Hommel has noted:
- Interventions such as home visiting, family support and parenting education can have a major impact on
at risk families and children to improve quality of life and prevent future offending.
His landmark report, Pathways to Prevention, found much scientifically persuasive international evidence confirming that interventions early in life can have long term impacts on crime and other social problems. Overseas research also indicates the cost effectiveness of early intervention strategies when compared to the long-term costs of crime and the criminal justice response.
Given this evidence, I would like to take this opportunity to briefly describe a few examples of initiatives that reflect the themes mentioned by the Minister for Justice. They aim to prevent problems emerging in the first instance, and to respond early when they do arise. Over the next few years, access to parenting, eduction and support programs in the Territory will be improved by further development of indigenous parent education programs such as the Beyond Blue program operating on the Tiwi Islands, strengthening and targetting of parent programs, assessing the effectiveness of the Good Beginnings programs which currently operate in the Berrimah and Alice Springs gaols with a view to partnering with the Commonwealth to extend these programs to a broader target group.
Early childhood education and care services will be improved through development of new services in Central Australia. Six new and expanded child and family centres are to be developed in Central Australia that will provide child care together with other programs aimed at supporting the healthy development of young children. These services, funded primarily by the Commonwealth, not only provide for young children’s care, they also create employment opportunities, and training for local Aboriginal people in early childhood education and care. Continued collaboration between the Health and Education portfolios which, amongst other things, will see a stronger focus on early childhood literacy, numeracy and social skills. Already there are three new mobile preschools taking structured programs into remote communities, while local initiatives are emerging that create stronger links between young children’s care and early childhood education programs.
Securing the safety and wellbeing of young people is, after all, one of the surest ways of allowing them to reach their full potential. We do not want to waste our time on this most important of all social policy areas. Already plans are in hand to evaluate the impact of new early childhood programs for indigenous children living in remote communities, and work is continuing to come to grips with ways of translating parent education programs across culturally different contexts. This is not an academic exercise; it is an essential part of ensuring the things we do make a difference.
It is the same principle that underlies the statement made by the Minister for Justice. It is a principle that commits us to a real pursuit of social justice for indigenous people. I commend the statement to the House.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise to make observations and comments about the ministerial statement presented by the Attorney-General entitled Indigenous People and the Justice System. I must say, as a fellow who has been born and bred here, I grew up in Humpty Doo and Howard Springs, and I have lots of friends, some are Aboriginal, some are coloured, some are white, of all different races and derivations. I never really thought too much about the colour of a man’s skin or where he was from until coming to this parliament. Suddenly, there is this massive divide between black and white. When I played rugby and Aussie Rules, it wasn’t an issue - if you are a good bloke, you are a good bloke irrespective of your colour. It is in one sense a bit disappointing when people are put in categories, but in another sense, if there is a genuine need and if we can help a section of our community and they happen to be a particular race, that is a positive step, but I am just taken aback a little by some of the comments about ‘us’ and ‘you’ and just the fact that people are in different categories. Ultimately …
Ms Scrymgour: It is not just from this side. It is both sides. It is that side as well. It is not just this side.
Mr MALEY: I am saying as a general observation, just as a bloke who has never really thought about people as black and white, just as people, to come here and to cop it day in day out is very disappointing. I do not know if it is just the people from down south that have that mentality, but I am telling you from the locals I know, we know the truth. The truth really is that there is no difference between a black person and a white person because people are people. That is the fundamental tenet.
There are many different cultures and I think that everyone should have respect for cultures and tradition, and I think that encouraging traditions is an important thing, but creating a divide between people because of some perceived race thing is, I reckon, a step in the wrong direction. If someone is poor, if someone lives in a community and they need help, then we should do all we can to help them irrespective of their race and derivation. It does the whole issue a bit of a disservice. A person objectively listening to what we have said - and perhaps not understanding that ultimately, everyone has a fairly good motive - could be forgiven for thinking: ‘Oh, look, there is a bit of a racial thing happening’ because there probably should not be, and the terminology we have been using is fairly average.
On the face of it, it is a statement of fairly positive intent. There is a fair bit of rhetoric. I have been to Maningrida and Port Keats, and I have gone out to visit friends and have spent time - the longest was a couple of weeks - roaming through the bush hunting animals and the like and just catching up with blokes from school who said: ‘Come out, you should see my country’, and we have taken them out to our country down near the Mary. The real problem, I reckon, with these remote communities, irrespective of the colour of the people who live there, is that if you do not have got a real industry there and a job. You can educate people all you want, you can have the flashest health clinic, you can have a brand new police station, but if you have mum and dad at home who do not work, and then you have someone who goes home and there is no work ethic and there is no real drive to go out and - well, there is the drive there, especially in the young people, but there is no opportunity for a person in some of these communities to get a job in private enterprise, a fulfilling job where you can earn good money and then have a family, and then his kids can see that occur.
I reckon that all the flowery talk about spending money certainly has the right motivation, but ultimately, if we are going to deal with the problem, if you want to address the real tiger, then you have really got to look closely at things like some sort of economic independence, creating a sense of self-esteem in people. The other things that we talk about, the social agenda, will all follow that.
An example is on page 9 of the statement. I am interested in this subject matter not just because of my background and my friends, but it is something which is crucial to the ongoing prosperity of the Territory, that everyone has the right opportunities. At page 9, the learned minister does mention economic partnerships in the second paragraph but:
- … and announced some important initiatives that would contribute to the approach of the Martin
government including:
the commitment of $600 000 for community capacity building.
They are all very noble ideas, but at the end of the day, a place like - well Port Keats I am probably most familiar with. There might be 1000 there during the Dry and perhaps 2000 people during the Wet Season, but there will be, one day, 10 000 people living there. This cycle of ‘we will have another school, another police station, another health clinic, another 20 houses and another contractor going around doing the houses’ is a cycle which is not going to be broken unless you quite genuinely have some sort of economic impetus there; some sort of worthwhile employment-creating opportunities for people.
I had the opportunity to read what the former Chief Minister had said - in fact, not only the most recent former Chief Minister, the member for Brennan, but another Chief Minister. You could really have taken most of the words in those statements - and they were not identical, they were not plagiarised, but I am saying the sentiment is exactly the same; often the same noises have been made. There is really absolutely nothing new in this document, there is no initiative here that has not quite genuinely been discussed, put into Hansard and debated in this parliament, from my limited reading. I only had this of course, from yesterday afternoon on.
So there is work to be done. There is, unfortunately, nothing new. There is no brand new initiative in this document, but it is certainly making the noises which indicate that the Attorney-General is certainly looking closely at the problem and is aware that there is a problem and it has to be addressed.
The other matter - which I don’t think I made a comment on in parliament - the Minister assisting the Chief Minister on Indigenous Affairs did receive a fair bit of acknowledgement when he talked about some ‘brutal truths’, and certainly a fellow for whom I have respect, but I was contacted by people at ANSTI. There is an Aboriginal lady there I have known most of my life, and she was of the view that a lot of the initiatives that were contained even in that statement, they had been putting into place for years. ANSTI - I think it is an acronym for ‘a new start’. It is a drug and alcohol rehabilitation centre. People live there. It is a showcase of what we can do. It can help itinerant people - it has helped itinerant people if they have serious drug and alcohol problems - enter back into mainstream society. They have animals, pig pens and chooks and horses and all the usual, set on a large block and it really creates some hope.
The thing that I really wanted to comment upon is at page 12 of the statement under the heading ‘Customary Law Inquiry’. You would think, at first read of the document: ‘Gee, that sounds like a sensible thing to do. What a great initiative’. I asked one of the librarians to help me, and I went down and spent some time trying to look at whether this issue has been addressed. Has it been looked at in other jurisdictions? What was the result of those inquiries? There is a huge amount of material. There must have been inquiries on this exact topic in every other jurisdiction, Aboriginal Customary Laws report by the Commonwealth. We have Recognition of Aboriginal Customary Laws, and really detailed reports costing hundreds of thousands of dollars, prepared by public servants. Anyway, the list goes on. There is one: Recognition Given to Aspects of Indigenous Customary Law in Queensland, Indigenous Customary Law Forum. And there are a whole lot of really good articles in the alternative Law journal, Aboriginal Law Bulletin, really good reading, but I tell you: this issue has been addressed, and addressed, in every other jurisdiction.
The recommendations make sense and, in one sense, I get the feeling there may have been a bit of political posturing and some grandstanding to try and send out the message that we are doing something new. Well, quite frankly, that it is arguably a waste of taxpayers’ money to reinvent the wheel which looks like it has been rebuilt about 10 times - that is in the past 10 years - in almost all other jurisdictions. The Commonwealth, including the Australian Law Reform Commission, flew people up, they went and visited - you know as southerners do, they come up here and go to communities - and they have taken evidence.
It is quite surprising that this government and this minister would hold himself out to be doing something new. I really do not think he can honestly believe that anything that is contained in this document is new. There really are no initiatives. The one initiative that I reckon would assist people - and I am not going to say Aboriginal people or white people - in remote communities who are doing it tough, taken from the position they are in and likely to stay in, is a real effort to create some sort of economic driver, a real attempt to create some sort of employment and not just CDEP. With no disrespect, but I have seen some jobs which I thought were fairly tokenistic. They do not need jobs for the sake of having jobs for two hours a day, but a job which is well paid, a real industry, hopefully private enterprise so government is not footing the bill. The opportunities are there and I am firmly of the view that it is government’s role to assist people in those communities and try and put more resources into economic development.
All the things we have talked about - and I suspect all the things we want on both sides of the House - will be achieved if we can deal with that fundamental issue; that there is some sort of independent economic prosperity. It is complicated because if you are going to spend money in those areas, there has to be a review of the Land Rights Act. You have to empower traditional owners and people who own the land, and give them the ability to make decisions about their land. As it turns out now, you have people in town who are not traditional owners, who really do not have any traditional affiliation with a group of people, telling them what they can and cannot do. That is not the way forward. The way forward is to say: ‘Look, we respect you as an individual. This is your land; this is your country’, and perhaps some encouragement down the road of an independent economic, wealth creating, job creating driver.
I certainly support the sentiment contained in this document, there is absolutely no doubt about that. I am disturbed at some of the terminology in terms of the racial overtones which I have not been exposed to until I came to this place. It missed, quite genuinely, the number one difficulty; that is, the creation of some wealth-creating type projects, jobs, and incentives. If you really want to empower people, you have to get a community working for themselves, not working on this welfare mentality we have heard about; not wandering around not sure what is going to happen next, but create some sort of economic certainty.
Mr McADAM (Barkly): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, the signing this afternoon, after almost five years of delay, of the government Communiqu on Aboriginal Deaths in Custody perhaps has the capacity to be a real turning point in relation to indigenous people in the Northern Territory.
I would very much like to think it is a move away from the wasted years of the previous government; that basically was a time of waste, political humbug, and, sadly, ad hoc responses to a lot of the social crises faced by many indigenous people in the Territory. Central to these social crises has been the alienation of so many indigenous people, especially our young people, from mainstream society. Nowhere is this clearer than in the alienation felt by so many young people when it comes to the justice system.
On the one hand, indigenous values have been denigrated for many years, so much so that many young people now feel worthless. On the other hand, institutions of justice, from the police to the court system and even the Legislative Assembly, have not always been able to understand or gauge in a real way what is happening out in our indigenous communities. I say this despite the very real intentions of the police and, of course, the magistrates. Basically there has been lack of resources in respect of these issues.
In many ways, the electorate of Barkly is representative of some of the problems that indigenous people have with the justice system. Employment opportunities in the pastoral industry have been in general decline since the late 1960s, and opportunities in the mining area have also been dramatically reduced. Unfortunately, Tennant Creek has not experienced the growth industries that have occurred in other places like Alice Springs, Katherine and Darwin, and I refer to the tourism industry, but I guess that is another issue which can be debated at another time.
The effects of this on the people of the Barkly region, especially our younger people, have manifested themselves in substance abuse, notably alcohol, poverty, homelessness, and a sense of despair. Problems with alcohol, especially during the 1980s and the 1990s led to what were quite aptly described as the ‘Grog Wars’. It was a phrase that characterised the incredible damage grog was doing to people and also the battle by the community to do something about alcohol. It led to the first community initiated alcohol sale restrictions in Australia. The introduction of these restrictions – they were controversial at the time - achieved a number of profound results. First, they brought the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal institutions and people together in Tennant Creek for the first time in very significant ways. AlAid, with the campaign to rein back on the social damage caused by grog, was the establishment of Julalikari Night Patrol, and this really meant that Aboriginal groups and the police, for example, were brought together in a common cause rather than conflict, as was the case perhaps in the past.
Second, the trial restrictions have also brought significant social change and indeed financial results. Violence and related issues such as hospitalisation have been lowered significantly as has antisocial behaviour in the community. Perhaps this will be vindicated in the future by the police report, when they bring it out in the next month or so, as I understand it. Third, and most importantly, the process led to indigenous people taking control and responsibility in partnership with the non-indigenous groups in a community capacity building process that showed that things could be done.
There are two major initiatives involving law and justice issues in the Barkly which signal that this community capacity building process can benefit us all. The first is a Tennant Creek Youth and Safe Community Strategy. The Safe Community Strategy is a result of the ground-breaking partnership agreement signed between the Yapakurlangu Regional Council and the Tennant Creek Town Council in December last year. The purpose of this agreement was to formalise a common commitment to working together in shared leadership. Within six months of this agreement being signed, the Yapakurlangu Regional Council and the Tennant Creek Town Council were able to develop the alliance for the adoption of the strategy to develop Tennant Creek as a safe community.
With support from the Northern Territory government, the strategy encompasses the full participation and cooperation of all relevant government agencies based in or providing services to Tennant Creek; advice as required from the Northern Territory police and the Office of Crime Prevention in the Department of Justice; and funding for a consultant or project staff to undertake development of the strategy in Tennant Creek. The development of this Safe Community Strategy is a first for the Northern Territory and is indicative of the high priority placed on community safety by our government.
Along with these crime prevention activities, a youth sub-committee has been established. Both these groups are already creating strong networks in the community. The federal Department of Family and Community Services has also granted $260 000 over two years to employ a Community Development Officer to advance the project. The NT Office of Crime Prevention is involved in the strategy and has nominated the management committee as its Regional Crime Prevention Committee covering the Barkly. Representatives on the committee include the Tennant Creek Town Council, the Yapakurlangu Regional Council, Northern Territory police, other government agencies including the Education department and, of course, Health, the Tennant Creek High School, Julalikari Council, and Anyinginyi Congress. ATSIC has also provided a grant for a consultancy to gather crime and demographic profiles of Tennant Creek, as well as identifying training needs for the committee to ensure that the committee is building its capacity to plan strategically and work together as a team.
The second major initiative with regards to indigenous people and the justice system is the Law and Justice Program that has been under development for some years, and was previously mentioned by the member for Macdonnell. We refer to the Kurduju Committee which has representatives from Ali Curung, Lajamanu and Yuendumu. The Kurduju Committee, I believe, can be the foundation of new approaches to law and justice across the region. This is not just a Territory first, but an Australian first. It will entrust traditional authority structures firmly in the hands of the communities while acknowledging the mutual regard that both Aboriginal customary law and western law can develop between each other.
I would particularly like to pay tribute to the staff in the Department of Community Development, Sports and Cultural affairs, Peter Ryan and Jackie Antoun who have been at this task for quite some time and have developed some real expertise which could become applicable to some of the other communities throughout the Northern Territory. In acknowledging Peter and Jackie, I would also like to take this opportunity to thank other people involved in this area of work. I would like to thank Tauto Sansbury, the national Chairperson of the Australian Justice Advisory Committee who was here today for the signing. I have known Tauto for something like 25-odd years and his commitment and dedication to this cause is something that serves as a lesson to us all because Tauto has never been one to give in. The fact that he was up here today with his colleagues to sign the communiqu with our government bears testament to the sort of bloke that he is.
I would also like to pay a tribute to Eddie Taylor who was actually born near Elliott. I do not know if Eddie is up there, but I would just like to thank him for all the hard work that he has done, too. He was the NT chair of the advisory committee between 1999 and 2001, and I know Eddie has been very supportive and committed. I know he has taken up a whole lot of issues on behalf of the indigenous community in Central Australia. Eddie mentioned to me this morning that he is very pleased at what was occurring in Tennant Creek and in Alice Springs, and paid tribute to the police and to the other agencies in those two communities. Also to Dougie Walker, who is the present chair of the Justice Committee.
In respect of the Northern Territory police service, I would also like to express my appreciation to Steve Edgington, who is not only the chair of the Crime Prevention Committee in Tennant Creek, but was also instrumental in the early establishment of the Kurduju project. Steve is a young man who has been involved over a very long period of time, has a real understanding and feeling in terms of some of the issues that exist in indigenous communities, and does a wonderful job right across the board in the Barkly. And also to Gary Manison, who is the Southern Commander for the Barkly region. Gary visits Tennant Creek and the other communities within my electorate on a regular basis and plays a very supportive role in the development of law and justice issues in the region.
It is my hope that the lessons learnt and still being learnt in the Barkly region can perhaps be replicated elsewhere in the Northern Territory, and that is very much subject to communities and people wanting to go down that track. Certainly in Darwin, it is good to see that night patrols have been set up and been linked to the itinerants project. I know that other communities are experimenting with different ways to control the wholesale, unrestricted availability and supply of alcohol, and I guess that what is occurring here in Darwin is their way of tackling that and I applaud everyone in respect to that.
The capacity building projects being undertaken by the Minister for Community Development are part of an increasing recognition by this government that community involvement and control are critical in developing local and regional solutions. It would be my hope that the law and justice projects such as the one I mentioned previously, the Kurduju Committee, can be built on, but of course there is a lot more work to be done.
One of the areas I would like to see more effort put into is in respect to cross-cultural training, especially for non-indigenous staff who go out to remote communities. Those of us who have been in remote communities will be aware that a lot of people do not stay a long time so, therefore, they are not in a position to undertake what I would see to be appropriate training. In most instances, they go out there with absolutely no training at all, and it makes it just so much harder, not only in respect to themselves and their ability to perform their role, but equally, it applies to the indigenous community. So that is something that should occur. I know that it has been tried in the past; I know that it has been found wanting in the past, but, if we are going to be fair dinkum in this area, then it is something that we should look at again.
The other area that warrants further consideration is that we must elevate the role of Aboriginal Community Police Officers in communities. I do not precisely know how we do it, but I would trust that this exercise, the review, would incorporate some of that. I would like to see more indigenous police officers, community policing officers, actually go on to become constables in the police force or police officers. I am not certain as to why this does not occur, perhaps there may be some structures in place. I have been advised that this is certainly not the case, but I know that there are lots of people out there who would like to join the mainstream police force and contribute at that level. Perhaps we should look at that.
Equally, we should also be looking at - not in a discriminatory way but in a favourable way - how we can provide cadetships in respect of indigenous people to join the police force. That would go part of the way to many of the problems that we face in the Northern Territory. The other thing I have raised previously in this House - I have raised it with minister Stirling, and I believe I have probably raised it with the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General - is we have to have a look at the establishment of an Indigenous Advisory Board to the police service similar to the Ethnic Advisory Board which exists. They play a critical and important role, and I suspect into the future they will play an even more important role, working in with the police, community and government. Given the very high percentage of indigenous people in the Northern Territory and their interface and linkages or contacts with the police, it would be appropriate to have a look at the advisory board to advise the police. It is something that I have raised previously, and I hope it is taken up at some time in the future.
I refer to the Learning Lessons report. That becomes very, very important, and we have to provide a real focus in ensuring that actually gets rolled out on the ground in the communities. I am not being critical, but we have lost that focus. It has to be driven at a regional level, but that is something that we could take up at some time in the future.
Of course, Minister Stirling’s announcement of a secondary schools review is also, I believe, a step in the right direction, particularly in respect of communities in the bush, both indigenous and non-indigenous.
Finally, I welcome the announcement of the Aboriginal customary law review, Towards Mutual Benefit. I know there will be Aboriginal men and women of high degree who will want to contribute to this process. I trust this will lead to a greater understanding of the role of Aboriginal customary law and the way in which it may contribute to social harmony in the Northern Territory. I am certain it will allay some of the irrational prejudices and fears - none more evidenced than the article by Col Newman in this morning’s NT News which was just plain wrong, as was the decision by Mr Justice Gallop in respect of the Pascoe matter.
Aboriginal customary law is part of this government’s whole-of-government, whole-of-community approach. It is a tribute, certainly, to the Northern Territory government, and to the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General, who is prepared to take this up. I am of the view that it will make a difference to the Territory.
I want to respond to a point raised by the member for Goyder when he referred to a whole lot of reports that have been done in the past. That is very true; we can learn a lot from those reports. Clearly, they would have been commissioned by governments, both Commonwealth and state, over a long period of time. The challenge for us, as a government - and I invite the opposition to become part of this – is to take it a little further and not let this report, like those reports, just gather dust.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I commend the statement to the Assembly.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, first, I welcome any statement or initiative from any government that is aimed at, or otherwise directed at, addressing the issue of violence in any community in the Northern Territory or Australia. I look forward to the outcome of the review, and wish the government and members of the review well in what I am sure will be a difficult undertaking.
I want to have a thoughtful and constructive input to this debate. I might say I am very pleased with the contributions that I have observed this afternoon in this place. It is important that all of us as elected members make a contribution – that is certainly what my constituents expect, both indigenous and non-indigenous.
The statement acknowledges on the first page that indigenous people are over-represented in the prison population. I would suggest that is no surprise at all for any of us living in the Northern Territory. Indigenous people are nine times more likely to go to gaol than non-indigenous Territorians. Again I say those figures are not surprising, and it is because indigenous people commit more crimes. I speak from experience. I have spent a lot of time in the Local and Supreme Courts in the Northern Territory. Most of the matters dealt with are criminal matters, and most of those criminal acts are committed by indigenous people and any judge or magistrate in the Northern Territory will tell you that.
The figures, however, are tragic. What we as a parliament need to do is look at who are the victims and who are the perpetrators, and of course the answer is fairly obvious. We should be honest about who we are talking about. Indigenous people are being bashed by indigenous people. Indigenous women are being beaten by indigenous men and for the sake of this debate we should not mince words - we should be very clear about who we are talking about both in terms of perpetrators and offenders.
My fear, though, is that the statement provides little in a way that is new that will address the problems. Some of the matters contained in the statements, as the member for Goyder and the member for Brennan have said, have been lifted from other ideas in other places. Some of those ideas were the ideas of the previous administration, so it really is trite to suggest that the former administration did not do anything. It did, and the member for Brennan quite rightly said that it was difficult and it will continue to be difficult regardless of which party is in government in the Northern Territory.
The government obviously thinks that it is time for a review; that is fair enough. If the government believes that this review will go some way to improving the disgraceful situation that we see around us and that exists in Aboriginal communities, then I will be the first one to applaud it.
Interestingly, though, I see again - I think on the first or second page of the statement - the reference to only two in five indigenous Territorians having a job. That is very interesting given what has been said in this parliament last week about the fact that the Northern Territory has the lowest unemployment rate in Australia. Clearly, the indigenous population needs great attention and I am very pleased to see the government gives indigenous people the attention, but it is not the case that the previous administration did not.
In 12 months of this ALP government there have been no outcomes, no reduction in crime, no reduction in indigenous people committing it. Now there is a review. So be it. I look forward to its outcome. I would hate to think that this government comes from a political standpoint that is supportive of an absurd proposition and that is that indigenous people should not go to gaol. That is certainly not a view I share. I say, and the CLP says, and I think the wider community says, that if anyone commits a crime they should be punished. I note with interest that the word ‘punish’ does not appear anywhere in the statement. Prisons are there for a reason. I would have thought that this was an opportunity for the government to scratch below the surface a little and perhaps direct the review team to inquire as to why such a high percentage of indigenous people are in gaol; in other words, look behind the figures and look to the causes.
I support the view that everyone knows what is right and wrong. Some people crash through regardless, whereas others elect not to because they have a sense of what is right and proper. People are in gaol for reasons, and it is with a little disappointment that there is no exploration of this in the minister’s statement. I would suggest that instead of simply giving the figures, the Attorney-General would have asked the review panel questions such as: ‘Why is it that Aboriginal men beat their wives more than non-indigenous men?’ ‘Why is it that some Aboriginal men are repeat offenders, some of whom have killed a wife and then reappeared before the courts on new crimes of violence on another wife?’ ‘Why is it that child incest in the Aboriginal community is endemic?’
The former government did what it could, and I wish this government well in its attempts to break the cycle of violence. I say very sincerely and very genuinely that I look forward to the review’s recommendations. I note that one co-chair of the review team has not yet been announced. Obviously when that person is announced, he or she will be only too well aware of the many different cultures that exist in the Northern Territory. A person in the position of a co-chair of a group like this may not be acceptable to some members of the Aboriginal community, but he or she might be to others.
I do hope that Aboriginal peoples from around the Territory are represented very broadly on the review panel, that is from all regions of the Northern Territory. Of course, it is important for all of us here to remember that there are so many customary laws from so many communities and cultures in the wider Aboriginal community, it would really be remiss of the minister if he did not ensure that representation was extensive.
There have been a number of references in the minister’s statement to indigenous leaders and indigenous communities, and I think we should try to be a bit clear on who we are talking about. We all know that like any community, in the Aboriginal community in that wider sense, there is not always agreement on a range of matters. Who represents who, and on whose say so? For instance, some members of an indigenous community somewhere in the Northern Territory might say that a particular course of action is reasonable and appropriate. What happens if other members of that Aboriginal community or the wider Aboriginal community disagree? Whose voice will be heard?
I note that on page 17 of the statement the Attorney-General says that the inquiry will look into ‘the strength of Aboriginal customary law’. In some areas in the Northern Territory, customary law is very strong. In other areas it is not. It is not a ‘one size fits all’ proposition. Culture and custom are not generic or homogenous. They are complex and that is the reason why people of the Northern Territory need to be broadly represented and the panel needs to be broadly representative. In any event, I am sure that the co-chair will be aware of those issues and he or she has a very difficult task.
It is important that the review team has a good representation of indigenous women on the team. So much of the statement affects women; it is imperative that women are represented, and I implore the Attorney-General to do so. If he does not, he will run the risk of having a team of men, indigenous and non-indigenous, providing government with recommendations, thereby passing women and women’s issues. The most important issue for Aboriginal women is violence by Aboriginal men. The men are beating them, and bashing them, and destroying them. I support any attempts to overcome this problem, but it must include attitudinal changes within the communities.
I note that on page 3 of the statement the Attorney-General says that indigenous leaders, organisations and communities must make a commitment to this process as well. Indeed, they must. If they do not, what will the Attorney do? What if, for instance, as may happen, some members of the indigenous community say: ‘This is none of your business. This is our business. This area does not need to be reviewed. We are fine’? Will the Attorney-General stand up to be counted and take action? I do not know. That, of course, is a matter for him and the government.
At pages 26 and 27 of the statement there is a reference to the Aboriginal Law and Justice Strategy as being a key element of the government’s crime prevention strategy and its work to reduce the over-representation of indigenous people in our gaols. The only way to reduce indigenous representation in our gaols is to stop Aboriginal men committing crimes of violence, and there is nothing in the statement aimed directly at that. Certainly there are some other steps that have been undertaken by this government which may assist that area, but we have to be - all of us - honest about addressing this issue and the fact is that there will be lower Aboriginal representation in our prisons if Aboriginal people stop committing acts of violence.
This government now has the opportunity to do what it can to stop violence and other criminal acts, and I wish it luck. As part of an attitudinal change, the government may wish to consider minimum sentences for crimes of violence. I say that in a very serious way. Personally, I have long held the view that there should be minimum sentences for aggravated assaults, and the government, subject to the outcome of the review, may wish to consider this proposition in due course.
Some areas are complicated and others are not. I note that the Attorney-General said in the statement:
- Aboriginal customary law should be recognised to the extent which is consistent with universally
recognised human rights and fundamental freedoms.
I am very happy to hear that today, but cannot help but wonder why, when I asked him a simple question last week, he did not answer it. That question was:
- Next week your government intends to unveil plans for the integration of traditional Aboriginal law
into the justice system. Do you intend to include acceptance of Aboriginal men having sex with children?
The Attorney-General did not answer the question, and I cannot for the life of me work out why he was unable to say the word ‘no’ at that time. Thankfully, he has, as I understand it, from the words in his statement, clarified that position today. Curiously, though, on at least two occasions in the answer provided in Question Time last week, he referred to two systems of law working in the Northern Territory. That is wrong, and I might say it was a little surprising to hear the Territory’s first law officer say such a thing.
Happily now, one week later, he comes back with a different and, I might say, a correct view. I do not know why the Attorney-General took a week to answer the question I asked him. I am pleased to say that I do not need to dwell on it because his position is now clear. At page 16 of the statement, the Attorney-General says that the government affirms that the NT Criminal Code applies to all citizens of the Northern Territory without exception, and I am very pleased to hear that. It makes me think, on that basis alone, that the DPP or indeed the Attorney-General himself, as he has the capacity to do, will appeal the decision in the Jackie Pascoe case.
I notice, by way of somewhat of a digression in today’s Australian newspaper, an Aboriginal leader, Kim Hill, says:
- I do not promote violence or assault. However, these people have been living in that lifestyle and
practising that for thousands of years.
I would suggest that that is a fairly disturbing logic, because the extension of it is that if Aboriginal men have been bashing their wives for a very long time, then it is okay simply because it has been happening for a very long time. The inference, of course, is that Aboriginal men giving, promising or selling Aboriginal girls to other Aboriginal men is also a reasonable proposition. I point to this article in The Australian today because it shows that, in my view, there are irresponsible members of the indigenous community just as there are irresponsible members of any other community. That is the problem the minister has, and as far as I could see, there is no way around the sorts of obstacles and difficulties he will experience in the course of his review. Also in the same article in The Australian today, ATSIC Chairman Geoff Clark refused to condemn parts of customary law permitting sex with minors or rape in marriage, according to that report. I would suggest that that is an outrageous position for anyone to take.
So the Attorney-General says in his statement that Aboriginal customary law should be recognised to the extent which is consistent with universally recognised human rights and fundamental freedoms. We know that it is both illegal and wrong to commit rape in marriage, and it is also illegal and wrong to have sex with minors. It is implicit from the Attorney-General’s statement that he shares those views but in light of the Pascoe case, my question is: will he ask the review panel to consider legislating against men promising girls to other men, or perhaps even amending the Criminal Code so that judges and magistrates do not take into account things like selling children and having sex with them because we know that those things are not, using the Attorney-General’s language, ‘consistent with universally recognised human rights and fundamental freedoms’.
The Attorney-General and the government now have an opportunity to address the outrage of the Jackie Pascoe case but, unfortunately, there is no mention - not of that case so much - but the issues raised by that case. I might say I was a little surprised by it.
The Attorney-General, as I have said, will face various obstacles that others will create for him. Some members of an Aboriginal community think that the things that I have mentioned are reasonable, others do not. Even if heinous crimes are not incorporated into our justice system, others will be. What type of matters will be incorporated into the one justice system that we have here in the Northern Territory? There is unlikely to be an agreed position, so there will not, or may not be, universal agreement. It follows from that, that the next question is: who decides? Will it be the Attorney-General; will it be his Cabinet colleagues? At what risk will they make a decision that may alienate some parts not just of the Aboriginal community, but the wider community. So who will draw the lines; and what lines will be drawn? This is the question that I ask today in the context of this debate.
Decisions on these issues as a fundamental proposition should not be made on whose voice is loudest because there will be no universal agreement. So I urge the Attorney-General to ensure that Aboriginal women are represented and represented well on the review panel so that we do not have a bunch of black and white men telling people in the community what is right and what is wrong.
Matters that go before the courts are dealt with on a case by case basis. That is right and proper. However, what Territorians will not tolerate is one law for some and another law for others. They will not stomach some criminals being dealt with differently from others; they will not stomach two sets of laws, one for one group, one for another.
Having made those comments, I will conclude by making some others in a more specific sense, although the Attorney-General may not consider them as important as some of the matters I have already dealt with. He has referred to the court initiatives on page 29 of his statement, and I note the reference to the Victim Support Unit of the DPP and in particular his reference to the Darwin office for its work in what he described as ‘this difficult and important area’. I was saddened and surprised, as a member of parliament from Central Australia and, indeed, the Minister for Central Australia, at his failure to mention the great work performed by the Aboriginal Support Worker in the Alice Springs Office, Merle Thomas of the DPP in Alice Springs. Merle has worked in that office for a little over five years. Since the Attorney-General did not see fit to thank her in the context of this important statement, I would certainly like to express my thanks to her on the Parliamentary Record for her work in this difficult and important area.
I might say also that in relation to the Integrated Offender Management System, I was not surprised to see that in there. I received a very detailed briefing some time ago, and it looks like quite an exciting area. I look forward to more statements being made by the Attorney-General as to its progress in this House. It is a New Zealand model and, if the results are as encouraging there as I understand they are, then it may well come up trumps for us in the Northern Territory.
In terms of the domestic violence strategy, again, I had a briefing on that very recently. That strategy was implemented, as we know, by the CLP. It was always well funded and I am very happy to see that it has received even more funding from this government. Again, I look forward to more progress reports from the government in due course.
In conclusion, I wish the government well. I look forward to reading the panel’s final report which I hope the Attorney-General will make available to all of us. In essence, I support anything that has a go at reducing crime and violence, but we do not want a system that provides for some people to be treated very differently from others.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise in response to the Minister for Justice’s statement on indigenous justice in the Northern Territory. The leading announcement in the minister’s statement is that the Northern Territory government has signed a communiqu that other states and territories signed in 1997. It is a worthwhile exercise for us to pause momentarily and think back to the world we lived in before the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody were published in 1991, or even to the world we lived in before the Deaths in Custody Commission commenced its inquiry in 1988.
The catalyst for the establishment of the Deaths in Custody Commission was the rash of Aboriginal deaths in custody over the preceding decade or so. In many cases, the circumstances of the death raised suspicion of mistreatment or worse and reflected incremental resentment and distrust on the part of Aboriginal people, especially young men. This resentment and distrust was felt in relation to white society generally, and police forces in particular. In other cases the deaths were tragic end plays of long-term alcohol abuse or family breakdown which just happened to take place in a police lockup or prison. As the Deaths in Custody Commission’s work progressed, the focus gradually shifted from the suspicion of police or prison staff and misbehaviour in individual cases to the underlying patterns of over-representation of indigenous people in the criminal justice system. A theme and an urgent call for change emerged.
The Deaths in Custody recommendations covered not just the full range of reforms that were needed to the criminal justice system but also reforms that were needed to address what was identified as underlying issues. For most Aboriginal people throughout Australia, the establishment of the Deaths in Custody Commission in 1988 came as something of a surprise. We were all so used to taking it for granted that many police and prison officers were unsympathetic and racist; that random violence from people in authority was a grim reality of life; and that any hope for remedial action by governments to address injustices of this kind were vain and futile.
When Commissioner Elliott Johnson QC’s national report, which included both an overview summary of the Deaths in Custody Commission’s work and a list of its recommendations, was finally handed down in 1991, we were grateful for the comprehensive and progressive way in which the problem faced by Aboriginal communities in modern Australia had been addressed and optimistic that governments would take careful note and start implementing the needed programs. Some of the contents of Commissioner Johnson’s overview need revisiting. At paragraph 1.7.21, he said:
- It can be said of everyone else who lives in Australia that they are migrants or descendants of migrants.
They or their forebears came to Australia for a variety of reasons, but with a clear understanding that
they were coming to a new and quite different country where life would evolve in a distinctive way and
where in respect of those who came later, they knew it had evolved in a particular way.
The first Europeans to arrive brought with them ideas, institutions, religions and other ingredients that
make up a culture. What they brought with them was a culture which has now evolved into something
which is difficult to describe and identify, but is a non-Aboriginal culture – Australian culture. Its basic
ingredient is the culture which was brought in 1788 but all those who have come since have contributed
to the environment in which we all live. All those who have come to the country this century have had
a concept of the country and culture to which they were coming, and made the decision to leave their own
place to embrace the new.
For the Aboriginal people it is different; they were here, they had their culture, they did not leave and did
not ask others to come. They did not go through the process of leaving the old to embrace the new. They
never voluntarily surrendered their culture, and indeed fought tooth and nail to preserve it through
dispossession, protection, assimilation and integration. In their own words, they survived, and their
culture survived in different forms and to different degrees in different parts of the country as a result
of different experiences. They have the right to retain that culture and that identity. Self-determination
is both the expression and guarantee of that right.
- I have discussed this matter at length and to my great advantage with Commissioner Dodson who expresses
the view that it is not only a question of the material assistance which the broader society makes available,
not only the administrative arrangements which are put in place, but also the attitudes of non-Aboriginal people.
He puts it that it is important that non-Aboriginal people not try to impose on Aboriginal people their non-Aboriginal
ideas of what is good, wise or moral, but to let the Aboriginal people feel their own way. In some cases, the way may
be different. In many others, in the case of the core subjects mentioned above, the way may well be the same.
Paragraph 1.730:
- Commissioner Dodson stresses that after what has happened to Aboriginal society, people need space,
time and distance to think out very carefully what they want to do with their own communities and their lives.
It is also important to revisit some of the particular recommendations that followed the overview report. Recommendation 104 dealt with community consultations in relation to sentencing. It reads as follows:
- That in the case of discrete or remote communities sentencing authorities consult with Aboriginal
communities and organisations as to the general range of sentences which the community considers
appropriate for offences committed within the communities by members of those communities and,
further, that subject to preserving the civil and legal rights of offenders and victims such consultation
should in appropriate circumstances relate to sentences in individual cases.
Recommendation 219 related to the Australian Law Reform Commission’s report on the recognition of Aboriginal customary law. The text of that recommendation was:
- The Australian Law Reform Commission's Report on the Recognition of Aboriginal Customary Law was
a significant, well-researched study. The Royal Commission received requests from Aboriginal people
through the Aboriginal Issues Units regarding the progress in implementation of the recommendations
made by the Australian Law Reform Commission and in some cases from communities which had made
proposals to the Law Reform Commission. This Commission urges government to report as to the progress
in dealing with this Law Reform Report.
Recommendations 275 and 276 sought to address the scourge of alcohol abuse in Aboriginal society. Recommendation 275 states:
- That the Northern Territory Government review its liquor legislation in the light of the size of the Aboriginal
population of the Territory and its needs, and include in such a review the desirability of appointing at least
one Aboriginal person to be a member of the Northern Territory Liquor Commission.
Recommendation 276 reads:
- That consideration be given to the desirability of legislating to provide for a local option as to liquor sales
trading hours, particularly in localities where there are high concentrations of Aboriginal people.
There are three kinds of Aboriginal interaction with the criminal justice system. The first is offences committed in mainstream towns. I am cautious and somewhat skeptical about our ability to make quick changes and improvements in the situation that we find ourselves in, where Aboriginal people make up far too many of the numbers appearing before the criminal courts and far too many of those serving sentences in our prison. This statement, wisely, does not promise any overnight miracles. It merely sketches out some paths that we need to set out on if we are going to start the journey of making Aboriginal society whole and healthy again.
One thing we need to do at the outset is to recognise that there are three fairly distinct kinds of scenarios that have been replayed over and over again which are leading to Aboriginal people being charged with offences against Territory laws. The scenario which is probably the most apparent to most non-Aboriginal Territorians is that of offences committed against property and public order by Aboriginal people living in the major population centres where the mainstream authority systems are dominated and controlled by non-Aboriginal people. This scenario in fact occurs far less frequently in the Territory than in the mainland states, but is one that in some cases reflect the inevitable frustration and inability to cope of some Aboriginal people when confronted with lifestyle rules and regimentations of an alien culture.
In other cases, it may be just common or garden juvenile delinquency, with comparatively little cultural overlay. Consistent with our claimed pride in our plural society, we as Territorians need to work at addressing this sort of criminal offending, which can range from comparatively minor offences like vagrancy to the worst and most disruptive of property offences and crimes against the person. The police, the courts and the prison system need to be sensitive and attuned to the motivating factors behind this kind of Aboriginal offending scenario, but the majority law abiding Aboriginal population of the Northern Territory is not asking for special treatment for those who stray, just fair and open-minded treatment.
The second kind of Aboriginal interaction with the criminal justice system is offences committed in Aboriginal communities. I move now to consider another scenario, that is what I will call public offences, as opposed to offences committed within families or family groups, that take place in Aboriginal communities. The law and order dynamic here is very different in that Aboriginal communities should be given a substantial measure of input and determination over how offenders are dealt with. This does not mean that Aboriginal communities do not want and need the assistance of qualified and culturally harmonised police officers. In many cases, they are calling for more police assistance, not less.
In the early years of the creation of a new nation called the United States of America, native Americans exercised their own laws on recognised Indian reservations. In due course, this arrangement was modified by legislation called the Seven Major Crimes Act which sets out a list of serious offences that would be dealt with pursuant to United States law rather than Indian law. This list was expanded in time to cover the following serious offences: murder; manslaughter; kidnapping; rape; assault with intent to commit rape; carnal knowledge of any female other than a spouse who has not attained the age of 16 years; incest; assault with intent to commit murder; assault with a dangerous weapon; assault resulting in serious bodily injury; arson; burglary; robbery; and larceny.
In the case of the offences in the list at the less serious end of the scale, there has been some scope for Indian courts to exercise concurrent jurisdiction with the federal courts, but in the case of the most serious offences, native American tribes have on the whole tended to neither have the capacity nor the inclination to investigate, prosecute and pass sentence in relation to such crimes, and have been content to leave them to the apparatus of the mainstream criminal justice system.
This principle of distribution of legal authority between the mainstream criminal justice system and indigenous local or regional justice authorities is one that can have some application in the Territory. Most Aboriginal people are not rejecting the mainstream criminal laws set out in our Criminal Code, but what needs to be explored and worked out as a matter of urgency is the devolution to appropriate community governance entities such as the law and justice programs. The communities are embracing these programs as they are able to take responsibility for dealing with minor offences committed in Aboriginal communities. What is also required is recognition and empowerment of those entities to also deal with breaches of Aboriginal law in certain circumstances.
The third kind of Aboriginal interaction with the criminal justice system is Aboriginal family violence. That scenario, which I must regretfully turn to now, plays itself out in both mainstream towns and in Aboriginal communities. It is an epidemic that Aboriginal families and communities need to address if the next generations are to survive and prosper. There are no short cuts or escape routes that can or should be made available to offenders to enable them to avoid the full brunt of the general criminal law. While tough sentencing is a necessary part of the solution, the real innovations need to come at a point in time long before the offending actually takes place: in the areas of health and education.
We need to focus our resources on boys and young men to ensure that they do not fall into the same abusive patterns that characterise their fathers and uncles. A big part of this necessary pre-emptive rehabilitation is a hard-headed and uncompromising strategy targetting substance abuse, especially alcohol abuse. I applaud the Minister for Justice for his commitment and work in this area; in particular in signing the communiqu, a step in the right direction to address a critical issue.
Before I finish, I want to make some brief comments about the concern I have about the Pascoe case that may be used as an example for the purpose of considering Aboriginal customary law and Aboriginal self-governance. It is, in fact, a singly inappropriate and dangerously misleading case to use in any debate. However, I do believe the judge’s comments as reported by the media were of a misogynous nature. Women, particularly young women, deserve our protection. I believe that the great majority of Aboriginal people do not want to lose the assistance and protection of mainstream criminal law in relation to the enforcement in Aboriginal communities of the criminal law in respect of the offence with which Mr Pascoe was charged, let alone in respect of the even more serious offence of rape.
Aboriginal customary law is primarily and predominantly about land and water and the relationship between Aboriginal people and their natural resources. It is the foundation for economic rights that Aboriginal people have been denied and when it comes to the coastal people of my electorate, they are still being denied. While a focus on the extent to which Aboriginal customary law intersects with the issues of sexual relationships or violent punishment may satisfy a prurient curiosity on the part of many non-Aboriginal people and may sell lots of newspapers, that is not the area that needs to be urgently addressed by the proposed inquiry into the interaction between indigenous customary law and the mainstream legal system. The truth is that we need to start looking and genuine and realistic self-government arrangements for Aboriginal people living on Aboriginal land.
I will finish with a quote from the 1986 Summary Report of the Australian Law Reform Commission into the Recognition of Aboriginal Customary Law. This is the second of three dot points in paragraph 133 of the report:
- Alternatively, official justice mechanisms - for example, Aboriginal courts - might be established in
Aboriginal communities to apply local customary laws in a broader way. In overseas countries, the
discussion of similar issues has generally focussed on the creation of indigenous courts to deal with
criminal cases, whether these have traditional elements or not. However, formal mechanisms of this
kind have little in common with customary dispute resolving processes. The establishment of Aboriginal
courts may have the effect of indigenising parts of the criminal justice system, but this is likely to do little
to reinforce traditional authority. Official mechanisms may enable the transfer of some degree of autonomy
to Aboriginal groups in relation to law and order matters. However, if self-government is the aim, to limit such
mechanisms to applying customary law is inappropriate. To confer autonomy on Aboriginal communities on
condition that it is only to be exercised in certain recognisable customary ways appears a contradiction in
terms. The emphasis should be, instead, on the scope of autonomy to be conferred and identifying the relevant
Aboriginal units of government with which to negotiate.
Mr BONSON (Millner): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise to speak on a very complex social, economic, community and legal issue: indigenous people and the justice system. It encompasses many things and the discussion in this House today reflects that. I will attempt to deal with the legal issues and briefly outline the history of this relationship.
I have heard many members speak on this important issue today, and I have noticed that many members of this House have offered opinions that are varied, both in background and in their content. In particular, I would like to thank the Attorney-General and the member for Arnhem for their localised examples of possible models that we as a government, as a Territory, can use in future.
This only highlights one thing: that no member of this House has all the answers. It highlights that there is a long way to go to resolve adequately this important issue that not only affects Territorians but all Australians as a nation. I will attempt to show that the experience of Aboriginal people is not unique to the Australian context. In fact, it has been played out many times all over the world. Over the last few days, I have spoken to many learned and respected community members. What I have learned from watching and listening to my colleagues and other members of this House, family and friends, which includes eminent community members, is as follows: I believe in some ways we are missing the point in this debate on indigenous customary law and possibilities of different models; I believe the question to be asked is whether the predicament of Aboriginal Territorians as Australian citizens is acceptable to the moral and ethical principles we hold dear as human beings in a just society; and I believe the answer is a resounding no, not because of some ideological reason, but because it is the right answer for all human beings.
One of the reasons for this answer is the relationship between Aboriginal people and the Australian legal system. This is by no means the only reason, but it is a very important reason. The single, most compelling argument that indigenous Australians can put forward is that traditional methods of justice and policing have had little or no effect on improving justice to individuals and communities. This is supported by a high number of indigenous Australians who have had negative experiences with the legal process as either victims or offenders. Though the reasons are varied and complex, the current and traditional method of dealing with crime has been unsuccessful. This is supported by the incredible statistics that the Attorney-General has outlined in his statement. The Attorney-General said:
- Indigenous Territorians are nine times more likely to be bashed than non-indigenous Territorians.
Indigenous women are 33 times more likely to be murdered. Indigenous Territorians are nine times
more likely to go to gaol than non-indigenous Territorians and two prisoners in three are Aboriginal.
I have visited the Berrimah gaol many times, and it is an overwhelming feeling to look at all the faces and see that two out of three people incarcerated at Berrimah prison is of Aboriginal descent. He continued:
- Indigenous Territorians who do not finish school are 13 times more likely to go to gaol than those who
do. Indigenous Territorians who are unemployed are 19 times more likely to go to gaol than those with a job.
Some people will say Aboriginal problems can not be resolved, that there are no solutions. I argue against this attitude. As a community, we cannot throw our arms up in despair and give up. The saying ‘Evil prevails when good men do nothing’ summarises why we as a parliament must attempt in a fair, equitable and determined manner to address this matter.
As a person of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander descent, I often contemplate the plight of Aboriginal people and the history of this country. I do not pretend to like what has occurred between Aboriginal people and European Australians since colonisation. However, I do accept that it has occurred and it deserves recognition, and the proper recording of its real history of this country.
At this time the community and parliament cannot change the past because it is unchangeable. The ripples of acts in the past still affect the generations, white and black, in negative ways. This is reflected by the social issues of substance abuse, petrol sniffing, and alcohol and drug abuse, domestic violence, murder, assault and high incarceration rates. What is important to remember is these social issues are not confined to indigenous Australians. They are just magnified many times over. I listened to the member for Araluen pose the question: why? Why is this the case? Members in this House need to research the history of this country and put it in context with what is happening overseas and what has happened over time immemorial. I am going to try and put some clarification on this issue in the context of the human race.
I ask that members in this House and the wider community recognise that yes, Aboriginal Australians are over-represented in all these categories when compared with the mainstream society. What must be clearly stated is that this over-representation is a reflection of all minority groups that have been ignored or marginalised by wider communities around the world. I will repeat that: what must be clearly stated is that this over-representation is a reflection of all minority groups that have been ignored or marginalised by the wider community around the world. This is not an indictment on Aboriginal people; this is not a reflection on Aboriginal people as a race of human beings.
Examples that you can look for, if people are willing to do the research - and I have a number of papers there that members are welcome to read, and I will talk about that in a minute. In particular, African Americans or black Americans. Their experience is very similar in the case during the 1960s. Before the 1960s people were being classified as quadruples, quarter-caste, half-caste, etcetera. During the 1960s, however, black American people got together and they said: ‘Well, instead of calling ourselves quarter-castes or half-castes or whatever, we are going to call ourselves black Americans or African Americans’. Those terms are still being bandied around in Australia, by indigenous and non-indigenous people, should be chucked out the window. We have to make a decision: we call ourselves black Australians or indigenous Australians or Aboriginal Australians.
Mexican Americans faced the same type of experience, and native Americans, of course, who some members have touched on in this debate. I was lucky enough to travel to North America and attend the first ever Indigenous Youth Conference in Quebec City, and when you closed your eyes and you heard people speak, they were speaking the same story, no matter where they came from – South America, North America, Australia - there were Samis from Finland. If you closed your eyes and forgot their accent and you listened to what they were saying, it was the same story repeated over and over again.
That goes for South American indigenous people, Asian migrants, European gypsies, Kurds in Iraq and, of course, Maori and other islander people and various minority religious groups. I could go on and on, but I believe it is unnecessary. This is a human trait; this is a reflection of human relations. It is a social issue affecting all people no matter what their skin colour – black, white, green or blue. Its roots are founded in cultural ignorance and discrimination all around the world. I believe that Aboriginal people and the Australian citizens’ relationship is not unique to Australia or necessarily unique to our century or our millennium. It is vitally important to the debate the role of traditional law and introduced law.
There are many examples of minority groups being overwhelmed by an overpowering, unstoppable, conquering force. For example, the biblical story of the Babylonians and the Jews; the Roman invasion of Palestine recorded in the Bible. Fast forward several hundred years and we see the invasion and colonisation of England by Normans, two different tribes, but they happen to be white European tribes with social and cultural differences, tribes of Europe known as Saxons, Normans, Gauls, Franks, similar to tribes known as Gurindji, Warlpiri, Larrakia, Jawoyn.
Just like Aboriginal people, the people of the British Isles suffered for centuries under cultural and social legal discrimination. How did they resolve their differences over time? History shows people adopted laws and cultures and cultural traditions out of necessity by agreement or under persecution, pain and suffering. What I mean by that statement is that they never had a choice. In Australia, we are supposed to be an intelligent, learned, resourceful population. Surely we can learn from the European and other examples around the world and improve on the way people interrelate with each other.
That is the point I want to get through in this message, that this has been occurring over and over and over for centuries around the world, for thousands of years and, for some reason, we have not learned anything. We have the resources, we have the will. I believe we have the political will, the knowledge, and we just need to address this issue properly.
Just as an example of where that has been used around the world, I would like to comment on a paper by David Woodroffe that he produced while we were at university together. He is an indigenous solicitor. The paper was entitled From Assimilation to Admissibility – the struggle of the Northern Territory Stolen Generation. A model communication under the First Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This is a fantastic description of the relationship between Stolen Generation people and experiences around the world and international law. Under the heading, Colonial Dispossession:
- The attempted absorption of Aboriginal children to the dominant European culture by their removal and
incarceration must be seen within the wider context of colonial dispossession of indigenous people world
wide, for such assimilation practices were not confined to Australia alone, but also occurred in other western
countries such as Canada and the United States which enacted numerous legislation in order to incorporate
the indigenous populations with the white mainstream society.
- The effects of assimilatory legislation were observed as early as the 1830s in the United States by Alexis De Toqueville:
- Where those Indian populations who escaped massacres were finished by melding with their conquerors
and adopting their religion and custom, their annihilation was achieved quietly, legally, philanthropically,
without flouting, in the eyes of the rest of the world, any of the great principles of morality.
This is a comment from a scholar that is recognising what we are still talking about today, nearly 200 years later.
- Human relations are not perfect and, no doubt, this example is not a guide to solving our current community
problems. What it is, is a recognition that, historically, human beings with different laws and cultures have
lived together and continue to live together, sometimes in harmony, sometimes in war.
Sometimes in harmony, sometimes in war. I propose that we aim for harmony.
- It is important that the recognition and use of traditional customary law in our modern society must be
considered if it improves the outcome for indigenous people.
I do not purport just to chuck it in as a concept because it is ideologically correct. I believe it must be considered because the status quo right now is not working. So not because it is the ideologically right thing to do, not because it is a last resort or that we have got no other place to turn. The reason it must be considered is because the status quo is not acceptable by any human concept of right and wrong. That is what we should be asking ourselves in this parliament. That is what we should be asking ourselves as a community: is the status quo acceptable by any human concept of right and wrong? Of course, the answer must be no.
I have a number of articles that I have relied on when considering this matter, and I recommend all these articles and documents as reading material to all members of this House. I will read them out to you in due course.
A quote I have used describes the responsibilities we have as members of an educated civil society, and it is drawn from a paper entitled Restorative Justice and the Contest between the Relational and Institutional Paradigms; by J O’Connell and J Richie, NSW Police:
What holds civilised society together is the capacity to make a distinction between what belongs in the way of
loyalty to clan or section or family, and what we owe to neighbours; what belongs to our individual and personal
lives and what we owe to republica or Commonwealth, the life we share with others.
The struggle between competing cultural tradition and laws are incorporated in that quote.
Members of this House, members of the Territory communities, must always consider their traditional loyalties to clan or section or family or state and territory. All must bear those with us. We grow up with them. We come from a tribe, a culture somewhere in the world. However, we owe it to our communities and to people we represent to think about the other side of the fence; the concept of neighbour is important to the life we share with others.
At present, western democracies rely on a combination of retributive and rehabilitative model of criminal justice. I would like to contribute to the Attorney-General’s initiatives along the line of a restorative justice approach. The differences, though technical, are important. I encourage all members to look at the following article: Revisiting a Relationship between Retributive and Restorative Justice by Kathleen Day, School of Criminology and Criminal Justice. There are two headings, and it is a chart. On one side is retribution and rehabilitative thoughts, and on the other side is restorative. On the retribution side:
- Crime is used as an act against the state.
- Crime is used as an act against the person and community.
- Crime is an individual act with individual responsibilities.
- Crime has an individual and social dimensions of responsibilities.
Offender is defined by deficits.
Offender is defined by a capacity to make reparation.
Victims are peripheral to the process.
- Victims are central to the process.
The focus is on punishing or treating the offender.
The focus on repairing the harm.
The process is characterised by adversarial relationships among parties.
- The process is characterised by the dialogue and negotiation among parties.
The community is represented by the state.
- The community members or organisations take more active roles.
It is my belief that members of this House have a responsibility to tackle their community responsibilities. Depending on figures, 25% to 30% of the Territory population is of indigenous background, and they are suffering as a community under the most horrendous conditions. This is not a political game with points awarded to the party or group that can score the most points for making this a political issue. As the Attorney-General has stated, partnerships and working together are the only way forward. Equal partners bring mutual respect to each others’ cultural traditions and beliefs. This concept has been long overdue in the Territory as a possible opportunity to improve people’s lives, and that is what it is all about: improving people’s lives. The status quo does not work; let us think out of the box, let us try something.
As the member for Arafura has said, the project was first articulated in a recognisable framework after the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody published in 1991 which established a theme of over- representation of indigenous people in the criminal system, and an urgent call for a change in the way legal business occurred. I suggest to this House restorative justice principles need to be further investigated.
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, I move that the member be granted an extension of time in order that he may complete his remarks.
Motion agreed to.
Mr BONSON: Braithwaite, another learned academic on criminology, suggests restorative justice in Australia offers an opportunity - and that is one of my favourite words, the word ‘opportunity’ – for a very different way of thinking about traditional notions such as deterrence, rehabilitation, incarceration and crime prevention. It also means transform foundations of criminal jurisprudence and of our notions of freedom, democracy and community. These concepts are new, and the Territory has an opportunity to try new things to deliver real outcomes of benefit to everyone.
The signing of the communiqu is a symbolic act which demonstrates the government’s new approach. However, I reiterate that any new program, scheme or justice model must be constantly reviewed to ensure it works to achieve its designed outcome to improve the social, economic, health and education strategy of Territorians. I am pleased to see the minister and this government has committed to developing an evaluation of strategies.
I would like also to put on record my belief that if indigenous people solely rely on the Territory and Commonwealth governments to improve their lifestyles, then we will be talking about these same issues in the future. However, Territory and Commonwealth governments have a duty to supply the same access to services that the rest of Australians consider a fundamental right. That is the role of government, to lift the standard and give everyone an opportunity within their community, within their citizenship of their country, an opportunity for the same access to resources. This is what the whole issue is about. There has been a denial of resources and obviously the biggest denial has occurred with disposition of land which has affected people for many years. We are slowly seeing the return of resources to a section of the community and hopefully over the next 200 years we will see and improvement. Of course, it is government’s responsibility to provide good housing, as stated by the Attorney-General, and infrastructure, sound education, relevant training opportunities and access to health care services. This is what governments have a duty to supply to indigenous Australians and all Australians. It is up to the Aboriginal people to take steps to gain the respect that they deserve from the wider community.
I believe if these strategies outlined by the Attorney-General are implemented properly, this could represent a major step forward in enabling communities to deal with their own problems in their own way. This could allow, where appropriate and agreed upon by all parties, an opportunity for communities to choose their own methods of dealing with disputes inside an agreed framework. It also represents a step towards self-determination and community self-management. I will argue in this House that without returning some political and legal control to indigenous communities, problems such as substance abuse and domestic violence will remain. These problems are the product of both past and present indigenous disempowerment.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I commend the statement to this House.
Finally, I would like to refer to some articles which I would like people who are serious about this debate to have a look at, and I am talking about members on both sides of the House. The first paper is Genocide, Reparations and Restorative Justice: Responding to the Stolen Generations. It is a paper presented to the Restorative Justice and Civil Society Conference, University House, Australian National University in 1999. Its author is Chris Cuneen. I notice under ‘Trivialisation of the Issue of the Stolen Generation’, we have one ex-member of the CLP and one current member of the CLP and sitting member referred to in this fantastic document. It states:
Trivialisation can be seen in some of the arguments for refusing to apologise. For example, in the parliamentary
debate in the Northern Territory, government members refused to apologise and noted that they were sorry about
the removals but also about many other things which had occurred.
This was the member for Drysdale:
I am sorry the Titanic sank, I am sorry about World War 1 and I am sorry about the bombing of Darwin,
but I feel no need to apologise for any of these occurrences.
And the ex-member for Goyder:
I regret the trauma that has been caused to all children and all parents who have been forcefully and wrongfully
removed and separated. I refer, of course, to those thousands of people Aboriginal, European, Australian and British.
I am not discriminating on the base of colour of people’s skin.
It is a fantastic article which deals with possibly restoring victims of that policy to where they should be in community.
Another fantastic article is entitled Aboriginal Community Participation in Sentencing written by Neil Loftron. One of his offerings is:
- Australian courts have long noted that Aboriginal communities are imposing sanctions for breaches of
Aboriginal law. While not expressly approved by the courts, these sanctions have nonetheless been taken
into account when sentencing Aboriginal offenders. Recently the Northern Territory Court of Criminal
Appeal unanimously held that the views, wishes and needs of an Aboriginal community are clearly relevant
considerations in the sentencing process although they cannot prevail over a proper sentence. This
development implicitly recognises the indigenous rights of Aboriginal communities to social self-regulation
and is in accordance with recent Canadian judicial developments in the area of circle sentencing.
This is a fantastic outline of legal principles and decisions that have effect today. Another article I found amazing was called Crime in a Conflict Republic by John Braithwaite, Australian National University. What I found amazing about it was the comparisons he had of American slaves and convict Australians, the basic difference between the two and why black Americans still suffer the same problems that indigenous Australians face today. Convicts were allowed, once they had served their sentence, to get land, they were allowed to get jobs and they were allowed to take up opportunities while American slaves were not. Convicts took up the opportunity to have a better life, and obviously the descendants of many of these are probably in this House today. It just shows that people do achieve if you give them the opportunity. Black Americans are still facing many of the problems that indigenous Australians are facing. It is a fantastic article which also runs through the Western sequence of history of different types of punishment. It is something that the member for Macdonnell should really have a look at and put in perspective what this debate is all about.
Madam Speaker, as you can see I have researched my contribution to this debate diligently because I believe that right now, we are stuck in a situation where the status quo is socially unacceptable by any human standard. I am not interested in ideologies any more. I am not interested in bagging the opposition about the past. I am just interested in finding out how we can improve the future. If this is an option, if this is something out of the box that we can look at, maybe it offers an opportunity to people. If it does not work, all right, we will try something else. But we have to give this an opportunity to work. We will review it, and if it is not working, we change it again and we change it again until we find something that is working.
The idea behind concepts of partnerships between whoever is in government and indigenous people, there needs to be recognition because we have a 30% population here in the Northern Territory. I do not care what ethnic group they are; they just happen to be Aboriginal people. It is important to recognise that part of the reason why we love the Territory is because these people have a history in this land. I know this history. I talk to my parents. You know, they could not vote until they were 25 years old, but they went to school, they worked with people, they married into families, they welcomed people to Darwin and to the Territory, and they worked up and down in the bush. The one thing that Aboriginal people were able to give to the Territory was, yes, we have been disadvantaged, yes, these things have happened to us, but guess what? Still come into our land, still come and be welcome.
Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate that status quo cannot be maintained. Let us look towards the future.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I should preface my words by saying that my comments do not relate to the whole statement, but to the question of the inquiry which the minister has stated will to be conducted in the near future.
Are we just reinventing the wheel? Is this a feel good exercise? What is a review of this issue going to achieve that all the other reviews have failed to achieve? Many people, communities, inquiries, academics, politicians have debated this issue of customary law. Take our own Sessional Committee on Constitutional Development. This one here, Discussion Paper No 4, Recognition of Aboriginal Customary Law. Surely, instead of having another review, we should look at this report and see whether it can be used as a basis for any changes one way or the other, or leave things as they are.
There is no doubt that it is important that Aboriginal customs and traditions are encouraged, but like all customs and traditions, times change, and what may have been acceptable 100 or 200 years ago, may not be acceptable today.
As well, there is no doubt that traditional Aboriginal societies are becoming fewer and fewer simply because of the breakdown of that society through the good and bad influences of the greater non-Aboriginal community in Australia. Some may see this as western influence. I see it as the influence of technology which has spread across the world. People are now influenced through television, radio, music, computers, videos, travel, sport, housing, motor vehicles, schooling, money, religion, food, alcohol, social security, and the list goes on. Most of these influence all societies and are difficult to control. We all live in a materialistic and consumer driven society.
The question is whether under these circumstances, can customary law be relevant? Is it appropriate, will it survive, and who should it apply to? When the member for Millner was talking about who is Aboriginal, that in itself is a question as to whether customary law should apply to all Aboriginal people. I look at the example of my own family. my daughters. If I went to them and said: ‘You will marry the one you are promised to,’ I know what they would say to me. It reminds me of a particular show that is coming up soon in Darwin called Fiddler on the Roof. I am not giving it a plug, but there is a song called Tradition, and part of the reason that song is in there is because the father, who you might say was a customary Jew, wished that all his daughters would be married off to promised people.
What happens through the story is that three of his daughters all fall in love with particular people and want to marry them, and they are all very strange people: one is a revolutionary, one is a worker out in Siberia, and one is not even a Jew or a Russian. He is struggling to come to terms with tradition and what is happening in these newer times. This is a similar to that; he is telling a similar story.
Before we answer any of these questions, we need to define what is customary law. Here I refer to page 8 of the Sessional Committee on Constitutional Development, under The Nature and Role of Customary Law. I will read one paragraph - there are quite a few paragraphs on this issue - which says:
- Aboriginal customary law is an integral part of traditional Aboriginal society. It follows that insofar as
that traditional society continues to function as a living system in the Northern Territory, then so must
Aboriginal customary law. In such a situation, despite the fact that European derived law does not
generally recognise Aboriginal rules and customs as part of the law of the land, those rules and customs
in a real sense can be said to be part of the law in relation to those Aboriginal people who still respect them.
So one key factor is whether traditional Aboriginal society exists. Certainly, in some parts of the Territory it does, but I believe that because of the changes I mentioned previously, it is difficult to say whether in general, traditional societies still exist. If they do not, should customary law apply?
The key to what should apply must be based on what the minister himself has said: that any law should universally recognise human rights and fundamental freedoms. One of the dangers in recognising customary law can be the misuse of this law based on the pretext that what has been done is done in the name of tradition. I know the issue has been raised about domestic violence and under age sex. I can name an issue that was called ‘Sunday business’ at Daly River. It was a problem when I first went to Daly River, and it became another issue later on, where basically a bull roarer, which was the man’s penis, was placed in positions where the men would know that an Aboriginal woman was going to go down to the river, say to wash or whatever, and they would place it where she would see it, and if they saw that she had seen that bull roarer, they could basically do what they liked with that person. So there was an abuse of the tradition. That is one of the sad things that has happened to customary law; some people have used it for their own power instead of the reason for which it was originally intended. In some cases, even women have been put down, basically by that same male dominance of using customary law and not letting women speak. That is why these recognised human rights and fundamental freedoms must be paramount in whatever we decide.
I believe that for the above reasons, we should be wary of where we are going. Should we make the distinction between law, tradition and customs? Can traditions and customs be retained without the need for laws which do not recognise human rights and fundamental freedoms?
When I was with the Substance Abuse Committee at Lajamanu, some people said that promised marriages should be recognised. So what happens if the girl does not want to marry that person? In Lajamanu, they believe she should be punished. What are her human rights? If we accept that she should be punished, then do we accept that she has no human rights? What if the person does not want to live a traditional life?
It reminds me of another clash. If my children do not want to follow my Catholic culture, do I make them do it - if I could - or do I allow them to do as they want even though I might be sad they don’t? The times, they are a’changing, and these changing times affect us all. Nothing stands still. So, perhaps customary law is not the answer, but instead more local empowerment of their future through the ability to run their own affairs – real empowerment, whether as councillors or Aboriginal community police officers, correctional officers, nurses, teachers, traditional land owners, women. This empowerment, of course, will never happen if people are not educated; if there are no real jobs; if alcohol and drugs control any future advancement; if suicide, sickness and premature death are constantly hanging over the communities. Education and real jobs is the only way to real empowerment.
At a recent Substance Abuse Committee meeting on the Tiwi Islands, a young articulate Tiwi Islander said two things that struck home to me. He said: ‘We need to be more educated, or well educated, and at least to a secondary education standard, with the emphasis on speaking English’. Second, that his people - and he was perhaps referring to himself, I am not sure whether he was speaking in general terms - ‘have spoilt their own by giving them what they wanted instead of being strong. I saw that as recognising a two-way street; that part of our responsibility from a government point of view is to provide the opportunities through education, but also recognises that Aboriginal people have a responsibility themselves that no matter what we do, we cannot give them - they have to stand up and try to solve some of these issues themselves. It is a partnership, but it is not a one-way street.
I believe this gentleman was right. He recognised that he lives in a dominant non-Aboriginal culture, and for his people to survive and to keep their identity and, at the same time, take their rightful place in modern society, they need to be educated and educated well.
The member for Arnhem said customary law does not just cover issues that I have raised, and also have been raised in the paper. It does allow ownership of land and without land, it is difficult to see Aboriginal people continue their traditions and customs. What is probably so annoying today is that the group set up to protect those who are the traditional owners - the land council - sometimes do not respect the traditional law themselves, and do not protect the traditional owners. It seems in the case of the Wagait people, who I know well, the land councils have made their own version of customary law to allow people who are not traditional owners to have a say in land which is not theirs. It seems that customary or traditional law, sadly, is not always supported by those who should know better.
Perhaps this inquiry should look at issues such as the manner in which the land councils make their decisions when it comes to who they recognise and how they came to recognise those groups. If you believe that land is the basis on which traditions and customs can at least have a basis for existence, and improve its chances of survival, then those who make decisions about the land should do so honestly.
I would like to mention - and I think it was mentioned today - that there is customary law which covers other areas like who you can speak to, use of a name when someone has died, ceremonies, marrying into the wrong relationship; those are laws and rules which are traditional. Their survival will be up to Aboriginal people; perhaps they will be adapted and changed as the years go by. I do not believe that it is a matter for anyone to enforce. This is an internal matter, a bit like the Catholic matter I referred to before.
This whole issue is complex. Just read this Document No 4. Many people have tackled it, and in just under 24 hours, one has to put down on paper a response. I feel that is impossible to do this issue justice, and so I hope members take that into account. The minister’s statement covers many issues and if I was to tackle all the things that are in here, I would have to take a couple of months off work.
The member for Arafura made some very good points about those who came to the country and how there was a law here when they came. That is a good point, and needs to be recognised. But now we are in the year 2002. As seen by Bali, the world has changed. Time has not stood still. We are all affected. Many things we cannot control. In the end, whatever path the future leads to, we must observe a belief in the protection of human rights, that we treat each person with dignity, and to those who control the law, no matter what law, they are not able to abuse that power by violence and control of others, especially women. Perhaps we already have one law: love thy neighbour. I am still not sure we need to review the already reviewed, but if we do, I hope we look at the present and future because too much living in the past can only come up with conclusions based on past glories rather than anything of worth. Education, real jobs and land, is the only way to self-empowerment and empowerment to retain tradition and customs if that is what the people want.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Madam Speaker, I rise to support the minister’s statement on indigenous people and the justice system. The minister has outlined the sad facts relating to the way in which Aboriginal people are over-represented in the justice system, and how Aboriginal people in the Territory are much more likely to suffer physical violence than their fellow citizens. He also outlined the underlying social, economic and cultural issues contributing to the current situation and reiterated this government’s initiatives to redress these underlying issues. These initiatives include:
development of more effective forms of governance for Aboriginal communities;
improvements in housing and infrastructure;
implementation of the Collins report to improve Aboriginal education outcomes;
regional approaches for the improved delivery of health services for Aboriginal people; and
a commitment to achieve effective economic development outcomes for Aboriginal people in the Territory.
The major themes underscoring these initiatives, and others outlined in the minister’s statement, is commitment and effective partnerships not only from the government, but also from Aboriginal communities and their organisations.
I would like to focus on one important aspect of the minister’s statement because of the mischievous politicisation of the issue of Aboriginal customary law in this House last week. In his statement, the minister made several things very clear and I quote, as other people have done, from his written statement:
Given the statements and comments that have been made in this House over the past week, I would also like to
place on the record that the government affirms that the Northern Territory Criminal Code applies to all citizens
of the Northern Territory without exception. This means that the Northern Territory government does not condone
any of the crimes in that code, including, but not limited to, murder, manslaughter, dangerous acts, rape, incest,
carnal knowledge, kidnap, assault and theft.
Again in relation to the recognition of Aboriginal customary law:
- Aboriginal customary law should be recognised to the extent which it is consistent with universally recognised
human rights and fundamental freedoms.
Next week your government intends to unveil plans for the integration of traditional Aboriginal law into the
justice system. Do you intend to include the acceptance of Aboriginal men having sex with children?
What a provocative thing to say! I was offended by that. The member for Araluen then followed up with a number of related questions to the Chief Minister.
First, it is obvious from the minister’s statement today that this government does not plan the wholesale integration of customary law into our justice system as suggested by the member for Araluen. Rather, we aim to facilitate the recognition of customary law which is quite different from what the member for Araluen and, to some extent, the member for Macdonnell were describing.
As the minister has stated, this will be consistent with the Criminal Code applying to all citizens of the Northern Territory without exception and consistent with universally recognised human rights and fundamental freedoms. This is an important issue which I will turn to later.
What I wish to do now in a most emphatic way is to place on the public record my personal repugnance at any adult having sex with a child. Such sexual relations can never be condoned. The Chief Minister stated this in her reply, and the minister’s statement here today certainly makes it clear that such crimes and others in the Criminal Code will not be condoned by this government. This government certainly does not condone child sex and I find it offensive that the member for Araluen should suggest that we would. It is an important issue. There was a question that needed to be asked, I do not deny that, but I believe it had to be asked in a different and less aggressive and offensive manner than the member for Araluen did.
One can only speculate on the motives of the member for Araluen for asking the question in the way that she did. From her maiden speech, child welfare and issues related to sexual assault of women and children are obviously matters she cares deeply about, and I commend that. Nevertheless, given these deep concerns, I question why the member for Araluen did not even speak in the parliamentary debate concerning the Stolen Generation. Indeed, the only person who spoke from her side was the Opposition Leader who opposed the motion. It is a complex and important issue relating to the welfare of Aboriginal children, how they were forcibly removed from their parents, how many of them suffered physical and sexual abuse, and how the emotional scars remain to this day. Yet the member for Araluen was silent and therefore lacks some credibility on this issue.
I listened to the member for Araluen when she talked about how the predominant violence within Aboriginal communities is men towards women and children. That is true. But we have to ask why that is true. There is a whole body of knowledge about this that relates to how when a group is weak, when they are oppressed themselves, who do they turn their violence to? Those who are weaker and more oppressed than themselves. That is the sad fact of it.
What concerns me about the questions asked by the member for Araluen last week and the speech last week from the member for Macdonnell is the underlying hint of Aboriginal privilege under the law and the suggestion that this government would countenance criminal acts such as violence and sex with children on the basis of race or culture.
In a speech on Tuesday, 8 October, the member for Macdonnell highlighted an issue related to bail for a person reported to be facing tribal punishment and the responsibilities of courts in relation to those matters. Fair enough. But I was surprised that in no way did the member for Macdonnell try and put on the record his understanding of customary law and its primacy in the lives of the traditional Aboriginal people he represents, or suggest useful remedies to address the wider issues. On the basis of that speech, he does not appear to believe that customary law has any value whatsoever. When it suits him, however, he does appear to appreciate the traditional system of reciprocity as evidenced by his gifts of frozen kangaroo tails at the last election.
This is a sad situation, given that he represents a predominantly Aboriginal electorate, and I would suggest that that electorate consider these matters very carefully at the next election. Is this someone who generally respects Aboriginal traditions and culture? That is a question that the voters in Macdonnell are just going to have to ask themselves at the next election.
The mischievous use of Aboriginal issues or the race card has long been a favourite political tactic of the CLP. It might not necessarily be overt. It is something that has been referred to. I have read a book by Don Watson. It is a biography of Paul Keating, and it is a very interesting book. I will quote from him on page 712. He said:
- We spent the campaign circling the issue of race, knowing that our opponents had engaged in a campaign of
dog whistling, although we did not know the term at that stage and without it, could not describe, with much
assurance, what was going on.
Now he talks about what dog whistling is:
- It was the unspoken message which rafts of Australians, many of whom later became supporters of
Pauline Hanson, recognised in coalition advertising and the slogan ‘for all of us’.
Well, I would suggest that there is a bit of dog whistling going on over this issue of one law or two laws. I can hear the whistles loud and clear, and I hear them from the members for Araluen and Macdonnell. Some of the dogs have responded to the whistle, and this message about Australia needs one law for everyone and accusations that this government is putting forth two laws is offensive. That is not what we are about. That is not what the minister said today, and the dog whistlers should take note because their picture is plastered all over this sort of stuff. And I am on to it. Does a leopard change its spots? No, and I am listening for the dog whistles.
The issue of customary law in the Territory is an important issue and deserves a considered response. Instead of simplistically reducing the issues, I believe it is incumbent on us as parliamentarians to try to understand them and find a way forward. It is especially important when you consider that Aboriginal people comprise 30% of the Northern Territory population, and it is likely that customary law plays a prime role in the lives of a significant number of these people, especially the 70% who live in remote areas and many who live in the towns and regional centres.
As the minister has stated, Aboriginal law is more than payback. It encompasses an extremely broad and complex set of rules and unwritten legislation which governs social relationships, economic rights, land ownership and management, wildlife conservation and intellectual property rights. Far from being a legal code, Aboriginal law is a social process, and as Deborah Rose-Bird notes in her excellent paper Indigenous Customary Law and the Courts, the functions of Aboriginal law are to protect the integrity and rights of individuals and groups to deal with offences in a lawful and balanced way, and in a manner acceptable to the Aboriginal community as a whole; that is, the affected community, and ultimately to ensure a lawful society.
Historically, Aboriginal people lived in small groups which were often aggregated into larger groups within a region, so every offence was a group offence. There were no gaols, no appeals to higher courts, wrongdoers had to be managed through the law and, as Rose-Bird points out, the troublemaker has to face those he or she has harmed and to experience, on their body, the right of those he or she has harmed to inflict harm in return. Payback is meant to be roughly equivalent to the offence. The purpose is to restore a sense of balance and to effect a form of closure.
When looking at other systems of law, we should also contemplate the philosophical and moral basis of our own system of justice which, in many respects, arises from biblical law. A strong foundation indeed, and one for which I have the greatest respect, but I quote from Exodus 21:23, verses 23 to 25:
- Then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn,
wound for wound, strike for strike.
As is evident, there are strong parallels with customary laws, and for centuries, common law reflected this approach to justice. Nevertheless, over the past two centuries, there have been many reforms in our justice and penal systems, with some vestiges remaining in recent history. Indeed, I can remember the last execution in Australia. Recently, on a tour of Old Melbourne Gaol, I saw first hand abundant evidence of the barbarity of capital punishment, the severity of corporal punishment and the human degradation of the penal system even well into the 20th century.
My underlying message is to those who would assert an overwhelming cultural superiority of our legal system. We should also reflect on how well the interests of Aboriginal people have been served by our own justice system. Under this system, they were dispossessed, hunted like animals, murdered, poisoned, raped, enslaved, treated as less than human and taken from their mothers, all with relative impunity from the law.
To return to Aboriginal law and the way forward, it is evident that Aboriginal law is highly structured, with complex negotiations between the various parties, often with mediators handling the negotiations. This is an important aspect - just picking up on some of the content that the member for Nelson spoke about - here we have an existing system where there is negotiation and mediation. With this exhortation to move into the 20th century and leave everything behind, I think we would be leaving a very important structure - a structure and process that is already of prime importance to Aboriginal people. It is something that we should be entering into a dialogue about; we should be fostering for resolution, for closure, on a whole series of issues related to justice and law.
However, I believe that customary law is under extreme stress from a number of factors, and these include: escalation of alcohol-related violence and accidents - and I am pleased to hear today that the issue of alcohol has figured very largely in what a lot of the members have had to say. It is a very important issue that we need to address. Alcohol-related violence and accidents certainly overburden the Aboriginal customary law. Another factor is sudden deaths of relatively young people from cardiovascular disease and stroke. Often when this occurs, there are allegations of sorcery and then there is trouble that starts up and there is a cycle of payback and suspicion. There are also increasing numbers of suicide, particularly amongst young people, and the Substance Abuse Committee has been hearing a lot about this. This also causes incredible problems and conflict within communities.
As the member for Nelson said, there has been a breakdown of traditional authority and I do not really have the time here to fully analyse that. The issue of welfare was mentioned by the member for Macdonnell. I believe welfare has been a very corrosive influence where formerly people were hunters and gatherers and there was this system of reciprocity, although not always with frozen kangaroo tails, but people exchanged; there was this economic and social link. Unfortunately, welfare has been very corrosive to those links. These things lead to further conflict and accusations of sorcery.
In Aboriginal communities, there is a continual cycle of such conflict meaning that there can be no closure under the law. This is why I believe the minister’s statement is welcome as an overall strategy to address fundamental issues of law and justice. In relation to customary law, I commend the terms of reference outlined by the minister, namely to report and make recommendations on first, the capacity of Aboriginal customary law to provide benefits to the Northern Territory in areas including but not limited to governance, social wellbeing, law and justice, economic independence, wildlife conservation, land management and scientific knowledge.
The second one is to what extent Aboriginal customary law might achieve formal or informal recognition within the Northern Territory. This issue of recognition rather than integration is an important one because of the issue of maintaining equality under Australian law and international covenants on human rights. It is crucially important for the reason that in such arrangements, customary law would be likely to lose its integrity as an instrument to mediate the social relations of Aboriginal groups. Furthermore, it has also been argued that it would amount to further hegemony of Aboriginal society. The way forward is through recognition and dialogue: dynamic jurisprudence at a local and regional level, as one commentator has described it, exactly the sort of initiatives that are occurring through Kurduju Committee. The role of traditional mediators should not be underestimated in this process. Furthermore, by upholding the Criminal Code and international covenants on human rights, there is also certainty given to Aboriginal people on a number of matters including customary marriage.
The issue of upholding and enforcing the legal marriageable age and the age of consent, has been made perfectly clear by the wider community over the last week. I know traditional Aboriginal families, along with the wider community, will welcome the clear statement of this government that it is not legal or acceptable for any person to have sex with a child inside any marriage relationship, or, for that matter, under any circumstances whatsoever. However, to be effective, such understandings must occur through mutual respect and dialogue.
Along with these Aboriginal families, I hope the legal marriageable age and age of consent are the issues rather than the issue of customary promised marriages themselves. These practices are practiced in a number of cultures in the Territory, apart from Aboriginal people and including Aboriginal people, and like many members in this House, I know a number of couples from a whole range of cultures who were married in this fashion and are very happily married and have been for many years. So we just need to be a little bit careful if we are getting into the issue of promised marriages because, as I say, there are a lot of Territorians who have been married, and are happily married, through this process. We should not sit as cultural judges, but if a practice transgresses the law, well then it is unacceptable.
To summarise, this government is concerned about the over-representation of Aboriginal people in the justice system. We recognise the underlying causes and have already introduced a number of initiatives to redress the situation. We have also commissioned an inquiry to examine constructive ways in which a plural approach for mutual recognition to occur between customary law and Australian law to our mutual benefit. However, there should be no doubt that this government is committed to equality under the law. We are not introducing two laws, and we have affirmed the primacy of the Criminal Code and international covenants.
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I welcome the minister’s statement on indigenous people and the justice system.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, what a lively debate it has been. I thank all members who contributed to the debate on these very important issues.
I would like to start with the core matter in the statement and that is today’s signing of the communiqu as a result of the Summit on Indigenous Deaths in Custody, and to take the comments of the Leader of the Opposition that this signing is an empty or purely symbolic exercise. First, while the member for Brennan may well argue that he was quietly beavering away at reforms within the justice system in the Northern Territory with the aim of achieving lower incarceration rates for indigenous people, he clearly does not understand the very important part that symbolism, public acknowledgement, plays for indigenous people in this country.
Through a series of tests of our maturity as a nation, and our maturity here in the Territory, we have to be able to get up on occasions and say sorry to the Stolen Generation, to reaffirm the very important agenda that the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths In Custody brought to the attention of this country. We have to make it very clear to indigenous people that our support and understanding is there, and is going to be renewed.
The second point is that it is a little cute for the Leader of the Opposition to present the communiqu purely in terms of the preamble without mentioning that there is a very real and practical agenda attached to the resolution of that document. That resolution calls on the signatories not to just simply acknowledge the over-representation of indigenous people in the criminal justice system throughout Australia, but to develop plans for the reduction of that over-representation, based on justice issues, customary law, law reform, funding levels, and the setting of jurisdictional targets, reducing the rate of the over-representation of indigenous people in the criminal justice system.
This is a practical resolution. It is a resolution that we will take into our commitment and we intend to work, as I have outlined in the statement, step by step, day by day, year by year, to try to gain ground on this very important aspect of the commission findings.
I would like to show how serious we are on this by tabling up to date figures on the total prison population in the Northern Territory and the total indigenous prisoner population not only for now, for the June quarter of this year, but right back to March 1996. There is our benchmark. This is where we are starting from. We are quite happy, as the quarterly statistics go out from the Office of Crime Prevention, to be judged on how we are going with the initiatives that we put into play as a result of this statement.
I will take the Leader of the Opposition’s assertion on board, that there was some reduction in indigenous imprisonment rates over the last couple of years of the CLP government. If that is due to their work, they are to be commended for it because I am more than happy to say this is a very difficult task and the fact that there was, certainly against national trends, a reduction in the imprisonment rates in our prisons over that period of time - okay, that is fine and good on you. But we have a lot of work to do and we will be prepared to, in an objective way, come back to this House and update members on the outcomes.
There has been a lot of talk about what this inquiry should deal with and how it should go about its work. I want to make a few things clear in answer to some of the members’ concerns. First of all, it will not be another exercise aimed at increasing the height of the pile of paper that has accumulated, and I think the members for Goyder and Nelson made that point.
We are aware of the vast amount of work that has been done both in the Northern Territory, around Australia and overseas on customary law issues. In fact, the reference to the inquiry specifically says that they are to review earlier work that has been done and to take that as a starting point in developing their recommendations. It will build on earlier work. We are looking to have both indigenous women and men represented on that inquiry, probably in equal numbers. Certainly, there will be equal numbers of indigenous and non-indigenous membership, and a co-chair arrangement so that we not only announce the exercise as a balancing exercise between the two world views, but we embody that in the membership and composition of the inquiry. Who those people are will be worked out in the near future. We want to get this group working as quickly as possible.
I think there was a point made that we have to move beyond the earlier reports which may have thrown a huge insight and provided a lot of information about customary law, but they did not distil down into practical things that we can do in the way of reform to give the operation of customary law a more secure and defined place within our overall justice arrangements. I will be asking the inquiry to have a pragmatic and practical approach to what they are doing. We do not want a whole lot of theories and generic statements; we want practical things that can be done within our justice system to avoid some of the conflicts and tensions that surface at regular intervals at the moment, and to give all Territorians a much more secure sense of how these matters are going to be progressed.
I really feel for our magistrates and our judges working in that frontier zone. I feel for our police and our Correctional Services people who have to, at a very personal level, deal with these unresolved, unreconciled elements within our justice arrangements. We have to try and do what we can to provide greater clarity, and harvest the enormous benefit that is on offer from both approaches that are present here in the Northern Territory.
I believe that the recognition and integration of customary law into the overall justice arrangements of the Northern Territory would go a long way to helping with the long-term survival of traditional Aboriginal culture, and that is a priceless resource within the Northern Territory. It is a unique resource and it is a resource that all Territorians can draw strength and identity from to a greater or lesser extent.
There was a very minor point made by the member for Araluen that I do want to pick up and respond to. Merle Thomas, member of the Victim Support Unit in Alice Springs, I would like to specifically acknowledge her work as well, along with the other members of the VSU that I mentioned in the statement. I believe the Victim Support Unit and victim support groups have a large part to play. There is a growing boundary now coming out of the urban or more conventional settings in which this type of work is pursued into more remote and indigenous contexts. It has been made very clear in the statement that we do need to find more extensive and more appropriate ways of supporting indigenous victimisation as well as what we do about minimising offending and re-offending. So the Victim Support Unit has a large role to play in this, and I would hope to see, along the lines of the reforms within our court system, a more effective set of arrangements, particularly in our circuit courts.
With those remarks, Madam Speaker, I again thank the members. This has been a very constructive debate. I will certainly be going through the contributions of members in more detail at the time that the Parliamentary Record becomes available. We will certainly make sure that the constructive ideas, comments and insights that have come out of this debate will be built into the implementation of the elements of the statement.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr HENDERSON (Business, Industry and Resource Development): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I wish to speak fairly quickly tonight on the motion I propose for the next General Business Day to give some idea to the government especially as to why I have re-introduced it. It …
Madam SPEAKER: Did you seek leave?
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Speaker, I seek advice. The member has an item of business foreshadowed for parliament. He has put that item on the Notice Paper. Can he foreshadow debate on a matter …
Madam SPEAKER: Standing Order 68 says that no member shall anticipate discussion of any subject that appears on the Notice Paper.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Madam Speaker, I had the wonderful opportunity on Monday, 2 September to represent the Minister for Employment, Education and Training at the official launch of Literacy and Numeracy Week in the Smith Street Mall in Darwin at lunch time. I seek leave to table the Literacy and Numeracy Across the Learning Areas 2001-02, the rundown of Literacy and Numeracy Week. It is a document that I recommend members take the time to read.
I officially launched the week. The MC of that event was Mr Phillip Jones from the department, and I had a good opportunity to talk to Marg Littler whom I know very well, who heads up the IT educators’ group which meets in my electorate office. I also had the delightful task of presenting Raylene Bailey with the IT Educators’ Association of the Northern Territory Teacher of Excellence Award. Marg pointed out that Raylene Bailey is the Secretary of the IT Educators’ Network. Raylene, being a woman of great humility suggested that maybe she got the award because she was bossy. I said: ‘No, no, it is actually the role of a very good secretary to keep everyone moving forward and to often do the hard yards behind the scene that gets areas progressed’. So I extend my congratulations to Raylene Bailey on her award. I also extend my regards and thanks to Marg Littler who I know has worked tirelessly for students, teachers, administrators and education to progress IT in our schools.
I also had the pleasure of listening to the combined Anula and Wulagi Beat Choir, who performed Welcome to All the People. They were conducted very ably on the day by Judy Weepers. It was a nice gathering in the mall to highlight the importance of literacy and numeracy and specifically the celebration of lifelong learning and the Asia in Schools Week. These were all celebrated in conjunction with Education Week from 2 to 8 September this year. There were activities held throughout schools right across the Territory. I congratulate the minister for Education, Hon Syd Stirling, for the effort he went to in ensuring that the promotion of Education Week, the focus on literacy and numeracy, lifelong learning, and Asia in Schools Week all helped to enhance the recognition of the hard work done by teachers in our school communities.
I agree that lifelong learning is a subject that people often do not take seriously enough but in a society where we have an ageing demographic throughout the nation, we should be paying far more heed to it than we do. So, it was really quite nice to see the element of lifelong learning being combined into Education Week.
The Asia in Schools Week always has a very enjoyable range of activities for our students, so I congratulate the staff of the Education Department who worked tirelessly to put this week together to coordinate the activity throughout the schools across the Territory. I congratulate the staff and students of the various schools who participated in this week, and I look forward to seeing another week celebrated next year.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I gather I can have another try as it is only a notice, not a motion.
Madam SPEAKER: Perhaps I might explain to members that it was pointed out to me that I did jump the gun. In fact, the notice that the member for Nelson was referring to is actually not on the Notice Paper at the moment. He foreshadowed that today. So, in light of that, I have accepted the member for Nelson’s argument and he will proceed.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for your wise ruling.
Madam SPEAKER: Well, I did not want the member for Macdonnell jumping up and down.
Mr WOOD: Just quickly: I want to explain why I put this on the Notice Paper. When we had the debate before, I do not believe the government had sufficient time to debate this issue. I am hoping that, in light of what I believe is a fair amount of support from many people in the Labor Party, the government would re-think their attitude to having a moratorium on industrial development in the middle of the harbour.
I do not mind if the government wants to take this motion over; I am quite prepared for them to have their name behind it because I think it is a very sensible compromise. Personally, I do not believe we should have industrial development there, and this notice is a compromise. I do not think the issue will go away if people have seen the amount of support that has been generated about protecting the harbour at the present time.
But I just thought I would raise just one quick matter. The Minister for Lands and Planning did say that one of the reasons they wanted this piece of land kept was for the railway marshalling yards. Well, it’s funny: I came across this document yesterday. I have been looking for it. It is called the Darwin Arterial Roads Tiger Brennan Drive Planning Statement. My original reason for looking for this was to see how we are going to avoid all the traffic lights on the Stuart Highway. This grand document is the one that shows you all the roundabouts, the four-leaf clovers, and all the new types of intersections that will go on Tiger Brennan Drive. I have not seen too many of them in construction yet. But the one thing that I did notice is there is a map of the proposed railway line into Darwin, and on that map they have marked at what you would call the 11 Mile the proposed terminus and marshalling facilities. The document states:
- … that to date, studies of the economic viability of the proposed railway have been based on the railway
carrying freight only, although preliminary studies have indicated that combined freight/passenger transport
may be uneconomic. The final decision on freight/passenger options will rest with the rail developer. However,
in planning for future rail facilities, the possibility of passenger transport being introduced has been taken into
account.
Madam Speaker, I seek leave to table this document.
Leave granted.
Mr WOOD: This map shows an area set aside at around about the 11 Mile on Tiger Brennan Drive, showing the marshalling yards and the proposed terminus. It also shows a spur line into Darwin and a spur line to the East Arm Port. While I am speaking on this subject, while I am trying to say to the government: ‘Look, you have already designed an area for the railway marshalling yards, and you don’t have to put it on Middle Arm’ you have also proposed a site for the passenger terminal.
So, if any members are interested in the 1987 version of the passenger terminal and the line into Darwin, it was designed at that time by the Department of Transport and Works. I hope that when we get into this debate we can redebate where these proposed areas for the trains are going, and why they could be put here, where they were originally were meant to be, instead of the middle of the harbour.
Ms MARTIN (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to note the passing of two of the Territory’s most important artists, Kumatjayi Possum Tjapaltjarri and Ginger Riley Mundawalwala.
Tjapaltjarri was born in 1932 in the heart of the Anmatjere country at Napperby station, 200 km north-west of Alice Springs. His first contact with Europeans was at the government and mission trading stations where his family swapped dingo scalps for rations. His father was taken prisoner in the 1928 Conniston massacre and although he survived this ordeal, he was to die of thirst while Possum was still a child.
It was Pastor Albrecht of Hermannsburg Mission who nursed the young Tjapaltjarri back to health before he was able to return to his mother. With no formal education, Possum began his working life while still a boy, as a general hand at Hamilton Downs Station where he worked in the cattle industry for nine years. He returned to Napperby, where his traditional education was taken over, on his father’s behalf, by One Pound Jimmy Tjungarrayi, who imparted the enormous amount of knowledge about law and country that was to feature in Possum’s later artistic work. It was around this time, while working on Glen Helen, Mount Wedge, Mount Allan and Napperby stations, that Possum became renowned for his carving skills. It was at Glen Helen that Albert Namatjira noted his talent and tried to persuade him to take up water colour work. Namatjira, the century of whose birth we celebrated on 28 July this year, was later cited by Possum as an inspiration in his work, although he was not to take up the Arrernte style of painting.
In the late 1950s, Possum was recruited as part of the labour force that built the government settlement at Papunya and it was here that he married Emily Nakamarra, an Anmatjere woman from the Mount Allan area. It was here too, that Possum commenced full-time work as a painter in the acrylic dot style of painting that was pioneered by artists such as Kaapa Tjampitjinpa and Possum’s brother, Tim Leura Tjapaltjarri. Possum rose to prominence as one of the leaders of the Western Desert art movement, and was to be Chairman of Papunya Tula Arts in the late 1970s and early 1980s.
Possum’s fame as an artist went far beyond his traditional Anmatjere lands. From the time of his winning the Alice Springs Art Prize in 1983, his work captured an admiring public throughout Australia as well as overseas. In 1988, the Institute of Contemporary Art held a retrospective of his work, his first solo show and the first time an Aboriginal artist received such international attention.
His work is held in major public and private collections throughout the world. He was also the subject of the first biography of an Aboriginal artist since Namatjira. As his biographer, Vivian Johnson, said of Possum:
- Possum’s personal journey showed the world that an Aboriginal artist could still be a cosmopolitan world
traveller and still maintain his identity as a painter of his dreamings and a man of his culture. His services
as an ambassador for Aboriginal art around the world exceed those of any other artist.
It is a mark of the international respect Tjapaltjarri had gained in his lifetime that an obituary for him was published in the New York Times, something I doubt has ever occurred for a Territorian. Possum was appointed as an Officer of the Order of Australia in this year’s Queen’s Birthday Honours List for service as a contributor to and pioneer of the Western Desert art movement, and to the indigenous community through an interpretation of ancient traditions and cultural values. He was to have received the honour on the day he died.
On behalf of the people of the Northern Territory, I would like to pay tribute to this great man, this great artist, and I would like to extend our sympathy to his two surviving daughters, Gabriella and Michelle, son Lionel, and 11 grandchildren.
Ginger Riley Mundawalwala was born around 1937 at Limmen Bight in the Gulf Country. From the early 1950s to 1969, he worked as a stockman on Lord Vestey’s Nutwood Downs property. It was during this period, while droving cattle from Nutwood to Central Australia that, like Clifford Possum, he encountered the art of Albert Namatjira.
He tried to achieve similar paintings but was dissatisfied with the results. It was not to be until 1986 that he returned to painting as part of a Northern Territory TAFE print maker course at Ngukurr. The availability of acrylic paints, canvas and good quality artist paper at Ngukurr TAFE helped Ginger Riley make the transition from stockman to artist. He was at the forefront of the explosively coloured Ngukurr art scene of that period. He and other artists, like Sambo BarraBarra, Moima and Willie Gudubi, pioneered the use of the brightest of colours to traditional subject matter. Of these, Ginger Riley was the most natural of the colourists, and was sometimes referred to as ‘The boss of colour’.
Ginger Riley’s agent for much of his career was the well known Melbourne gallery owner and Director of the Essendon Football Club, Beverley Knight. After they met at Ngukurr in the late 1980s, Ginger Riley’s work began to receive considerable attention from collectors both in Australia and overseas. During the 1990s he won several prestigious awards, including the 1992 Alice Prize, the inaugural National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Commission Award in 1994, and in the same year he was the winner of the John McCaughey Memorial Art Prize sponsored by the National Gallery of Victoria.
Ginger Riley was also commissioned by Australia Post to design an Australian stamp and was also successful in winning a major commission to provide paintings for the newly opened Australian Embassy in Beijing. In 1997, the National Gallery of Victoria held a large retrospective exhibition of Riley’s work.
Ginger Riley was not only a great Australian artist. He was also a strong Aboriginal law man who fought hard to secure his traditional salt water lands at Maria Lagoon for future generations of his Mara countrymen and women. He was also a senior witness in the Limmen Bight land claim of the 1980s.
Those who are familiar with Ginger Riley’s work would recognise that nearly every painting he did was a triumphant statement about his ownership of the Four Archers country that he loved so much. In 2000, the Federal Court recognised Ginger Riley’s native title rights to his extended homelands on St Vidgeon Station.
He died at Borroloola on 1 September this year following a long illness. On behalf of the people of the Territory, I offer my sincere condolences to the family of this great artist, especially the Riley families of Borroloola, Limmen Bight and Ngukurr, Roy Hammer, Roddy Friday and families, and to Beverley Knight and family.
I would like to place on the public record my appreciation of a significant initiative organised by the Filipino Australian Association of the Northern Territory. From 25 September to 6 October, a study tour group from Kabankalan Catholic College visited Darwin. Kabankalan Catholic College, KCC, located in Kabankalan City in Southern Negros Occidental in the Philippines, is the gateway to Dumaguete City and the hub of the sugar barons in the region. Kabankalan City is 96 km south of Bacolod City, capital of Negros Occidental.
KCC is a co-educational college with three departmental areas: primary, secondary and tertiary. The aims of the tour were to provide the students of the Filipino community in Darwin and those at KCC with an opportunity to learn about each other’s way of life; to provide students with a learning experience in travel and tourism which can be best achieved through a study tour; to expand the existing links between the Northern Territory and Filipino governments in the area of cultural education; and to pave the way for more cultural development between the two participating Filipino communities, one in Darwin and the other in Kabankalan City, particularly in the area of extended scholarship to future students.
Eight students travelled to Darwin from KCC and were accompanied by Mrs Nomy Muhal, who is the college principal, and Dennis Christian Martir, tour coordinator. The students were exposed to a range of local cultural and educational activities. I was delighted to support this initiative with a government grant of $5000. I congratulate John Rivas, study tour coordinator and the Filipino Association President, the organising committee, all those involved from Kabankalan Catholic College, and the generous Darwin families who provided accommodation to the students and to the visiting delegation.
It was also my great pleasure on 31 August this year to attend the sixth Barrio Fiesta organised by the Filipino Australian Association. The evening was a wonderful display of the Philippines rich and diverse cultural heritage, festive, colour, music and talents in performing arts. Congratulations to the major fund raisers because the Barrio Festival is a fund raiser for the Filipino community: to Nerissa Fenis, Ivy Liza Keane, Airah Javorski, Charllene Elambo, Caitlin Bernabe and Tara Robertson. The parents of the fund raisers should also be recognised for supporting the hard work of their daughters, and congratulations to the Filipino community for this sixth Barrio Festival, to the president, John Rivas, to the organising committee, to the award winners and all those who participated in the fund raising activities. It really is extraordinary how much money those Filipino fund raisers can raise, and to what a worthy cause they go.
Another wonderful cultural event also occurred at the end of August. The Mini-Glenti, organised by the Cyprus community, was a night of colour, traditional cuisine, dance and music. I thoroughly enjoyed the evening after first going to the Barrio Festival, and particularly the traditional dancing of the Cypriot, Ellas, Pan Hellenic and Kalymnian dance groups. Congratulations to the Cyprus community, President Leo Cleanthous and to the organising committee. Special thanks to Kerrie Kyriacou for the wonderful photographs, and the Cyprus community in general for its generous hospitality.
On 30 August this year, a small ceremony was held on the banks of the Daly River at Wooliana Road. The family and friends of Allan McLeod gathered there to remember a colourful Territorian and witness the scattering of his ashes in his beloved Daly River.
Allan McLeod, a long time Territory resident, died on 31 August 2001. The scattering of his ashes occurred a year and a day after his death, and the day before the 77th anniversary of his birth. It has become a clich to use the phrase ‘the Territory is full of characters’, but Allan McLeod was one who was definitely worthy of the title of being a true Territory character.
While it is true that Allan was probably always a character, he wasn’t always associated with the Territory. He was born on 1 September 1925 in Gundagai, New South Wales, famous for the dog on the tucker box. But to Allan, Gundagai meant the Murrumbidgee River, one of only two rivers he ever acknowledged Australia had. The other, of course, was his beloved Daly, the best of them all.
Allan went to school in Sydney but, by the time he was 14, Australia was at war. Two years later, the war was much closer to home, with the Japanese spread throughout South-East Asia and the Pacific. Only three weeks after his 18th birthday, on 22 September 1943, Allan enlisted in the Australia Army, the AIF, with the enlistment number NX202362. Allan served in the Solomon Islands campaign and the jungles of Bougainville from 1944 through to the Japanese surrender in August 1945.
The following quote is from page 77 of My Battalion by WB (Bill) McLeod, Allan’s brother, who was a Lance Sergeant in the same campaign. It goes:
Mid May 1945 - in action near Torokina, Bougainville, Solomon Islands
- My brother Allan had a jovial disposition, especially in difficult times, and he made light of our adversities.
He was good for the morale of the company. All he took with him up in the forwards position was his rifle,
two inch mortar, bully beef, biscuits and ammunition. He did not take his half towel or shaving gear so his
beard grew: a long, red one. He looked like a wild man from the hills.
We can all see that character coming out.
After the war, Allan returned to the Gundagai district and worked as a stockman, back in the bush he loved so well. In 1948, he married Norma, first in a Registry Office and then, just to make sure the knot had been well and truly tied, in a church. Norma never left his side and the strength, respect and understanding evident in their partnership over the following 51 years is a fine example to us all. Allan and Norma’s three sons, Peter, Phillip and Des, were all born in Gundagai before the family decided in 1955 to move from the lush green hills of Gundagai to the less than lush, and not very often green hills of the MacDonnell Ranges and Alice Springs where Allan took a job with NT Correctional Services as a prison officer, a job he was to keep for the rest of his working career.
After eight years in the Alice, Allan and family transferred to Darwin, establishing themselves at Basedow Street in Fannie Bay, just behind the Fannie Bay Gaol.
Allan’s ability to work with people, and often some of the most difficult people to deal with in our society, black, white and brindle, is legendary. He was entrusted to take a small band of prisoners to Gunn Point in the early 1970s to establish the Gunn Point Prison Farm, clearing the scrub and erecting a base camp in the absence of established security. Gunn Point was a highly effective alternative to incarceration in Fannie Bay. He was at Gunn Point when Cyclone Tracy struck on Christmas Eve 1974, devastating Darwin and blowing down the walls of Fannie Bay Gaol, only 100 m or so from the McLeod house in Fannie Bay.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I am just about to run out of time. I wonder, since this is really non-controversial, whether I could have this incorporated, if that is okay?
Leave granted.
- Allan was held in such high regard by some former prisoners that they showed up at the McLeod house,
or what was left of it, following the cyclone to make sure ‘the missus’ was all right.
Allan first visited the Daily in 1963 and fell in love with the place. He arranged to buy a block of land
towards the end of Woolianna Road, and Robal started to emerge from the bush. Robal, Labor spelt
backwards, was Allan’s little piece of paradise in the Territory.
With the Whitlam dismissal in 1975, Allan turned his thoughts to retirement. He could not stand the thought
of working for a Liberal Party regime again and, in 1976, he and Norma retired to spend the rest of their days,
give or take the odd trip to Darwin and interstate, beside the Daly which, in Allan’s view, was the best river in
Australia. It is a great pleasure to know that Allan saw a Labor government in the Territory before he died.
Allan and Norma quickly became a feature of the Woolianna Road community, along with people like
Charlie Dargie and Alfie Salzgeber, the Plishuks and all the others who made Woolianna Road
their home, either permanently or temporarily.
Allan could be pretty intimidating at times. When meeting people for the first time, he had the habit of
throwing into the conversation controversial issues to see how people would react. The way to earn his
respect was to stand your ground and argue your case. He may not always end up agreeing with you,
but he would respect you for having the conviction to stick to your guns.
The animals of the bush held a special place for him. Every afternoon the birds would be fed, and the
emerald doves would fly in to peck at the grains. He had an old turkey for many years and, of course,
Whiskey, his dog.
The incident that really crystallised Allan’s affection for the bush was when a finch decided Allan’s ample
shorts, hanging on the clothes line, would make a good spot to build a next. Those shorts hung on the line
until after the chicks had hatched, been reared and eventually left the nest.
Allan had understanding, love and compassion. Above all, he could make people smile.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Mr Deputy Speaker, tonight I rise to speak about a response the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure made this afternoon to a question about what he intends to do with the commercial passenger vehicle industry. I note that the minister issued a media release, plus some half a dozen fact sheets on the CPV Board on taxis and executive taxis, on minibuses and limousines.
I do not know whether the minister has himself read through the paperwork thoroughly prior to his release of the papers, but it raises quite a few concerns. First, in his response to the question put to him by a member on his side, the minister said this government is taking measures to fix the industry that the previous government managed to nearly ruin. Then he went on to say that the former CLP government gave his government an extra $20m in debt.
I assume by his statement he meant that there is $20m owing somewhere because the CLP government bought back the taxi licences. Obviously, this minister does not really understand business. The government used money to buy an asset; the government now owns the asset. The government has the asset in its back pocket. If the government does have the $20m debt and wants to get rid of it, sell the plates back, sell the assets back and you have the money. So there is no debt. Whatever the minister says, if he gets his business right, there is no debt. The licences are in the hands of the government, so that is not an issue. I think the minister needs to understand that.
The minister went on to say that he also intended to introduce in the November sittings a detailed ministerial statement to allow all members of this House to air their views on this matter. More procrastination? The minister has had industry consultation for nearly 12 months. In fact, November last year it started, and every six months he was going to release a paper to the industry and until today, really there was nothing. Today’s fact sheets I will come to shortly. There are quite a few errors, in fact.
The minister went on to speak about having a Commercial Passenger Vehicle Board. Now, the industry, both major groups in Darwin and Alice Springs, has canvassed the minister on many occasions suggesting that he should have at least two regional boards so that local issues can be considered thoroughly by those local boards. A single board with one or two representatives from various sectors of the industry would not be able to represent adequate views from each of the regions.
Let me just read to you the composition that the minister proposes for an interim board which he intends to appoint some time this month. He recommends that membership of the board will include representatives of the taxi and executive taxi operators, not from any region; minibus operators, not from any region; limousine operators, not from any region; regional industry operators. I suppose there is the Darwin region, the Katherine region, the Tennant Creek region, the Alice Springs region and the Nhulunbuy region. So are they all going to come from there? The tourism industry, two representatives; disabled access advocacy, without brackets so I suppose there is one representative there; consumers, two representatives; and drivers, and I have no number. So how big is this board going to be? It is going to be a minimum of 10 people, if not more.
We have ‘s’ at the end of the operators, I assume that being plural, it will be at least two. So if you count that, it is two, four, six, eight, 10, 12, 14, 15 minimum, plus an independent chair, a very large board. You will find that with that sized board, you still will not get adequate regional representation. The industry wanted two boards with a common chairman, perhaps even a common deputy chairman, so that the overall umbrella view of the Territory can be carried across regions by the chairman and his deputy and then the regional members can concentrate just on local issues. That would be better because it will give the boards in those regions a better focus in their own area. They can monitor the quality of the drivers, determine the numbers that are required in terms of taxis, minibuses and limousines. They will have much better knowledge than would this umbrella body that sits across the Territory in numbers that will not be able to adequately represent the regions.
The rest of the fact sheets state fairly standard matters there which I will not go into until we come to the taxis and executive taxis fact sheet. It goes through some of the standard things that were canvassed in the earlier fact sheet on the CPV Board. Let me come to the section on training requirements, and this is also a common box for the three categories – taxis and executive taxis, minibuses and limousines - and I will read it:
- Training for Drivers: Driver training requirements will expand from 24 hours to 78 hours.
- This requirement will apply to all sectors effective from March 2003.
- All driver training which commences after 16 October 2002 will be required to meet the new provisions.
These are not supposed to come in until March 2003. Now, that is an oxymoron statement as far as I am concerned. You cannot have something starting today that does not apply until March 2003. Where are the courses? The courses are going to be run by organisations outside of the industry in the two regions, Darwin and Alice Springs, but in smaller regions, they will be conducted by the base operator.
So in the bigger centres, where you have better training, they must be done outside the industry, and in the smaller centres, don’t worry about it, the local base operator can do that. Wouldn’t it be better to have a regional board that would look after the training and can contract trainers from Centralian College, NTU, wherever, to go to whatever region to do the training? That would be more objective and better training than that provided by the base operator. And, the timing. Where do the drivers go now? Do they start training as of tonight on a course that is not available which will not become effective until March 2003? The minister needs to go back and read his paperwork before he hands it out. The minister here, giggles and laughs away. Doesn’t he understand?
Another matter that is an issue is that in entry standards and codes of conduct for drivers:
- New drivers will be required to hold a driver’s licence for a minimum period of five years before they can
obtain a licence to drive a taxi, including executive taxi, minibus or limousine.
That is fairly onerous. I know it is important. Somebody at 16 can get a driver’s licence, and five years later at 21 you can drive a taxi, executive taxi, limousine or minibus, but there are other people who would have received their driver’s licence when they are 35. They cannot go into this industry until they are 40. That is unreasonable.
There are many regions that are screaming out for taxi, limousine and minibus drivers. The resource is very small, and to limit the pool of drivers by insisting that they must have at least five years of a driver’s licence prior to their applying makes it even harder. The industry is already screaming about that. The minister says he wants better quality drivers. Yes, but there has to be give and take, and five years is really unreasonable. He needs to reconsider that.
The charges that are being put are reasonable in that, say for instance with the minibuses, at the moment, they are paying a much smaller rate than taxis. Over the next three years, their rates will slowly increase to match the CVLs for taxis. That will bring them at least on a reasonable playing field. The only thing that the minibuses will not have is a meter, but they will be able to pick up from anywhere in a street just like a taxi can, but there are no meters so we will have to make sure that the policing is adequate so that minibuses are operating within the rules.
When it comes to limousines, the government now intends to introduce essentially three categories. It will have an executive taxi, a limousine service, and a special function car. When I spoke to operators from the private hire industry today, they were under the impression that if they run a limousine, they can use the same vehicle as a special function car. So when I asked them the question: ‘Are you sure?’, they stopped and thought about it. I said: ‘Well, let me read this to you, and then you can decide for yourself: “The fees and charges for commercial passenger licences …”
That is in a separate box in the fact sheet under limousines. And I will read these two lines:
- The fee for a limousine CVL will be $1120 annually in all regions commencing 1 July 2003. The fee for
a special function car will be $500 annually in all regions commencing 1 July 2003.
So a person who has vehicles operating as limousines cannot use the same vehicles to operate as a special function car unless that vehicle has two separate CVLs. Here comes the difficult part: that a CVL will now be attached to a vehicle. Now, can a vehicle have two CVLs? Well, the minister has to answer that. We do not know, but the minister did not explain it in his answer to the question. So where do we go from here? It is a very confused minister for transport who has sat on this for 12 months, who still comes out with a hodge-podge of a decision on what is going to happen which is not going to take place until he delivers his statement in November so that all members of this House can comment further. Well, if he is going to deliver that, I suppose, on the first day, maybe we can finish the debate on this matter by the Thursday. If not, does it go over to next year again?
I do not think the minister is stupid; I think he is just incompetent. He is really incompetent. He has allowed this thing to go on for so long, he has not been able to pull together a fairly simple matter like this. The LCOP has opened up the market. It was up to market pressures to determine the level of entry that people wanted. If people want to take the risk to go into business, that is fine, that is entirely up to them. Nobody tells anybody whether they should open up a service station or a corner supermarket or a corner deli. That is free enterprise and this is exactly the same.
What the minister has done is introduce a factor in there that has caused more confusion than he started with. Unfortunately, the way he has conducted this tells me that he is very confused about the industry. He needs to make time to sit down and talk to the people who are really in the know, and hopefully, come out with something before it is too late. Now, we have an issue here. He has to fix it up tomorrow. You cannot have people having to conform to driving requirements or training requirements as of today, which are not supposed to come into effect until March 2003. This just does not make sense. I look forward to hearing his response tomorrow.
Mr Kiely: Get a briefing.
Dr Lim: It would be nice if I could get a briefing from him. I have asked for a while.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr STIRLING (Nhulunbuy): Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to put on the record a response to the member for Blain’s question today in relation to teacher students on exchange throughout the eastern provinces of Indonesia. There are two exchange teachers in Bali and one in Lombok. There was a brief from the department very early on the Monday that they had been contacted very early on in the piece and their good welfare was confirmed very early and the situation remains under monitoring.
The teachers in Bali live and work well away from tourist areas and were not immediately affected by Saturday night’s horrific attack, although how you can say that about anyone is probably begging the truth a bit because I think everyone is affected by what occurred. The teacher in Lombok is also not in a tourist area. The teachers have indicated their wish to stay and complete their work. The government will continue to monitor it and if the situation were to deteriorate at all or there were further events of this nature, at any time that the teachers feel unsafe or wish to return home, they simply need to contact the department and that will be arranged immediately.
All school excursions to Indonesia have been postponed. That has resulted in the immediate cancellation of at least one excursion of 18 students from Darwin High School, and letters to parents and students have gone home. The government is not aware of any students from the government or non-government sector in Bali at this time. The NTU advises that they currently do not have students in Bali either. So there is good news on that front. But those teachers know that they simply need to contact the department.
In relation to the last part of the question as to whether these exchange programs proceed, I do not think you would want to make a call right at this moment because there is so much strength and goodwill and learning that comes out of these exchange programs, you simply would not make a call until the situation returns to normal. That would remain an open question at this stage. However, the fact that the three teachers themselves are prepared to stay at this stage speaks well for the continuation of such a program. You can understand, given the situation and the Department of Foreign Affairs warnings on further travel to Indonesia, and particularly Bali and the eastern provinces, at this stage that you would not want any students heading off for those parts in the foreseeable future. It is a shame for Darwin High School because an enormous amount of work goes into the preparation of those trips.
I wanted to recognise also tonight a couple of employees, Robyn Nuttall, formerly Turnbull, who has been with the government in the Northern Territory for 34 years in various Commonwealth and Northern Territory agencies. She commenced her career as a teacher with the Commonwealth government and the Commonwealth Teaching Service in 1968, culminating this career in a senior management role with the NT Department of Employment, Education and Training in the Employment and Training Division in September 2002.
Robyn’s significant achievements during her public service career included development of a strategic plan for health, safety and environmental management across government, industry and business; coordination and writing duties to prepare the Foundations for Our Future Booklet No 5; diversifying the economy through service and industry growth; development and implementation of an award system for the mining industry; being recognised by professional colleagues as a leader in education in Australia, including receiving the award of a Fellowship of the Australian College of Education; the award of the inaugural Northern Territory Chapter Medal for services to the college and education in the NT.
Alcan Gove’s success is largely due to its great employees, and recently Alcan paid tribute to 14 of its longest serving employees, each having served 30 years. This group of people have dedicated the best part of their working lives to Nabalco, now Alcan.
Amongst the group, interestingly, were people from Wales, Norway, Finland, Austria, Switzerland, Albania, England, New Zealand and Australia which indicates the cultural diversity of Nhulunbuy. People reaching their 30 years of service include: Othmar Rutishauser, Graeme Sullivan, Gary O’Gorman, Ralph Campbell, Peter Beha, Bob Demiri, Helmut Gruber, Terry Spears, Harry Stabler, Jim Walsh, John Seem, Leo Dichtl, Henga Pirini and Gary Sullivan. Thirty years is a long time with one employer, particularly in this day and age, and I congratulate each of those employees for their loyalty, their diligence, their longevity, and I wish each of them all the best for the future.
I also want to congratulate the Nhulunbuy Community Library, named the Northern Territory winners of the 2001 Prime Minister’s Employer of the Year Awards. The awards, which recognise small and large businesses that employ people with disabilities, has been running for 11 years. The library was very pleased to accept the award, which recognised their commitment to employing people with disabilities. Ongoing training and support is provided to Jennifer Robertson so that she can participate in a Certificate of Library Studies through the Northern Territory University. Jennifer is also the library’s second-longest serving employee. This question of employment of disabled people is something that challenges me as minister responsible for public sector employment. It is something that I am having the Commissioner for Public Employment look closely at because I think that in a public service of some 14 500 employees, we ought to have more spaces dedicated to those people unfortunate enough to be disabled to some degree and in some category. So we will be working away at that, and I hope to be able to bring something concrete in the new year.
I am pleased to acknowledge and congratulate Ben O’Brien, the Northern Territory’s top Year 12 student for 2001 with a near perfect score of 99 out of 100. Ben was also awarded the Alcan Gove Dr Doettling scholarship for 2002. That scholarship will provide Ben with a generous annual bursary while he undertakes studies to complete a Bachelor of Engineering (Minerals Process Engineering) at the University of Queensland. He has lived in Nhulunbuy for eight years. He completed his secondary schooling at Nhulunbuy High School where he excelled academically and was involved in many facets of school life including membership of the student representative council, editor of the school magazine and house captain. I keep an eye out for Ben through constant checking with his dad, John O’Brien, and I am told he is going every bit as well at university in a challenging course such as that as he was at Nhulunbuy High School. He is a bright kid, he has a great future and he will use it to the best of his ability; he is just one of those kids.
Nhulunbuy Primary School Year 7 student Sean Coffey was selected to attend the National Cross-Country Championships held in Sydney recently after competing in the Northern Territory Schools Championship held in Darwin. Along with several other students from Nhulunbuy Primary, Sean impressed the selectors by coming second in the 3 km run, securing a place in the team that went to Sydney. He did compete in the National Championships and was well placed in all events.
The first week in October had sporting competitors going to Gove in droves. Gove hosted the Northern Territory Junior Eight Ball Championships, the Northern Territory BMX Age Titles and the Gove Sprint 2002 swimming titles all on the one weekend. The Junior Eight Ball Championships brought around 100 junior competitors, officials, parents and supporters from Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Katherine, Groote Eylandt, Litchfield Shire and of course Gove itself.
On the same weekend, Nhulunbuy BMX hosted the Northern Territory BMX Age Titles with 117 competitors from six NT BMX tracks competing. Sponsors and volunteers contributed greatly to what was a hugely successful event followed up by the best fireworks display I have ever seen. We all get a bit blas about fireworks display but this was just right on top of you, and it was a sensational finish to a great weekend’s racing. I must congratulate the Nhulunbuy BMX Club for winning the NT BMX Club for 2002 at the championships. An enormous amount of work and effort goes in by a lot of people to successfully stage a championship such as those. One hundred at the eight ball, 117 at the BMX, all with adults and parents - a lot of people to put up in a small town. Once again, the township of Nhulunbuy showed just what a great and hospitable place that is by hosting so many people on the weekend.
The other event on the same weekend was the Gove Spring Swimming Titles. Whilst I congratulate all winners of the various age categories, there were competitors also from the swim clubs in Darwin there as well. All up, probably something like 250 kids alone and then adults on top of that, making their way, one way or another, to Gove for that weekend to participate in those championships. So well done, Nhulunbuy.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Mr Deputy Speaker, from time to time we have debates in this House that deal with emotional topics and topics that raise the ire of people. At those times, more than ever, we require restraint in this House because when we do not engender an atmosphere of restraint, debates quickly dwindle into screaming matches and common abuse. That is not constructive for the process of debate, the formulation of government policy and for our image as politicians in the eyes of the public.
Tonight I was called a racist by the member for Johnson, and it is exactly that sort of unrestrained …
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I would ask the honourable member to withdraw that allegation. It is factually wrong. It is certainly offensive. Unless he can point to specifically the record in the Hansard, I ask him to withdraw that allegation.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Deputy Speaker, speaking to the point of order, I did not necessarily say it was in here or it was on the record. Now, Mr Deputy Speaker …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Macdonnell, first, the member is not here so we are discussing someone who is not in the House at present. The other thing is if it is not on the public record, then it may be more prudent to withdraw that statement.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Deputy Speaker, all right, I will withdraw the statement.
Tonight, despite of the fact that I am not going to reflect on the presence in this Chamber of the member for Johnson, he condescended to come into this Chamber and suggest that my motives were race-based for raising a few issues. Now despite that, I had another conversation with the member for Johnston, and during that conversation, he made certain statements upon which I based my last comment. By the by, the issue of this allegation requires - I need to put my anger at being called that into some sort of context.
I was brought up by parents who were familiar with the term, or my father was familiar with the term ‘unter-mensch’ which is a German term. That term was applied by the Nazis to people who were not in their mould or who were not of German origin, often applied to Jews.
My mother spent four years in a Japanese concentration camp where she was treated in some of the most inhumane ways, and the secrets as to how my grandmother was able to keep those children alive during those years in that concentration camp died with my grandmother a few years ago. The crime that my mother and my grandmother had committed was simply not to be Japanese. That was the crime that got them interned into a concentration camp. My uncle, shortly after the war, died as a result of being in that camp.
However, did my parents bring me up to hate Germans? Did my parents bring me up to hate Japanese? On the contrary. My father had many German friends, both here in Australia and in Europe. My mother certainly did not bring me up to hate Japanese. They gave me a yardstick by which I should live my life, and that is to measure each person and each set of circumstances on nothing else than the merits. That is how I try to live my life, and despite the fact that I am given to moments of emotion, and sometimes anger, it is still the yardstick by which I try to live.
The process of allowing ourselves to get caught up in emotional debates and call each other all sorts of names really does diminish us. I was also brought up not to be dragged along by hysteria or a fashion or a trend of the time, but to think about those issues we face on a regular basis in life. These are moral issues, emotional issues, ethical issues and other issues - spiritual issues, if you like.
I was also taught by my parents not to bend like a reed or keep my silence when I saw something wrong. When I see things that are wrong, I either report them to the appropriate authorities or, if they are issues of public policy, I bring them into this House and I talk about them. I try to talk about those issues rationally, without abuse or name calling, without being personal. Do I achieve that all the time? No, but I do try.
I saw something wrong last week. The member for Araluen saw something wrong last week. Both the member for Araluen and I stood up and we said that it was wrong. We believed that it was wrong, and we said so publicly and loudly, and the media did report on those things that we believed were wrong. Now it is in the public domain and the public may decide that. It is in the government’s domain to decide whether or not what we observed was wrong, and the government has responded accordingly.
The Attorney-General came into this Chamber today and agreed that the issues that we raised last week were wrong. In fact, the Attorney-General, no less, complimented me on the issue that I raised in Question Time in the last couple of days. The fact that the Attorney-General has listened to what we have had to say and has agreed with it surely should put the issue to bed.
But no. Unfortunately, the member for Johnston came in here and pulled this whole debate down into the level of hysteria. He is trying find racism; he is trying to find some sort of racist agenda …
Mr Henderson: Like Col Newman’s article in the paper today.
Mr ELFERINK: … but the fact of the matter is we have done nothing more than is incumbent upon us. I hear the minister opposite who has repeatedly tonight interfered with, or attempted to interfere with, members speaking. He has to understand that we will not back away from our responsibilities as elected members of this Chamber just because it does not suit you, and nor will we allow ourselves to be dragged into the hysterical rantings of a man who, because he is fawning to a particular opinion, cannot bring himself to see the world clearly and see the motives that we have for raising particular issues.
Members interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: Now, if the member for Johnston has a sense of outrage, then what should he be outraged by? The issues that we raised last week, or the fact that we raised them? So far, the member for Johnston has done nothing more than become outraged at the messenger. He does not want to hear the message, so what does he do? He tries to shoot the messenger. If the member for Johnston thinks it is appropriate that a child should not be protected by the courts, then let him stand up and say so, but don’t shoot the messenger. If he believes that we should not be outraged by the comments from Justice Gallup, then he should say so, but not shoot the messenger.
This process of allowing ourselves to descend into this sort of abuse is an affront to the efforts that my parents put into bringing me up as a decent person in this global community, to try and exercise tolerance, to try and exercise some understanding. My father would be most upset if he heard the accusations that have been levelled against me today by the member for Johnston. What does the member for Johnston base his accusations on? He bases them on a twisted interpretation of what the member for Araluen and I had to say. Because he wants to put his spin on it, he is prepared to engage in what is essentially common slander and common libel. The process that he is engaging in is the same sort of process of denunciation which was used in other places to ruin and sully people’s reputations. Well, if that is the penalty …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! The member for Macdonnell has accused me of criminal acts in here, and I would ask that he withdraws.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Deputy Speaker, the member for Johnston may choose to try and denounce me publicly. I will stand judged by the public. I accept that as a natural consequence of the role that I have, but common slander, especially in these sorts of debates, diminishes him. He presents himself to us in this Chamber as a man of intellect, a man of reason and a man of consideration, but the spurious, twisted way in which he interpreted the intentions of the member for Araluen and myself for his for his own political end, diminishes him as a man of reason, as a man of intellect, as a representative of the people, and, what is worse, diminishes us all.
Mr HENDERSON (Wanguri): Mr Deputy Speaker, tonight I would like to put on the record my commendation of a remarkable public servant who has served the Territory so very well for 37 years. That is an enormous amount of service to the people of the Northern Territory.
I would like to talk briefly tonight about the retirement of Mr Tony Errity, Director of the Titles Division, the division responsible for the grant and maintenance of mineral exploration and mining titles across the Northern Territory.
Tony arrived in Australia from Ireland in 1963 and, after a two year working holiday, settled in Darwin. In 1965, he started his long and successful career with the Territory government. He commenced in Water Resources where he spent the next 15 years chasing surface water all over the Territory. During this time, Tony also developed a lifelong love of the Territory outback and fishing.
In 1979, he joined the former Department of Mines and Energy as a mining technical officer. Tony took this opportunity to attain tertiary qualifications in administration, then proceeded to gain a Master’s Degree in Public Policy.
In 1997, Tony was appointed to the position of Director of Titles. His first day in the job was 17 March, St Patrick’s Day being an apt day for an Irishman. As director, Tony made a significant contribution in leading the division into the 21st century. A major achievement was the introduction of an Integrated Title Management System, a system which was built on leading edge components that won an award at the World Conference on Information Technology in Adelaide this year. The Territory’s titles and mapping Internet system is widely used by the public and private sectors, both locally and interstate.
He also managed the introduction of a system for dealing with the grant of exploration and mining applications that were affected by native title.
Tony had an even-handed approach to his work, with a high regard for integrity and business ethics. Through both his public and private life, Tony made an important contribution to the Territory. In retirement, Tony and his wife will continue to reside in the Territory. He plans to travel, fish, and work voluntarily in the community through the Anglican Church. Tony Errity retired from the post of Director of Titles Division of DBIRD on 27 September this year after 37 years in the Territory government.
It is important for members of this House, particularly ministers, to put on the record this parliament’s thanks for the great service that our public servants provide the people of the Northern Territory, particularly after such an extraordinary length of time. I would like to personally wish Tony - I have not known him for very long - all the best in his retirement. It is great to know that he and his wife are going to have their retirement here in the Northern Territory, and I look forward to catching up with them around the traps.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Mr Deputy Speaker, tonight I bring the attention of all members to an important local issue in Alice Springs; in particular an issue that relates to the women of Alice Springs. It is the Women’s Information Centre, known as WIC. I am told, on advice recently provided to me, that there is some concern that WIC may be at risk of closure under this government. I am advised that the position of coordinator has not been advertised, that it has been vacant since April, and that there is widespread concern for the services at risk. I hope that, appropriately, after I have raised the matter in this parliament, the government can assure those for whom I am raising this issue tonight that, in fact, WIC is safe.
WIC has provided an invaluable service to women in and around Alice Springs for a very long time, certainly as long as I have been in Alice Springs. Some of its services are free and confidential counselling; information and referral service; networking opportunities for women; resources such as an impressive library; facilities for mothers to breastfeed and change their babies; meeting facilities for community groups and a host of other invaluable services.
WIC has traditionally been instrumental in organising the Reclaim The Night events in Alice Springs, and last year played an integral role in the creation of the Women’s Services Card. It has, over the years, worked closely with the Women’s Advisory Council on a number of matters and in particular the Reclaim The Night and the Women’s Services Card.
WIC serves more than just a useful function in Alice Springs, and it is not replicated in any way. It is a shopfront service and it is pivotal for women in the town and, indeed, has been pivotal for many years. Its shopfront provides a welcoming atmosphere, a welcoming environment for women and by any measure, it is a much easier service for women to access than a dull government department or office building.
The service deals with approximately 200 clients per month, and 50% of those, generally speaking, are by telephone. The Women’s Information Centre in Alice Springs is the only centre of its type in the Territory so it follows that it assists women from all around the Territory and is often the first point of contact for many women wanting information and services that the Women’s Information Centre provides. It does not duplicate the work of the Women’s Legal Service or the Women’s Shelter, but performs work that complements those services as well as performing work that neither of those services perform. Both the Women’s Legal Service and the Women’s Shelter will be worse off if WIC no longer exists.
I do not know why it is that the position of coordinator has not been filled or why it has been vacant since April of this year, an unprecedented vacancy I would suggest. I hope, as a result of raising this matter, that the Chief Minister or the minister assisting her can assure the parliament and in particular the women of Alice Springs that the Women’s Information Centre is not at risk or facing the possibility of closure. If that assurance is not given, then I would predict that the women of Alice Springs will basically take to the streets and do whatever is necessary to get this government to affirm its commitment to the women of the town and ensure that the Women’s Information Centre remains open.
I urge the government, if it does not plan to close the service, to advise the people of the Northern Territory that that is not the case. I would ask the government to assure us that the Women’s Information Centre is not at risk. If it is not, then why hasn’t the position of coordinator been advertised? If it has been advertised, why is the position vacant and why has it been vacant since April?
With those remarks, I hope that perhaps tomorrow in this parliament either the Chief Minister or the minister assisting her can advise or assure me that the service is not facing closure.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Mr Deputy Speaker, on 21 September, I attended the men’s basketball final trophy presentation and the match where the TV Jets defeated the Eagles. I appreciated the warm welcome by President, Paul Rousham. The umpires for what was really a great game were Steve Cubillo, Errol Thorne, Jason Ivinson and Mark Hillebrand. It was a very close game, and the crowd really enjoyed it. It was a great testament to the standard of men’s basketball here in Darwin.
On 25 September, a few of us gathered together to meet Professor Babiniotis who is Rector of the National University of Athens. The professor is a very well known and learned scholar in the Greek language, but unfortunately he was delayed in Bali. We had a few drinks there, and it was great to catch up with a few people, but mostly Tony Miaoudis and his daughter Effie. It was a pleasure to meet Effie because she is a very pleasant young woman currently studying pharmacy at James Cook University in Queensland. She and I were able to have a great conversation about pharmacy and she certainly has a great future in that profession. It was great to meet Effie and I can see why Tony is very proud of his daughter.
On 26 September, there was a meeting in my electorate office of the Wagaman Residents Committee. It was great to see Lord Mayor Peter Adamson there. He was welcomed along with the rest of the meeting by Asad Mohsin who is the chairman. Asad, as everyone knows, is very active in the Islamic Society and he is also active in many community groups. He is a very popular personality and he did a great job this night of chairing a meeting which was a little bit controversial because it was discussing the closure of laneways in the Amsterdam Circuit area.
Zita Hall was there, as she always is, ably taking notes, being the secretary. Kate Ganley, Paul Hempstock, Tony Eckert, Patrick Daly and his mum June Daly were there, and they are long time residents of the area. Wendy Johnson, Ray Barnes, Poppi Gatis, Simmy Lee, George Lambrinidis, Garry Lambert came along with the Lord Mayor and also represented the council, Senior Constable Tony Pederson, known to many people, Mal and Marg Stewart, Ron and Kathleen Lawrence who have also lived in the area for many years and they have very strong feelings about the closure of the laneway and about the behaviour of young people in the area and how more should be done to engage these young people.
Eliza Tchung was there, Bruce Parvin, Kev Baker, John Skinner, Quintin Denis, who is Manager of the Casuarina Shopping Square, Christina Birch and Terry Morgan. It was a very successful meeting. There were some opposing views to begin with, but people worked through that and came up with a very wise proposal that the council is now considering about the opening and closing of those laneways, so all credit to the Wagaman Residents Committee.
On 27 September, along with other members here, I attended the National Police Remembrance Day. You cannot say it is a fantastic service, but it is very important. I noticed that you were there, Mr Deputy Speaker, singing in the choir. It is a church service that is full of sorrow, but it is also full of respect for the work that our police do in our community and how they put their lives on the line all the time for the safety and the security of our community. We all appreciate the fantastic work that the police do in our community.
On 27 September I presented a cheque for $1770 from the Lottery Fund to the Jingili BMX club for lighting. Craig Cousins was away, he is the President, but I was ably looked after by all the rest. I managed to have one beer while I was there and watch a few races. Those kids really get around those humps and lumps and bumps and corners. It is tremendous to see young people doing something good for their bodies and in a good spirit of competition. There was one little fellow there, he must have been three years of age, on a little bike, probably about nine inches high, he’s peddling away, and then his dad has to push him up over the hump. He actually beat a few home in a couple of races, a few had spills and he just kept on cycling, so that’s fantastic.
On 27 September, I was privileged to draw the Scout’s raffle at Karama Shopping Centre. I am sorry to tread on the turf of the member for Karama …
Ms Lawrie: You are more than welcome.
Dr BURNS: I think she was away. I have had a bit to do with the Scouts and they are a great group. This was the Scout Association’s major raffle which has been held for the last 15 years. They do the show circuit starting at Alice Springs and culminating in the draw. It was won by Mr R Sullivan of Humpty Doo who may be known to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, but maybe not. The prize was $13 500 worth of prizes made up of a 13.5 m boat on a very nice trailer with an outboard, plenty of safety equipment and camping equipment and a Trailblazer fridge. The Executive Officer of the Scouts, is Margaret Vigants, and the main fundraising organiser is John Doidge, who organises the prizes, tickets, distribution, retrieval and also the draw.
At the draw was Ted Kilpatrick, Assistant to the Commissioner. Ted has been a Scout for most of his life; he has the Scout law, it is just embedded in him, and he is a tremendous example of the Scouting movement. He is someone who helps young people and is absolutely committed to the Scouting movement. It is great to see people with that whole ethic of service to the community and caring for youth. Ted Kilpatrick does a fantastic job.
On 28 September I attended the Australian, Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union branch meeting. I will have to lay it on the table in the Chamber here, I am a member of that union and I am proud to be a member of that union. They have been very active in lobbying in relation to tobacco issues and they are very concerned about the health and wellbeing of their workers, particularly in smokey environments. They are a great group of people.
Apart from Jeff Jones who is the Branch Secretary, Jeff Lawrence was in attendance, he is the National Secretary. Others who were there are Amanda Rigby, Dianne Yali, Geoff Hull, Noel Treharne, Rebecca Collopy, Mark Eisen, Glenis Bingham, Michael Howe, Miguel Ociones, Dennis Allen, Janette Coles, Aaron Murnane, Michelle Peek, Barbara Mills, Donald Henwood, Jodi Belbin, Kevin Flood, Jason Smith, Paul Williams, Denise Ah Sam, Kevin Fletcher and Paul O’Loughlin.
On 5 October, I attended a great night, the prize giving for the Territory Amateur Soccer League, or TASL, the fourth annual presentation night. It was ably run by Adrian Moscheni. It was great to see all the clubs there, and they were cheering their different people on as they received prizes for best and fairest, and fairest player and best team and that sort of thing, and it was a great spirit. There were many supporters of TASL there including Gay and Mark Finocharrio and Mrs Scaturchio.
On 7 October, Paul Henderson, along with myself, hosted drinks for business people in the Johnston electorate. There was Mr Greg Flood from Just Coffee and his wife Julie, they attend a lot of the markets around town. He has been in business for a long time. John Nicolakis is my landlord and a very well known business person in town, Jim and Peter Carew, I will have to say that they are actually my brothers-in-law. They run a pretty successful business in town called Integrated Technical Services, Brian Measey I have known for a number of years, and he runs Thrifty Rent-a-Car. Irene Burns and her husband Bill live in the electorate. They have had earth moving business, but now they are getting a charter boat together, and that sounds like a very exciting venture. Mr Dick Ash, who lives in the electorate, is a primary producer. He is a bee keeper and he is currently managing a melon farm. He Dick does a great job and has a great sense of humour. Mr Alex Rajkovich from Readymix, Peter Jones from Hotshots Photography, Sheryle Dillon and Dennis Matthews from Ace Cabling, and my old friend Mr Alex Tsopanoglou. Tom Ganley from airport management was there representing them. Rod Hicks, yes he lives in the electorate, he runs a very a great business for visual arts, advertising and marketing and that sort of thing called ROKA Graphics. Mark Sweet who was acting for Daniel Honan from Telstra. Peter Johnston who has an earth moving business in the electorate also. So it was good that people got to meet the minister and had a good talk with him, and I think people really enjoyed the night.
Moving to Casuarina College, the college was saddened by the death of long-term teacher Mr John Richardson, who taught science at the college for many years and enjoyed an excellent relationship with both students and staff. From what we understand, he unfortunately suffered a stroke in the early hours of Thursday 29 August, and although he was able to ring 000 for assistance, he subsequently collapsed and could not be revived. John is survived by his parents and two brothers, and the college was able to put together support and counselling services for students and staff because they were very deeply affected by John’s passing because he was very popular and a great teacher.
Deevya Desai is going to attend the Model UN opening at the Hague and is very busy fundraising. I think I talked about that in an earlier adjournment. This is an honour for Casuarina Senior College, as this is the second year one of their students has been selected to attend this UN meeting for youth, and Sid Vemuri represented them last year.
Jingili Primary School - students from Years 5, 6 and 7 participated in The Beat Goes Wild at the Amphitheatre this year as part of the 600-strong primary school choir from Territory schools. There is also a new fitness track, which has become a focus at lunch time for students enjoying this new facility. It has a water bubbler, trees for shade and seating, and the installation of some of this infrastructure has been assisted by a Lotteries Fund grant.
At a special morning tea at the preschool on 31 July, I delivered a cheque for much needed shade cloth over the pool area. There is a large tree that had to be removed because it was a danger to students so the government was able to support the preschool in getting some much needed shade cloth.
On 20 September, the preschool had a very successful fancy dress disco and the children looked amazing. They all had a wonderful time, and over 90 children enjoyed the sit down dinner.
At Moil Primary School, they celebrated National Tree Day on 25 July which involved planting bush tucker food trees in a corner of the school to promote an appreciation of the legacy inherited in the Territory from indigenous people and their knowledge in terms of food and medicinal products.
Moil also had a science fair on 4 September, a large event the whole school was involved with, to celebrate National Science Week. Nineteen Darwin community and government organisations such as the Mineral Council, Health Department, police, St John’s, Parks and Wildlife and Greening Australia provided talks and hands-on displays for the children. As part of the fair, students were asked to submit entries into a competition where they had to create a bush beast using only recycled materials and tape and glue or velcro to hold it together. Individual winners were: Roechelle Attwood from Transition/Year 1; Imogen Campbell from Years 2/3; Jonathon Dyer from Years 4/5; and Khan Maxfield, from Years 6/7.
In the Australian Schools’ English Competition, Puanna Kapi achieved the highest mark in her year level in the NT, and received a special English Medal in recognition of her outstanding achievement. High Distinctions were awarded to Phoebe Martin, Christopher Frew and Paul Anderson, along with Distinction and Credit certificates to 28 other students.
In the NT Athletics Championships, Isaac Taulelei won gold medals for the 800 m, 400 m, discus, shot put, long jump, and high jump for 10-year-old boys. Isaac also won silver in the 60 m hurdles.
Finally, for Moil Primary School, Kiana Fiorenza made it to the national Taekwondo Championships to be held in Queensland this month.
Mr BONSON (Millner): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise briefly tonight to pay tribute to the Darwin Basketball Association which successfully held their grand finals recently.
As people would know, I have been very heavily involved in basketball all through my life, and definitely grew up down at the courts. I am looking forward to the government’s proposition of bringing wooden springboard rings and courts to Darwin basketball at Marrara. I coached one of the grand final teams, University Rebels, in the women’s league, and I have been coaching them for the last four years. In that four year period, like I said to the girls, if we were to say at the beginning of that period that we were going to play in four grand finals, win three and lose one, would that be a successful outcome? Of course, the answer is yes.
Unfortunately, on the day, we were not able to win. Due to the much publicised run-in that I had at basketball earlier on this year, the girls, unfortunately, did not have me for a number of weeks, and due to work and other commitments, our team was not as fit as it should have been. The successful team, Ansett, were superbly fit, undefeated, and their coach has done a fantastic job. Special mention of players Yasmin Seden and Megan Starr who played outstanding games. Of course, the number of girls from the Defence Forces joined them this year and participated very well.
In my team, of course, there were a number of players. Probably the best player to play in Darwin for the last 10 years is a relation of mine called Vanessa Clark who has a fantastic record in winning grand finals and, obviously, if opportunities were different could easily have played in competitions down south. There is also Maclean Brown, Gemma Brogan, Christine Rioli, who is obviously a daughter of Maurice Rioli, and her talent, arguably, is probably in the top two best players in Darwin. Michelle Brown, Chantelle Lee. I have a bit of a mental block at the moment, but they have done a fantastic job all year and over the last four years have been a very successful club. Congratulations to them.
In the men’s competition was Tracy Village Jets, or TV Jets as they are known. They are captained by Wayne Lyle who is a good friend of mine and obviously a competitor for many, many years and a very successful basketball player. He played an outstanding game and easily, in my eyes, was the best player on the court. There is also Cain Ellis, Travis Ellis, a young fellow who is about 6 foot 9 inches and he has the potential to go down south. The opportunity is there; it is just a matter of concentrating on his basketball skills. Also in that team was Ryan Marshall, Clinton Kononen, Jason Ah Sam, a constituent in my area. Fred Adams was the coach. David Cole is another constituent in my area and very successful, and well done. They defeated the Eagles who were unlucky but obviously Matthew Bakunowicz – I will not even try and spell that name or pronounce that name correctly - and Anthony Denham played very well for that team.
The umpire, as mentioned by the member for Johnston, was Steve Cubillo, an outstanding gentleman who has been involved with basketball for 50 years. He is a Life Member of the Australian Basketball League and the Darwin Basketball Association, and he is the reason why people get involved in sport as a player, coach and referee. I think he is 60-odd now, and played basketball with and against my parents and other members of my family. He has represented the Northern Territory in a number of sports including Aussie Rules. Fantastic effort.
Errol Thorne, arguably the best umpire at present in Darwin, did a fantastic job in that game. Also Jason Ivinson, one of the up and coming umpires in the competition. He is also a coach and player.
I would like to thank 94.58 K&B Larrakia Radio. I was the broadcaster there with Shane Garvey, the first time in the history of DBA basketball that anyone has broadcast their game. I am happy to say that it is another first that I was involved with, and guest speakers, of course – I can’t remember his name off the top of my head, but an AIS Junior Coach who is travelling all around Australia basically identifying talent to train up and maybe make NBL players for Australia, and Travis Ellis was one of the young fellows who he was in town looking at.
The member for Johnston did a fantastic job of presenting trophies. Well done to him. Paul Rousham was absolutely delighted that he had some media coverage because it is one of those sports in Darwin that is fighting for recognition, even though it has one of the greatest participation rates in the Northern Territory. So he was delighted that I was three and of course he is a big supporter of me getting back involved with basketball. As I have mentioned before, there would not be a person – as the member for Johnston would agree – who I did not know or who did not know who I was. Certainly, I have been involved with basketball for at least 20 years.
I also had the opportunity to broadcast and present trophies at the Darwin Soccer Association grand final between Hellenic and Palmerston. It was the first time Palmerston made the grand final and their coach, Michael Durakis, did a fantastic job in getting them to the grand final. He also took the opportunity to let me know both on radio and in person that they need a home to play soccer, and I am very supportive of that.
Manny Kulakis was the coach of the Olympic soccer team, first year coach. He is a very good friend of mine and it was a very proud moment for him that in his first year as coach he could lead them to a grand final victory. They were nearly undefeated all year and won every competition. Very proud Greek soccer club in the Northern Territory. Costa Karaolias, the President of the Darwin Soccer Association, was very happy that I was able to broadcast a game with Tim Byfield, the President of the Casuarina Soccer Club. We brought to the listeners of the Northern Territory soccer on radio, and that was the first time that was done.
So as you can see, I have been heavily involved in sports and no doubt tomorrow I will be able to bring you the next instalment.
It would be remiss of me not to mention the Nightcliff Dragons, the rugby league club that I grew up playing with and won a couple of grand finals with. The Dragons won the premiership for the fourth year in a row. I believe they will be going for the Litchfield Bears record of five years in a row, the grand final. My cousin, Kane Bonson, was the captain there and he has done a very good job, a hard working job over the last four years. He has shown a lot of commitment to his sport and it has paid dividends. It was Joe Romelo’s last year of coaching. He is now leaving us to go to Queensland. His son is in well with the Brisbane Broncos in junior development down there. He has gone there to open up a fish and chip shop and hopefully give his family a real opportunity to make it in the big grade.
There are of course other people involved in the Dragons Rugby League Club who deserve recognition. Allen Corry, the Reserve grade coach, was very successful and they won the grand finals as underdogs there. Well done to them. Commiserations go to the University Sharks coached by Rod McQueen, a la Michael McQueen fame, the Australian All-Stars coach for this year in the up and coming game against Carlton. Rod did a fantastic job. It was the first time in 20 years that they finished minor premiers and University was unlucky not to win this year’s grand final. Commiserations go to one of my best friends who was the captain of the University Sharks, Paul Seden, and to Russell May, Daniel Seden and other people who were involved. I know that is their club and they have been supporting them through juniors for many, many years.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016