2002-03-06
Madam Speaker Braham took the Chair at 10 am.
Madam SPEAKER: I lay on the Table message No 3 from His Honour the Administrator advising of his assent to proposed laws passed by the Assembly during the November 2001 sittings.
Madam SPEAKER: I would like to draw honourable members’ attention to the presence in the gallery of Year 11 legal studies students from St John’s College accompanied by their teacher, Angela Hollis. On behalf of all members, I extend a warm welcome.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I wish to update this House on the work of the Office of Territory Development within my department. The office was formally established at the time of the announcement of the restructure of the NTPS on 13 November last year and is an initiative which complements the appointment of Bob Collins as Investment Ambassador for the Territory. The office is currently headed by an acting director and a permanent appointment to the director’s position will be made in the near future. The component parts of the office were drawn from all over the NT public sector and they are officers involved in oil, gas and minerals processing projects from the Office of Resource Development; logistics staff from the previous Department of Transport and Works; the science, desert knowledge and new business group from OCSAT, and two officers from the railway group in the Department of Chief Minister.
At present, the office is operating from several locations, however plans have been finalised for consolidation to accommodation in NT House before the end of the month. The Office of Territory Development is a major initiative for further engaging with business and is a key part of my government’s jobs plan. The office is developing a credible capacity for investment attraction and will facilitate and drive those medium and long term projects which are allocated to it by government. One of the key tasks of the Office of Territory Development is the formulation of an economic development strategy. This strategy will build on the recommendations of last November’s Economic Development Summit with a key theme of building on the Territory’s strengths in such areas as transport, land, major projects, primary industries, natural resources, tourism and trade.
However, it is not enough to simply have economic goals; equally important is how those goals are to be achieved. My government will be seeking to achieve our economic objectives through a range of avenues including, as you would expect, the railway and Timor Sea gas, but will also have a strong emphasis on indigenous economic development, education and training, the knowledge economy, regional development and communications. The economic development strategy for the Territory is on track to be finalised by the end of the month.
Attracting strategic investment is another key priority of the Office of Territory Development. In order to fuel the Territory’s development, both general marketing and targeted marketing will be undertaken to attract new investment. This will be underpinned by research to help identify potential investors and investment sectors. Marketing initiatives to be used in these exercises are nearly completed. Gas and rail are obvious targets for investment, however we will also be seeking to diversify the economy through attracting investment to knowledge-based industries and through more established industry sectors such as tourism. Marketing to financial institutions in addition to industry and business, national associations and international entities will also be a core activity.
The office’s role will extend to identifying the support required by new investors, whether this be in the area of infrastructure, training or other services and support. It will also liaise with Invest Australia to jointly develop support packages for major projects. Major project facilitation is another key area for the office. Gas is clearly a major area for activity for the office. My government’s vision is to establish Australia’s fourth gas hub here in Darwin by 2005-06. If we can secure gas onshore from both the Bayu-Udan and Sunrise fields, this will deliver cheap energy, substantial gas manufacturing and mineral processing industries and a link to the national grid. The office is responsible for supporting the Gas Task Force and developing and implementing strategies to achieve our goal for gas onshore in Darwin. This work is important and ongoing.
The office will also focus on development of the central trade corridor concept to truly make Darwin the gateway to Asia. A joint South Australian-NT Working Group of officials was formed early last year to progress development opportunities along the central trade corridor and the Office of Territory Development is progressing this. I outlined some of the initiatives of this group in my statement to the House last week. The Office of Territory Development is working with Freightlink, the company which will operate the railway, on research to identify commodities which will benefit from the new integrated transport facilities planned at the East Arm Port precinct. This is expected to include large scale food processing and cold store facilities for major multinational distribution companies.
The Darwin Convention Centre is another project of important for the Territory that the office is responsible for, and I outlined to the House yesterday the progress on this important project.
The office is also working closely with the project group in Central Australia which has responsibility for the Desert Knowledge Project. This is a very exciting area of knowledge and innovation that I believe holds great promise for the Territory. The office has a vital role in supporting the Desert Knowledge initiative and all the work being done by the various stakeholders on this project. Suffice to say, it is a project that offers enormous potential in terms of economic development and associated social benefits for Central Australian communities. The opportunity to refine arid zone knowledge and technology and export this expertise to other parts of the world is quite remarkable.
Tropical knowledge is another area I have put on the agenda for the Office of Territory Development. There is a growing international demand for knowledge about such areas as tropical living, medicine, ecotourism and sustainable development. The Territory already boasts world class research in aspects of tropical medicine and has many examples of best practice ecotourism. Sustainable development is another area of tremendous potential for the development of local expertise. If we can encourage the further development of this expertise and market it to the world, we will have in our grasp another innovative commodity with which to build our economy and our future.
The Office of Territory Development is well and truly established and working on key areas and projects that are critical to the Territory’s future economic development. Madam Speaker, I move that this Assembly take note of the report.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, the first thing I would say is that what is foreshadowed as a ministerial statement has now become a ministerial report. One only had to listen to Chief Minister running over her words to try and get it in in five minutes. There was a wealth of information that deserved a ministerial statement. How you respond to that in two and a half minutes is beyond me. Let me say at the outset, though, that we do wish the Office of Territory Development all the very best in their endeavours; we hope they are bedded down as soon as possible.
At first glance I would say to you that the terms of reference are far too wide. I would have thought that the focus should have been absolutely on oil and gas and, because that is the driver of everything else, I would have thought that the Office of Resource Development could have become an enhanced Office of Resource Development and focus on that issue. What we are seeing is the Office of Territory Development, by that report, being given such a wide ambit of responsibilities, most of which I would have thought rested with the Department of the Chief Minister to coordinate many of those priorities which are both social and economic, that one wonders just how effective it is going to be in the long term. That aside, I do wish it well. It certainly has some very important goals to achieve.
I was a bit concerned the other day when I heard Bob Collins speak at a forum where he focussed a lot of his time on things such as timber processing, horticulture and aquaculture. They are important economic issues for the Northern Territory but, certainly, I wouldn’t have thought a high priority for the Office of Territory Development. It should be focussed, very small in terms of its area of activity, and very small in the expertise of the staff it has. You need to be the best you can get and driving - not unlike the model that was put in place in Western Australia that drove the North-West Shelf Project and associated developments from then on.
Again, I wish them well. I believe they should be more focussed and we look forward to seeing the results of their efforts.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): I thank the Opposition Leader for his level of support. Let me assure you that this government and the Office of Territory Development very clearly have, as the highest priority, the development of a gas hub, the fourth gas hub for Australia from Darwin.
Whilst pursuing that target vigorously, we are also looking at building the capacity of the Territory across the board. The Office of Territory Development has a clear focus and it does have projects and objectives that are defined. They will be allocated as appropriate and then they will move on to other areas once the initial development is done.
There is a clear focus for the office, but I think there is great excitement right across the Territory about the potential we have for knowledge industries. Desert Knowledge is just the first part of that. When you consider that 40% of the world’s population lives in the tropics, the potential that we have to develop industries based on Tropical Knowledge is enormous.
I say, Madam Speaker, it is a matter of walking and chewing gum. We can do both.
Mr VATSKALIS (Ethnic Affairs): Madam Speaker, I rise to present to the Assembly the Calendar of Multicultural Events. The Northern Territory can proudly and justifiably claim to be a multicultural society. Not only do we have a rich history of cultural harmony and tolerance, the 1996 Census showed that Territorians were born in more than 150 different countries. This tapestry has made the Territory what it is today: a vibrant and multicultural society with great prospects.
The Martin government is focussed on further enhancing our lifestyle and delivering these prospects for all Territorians. In recognition of our diversity and desire for Territorians to experience the culture of their fellow citizens, the government, through the Office of Ethnic Affairs, produced a Multicultural Calendar of Events. The calendar was developed in consultation with the community and is available from the Office of Ethnic Affairs web site. I can assure the member for Macdonnell that the site is not interactive.
This calendar, which I table for members’ information, contains a host of significant events such as important local community events, national and international days, commemorations, festivals and religious observances. Examples include the Chinese New Year Celebration, which this year was celebrated on 3 February. The Vietnamese community also celebrate the Lunar New Year. The Territory Chinese community joined together to host a wide range of events to celebrate the new year. I think members would be aware Chinese New Year is celebrated as a family affair and, amongst other things, it [inaudible] family unity. It is a time of reunion and thanksgiving. Here in the Territory, events started on 2 February with the Hakka Association Chinese New Year banquet and ended on 3 March with Dragon Boat races at Cullen Bay. I congratulate and recognise the efforts of many members of these community groups for these many events which included the Chinese Culture and Language Centre, the Chung Wah Society, the Hong Kong Club, Dragon Boat Northern Territory, the Australia China Friendship Association and the Hakka Association.
On 23 February we celebrated the Eid-ul-Adha or Festival of Sacrifice that signifies the climax of the pilgrimage to Mecca and is celebrated by Muslims around the world. The Eid-ul-Adha is a major religious event in the lives of Muslims. It is also a time when many Muslims will undertake a special pilgrimage with Mecca.
On 21 March we will celebrate Harmony Day, a fantastic opportunity for all Territorians to celebrate cultural diversity and harmony. This celebration coincides with the United Nations International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and this year the Martin government is sponsoring 26 different events throughout the Territory. The Territory is a truly harmonious, tolerant and multicultural society. In the Territory, we are able not only to share, but also possibly to participate in cultural events or celebrations of our neighbours. Since the ethnic links of the Territory ensure that in most cases, it’s most probable we are living next to a family of which at least one of its members is born overseas. It is one of the few places in the world that we started with a western New Year Day celebration followed a month later by the Chinese New Year, the Eid-ul-Adha celebration of the Muslim community and then celebrate with a big bang Greek Easter.
This is the place where Aboriginal people, the indigenous people of this country, live in harmony with people who came here after escaping civil war in Sudan, with descendants of the Afghan cameleers and the Chinese miners, with people who came from the Greek Islands, with refugees from Vietnam or other places in Southeast Asia and descendants of the English, Irish and other European people. We are the only people who can boast that we have friends from all over the world.
Madam Speaker, I encourage Territorians to attend as many local ethnic events as possible, to further their appreciation and understanding of different cultures and to show support to their fellow Territorians. I strongly believe that whilst we come from many cultures, we have decided to call this beautiful place our home, so together let us build a better Territory.
Members: Hear, hear!
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I recognise that we have many diverse ethnic groups in the Northern Territory. In fact, I said the other day there are about 120 formalised ethnic organisations in the Territory serving the 200 000 people living here. In my office upstairs, the calendar from the Office of Ethnic Affairs hangs proudly and reminds me of the many events that our multicultural society has in Darwin. The minister mentioned the Chinese New Year celebrations that we had over the last two weeks. Indeed, that was a very popular and well supported event starting with the Hakka Society’s dinner about three weeks ago with many events conducted throughout the two weeks including mah-jong, the sedan chair races which included the member for Wanguri. Unfortunately, he should have been there a bit longer to assist his team to a winning position. Last Sunday, for instance, with the member for Port Darwin, we were there at Cullen Bay to take part in the Dragon Boat races.
Mr Kiely: So was I.
Dr LIM: Yes, yes. The member for Sanderson was there. That is why his face is quite red today with the sunburn that he suffered during the weekend.
Anyway, I believe the ethnic societies in our community contribute significantly to the richness of the Northern Territory and I look forward to all members of this House supporting our ethnic groups and turning up in about two weeks time with the Islamic Society for their Awareness Week.
Mr VATSKALIS (Ethnic Affairs): Madam Speaker, I am very pleased and very proud to see bipartisan support for our ethnic communities. As a member of an ethnic community, I acknowledge the support of the previous administration [inaudible] all of the events that ethnic communities organise and we will continue to do the same. I was also very pleased to see people attending this event. It is significant that ethnic communities do not feel excluded, and I was very pleased to see the member for Greatorex with us in the Chinese New Year and also following out at the Kalymnian Hall and having some attempts in Greek dancing. That’s very pleasing that we are prepared to share other people’s cultures, even if we don’t know a lot about it, but we are also prepared to learn.
Madam Speaker, I have to advise that the Martin government and myself will support all ethnic organisations in their endeavours here in the Territory.
Mr HENDERSON (AustralAsian Railway): Madam Speaker, I rise to inform the House of the construction progress for the Alice Springs to Darwin railway. The railway is a defining and unifying Territory project which was first mooted 140 years ago. Appropriately, it has always enjoyed bipartisan support in this House and I commend the previous government on their commitment to the railway. I look forward to the continuing support of the opposition as our government manages the project through to completion.
Recently I visited the Katherine Sleeper Factory and associated works in the Katherine district. Despite the onset of the Wet, and it was a late onset – thankfully, for the railway project - construction of the railway is reaching an exciting time. The Katherine Sleeper manufacturing and the rail joints and plant reflects the acceleration of the railway’s physical progress and there is a high level of manufacturing activity taking place. Our government has a commitment to maximising local involvement in the Alice to Darwin railway. During my visit to Katherine, I was impressed by the obvious presence of local subcontractors working for ADrail on various aspects of the construction works as well as plant maintenance.
It is absolutely essential both for the Territory’s development and social harmony that indigenous Territorians share opportunities for economic development. Our government is committed to working in partnership with business to encourage the employment and training of indigenous Territorians on major development projects such as the railway. It was very satisfying to witness the significant number of indigenous workers making their contribution to the railway. The factory is now at almost full production. Of the 865 000 sleepers that will be produced in Katherine 68 700 have rolled off the plant and have been stockpiled. It really is a very impressive sight to see that stockpile.
Our Chief Minister officially commissioned the Tennant Creek Sleeper Factory late last month and it is slowly ramping up to full production. The Tennant Creek sleeper plant will manufacture 1.1 million sleepers over the life of this project and to date 27 700 have been produced. For those Top End residents who still say: ‘I will only believe it when I see it,’ the physical approach of the railway should now be evident.
I am impressed by how far work has managed to progress in the extra few months of dry weather, and certainly everybody on the project is very pleased about the late onset of the Wet. Mind you, the majority of people in the northern suburbs were suffering a pretty bad Build-Up.
The financial benefits are now also flowing to Top End contractors and residents. There are approximately 112 Darwin people employed by the Asia Pacific consortium and ADrail with many more employed by subcontractors. Levels of employment will increase as work again ramps up in the Dry Season. Completed earthworks have now advanced 95km south of Katherine and six bridges south of Katherine have been completed. Clearing around the Elizabeth River Bridge has begun. The new railway bridge will be some 600 metres long and will be just three metres away from the existing road bridge.
Track laying is due to start in Katherine in April heading south towards Tennant Creek, whilst a separate crew will start about the same time in Tennant Creek and head north. Earthworks are proceeding well in the Tennant Creek area, now reaching 39km north and 130km south of the town. The Katherine and Tennant Creek track laying crews should meet somewhere in the middle around December, and there is a degree of competition between those two teams as to who is going to progress the farthest. I am advised that there are some quite interesting wagers being placed. So, in all areas of activity the competitive nature comes out and its good to see.
There are concerns in Adelaide River that track laying for the railway will have a detrimental impact on the Adelaide River Heritage area. Every compromise possible that doesn’t affect the operational capacity of the railway has been made, and I have been provided with assurances by ADrail that there will not be a negative impact on the heritage area by the railway. This has been verified by both the Heritage Conservation services of the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment and the Heritage Advisory Council.
In Alice Springs, road trains hauling track and rolling stock through the town and heading north have become a familiar sight. Earthworks will soon start in the Centre.
Madam Speaker, it has been pleasing to see the level of business which has been generated in the Territory by the railway. People often only think of big machinery when they look at a project of this size, but the work is being spread around a whole range of businesses around the Territory. One of the reasons our government is committed to the railway is the benefits it will have for Territory business, both large and small. It is satisfying to know that so far $325m worth of contracts have been let to the Territory since the project began in April, compared with $276m for South Australia to date. 4511 separate orders have been placed with 514 Northern Territory businesses. Some of these are very large projects, such as the freight of materials from Alice Springs north or the purchase or hire of heavy machinery, but many of these are small day to day items, everything from television sets to drink bottles, hammers to safety boots.
A number of major tenders will be going to the marketplace in the next few months, including the supply of piles for the Elizabeth River bridge, loading of ballast construction for four overpasses in the Katherine region, Alice Springs and Woolcot Creek, rail signage and level crossing signalling...
Madam SPEAKER: Order! The Minister’s time has expired.
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Speaker, just in completion, I would like to table the latest series of construction progress charts for honourable members.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his progress report on the railway which contains some interesting observations. Included in those, I am sure, is now an observation by the current government that the contractual parameters that were put in place after many months and years, in fact, of negotiation to ensure that jobs did flow to the Northern Territory, that heritage value was preserved, that indigenous employment was accommodated, is all there and is all happening and that is something that is very pleasing to all of us.
I am particularly interested - and I would ask the minister in future statements if he could give us further detail on just exactly where the contracts are going. When we talk in terms of local business, I would like more specifics as to what businesses have contracts, who they are, how many they employ, because there is concern out there as to the fact that the northern sector is going to be done inhouse and that is a very important sector for employment growth in the northern part of the Northern Territory. Many are watching that very closely, watching how ADrail will accommodate local employment and local businesses in that particular sector. So I just ask the minister that in future statements, he gives us more information in that regard.
Also what is disturbing is the fact that notwithstanding the growth of employment on the railway as stated by the minister, we still have unemployment in the Northern Territory historically high at 8.3%. The only deduction one can make from that is notwithstanding the impact of the railway, this government has done nothing to grow jobs in the Northern Territory. That should be of concern to all of us and something I would urge the government - if they have a jobs plan for the Northern Territory, what is it, who is getting jobs and how are businesses advantaging from it?
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I would like to put on the record that I have long been a supporter of the railway, even as President of Litchfield Shire Council. I believe the economic benefits will be great for the Territory, plus I think it is a very important thing strategically, especially as we are an area that is strategically placed as regards the defence of Australia. So I think the rail is important.
I would like to put on record also that I met with ADrail representatives at the Livingstone Airstrip. There was some concern that Livingstone Airstrip would be demolished with the construction of the rail. They informed me that the rail corridor there will be probably the narrowest at 40m, and the actual airstrip will not be destroyed, so I was very happy to hear that. They are taking on board some of the heritage issues that arise with the construction of the railway and I would like to thank the ADrail people for that.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister in reply.
Ms CARNEY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I would like leave to speak on the railway. It directly affects my electorate, it goes straight through it, and I note that the member for Nelson has been afforded the opportunity not only today, but on a number of occasions previously. Whilst not being a member of the opposition, he has been afforded the opportunity of replying to ministerial reports. Given that leave has been apparently given to him, then it is appropriate, in my view and in the view of my colleagues, that on issues affecting our electorates, we be given the opportunity to speak as well.
Mr STIRLING (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, in relation to a matter such as this, the shadow minister has the call. It should be worked out in advance by members opposite that if a member has a particular need or desire …
Mr Reed: How can you do it in advance when you do not know what the statements are?
Mr STIRLING: You have five minutes while the minister is delivering his…
Members interjecting.
Mr STIRLING: Well, how long does it take you to work it out? You have about five minutes. I am just wary, Madam Speaker. I am not opposed per se to the member speaking on this issue, but it would create a precedent and we would have every member jumping, rightly, if we were to allow the member for Araluen to speak this morning. But she could have across to her leader and said: ‘This affects my electorate, I want to speak on this.’ So we are not of a mind to change.
Mr BURKE: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker, first, can I make the point that it seems to me that it is not the Leader of Government Business’ call; it is your call. He can vote and disallow it on his own numbers, but the standing orders are quite specific, and that is that the minister makes a report for five minutes, the opposition only has two and a half minutes, and there is no other mention in standing orders. Now, leave has being given by the Speaker to another member to speak and another member now seeks similar leave. If you do not want to approve that through your numbers that is your call against the Speaker, but it is her decision.
Mr HENDERSON: Speaking to the point of order as well, Madam Speaker, just in terms of the rationale for ministerial reports and the argument put by the member for Araluen inasmuch as it affects her electorate, she will have an opportunity, and she does have an opportunity in the Adjournment debate to make any comments in relation to this issue in that debate which is really reserved for members to speak on issues affecting their electorate.
Madam SPEAKER: I just make comment on this: when we were negotiating about ministerial reports, and giving the opposition the opportunity to respond, it was also considered that the Independent members should also have an opportunity. You may be well aware the Independent member does not respond to every report that is made, only a few. So that was negotiated as an agreement, that he should have the opportunity on occasions and, as I say, it does not happen very often. I am quite comfortable with that arrangement, but perhaps some of these things should be brought up at a Standing Orders Committee meeting which we are proposing to organise because there have been a few incidents that have occurred.
We are up to closing remarks, Minister.
Mr HENDERSON: I will be brief, Madam Speaker. Just picking up on the comments of the Leader of the Opposition, and we will not get into the debate about unemployment - there are other times for that - but in terms of his suggestion that I bring further specific details back to the parliament in terms of contracts awarded and to which companies, I will do that in the next sittings, and if the Leader of the Opposition would like a briefing specifically on those matters, I can arrange it for him.
Mr AH KIT (Sport and Recreation): Madam Speaker, I am sure that all Territorians will be pleased to know that Athletics Australia has chosen Darwin as the venue for their main pre-departure preparation for the Commonwealth Games and World Junior Championship teams in 2002. Our athletes will be competing at the Commonwealth Games to be held in Manchester in July and August, and our juniors will be competing in Kingston, Jamaica in July also. I am absolutely delighted that Athletics Australia has chosen Darwin for its pre-competition training camp, no doubt attracted by the excellent facilities …
Mr BURKE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The point of order is this: if we are going to adhere to standing orders with regards to ministerial reports, could I remind you that the time for ministerial reports is over.
Madam SPEAKER: I was just asking the Deputy Clerk. We had some time left for the minister to speak. Is it now up? Two minutes left.
Mr AH KIT: … no doubt attracted by the excellent facilities, outstanding weather during June and July, and the generous cooperation that has been extended by NT Athletics. It is anticipated that the majority of the Commonwealth Games athletics teams will be in Darwin from 8 June to 1 July, and the world junior team from 21 June to 1 July. This means that, at its peak, Athletics Australia will have around 110 athletes and 35 support staff in Darwin.
During that time, the team will compete in a number of competitions, generally on weekends, and Athletics Australia has invited local athletes to join in the competition. So Darwin spectators will be able to see our Australian team go through their training schedule during the week and attend the competitions on the weekends throughout June. There are also plans to hold a couple of mid-week competitions on Wednesday 12 June and Wednesday 26 June.
While the teams are in Darwin they will have full access to the facilities of the Northern Territory Institute of Sport, and this will include weights facilities, sports science testing and administration facilities. I am also pleased that Athletics Australia will be making available their coaches and athletes to run coaching clinics during their stay. It is also important to point out that it will provide Athletics Australia with an opportunity to progress work that has been initiated by Tim Forsyth, Cathy Freeman and Kyle Vander-Kuyp. These three athletes have been involved in developing a program called Come On, Let’s Go!
$300 000 is going to be set aside and spent when these athletes come to the Northern Territory. They’ve budgeted that and it will be spent, and doesn’t take into account personal expenditure by individual members of the group particularly to the retail, entertainment and hospitality sectors. So, I’m sure we all look forward to the arrival of these athletes in June and, no doubt, Northern Territorians will support and encourage them as they prepare for elite competition representing Australia in Manchester and Kingston.
Members: Hear, hear.
Madam SPEAKER: I am willing to allow the member for Blain to respond even though time is up. If we could just have a brief response.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, I applaud the announcement that’s been made with regards to activity in the Top End. This has occurred in previous times and it certainly does stimulate the local competition and provide the inspiration that young people do need, and a shot in the arm for NT Athletics.
However, there is a serious gap in the activities of the sports minister’s portfolio at this point. The Arafura Games has received a significant profile in terms of press coverage. This event is occurring next year and is another tremendous Top End-centred event and is due all the support and applause that is does deserve. However, the Masters Games is a Central Australian event - a premier event, the first event of its kind in the nation with regards to masters athletics and the whole range of sports. In fact, it’s of a greater size than the Arafura Games, and to this point it has received no air play and apparently no support. The messages coming from Central Australia are of serious concern about the support that the Top End is giving to a critically important event that’s run in the centre of Australia.
Mr AH KIT (Sport and Recreation): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker, for my minute to reply.
What worries me is that the shadow sports minister is not being given the right information. It seems to happen on that side of the House. The Masters Games is getting a lot of support and I will, in the next day-and-a-half, make an effort to ensure that in this Chamber, a report of some sort is given to explain to members opposite - and especially the members from Central Australia - what my department and my office is doing in regards to getting behind the Masters Games. What was said yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition and by the member for Araluen is totally incorrect. They should not be talking the Masters Games down; they should be talking it up because this is going to boost the economy in Central Australia.
Madam Speaker, that is what we are on about, and I will provide a report in the next day-and-a-half.
Reports noted pursuant to Sessional Order.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The First Home Owner Grant Amendment Bill serves to implement the Commonwealth government’s extension of the additional First Home Owner Grant for new homes. As a Commonwealth government policy initiative, it is to be fully funded by the Commonwealth. However, as with the existing arrangements, the states and territories will administer the scheme.
This additional grant was to have ceased on 31 December 2001 but has now been extended, with some modifications, to operate until 30 June 2002. The modifications are twofold: first, the amount of the additional grant has been reduced from a total of $14 000 to a total of $10 000 for all eligible transactions entered into from 1 January 2002. The original grant of $7000 remains for people purchasing established homes.
Secondly, the eligibility requirements for the commencement and completion of construction of a new home have been relaxed with effect from 9 October 2001. This means that construction is to have commenced within 26 weeks of a building contract being entered into instead of the prior period of 16 weeks; and the contract must specify a completion date within 18 months after the building work commences instead of the prior period of 12 months. A transitional provision has been inserted to maintain the integrity of the prior commencement and completion dates.
Finally, this bill includes the ability to amend the amount of the grant and the date on which the grant extends by the Administrator making a proclamation in the Gazette. This has been inserted to facilitate any further extension or variation to the scheme required by the Commonwealth government.
Madam Speaker, I seek to table, along with this bill, the explanatory memorandum which I do have here somewhere. I commend the bill to honourable members and table the explanatory memorandum.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to amend various Northern Territory laws, none of which reflect substantial changes in policy. I now outline some of the changes that are brought about by this bill.
Sections 194 and 208 of the Local Government Act are being amended consequential to the Fines and Penalties (Recovery) Act that commenced on 1 January 2002. Under the new enforcement scheme established by the Fines and Penalties (Recovery) Act, non-payment of infringement notices will not be enforced by prosecution, but will be enforced by a range of other enforcement measures such as licence suspension and community work orders.
Currently, section 194 of the Local Government Act is unclear that it is the issuing of an infringement notice that is the alternative to prosecution, not the payment of a penalty under the infringement notice. This bill removes the doubt. It is now to be clear that the issuing of the infringement notice is the alternative to prosecution.
Under the Fines and Penalties (Recovery) Act, the Fines Recovery Unit is now responsible for collecting most court fines and all outstanding infringement notices. The amendment to section 208 of the Local Government Act clarifies that the amount of the court fine or infringement notice penalty is still payable to the relevant council.
Most of the other amendments made by the bill are of a very minor nature and are generally self-explanatory. However, there are some that require further explanation, and I will briefly summarise the amendments that are of greater significance.
The Marine Pollution Act 1999 which has not commenced operation, provides in Part 4 for the prevention of pollution to coastal waters. Part 4 contains an offence concerning the jettisoning of pollutants . Currently the term ‘jettisoning’ is defined so that its ordinary dictionary meaning is taken to include ‘leaking’. Clause 3(1) amends section 26 of the Marine Pollution Act 1999 so that it is clear that includes in its meaning ‘accidental discharges or losses’.
The Radioactive Ores and Concentrates (Packaging and Transport) Act provides in section 25 for recognition by the minister of codes relating to the packaging and transporting of certain radioactive materials. Currently, section 25 provides that such codes must be codes approved by the International Atomic Energy Agency or approved under the Environmental Protection (Nuclear Codes) Act 1978 of the Commonwealth. However, there are severe operational difficulties in complying with this section. Australian codes are not now approved under any relevant international agency. Rather, they are formulated by the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency. Additionally, the Commonwealth act referred to in section 25 no longer exists. Clause 4 of the bill proposes that section 25 be amended so as to remove the cross-references to the international codes and to the Commonwealth legislation. Instead, the relevant code will be one approved by the minister.
Regulation 26 of the Fisheries Regulations is to be amended to reflect the fact that the Commonwealth’s Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1982 has been replaced by the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.
The remaining amendments are consequential to: the change in the name of the Law Society; the amendments made to the corporations legislation; and the Commonwealth legislation relating to various Commonwealth lawyers.
I commend the Statute Law Revision Bill 2002 to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr HENDERSON (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill now be read a second time.
Madam Speaker, there is a small, emerging bait meat industry based on the harvesting of feral animals to produce bait meat for crab fishing. This small industry operates mainly in the Borroloola area and is unique to the Northern Territory. The estimated volume of the industry is six to eight tonnes per week for eight months each year. The estimated industry value is $250 000 annually.
Pet meat operators also harvest feral animals for pet food. Pet meat operators are licensed, must process the meat in approved premises and dye the meat blue. Pet meat operators expressed a concern that the new industry could jeopardise the human and pet meat markets if there was substitution by bait meat. Meat wholesalers and retailers have similar concerns.
The risk to public health is very high with a perishable product such as meat. There is ample evidence throughout Australia that food poisoning is on the increase and some outbreaks can be directly traced to uncontrolled meat slaughtering and processing.
The contamination of meat during field slaughter and processing is a major risk factor to the avoidance of human health crises caused by food poisoning. The consequential detrimental effect on the red meat industry, currently worth $4bn, would be substantial. The last major crisis in Australia was the Garibaldi crisis caused by contaminated sausage meat in the late 1980s.
The purpose of this legislation is mitigate the risk of bait meat prepared in unhygienic conditions during the field slaughter of feral animals entering the human food chain. The amendment bill will foster the small bait meat industry and protect human health by reducing the risk of unhygienic meat prepared for bait meat from entering the meat chain for human consumption or for pet meat. The legislation establishes a licence; requires the identification of bait meat by a green dye; and record keeping to facilitate audits by meat industry officers.
The proposed legislation imposes effective controls on the bait meat industry while not imposing excessive burdens upon them. By not requiring approved processing premises the additional costs for fishermen are minimised. The dyed green meat will be an effective control in the prevention of the substitution of bait meat into the human food chain.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
Continued 28 November 2001.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, although the matter was adjourned, I believe, by the shadow attorney-general, I have picked up carriage of this legislation and would like to raise some issues in relation to it. I would also signal to the Attorney-General that I will be proposing some amendments and I would like to cover those as I speak today.
On this occasion I do begin by saying to the Attorney-General that the general thrust of the legislation is of no offence to me whatsoever. In fact I applaud the Attorney-General for bringing such important legislation before the House. The bill deals with matters of sexual servitude, basically sexual slavery, and the requirement under the Criminal Code to make such an activity an offence, and that has the wholehearted support of members on this side of the House.
However, there are some issues that I did wish to raise in this Chamber and I have signalled to the Attorney-General that I would be raising these issues. The first one relates to the definition of ‘reasonable grounds’ under the threat provisions provided by the Code. The concern I have is that under the threat provisions sub-subsection (c) of definition provides for a threat or other detrimental action unless there are reasonable grounds for the threat. The issue that I raised with the Attorney-General in a letter to him dated 14 December raised this issue; the matter I wanted to hear from the Attorney-General about was the reasonable grounds for the threat.
Simply, the question I put to the Attorney-General was that I was interested to know what circumstances the Attorney-General would anticipate, would require the legislation to provide reasonable grounds protection above the elements already provided for in the Criminal Code dealing with the issues of authorisation, justification and excuse. The Attorney-General has sought counsel on this issue and I am pleased to report to the House that he has signalled to me that he realises that that section of the definition of threat should be removed. Consequently, I believe he is bringing an amendment before this House. Certainly it is on my amendment list and I am sure during the committee stages we can negotiate out who gets the amendment up.
I now move on to some other aspects of the legislation and one part that concerned me was the aggravation section. I draw members’ attention to sexual servitude, the proposed new section in the Criminal Code, section 202B(1):
A person whose conduct causes an adult to enter into or continue sexual servitude is guilty of a crime and
liable to imprisonment for 15 years.
Subsection (2):
A person whose conduct causes a child of or over the age of 12 years to enter into or continue in sexual servitude
is guilty of a crime and is liable to imprisonment for 20 years.
Subsection (3):
A person whose conduct causes a child under the age of 12 years to enter into or continue in sexual servitude is guilty
of a crime and is liable to imprisonment for life.
I have no major problem with subsection (3) however, I am concerned that the cut-off date for the purposes of aggravation under the act is pegged at 12 years. I believe that this is a very serious offence and, although unlikely in the Northern Territory - I would have thought unlikely in Australia until the Attorney-General advised me that there had been circumstances of this offence occurring in other places in Australia - but unlikely as it is in the Northern Territory, the message, I think, that this parliament should be sending to the courts is that we do not accept that 12 years is low enough. We believe that the aggravation for life imprisonment should be raised to 16 years.
The reason I believe that is because I was struck by an article in Time magazine, the issue dated 4 February 2002. I would like to quote from Time magazine. It is the opening couple of paragraphs:
Mama San won’t budge from $1000. There’s the food, the clothes, the makeup, the perfume and condoms,
not to mention the fees of the middlemen. At $1000 she’s making nothing, she says. She taps out the figure
in baht on a calculator and holds it up: 43 650. You won’t get a pair of 14-year-old Burmese girls for less
than that in this town.
When you read this article in its entirety - and I notice on page 42 there is a rather graphic photograph of a young girl, probably above the age of 12 but certainly below the age of 16 years, sitting in a bedroom in Thailand. If those offences were committed here in the Northern Territory and, indeed, if Mama San was operating here in the Northern Territory, if it was in my power I would give the court the opportunity to send or to sentence this individual to damnation. Naturally, it is not in my power, but I think it is within the power of this parliament to make certain that operators like Mama San, if they ever exist within this jurisdiction, have to face the penalty for life. I don’t think we should be hamstringing the courts with a mandatory maximum sentence in relation to somebody dealing with 14 year old girls in this fashion.
I believe that the mandatory maximum should be raised so that a girl under the age of 16 - or a boy for that matter, operating under the age of 16 - the courts should have the power to sentence people like Mama San to life if they exist in this jurisdiction. That is an example and I seek leave to table this magazine for the edification of the honourable the minister.
Leave granted.
Mr ELFERINK: The last issue deals with a letter I received from the minister only very recently in reply to the one that I sent to him on 14 December and, once again, it was a little bit late. However, I have spoken to the minister in relation to this matter and I want to propose a further subsection which addresses the issue of employees of people who work in these environments or in these sorts of sexual servitude environments.
Indeed, the Attorney-General proposes to this House under the proposed section 202C that a person who conducts a business or manages such a business, takes part in the management, exercises control over or provides financial assistance to such a business is indeed a person who would be convictable under this offence. What concerns me is that staff of such an environment or such an institution would not be convictable under such an offence. I raised the issue with the Attorney-General and he advises me that under section 8 of the Criminal Code, staff such as cleaners, bar tenders, drivers would be aiders and abettors. However, on my reading of the Criminal Code I am not entirely sure that staff fall within those parameters and I will read out the two sections concerned.
Section 8 of the Criminal Code reads:
(1) When two or more persons form a common intention to prosecute an unlawful purpose in
conjunction with one another and in the prosecution of such purpose an offence is committed
by one or some of them, the other or each of the others is presumed to have aided or procured
the perpetrator or perpetrators of the offence to commit the offence unless he proves he did not
foresee the commission of that offence was a possible consequence of prosecuting that unlawful
purpose.
(2) Two or more persons form a common intention to prosecute an unlawful purpose in conjunction
with one another when they agree to engage in or concur in engaging in any conduct that, if
engaged in, would involve them or some or one of them in the commission of an offence or a tort.
I am not entirely sure that a cleaner in a place of sexual servitude would be engaging in a common intent. That as an aside, the intent of my amendment is not aimed at catching people through an aider or abettor scheme, it is to place upon the shoulders of any person who derives an income from such an environment a duty to report that such a thing is occurring, and I feel that that is such a serious issue that the penalty for failing to report such an environment or such an institution should be five years’ imprisonment.
However, I brought these issues to the Attorney-General’s attention. He and I have discussed the issues and I am certain that he is going to make his own comments. So I look forward to the committee stages. Madam Speaker, generally speaking, the opposition does support the bill, however we would like to tighten up a few of these issues.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Madam Speaker, I rise this morning to support and commend the Minister for Justice in passage of this legislation dealing with the issue of sexual servitude. I sought a briefing from staff in the Department of Justice and it is based on that briefing that I am commenting today.
The whole issue of legislating for sexual servitude arose out of discussions held throughout all jurisdictions in 1998 and, indeed, I will be speaking from notes that are contained in the Alternative Law Journal, Volume 23 No. 4, August 1998, and I will be seeking leave to table this information for you.
Essentially, on 1 July 1998 the Criminal Code Amendment (Slavery and Sexual Servitude) Bill 1998 was introduced to the House of Representatives in Canberra. That was the first time legislation of this nature was introduced into any jurisdiction in Australia. It came about as a result of the Model Criminal Code Discussion Paper which was looking at offences against humanity and specifically slavery.
The Alternative Law Journal states that the bill implements Australia’s international obligations under a wide range of international instruments to prohibit servitude and the trafficking in persons for the purposes of sexual exploitation. These include the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (1979), the Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948).
The legislation that the Territory government is seeking to pass through the Assembly conforms with the Model Criminal Code, it conforms with the existing Criminal Code penalties in the Territory and certainly conforms with Commonwealth legislation. So far, the ACT has introduced similar legislation, as have South Australia and New South Wales.
I can say categorically that the advice I received is that no such offences have ever occurred in the Northern Territory. I repeat: no such sexual servitude offences have ever been found to have occurred in the Northern Territory. This is legislation that states very clearly and puts on record for everyone that this government will not countenance moves towards such offences and the penalties contained in this legislation are very severe.
I represent an electorate that has the highest non-English speaking background constituency in the Territory, that is the electorate of Karama.
Mr Elferink: You sure about that?
Ms LAWRIE: I am sure of that; you can check the demographics. The member for Blain can confirm that. He has already checked it.
Mr Mills: I have checked it. It is true. I thought it was Blain.
Mr Elferink: Eighty per cent of mine don’t have an English speaking background.
Members interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: Ignoring the inane interjections from the member for Macdonnell, what I want to say is that I am aware of concerns among women from a non-English speaking background of similar offences that are occurring in their homelands. It is not news to some of us that sexual servitude occurs in some areas of Asia, our near neighbours and, clearly, we do not desire to see any similar practices being introduced into Australia. I, therefore, see this legislation as sending an important, timely and strong, clear signal to our Asian neighbours that the Territory provides a safe haven for women from all corners of the globe. That is an issue that is very dear to my heart and one of the reasons why I chose to speak in support of this legislation today.
I repeat: no offence of this nature has been found to have occurred in the Territory. Really, there is evidence that in other jurisdictions in other nations, immigrant women have been forced to perform sexual favours and have been held against their will. This is not a problem in the Territory and I believe that with this legislation in place, fortunately, it may never be a problem in the Territory.
This legislation was initially introduced under the CLP government. It was reintroduced by ourselves in November. That is the advice I have received from the Department of Justice. It contains in it very severe penalties. The penalty for adults found to have created sexual servitude is 15 years. For someone forcing anyone between the age of 12 and 18 years into sexual servitude, the penalty is 20 years imprisonment and for anyone forcing anyone under the age of 12 into sexual servitude, the penalty is life.
The member for Macdonnell has flagged his intention to try and amend this element of penalties by varying the age from 12 to 18 years to making it 16 to 18 years and therefore making anyone 16 and below, the penalty there is is life. I want to point out at this stage that these penalties conform with penalties under the existing Criminal Code. They are not penalties that are just plucked out of the air; they are penalties that conform with the Code and that certainly meet the recommendations of all jurisdictions in the Model Criminal Code as well.
Certainly, the member for Macdonnell raised the issue of threats and sought to have the words ‘unless there are reasonable grounds’ removed. The Minister for Justice has already flagged his intention to acquiesce to that request. It was a reasonable request followed through appropriate processes, and the member for Macdonnell will have his amendment acquiesced to and I think that is a win for everyone. I agree with member for Macdonnell; I can see no reasonable grounds ever existing for sexual servitude.
The issue raised by the member for Macdonnell in terms of an obligation to report, that he would like to see the sexual servitude legislation be broadened to include cleaners, staff - really, the clear legal advice to this government is that under the existing Criminal Code, sections 8 and 12, all staff could in fact be found to be aiding and abetting if they don’t report instances of sexual servitude. So we have adequate liability there existing in both the Criminal Code and the Community Welfare Act in reference to reporting offences on children.
I repeat: we are not aware of any offences of sexual servitude in the Territory. There are instances of sexual servitude that have been found in two other jurisdictions - Victoria and New South Wales. We are a government that seeks to protect the rights of women and enshrine the rights of women in legislation.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, my contribution will be brief. I rise essentially in my capacity as shadow minister for Women’s Policy. With one or two exceptions that will be obvious to anyone reading this debate in due course or listening to it today, I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiments expressed by the member for Karama.
The Chief Minister commented when we were having a debate last week about violence on Aboriginal women that it was very rewarding and pleasing that in this House from time to time on very important issues, there is agreed common ground. I am not sure whether that is just because we have seven women in this place. I suspect it is because all of us are, at the end of the day, decent human beings. We represent the decent human beings in our electorate. This legislation is decent legislation and it is very much applauded and warmly embraced by me, not only as a member of the opposition, as shadow minister for Womens Policy, but also by me in a very personal sense.
I do thank the member for Macdonnell for his contributions. I know he has worked well and hard with the Attorney and whilst perhaps not all of his amendments will succeed, some of them will, and as the member for Karama said, that is a win-win situation however anyone looks at it.
Madam SPEAKER: Before we continue, I would just like to advise honourable members of the presence in the Gallery of Adelaide River Primary School students accompanied by their teacher Samantha Willcox. On behalf of all members I extend a warm welcome to our visitors.
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Madam Speaker, I rise to speak in relation to the Criminal Code Amendment Bill in respect to sexual servitude. The use of both physical and economic duress to force women to provide sexual services is certainly not a new phenomenon, one that unfortunately is not unheard of in the Northern Territory. As outlined in the Attorney-General’s second reading speech, the proposed amendments to our Criminal Code seek to implement a uniform regime throughout Australia that will hopefully enable both federal and state and territory law enforcement authorities to effectively strike at internationally coordinated criminal operations.
The scenario conjured up by the bill and the information provided in the Attorney-General’s speech is one of a sinister and clandestine trade in oppressed, predominantly Asian women victimised by well organised international syndicates. However, when it comes to those sections of the bill that relate to the sexual servitude of minors, this bill will in fact modernise and improve on aspects of the existing Criminal Code that may have very important local implications, not just in Darwin or Alice Springs, but in more remote communities as well.
Section 131 of the Criminal Code is in the following terms:
(a) have unlawful sexual intercourse either in the Territory or elsewhere; or
is guilty of a crime and is liable to imprisonment for 3 years.
The amendments to the Criminal Code that are included in this bill will have the effect of imposing harsher penalties than those available under section 131 where a child has been recruited into providing sexual services by way of force or deception, and purported lack of knowledge by the offender of the child’s age will be immaterial and will not provide him with any defence. This law will be useful tool in the armoury of those tasked with protecting children in our community.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Madam Speaker, the opposition does indeed support the passage of this bill. However, I note with concern some of the comments made by the member for Karama - the suggestion that because there has been no record of the offence or an offence likely to be caught by the scope of this provision in the Northern Territory that we should settle for second best. In that regard, I support wholeheartedly the submissions made by the member for Macdonnell. These are minor changes, but changes which would make the legislation operate even better. We already have a concession from the government, it seems, in relation to some surplusage contained in section 202A(1), but really the balance of the changes, apart from that, are to deal with very specifically the ages of the victims, the real people we are trying to protect and secondly, imposing an obligation upon people who may be employed by an institutional organisation to come forward and report that activity to the police.
There is a need, in my view, for some sort of consistency. Under the Community Welfare Act, the age of a child is, I think, less than 18 years of age, and under the Northern Territory Criminal Code of course, the age of consent for females and males is 16 years of age. There are some other exceptions, but in terms of heterosexual activity, it is 16. It seems unusual then for this legislation to be drafted in terms of conduct involving a child and making the benchmark 12 years of age. There needs to be some consistency, and the suggestions put forward by the member for Macdonnell are sensible. I urge honourable members of this House to give them serious and proper consideration.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I again thank members for their contribution to this debate and, as the shadow Attorney-General said, a particular thanks to the member for Macdonnell for the diligence that he has taken with this legislation. I think we are going to end up with a better act because of that, as well as the ideas that we put forward. I will deal with the various issues that have been brought up in turn.
Starting with the issue of the wording in the act, again, we have accepted the arguments put forward by the member for Macdonnell. I will read the explanation of the committee stage amendments that we will be bringing forward in response to those points. The first amendment is to remove the phrase ‘unless there are reasonable grounds for the threat’ from the definition of ‘threat’. The phrase can safely be omitted in the Northern Territory because of section 31 of our Criminal Code which would excuse a person from criminal responsibility if he or she did not intend or foresee that the threat would result in a person being forced to remain in sexual servitude. So, it is adequately covered within section 31. We don’t need that wording in there; we will drop it.
Thank you for that. I think those two amendments will improve the clarity of that part of our bill. I’d remind members in general that we are serious about taking on board ideas of merit from all members of parliament, and here’s another example where we are putting our actions where our mouth was.
The issue of the actual age categories built into the bill, this really is a case where we just have to make a judgment as to what best fits in with the landscape that’s around this particular decision. Now, in terms of our Criminal Code, there’s anything but a clear picture embodied in the Criminal Code in terms of what ages trigger off what offences and what penalties. I will give some examples. There are many age thresholds you will find in various parts of the Criminal Code, from children under 12 years, to children under 16, to children under 18. They will vary from offence to offence. For example, sexual intercourse or gross indecency between males: the threshold for aggravation on the basis of age is under 14 years – that is sections 127 and 128 of the Criminal Code. Similarly, under section 129 of the Criminal Code, to even be guilty of an offence of sexual intercourse or gross indecency, the age of consent is 16 years and the threshold of aggravation on the base of age is 14 years. So, we have quite a variation.
Further to that, the offence of unlawful relationship with a child, section 131A of the Criminal Code, only applies for victims under the age of 16 years and attracts a maximum of seven years for the offence. If the offence of rape occurs during the unlawful sexual relationship, then the maximum is life. So, there is an enormous variation in the way that age is a factor in the offence.
Section 132, indecent dealing with a child under 16 years of age: the offence only occurs if a victim is under the age of 16 years and a maximum under section 132(2) is imprisonment for five years. If the child is under 12 years and the offender is an adult, it is imprisonment for 10 years. If we look further afield beyond our own Criminal Code, the Commonwealth act uses the thresholds of 15 and 19 years, but the Commonwealth act also embodies far less stringent penalties than we are proposing today. For the general offence it’s 10 years, for the aggravated offence it’s 19 years. The South Australian act mirrors the penalties that we are bringing forward today, which is the two trigger points at 12 and 18 years.
Just to complicate matters even further, if you want to look at the age of consent as some sort of benchmark, the age of consent for girls is 16 however, the age of consent for boys is 18. So, when you look around the body of law that this is going to provide the context for this particular bill to be introduced, there is anything but a clear and consistent picture as to the use of age. What we’ve opted for - and I would signal at this point that we would certainly want to stand on our decision on this aspect – we’ve opted for quite stringent penalties; in fact, very severe penalties. The three penalty levels of 15 years, 20 years and then life should provide absolutely ample disincentive for any would-be offender coming into the Territory.
I take the point made by the member for Karama. I hope this law never has to be applied to an offender because, thankfully, we have not had any case of sexual servitude in the Northern Territory to date. National law reform was triggered by a case in a major capital city involving some Thai women. As the member for Karama pointed out, it is certainly not an unknown offence overseas and in countries, in many cases, fairly close to our shores.
What we will say here is we believe we have a set of penalties that are sufficiently severe. We believe that protection for the 18-year-olds down to 12-year-olds, where there is a 20 year maximum penalty for that category, are sufficiently protected. We have indicated that particularly with young children, the penalty should be the maximum that is available to any Criminal Code around the country short of capital punishment, which I am not going to enter into, certainly life imprisonment is the most severe penalty we can impose on any crime. I have absolute ease of mind for that penalty for the situation we are talking about. It is absolutely unconscionable that any human being would be doing this to a child and they deserve to go away, and they deserve to go away for their life.
The issue of the people who may be involved in working in these establishments if they occur: while the member for Macdonnell quoted section 8, parties to offences section, of the Criminal Code, the section to which we would refer him is 12. This is dealing with abettors and accessories before the fact. I will read it out for members’ benefit:
(a) every person who aids another in committing the offence;
aiding another to commit the offence; and
That’s the area of the Criminal Code that would be most likely to be triggered if there were people involved in the establishment in which this activity was going on. But I want to point out, just to clarify it, that all people would be charged with the offence of sexual servitude or promulgating sexual servitude. So the collective of people who are attached to that premises or the activity would all be subject to the charge of sexual servitude and the penalties that apply to it. If there is a simple case of failure to report the crime, there are punishments for a person who becomes an accessory after the fact. In the case of any other crime other than murder and terrorism, section 294(2) states:
We are talking about very serious crimes here. We are talking about long periods of imprisonment. Any person on that premises, unless they can prove absolutely beyond doubt that they had no knowledge of or involvement in the activities we are talking about would be very much liable to substantial punishment. We believe, having looked at the concerns you raised, that we are covered in that area.
I will provide some further information in regards to this issue. Prior to the introduction of the Criminal Code in 1984, the NT had the common law offence of misprison of felony – you wonder why we don’t use English in law sometimes! - which made it an offence not to report a felony or a serious crime. When the Criminal Code was enacted, no comparable offence was introduced save for the accessory after the fact and other forms of criminal responsibility for aiders which we were referring to just now. It is inappropriate to now introduce criminal responsibility for failure to report for one offence in the Criminal Code only, without reinstating an entire system of failure to report across the whole range of criminal offences. In the case of child abuse, this is one of the few areas where there is a statutory obligation for a person to report. They would have to report sexual slavery if it involved children under our Community Welfare Act.
We are certainly depending on the general moral principle throughout our community that it would be expected of a citizen, as part of their duties as a citizen, to report serious crime. While that might not be legally binding, when you take it alongside the areas of our Criminal Code dealing with abettors and accessories, we have both in the formal sense and the informal sense considerable expectation that someone associating themselves with a premises where this activity is going on or with people carrying out that activity as the prime offenders would be very much liable to prosecution and punishment under our combined act of the law.
I hope I have dealt with those issues. I propose now that we will move to committee and deal with the amendments.
Bill read a second time.
In committee:
Clauses 1 and 2, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 3:
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move my first amendment. This is amendment 12.1 where the proposed section 202A(1), the definition of ‘threat’, paragraph (c), omit ‘unless there are reasonable grounds for the threat’. I have given members the underlying reason for that and it is in response to the member for Macdonnell’s concerns.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chairman, as I said before in the debate, I have spoken to the Attorney-General about this. I am quite happy to accept his amendment. Mine is worded in exactly the same fashion and I invite defeat of 8.1 on my amendment sheet. I am quite happy to withdraw 8.1 on my amendment sheet. The Attorney-General has the same amendment that I have.
Amendment agreed to.
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I propose a further amendment to section 202B in the section of the bill dealing with sexual servitude and the penalties that apply. This amendment omits the words ‘whose conduct’ and replace it with just simply ‘who’. I will read it out. 12.2 proposed section 202B: omit all references to ‘whose conduct’ and substitute ‘who’. Again, it clarifies any confusion that might be associated with the use of the word ‘conduct’.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chairman, the opposition puts on the record that we support any legislation that seeks to avoid confusion.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chairman, I am going to proceed with my amendments in relation to the issue of the circumstances of aggravation being raised from 12 years to 16 years. The reasons that I outlined were the same ones that I relied on in my second reading debate. Quite frankly, if a person like Mama San operated an institution such as the one outlined in this Time magazine in the Northern Territory, I would like to give the court absolutely every possible latitude to send people to gaol.
I understand that the Attorney-General has clearly signalled that they will be resisting raising the age of aggravation for the purposes of sentencing from the age of 12 to 16 years and he cited basically the dog’s breakfast that the sentencing elements of the rest of the Criminal Code are, and then he went further afield to quote federal and South Australian legislation. It is clear from that that each case and each offence should stand on its own merits and that the penalties in the rest of the Criminal Code and circumstances of aggravation going from 18, 16, 14 and to 12, are reflective of this parliament’s opinion that in those offences the sentences that are recommended to the courts are commensurate with the offences that they seek to outline.
What I am suggesting to all members in this Chamber is that where a child of the age of 14 years or 15 years has been forced into a state of sexual servitude then it should be within the contemplation of the court to send the person who forces that child into sexual servitude to prison for life. That is simply the issue that I am bringing up.
I would like to see the Attorney-General soften his attitude towards this and toughen up the legislation in relation to it. Therefore, I am going to continue on with the amendments I propose and I once again appeal to the Attorney-General to revisit this issue at this 11th hour and accept that 16 years of age is a more appropriate age than 12 years of age.
Dr TOYNE: I can only say to the member for Macdonnell that I totally respect the view he is putting forward. This is a matter of judgement and all we can really say is that we have made two different judgements on the issue of the age thresholds. We have made a judgement that at least keeps us in reasonable consistency with the jurisdictions around us. We believe the penalties that we have applied to the three age categories in the bill are severe and they are certainly severe enough to deal, if the court so desires, very powerfully with offenders who come before it.
There are some things in a subjective area like this where there are not clear precedents or guidelines around us, we simply have to make a judgement and we have made the judgement. It is probably no more objective or subjective than the judgment you have made; I think we just have to respect the fact that we’ve come to two different points on this. We’ll be sticking with our position.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chairman, just as a matter of record, I hear what the Attorney-General has to say. I am not going to die at the stake over this issue, however I do point out to the Attorney-General that if it is a subjective issue and it is an issue of judgment, then we should free the judges up to make those decisions.
Amendment negatived.
Proposed amendments 8.3, 8.4 and 8.5, by leave, taken together:
Amendments negatived.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 8.6 standing in my name. I listened carefully to what the Attorney-General had to say about this and, quite correctly, he pointed out that I didn’t read out section 12 of the Criminal Code where I intended to. However, once again, it returns me to the same issue that I raised after reading section 8 of the Criminal Code. That is somehow, I do not believe that a cleaner in such an institution would be captured by section 12 of the act no matter how you read it.
The other thing is that is not the issue I am trying to raise. The issue I am trying to raise with this new section is that it clearly places a responsibility on people who work in such institutions as brothels where sexual slavery occurs should have a duty thrust upon their shoulders to report what happens in those brothels, and it should be a serious crime not to report sexual slavery, an offence which carries a penalty of five years’ imprisonment.
However, the Attorney-General has said it is up to the people who work in such institutions where they are charged with being an accessory, where they have a burden of proof which is beyond doubt that they are not an accessory. I point out to the Attorney-General that beyond doubt is not a burden of proof in law and never has been. It is either beyond reasonable doubt, which is what a prosecution has to satisfy when pursuing such a person, or, in the case of a person trying to resist a charge which is brought against them by a prosecution, to the balance of probabilities only.
I wanted to clearly demonstrate that the Northern Territory as a jurisdiction would not in any circumstances accept any person making any sort of income in relation to this sort of behaviour and this sort of sexual servitude. As a consequence, I rely on people like the member for Karama and the member for Araluen and the shadow Attorney-General to throw their weight behind this because the message has to be clear to protect women and men press-ganged into these institutions. It has to be utterly clear that we will not accept any form of acquiescence to these sorts of institutions. I would hope that the member for Karama, with her strong feelings in relation to the rights of women, would support such an amendment.
However, once again, I am not going to die at the cross over this. These are issues that this side of the House feel are important and should be addressed, and if the government of the day chooses to run dead on such issues, then that is entirely their business.
Dr TOYNE: I certainly would have to challenge the fact that we’re running dead. The fact that we brought this legislation into the House today says anything but that. The weight of legal opinion that we sought in response to your indicated issues says that yes, it would be quite practical for a prosecution to prosecute a person such as a cleaner in a premises such as this. What would need to be proved is that that person knew the activity was going on in that premises and therefore became part of the collective that was running the activity on that premises.
It’s a relatively low bar for the prosecution to achieve to prove to a reasonable person that the cleaner could not have carried out their duties in that facility without being aware of what was going on there. If there was a case where that can’t be proven, they may well be innocent. But certainly, I’ve been reassured, after a serious examination of your proposal, that there are the legal means to prosecute these people within our Criminal Code in the sections I’ve indicated and therefore we believe that aspect of this law is covered.
Ms LAWRIE: I would like to concur with the Minister for Justice on this. The member for Macdonnell seems to miss the point that there is provision in existing legislation for staff to be netted in to be prosecuted in terms of sexual servitude if they have indeed been proven to have been aiding and abetting. That’s the point. Law exists. Legal minds out there say there is provision for it and I must say that I find it disappointing that the member for Macdonnell finds the passage of laws an opportunity for him to put his own individual interpretation on matters instead of weighty legal advice.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chairman, I just point out to the member for Karama that I had a number of people in the Northern Territory called voters vote for me to make me a law maker in this Chamber. That’s what we do. That is the primary responsibility of this Chamber: to make law. Without entering in to it any further, that’s just a bizarre comment by the member for Karama.
That aside, I have brought my concerns to the parliament The government has decided to go in a direction with which I do not agree. Nevertheless, as an overall statement, this is good legislation. I just think it could be improved with a section like this, and I think we should get on with the business of today.
Dr TOYNE: May I reiterate my approach to this process and again say to the member for Macdonnell that I would encourage you to keep doing what you are doing.
Amendment negatived.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Bill, as amended, reported; report adopted.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Continued from 23 October 2001.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I am not quite sure why the government has brought this on today. I assume it’s to get it off the Notice Paper. There is a draft bill and a draft discussion paper out for public discussion and comment. I understand that there is a great deal of comment being brought forward to the government, and I will confine the bulk of my comments to the time when the government does bring forward into this House what is its proposed legislation.
Government has got itself a bit of a problem with FOI and it falls around raising expectations in the community, and those expectations have been raised enormously by the present government when in opposition. One only has to go to the Hansard where the now Chief Minister, as Leader of the Opposition, stated that we should have an FOI Act in the Northern Territory that has no exemptions whatsoever, and if we had such FOI legislation we would be the envy of all jurisdictions in Australia.
Unfortunately, the legislation that they’ve brought forward falls far short of that, and now they have the problem in meeting the community expectations because of the level they’ve raised the bench to, as opposed to what is practical and workable FOI legislation in the Northern Territory. I was surprised that when the Attorney-General introduced this draft legislation, as part of his second reading speech, he said this:
And he went on to say:
Dr Burns: Hear, hear!
Mr BURKE: Okay, well the member for Johnston says hear, hear. If you’d taken a little bit of time, member for Johnston, and done a little bit of research, which I’m sure you haven’t - you’re pretty good at saying ‘Hear, hear’; if you could suck as well as you could blow, you’d empty Manton Dam, I can tell you.
A member interjecting.
Mr BURKE: Well, the comment from the member for Johnston is indicative of new Labor members who are quick to comment but pretty slow to do any background research. Now the legislation that has been brought into this Chamber is the legislation that was drafted for the former CLP government and it took a great deal of time and effort to get that legislation drafted. What I would have liked to have seen in the second reading speech is some sense of hesitancy by the Attorney-General by saying: ‘Well this is the legislation, this is as far as we’ve gotten so far. We have some concerns with this legislation. We’re not entirely happy with what’s come forward, but what we’ll do is we’ll put it out for public discussion, we’ll listen to what everyone says and then we’ll improve on it’.
Why, then, does the Attorney-General say this is world’s best practice? I mean, you obviously don’t think it’s worlds best practice or you wouldn’t have brought it forward, and you wouldn’t have put it out for discussion or amendment.
Or does the opposite apply, and that is that we’re going to put it out for discussion but because we believe it is world’s best practice, we won’t amend it in any case, anyway? I mean, what is the true situation? Now, the true situation is exactly what I’m stating: this is the legislation the CLP government had considered, and considered for many, many months at great cost, and with a large degree of consultation, certainly in the public service and to some extent in the community. You will never satisfy the Labor government about the degree of consultation, but that’s something that they have to deal with from now on in terms of how you satisfy the community’s expectations.
The truth, Madam Speaker, is that, in the opinion of the CLP government at the time, this legislation fell far short of what the community themselves would …
Dr Burns: You didn’t propose anything like this.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr BURKE: You don’t know what you’re talking about. That’s the fact of it. Give yourself a rest. It was all drafted prior to the election, you fool.
Now Madam Speaker, this legislation…
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, do withdraw that remark, Leader of the Opposition.
Mr BURKE: What, the fool?
Madam SPEAKER: Yes.
Mr BURKE: Surely, Madam Speaker, I …
Madam SPEAKER: I am trying to raise the standard and I said yesterday that we are not going to call each other rude names. Withdraw it.
Mr BURKE: I withdraw, you ignorant man.
Now, Madam Speaker, the truth of the matter is this: the legislation was drafted over many, many months. In fact, as I recall, consultants were brought in shortly after I became Chief Minister.
Dr Toyne interjecting.
It disturbed me - this is the truth of it; just listen! It disturbed me, frankly, how much that cost, and my recollection was the consultant’s costs from Attorney-General’s was in the order of $200 000 plus in bringing forward this draft legislation in a manner that would meet community expectations. And I might add, those community expectations that were raised considerably by the Labor opposition at the time, and without giving away the deliberations of Cabinet, I can tell you that my opinion on this legislation as it exists now, as brought forward by the Attorney-General in draft, was that it would be attacked mercilessly by the Labor opposition who would condemn it as being freedom from information, not freedom of information, who would say that it was a typical CLP ploy to bring out legislation, but when you look at all the exemptions, it fell far short of what the community wanted.
That was the primary reason that this legislation was not enacted by a CLP government, so I just say it’s a – you’re hoisted on your own petard here when you come out and you bring legislation that we terrible CLP people ourselves felt was faulty, and you’re now coming out in the public and the minister for Justice, the Attorney-General says: ‘This is cutting edge, this is world’s best practice’. Well, it certainly isn’t.
It’s not world’s best practice. It needs some improvement and the degree of improvement, after community consultation, is something we’ll look forward to seeing. But I can tell you that when you’re looking at how strong the support is, and for those who do a lot of speaking, such as the member for Johnston - have you read the Ombudsman’s comments? Haven’t quite got around to them yet, have you? Oh, well, that’s a bit of a pity. Talk to the Attorney-General. This is one of the submissions you’ve received. It’s probably the bulkiest and best submission I’ve seen written on this or any other subject to government. I implore the backbenchers of the new Labor government to have a read of this because it’s good.
Dr Burns: I will read it. I will.
Mr BURKE: Good! The member for Johnston says he will. Pretty quick to talk in this House and make comments, but now you’ll go back and have a bit of a read, good! That’s why you’re an ignorant fool.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition!
Mr BURKE: I withdraw. An ignorant man, an ignorant man.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: That’s all right, he withdrew.
Mr BURKE: Now, Madam Speaker, one can go no further than to refer to some of the comments that the Ombudsman made, and I will seek the leave of this House to have incorporated a summary of his comments into the Hansard because I think it’s an excellent summary in terms of not only encouraging the new government to bring forward legislation that deals with FOI in its entirety, but also to attend to what the Ombudsman sees as the particular weaknesses of this legislation. He talks about the fact - and I’ll just quote a couple of parts:
The draft bill…
the one you so love
…deliberately, it appears…
and he refers to clause 7 in particular
He says:
He says:
He talks about how he believes the bill should be put to a parliamentary committee. That’s something that the government can consider. He gives a whole process of how he believes it should be dealt with, rather than the government moving forward with legislation so quickly and he makes some other general comments and I quote some of those.
And, really, it falls around that. There is no concern about the privacy or record keeping aspects of the bills, we can dispense with that. It really falls around freedom to government information, the role of the Information Commissioner and the role of CEOs and ministers in government.
Dr Burns: The two are inter-linked.
Mr BURKE: You really don’t know what you’re talking about.
Dr Burns: Privacy and FOI are linked within the legislation.
Mr BURKE:
A member: You have no shame.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Members on the government side, you will have your opportunity to have your say.
Mr BURKE: He says:
They are pretty tough comments from the Ombudsman, that the proposed bill is inherently flawed and misguided.
He goes on:
He says:
the lack of a significance in terms of the purpose and objects of the Bill;
democratic government (ie not a legal right but something less);
the broad based exemptions;
I seek leave to incorporate the full summary of the Ombudsman into the Hansard record.
Leave granted.
In summary
draft legislation should only follow that process;
issues and the current state of the law and proposals for reform around FOI and, indeed, privacy.
This would provide the government with significant independent input into the final shaping of FOI;
addressing the need to inform the public and provide for a transparent process for debate on key issues.
Mr BURKE: It is very important for members - and I can say now I do not care if you criticise it as being CLP legislation; I don’t care. Just meet your own principles and parameters in what you said you would bring forward into this House. This is the legislation that the CLP were considering. This is the legislation the CLP did not consider was sufficiently worthwhile to bring forward because we believed it would not be acceptable by the public in its current format and that is the fact of it.
The bill falls, as I said, on the degree of exemptions. Without going through all of that, the main issue is this …
Mr Kiely: You have not read it, have you?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr BURKE: You want to have a look? Which clause do you want to go back to?
Mr Kiely: Clause 102, what is it? Tell me straight off. Come on.
Mr BURKE: That deals with the Information Commissioner. What does clause 59 deal with?
Mr Kiely: You haven’t read it. You got caught again, Denis.
Mr BURKE: What does clause 59 deal with?
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Sanderson, you can have your say later.
Mr BURKE: Madam Speaker, the bill falls in these areas in simple terms: for any request for information - the member for Nelson might be interested, at least; the government aren’t - for any request for information, the minister may issue an exemption certificate which he may delegate down to the CEO of his department or the Chief Executive Officer of the Chief Minister’s Department may issue an exemption certificate and, in issuing an exemption certificate, they do not have to declare whether that information exists in a government department or not.
There are good reasons that those things are there, but what I simply say is: I do not believe that those good reasons satisfy the government’s utterances and statements with regards to how they will bring forward legislation.
It is worrying, to my mind, that on the one hand you have the minister and chief executive officers of departments who are all-powerful in what they can exempt from public disclosure, and yet you have an Information Commissioner who is very restrictive in what he can access; and that is the fact of it. He has to report to the minister on the type of information that comes to him, and he can be directed by the responsible minister to report on the information that comes to him, but the Information Commissioner himself, really, under this legislation, is no more than a post office box in terms of what he can access. I believe he has fewer powers than the Ombudsman has today, in terms of accessing information - that may be disputed by some - and he has a very subordinate role to, not only the minister, but also to the powers of …
Mr Bonson: Or she.
Dr Lim: Just watch your words.
Mr BURKE: With respect, Madam Speaker, the member for Millner just made a comment which I believe was…
Dr Lim: That’s right. He said ‘bullshit’. I mean, that’s not on.
Mr BURKE: …he used most unparliamentary language.
Dr Burns: No, he did not. He said ‘or she’.
Mr BURKE: I ask him to stand up, be a man and withdraw it.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Millner, withdraw that remark.
Mr BURKE: He said ‘bullshit’ in the Chamber, Madam Speaker.
Mr BONSON: Madam Speaker, I did not say any such word to that effect. ‘Or she’, I said. I am just correcting the member for Brennan on his use of terms …
A member: [inaudible] the language.
Madam SPEAKER: I will accept your explanation.
Mr BURKE: If that’s the case, I accept it also.
What we have is a bill that gives the Information Commissioner powers that are subordinate to the powers of the Secretary of the Chief Minister’s Department, subordinate to the powers of an individual minister and, worse, subordinate to the powers of a delegated CEO of any department. I think it is just not going to fly out there in the general public; they just will not wear it. The government now has the task of bringing forward legislation that meets those parameters.
From my point of view, as I said, I will confine my comments to the actual bill that comes forward but, if you want an indication of the way I believe it should progress, it is this. The Information Commissioner should be independent and unharnessed in his powers. It is worrying, I know, for public servants; it is worrying for government. You have to trust the person who is given that responsibility but, essentially, that is his job. If you are permeating a culture in the Northern Territory and a culture in government, that the government’s attitude is that information should be made available as a principle rather than restricted, give that man the power to vet the applications that come in, consider the ones that he believes are vexatious, and progress those ones that he believes needs to be answered, and progress it in a way that he is unfettered. He needs to be unfettered by being able to say to a minister, the chief executive officer of the Chief Minister’s department or any delegated CEO: ‘It is not good enough for you to be able to simply ignore my request, say the information is not to be provided and give me no reason as to why it will not be provided’.
That is where the bill falls; that’s where the flaws are; that’s where the bill needs to be amended. I look forward to seeing how the government deals with the comments by the Ombudsman amongst others because, as I said, it is probably the best submission I have ever seen on FOI from anyone. In hindsight, I wish we had employed him rather than all the money we spent on others. We would have done well, and we would have come to a better result because I think he has nailed it in one. He has nailed all the issues that the public are concerned about, and he also points to the solutions to those issues. I believe if the government does not give strong weight to that submission and its direction, it is going to have a lot of problems selling FOI in the Northern Territory.
I have no doubt that the government will say: ‘At least we have something out there. That terrible CLP government, they would not allow information, they were secretive. At least we got something out there’. Okay, you could try that, but the end result of that will be people will try to access information and, in due time, you will be hoisted on that petard. So, take the time now, take more time to come up with good FOI legislation, and I am sure you will get the support of the general public.
Might I add it is with a sense of genuineness that we say it is far past time that good FOI was introduced in the Northern Territory. But don’t do what we said because it will not fly out there, it would appear. Do not bring forward legislation that in fact is freedom from information legislation, rather than freedom of information legislation. If you don’t take my word, take the Ombudsman’s. This is not freedom of information legislation in any shape or form. Don’t fall on your sword on the first time on such an important issue when you have raised community expectations so high.
The other thing that is nowhere apparent is the cost to the community. One of the large issues running all around Australia, both from organisations such as the media and individuals in trying to access information, is that if you cannot get them on the exemptions clause, you can get them on the cost. A person gets run into the ground by the bureaucracy in terms of the burgeoning costs of gaining the information they want. So any legislation that comes forward has to be very clear as to what will be the cost to an individual, to an organisation in their search for information, otherwise the intent of the legislation will be lost on that issue as well.
Madam Speaker, with those few comments, I thank parliament for allowing that to be read into the Hansard. The opposition looks forward to seeing the eventual legislation when it is debated in this Chamber.
Madam SPEAKER: Members, I wish to advise you of the presence in the gallery of Years 5, 6 and 7 from Alawa Primary School accompanied by their teacher Christine Meave. On behalf of all honourable members, we extend a warm welcome to our students.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr MILLS (Blain): I would like the opportunity, Madam Speaker, to make a personal explanation.
Madam SPEAKER: You haven’t informed me of this. You know the rules. Perhaps you can get it to me.
Continued from the morning session.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, I rise to support the ministerial statement relating to progressing this very important bill. Prior to the luncheon adjournment, the Leader of the Opposition posed the question what brought it on. He seemed a bit inquisitive about why have it now. On 28 February all members in the Chamber were provided with this letter, and I will seek to table it after I read it out. It is from the Attorney-General, 28 February, delivered to all members in the Chamber:
That’s today.
I was happy to hear the Leader of the Opposition’s debate and I was happy to see him talk at great length and extol the greatness of the submission that he so thoroughly researched from the Ombudsman. But I was a bit lost because I could see that he was a good researcher, that he got into this information bill and he paid a lot of attention to the Ombudsman to the point that he had incorporated the summary, I think it was, or the executive summary of that submission. But for the life of me, I could not understand why didn’t he go to the Chief Executive Officer of the Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority? Why didn’t he go to the Chief Magistrate of the NT’s submission? Why didn’t he go to the Executive Officer of Victims of Crimes Assistance League? Why didn’t he go to the Acting Director of the NT Archives Services?
Are these submissions deficient in some way, Leader of the Opposition? All in all, there are something like 37 submissions in from organisations from all over the place. I should have thought that with his research skills and the way that he went right to the heart of the Ombudsman’s submission that he would have consulted these and put them in as well. Anyway, they are all on the Table for everyone to have a look at and I am sure the Attorney-General will take these into account when he is having a look. I hope that clears up that matter for the Leader of the Opposition.
Interest in this bill amongst informed electors in the Northern Territory is extremely high. Indeed, as an issue it has rated as high as crime issues and the economy both before and after the August 18 election. In the Sanderson electorate, 85% of respondents to a questionnaire I circulated during my campaign supported the introduction of freedom of information type legislation.
Our Good Government position paper released prior to the last election promised to provide Territorians with access to personal and government information and, if I may, I would like to restate to members that promise made to Territorians - and this is from the position paper Good Government:
We went to the people of the Northern Territory with the pledge that we would introduce freedom of information legislation and, true to our word, here it is, well advanced through the legislative process just six months after the election. Moreover, we have involved the people of the Northern Territory in the process by inviting submissions through a consultative process. We are a government who listens as well as delivering on our promises.
In fact, the proposed information bill which has gone out for public comment represents a framework for the Territory parliament to introduce a bill that not only addresses freedom of information issues, but also includes crucial matters related to privacy protection and promotes best practice for records management by government. In other jurisdictions, freedom of information, records management and privacy acts are the principal statutes relating to information access in the public sector. They are interconnected and in some instances overlap. They all depend on good record keeping practices. The incorporation of these three elements makes practical sense as they are inter-related and interdependent. It also represents a first within Australian jurisdictions, and I am sure that other jurisdictions may well follow our lead. I will return to the draft information bill soon.
Over the years there have been many calls for freedom of information legislation in the Northern Territory. From memory, at several points there has been vague agreement and equally vague promises made by the former CLP government including the current Opposition Leader when he was Chief Minister to introduce such legislation, if only in relation to the accuracy and voracity of personal information held by the government.
The Leader of the Opposition is on the public record as saying he considered there were adequate mechanisms and safeguards to prise information from government when there is a legitimate reason, citing parliament, the Ombudsman and the Auditor-General. For these reasons he previously proposed an access to information law, claiming it would allow Territorians to gain access to personal information held on them by government departments and agencies.
I would suggest that the Leader of the Opposition did not fully understand the difference between open government and freedom of information. Open government means the government publishing information largely for its own purposes; information that the government thinks we need to know or would like to know. Freedom of information requires the government to disclose information that people decide for themselves they want to know.
Perhaps the reason for such a high level of support in the community for an information act is because we have had some incidents that have undermined public trust in the propriety of ministers, hence the support for freedom of information legislation that guarantees minimum standards and reduces the scope for ministerial discretion and introduces independent validation that the public interest has been served.
So we come to the present day with the Labor government working to fulfil its promise to the people of the Northern Territory to implement information legislation. The aims of this information bill are in direct contrast to lack of regard and respect for privacy protection evident in previous CLP governments. The aims of this information bill are to promote openness and democratic principles in the NT; protect the privacy of personal information held by the NT public sector; ensure the Northern Territory is well placed to participate in the information economy; and to promote confidence in the wider community.
Although this bill is still in a developmental stage awaiting change through public consultation - and I might just say that again for the record so that our Leader of the Opposition and his learned colleagues are aware of this - although this bill is still in a developmental stage awaiting changes through public consultation, the main principles that underpin it are as follows: right of access to government and personal information; protection of the privacy of personal information; appointment of an independent statutory officer to oversee freedom of information and privacy; best practice for record keeping and records management and responsibilities.
As with any such legislation there will necessarily be tensions between the need for government to keep some [inaudible] confidential and the rights of citizens to obtain information. This tension is played out in the draft bill in the sections that relate to exemptions. All exemptions within the bill are based on public interest. Some of these exemptions are absolute in the sense that it is automatically recognised that release of information, confidential to government including Cabinet documents, that would prejudice security and defence or prejudice the maintenance of law and order, which is an offence under another law, necessary to preserve the system of justice including legal privilege, is not in the public interest.
No doubt many of the public submissions will highlight and question these issues and make suggestions regarding the processes used to arrive at decisions regarding exemptions. This is a natural and essential debate that needs to occur; one, I might add, which can only benefit by the active engagement of the opposition benches.
I am also fully aware of the Northern Territory public sector as a key stakeholder in the introduction and rollout of the proposed information act. With this in mind, I have gone back to 1984 and had a look at the top 10 agencies receiving freedom of information requests when similar legislation was just introduced into Victoria. The Victorian act applies to all Victorian government ministers and departments. It applies to many statutory authorities and other bodies corporate founded by statute - for example, universities.
By ranking, the agencies which received the highest number of requests in the first year of introduction of the freedom of information legislation were: Police 14.5%; Health Commission 8.2%; Fire Brigade 7.9%; Department of Community and Welfare Services 6.3%; Road Construction Authority 4.6%; Road Traffic Authority 4%; Electricity Commission 3.3%; Education Department 3.1%; State Transport Authority 2.4%; Royal Women’s Hospital 2.1%; other 43.6%.
I will leave members to make the comparisons between our institutions and their Victorian counterparts. The point is if we look at function rather than agency title, I do not think we will see a tidal wave of requests for information, but rather a good, manageable spread of requests by people genuinely seeking answers they perhaps could never previously get.
Madam Speaker, I commend this draft legislation to the House. I urge members opposite to support it. I will be keenly awaiting the suggestions made in public submissions, and I look forward to the passage of the updated draft legislation through this House in the near future.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I rise to make a few brief comments in relation to this. I find it interesting that we are dealing with a freedom of information - it is not even a bill yet - discussion draft. It is interesting how members opposite like to rewrite history, the member for Sanderson rising and saying: ‘Oh well, we’ve got this so far in such a short time’.
The truth is, as the member for Sanderson well knows, as all members in this House know, that this process was already in train long before the last election, and this process was well advanced. Indeed, the discussion draft is legislation which generally I would support, but it was something that was prepared long before the last election. But there you go.
Dr Burns: Rummaging around in the bottom draws of government.
Mr ELFERINK: This is an interesting thing, and I pick up on the interjection from the member for Johnston, because I, too, have the letter from the Attorney-General sitting in front of me where he says that he has attached for my interest a list of submissions on the draft information bill. I wrote to the Minister for Justice in relation to this matter. It was only a one page letter, but nevertheless should have qualified as a submission, yet it is absent from the list of submissions that have been received. More to the point - and much more intriguingly - I am wondering what process I have to go through to get a letter from the minister in reply to the letter I sent him. Even more intriguingly, should the discussion draft paper actually turn into a piece of legislation, what process does the Attorney-General suggest I use to discover exactly what happened to the letter I sent him back on 27 November which he has not dignified with a reply? Interesting.
For the mob opposite to be talking about the principles of democracy and those sorts of things, I would have thought that my letter at least would have been acknowledged if not listed as a submission in relation to this legislation. Now, if the members opposite are so interested in open, honest, accountable, why on earth do we have a situation where the letters from this side of the House are simply ignored? Anyway, I am not going to dwell on that. It’s probably just a clerical error in the minister’s department, or at least I hope it is.
I will go into the letter and, as I said, it was addressed on 27 November 2001. I remind honourable members of what the then Leader of the Opposition had to say on 20 April 1999, one of the occasions when freedom of information was debated in this House. I noticed the member for Sanderson, at quite some length, talked about the exemptions built into the act. I am wondering if the member for Sanderson is aware of comments made on that date by the now Chief Minister, and she said:
Let’s knock out every single exemption and show Australia what the Territory can do. What a challenge! Let’s show Australia. If the Chief Minister’s objection to my freedom of information bill - Labor’s freedom of information bill - is that it has too many exemptions, and would not allow, if we bought it in, the community a decent access to what the government is doing, then let’s knock them all out. And we will have an awesome piece of freedom of information legislation.
So this is a challenge, and I look forward to the Chief Minister’s reply in this debate, about whether you’ll take up
the challenge because I think it is a great one. You’re on the record. The member for Macdonnell is on the record.
You keep talking about exemptions. You can’t keep whingeing and whining. You’re a whingeing and whining government…
She then goes on to say:
…let’s get rid of the exemptions. We’ll be fine.
And finally she says:
We look forward to the next session of parliament when I will reintroduce the piece of legislation without any
exemptions and we will be able to join together and support the legislation.
So that is the promise that the members opposite – indeed, the current Chief Minister - made to the people of the Northern Territory. I am curious to see whether or not she has the courage of her convictions as to stand up and support her position back in April 1999. I ask the …
Dr Burns: Cabinet documents are always exempt.
Mr ELFERINK: I ask the minister for Justice to at least do me the courtesy of responding to my letter, if not adding it to the list of submissions, and I look forward to the time that we can debate this in the House as a bill.
Madam SPEAKER: If I could just clarify to members that I did approach the Attorney-General and ask him if he would supply members with a list of submissions that had been sent in because I wanted to have an idea of what was available for members to approach the Attorney-General for information on it. So the letter you have on your desk, I guess, was prompted by me wanting to make sure that everyone had access to the information and submissions that have been sent in. That was just a point of clarification for you.
Mr ELFERINK: Very well, Madam Speaker, and if that is indeed the case, I am sure that the minister for Justice will advise the House.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, if I might make a comment on what you said just then, the Attorney-General might have a comment about it. I just asked if I could get a copy of a couple of submissions, and I got a note back from your office saying: ‘Sorry but it is not the practice to copy submissions which are provided to government’. So this being the freedom of information bill, I hope perhaps we could make an exemption to that. It would be a good example.
Mr Kiely: There is a touch of irony there.
Mr WOOD: Yes. Obviously I would like to comment on the freedom of information draft. I bring these comments at this stage so that they can be considered along with the public submissions, and I hope I get another chance further along, when the bill is being debated in parliament, to comment. I must admit that I was a little concerned that when the draft was released, it had the price of $11.50 plus GST attached to it which seemed a bit of an anomaly since this was about freedom of information, but I was relieved to find out the document was actually free.
I welcome the introduction of this draft, and I hope that this legislation will remove forever the kind of problems I had in assessing this document which, at the time of the debate on the issue of damming Elizabeth River, was a very important document. This document was about the Elizabeth River lake environmental feasibility assessment. This document has still not been released to the public. It was prepared by the then Department of Transport and Works who investigated these issues: water quality, sulphate and mud; and biting insects in relation to the proposed dam - not exactly issues of national security. If this new legislation allows for the public scrutiny of documents like this, then it will get my support.
I should also preface my comments on the details of the bill by saying that I feel the discussion paper presented by Rick Snell from the University of Tasmania should be a key document in any discussion on amendments to this draft. I was involved to some small extent in enabling Rick Snell to come to the Northern Territory to deliver a couple of lectures when he commented on the new draft legislation. I certainly agree with many of the comments that he has put in there.
The philosophy behind this bill - and I, to some extent, used to try and believe this was the philosophy we should have had in the Litchfield Shire Council - should be that the government should err on the side of openness in relation to allowing public access to government information, and use the rejection of access only on rare and proper occasions. The key to this bill must be in sections 2(a) and 2(b) and those sections say the following:
(a) to encourage the widespread publication of government information; and
(b) to encourage accountability in government by providing the public with the right of
access to government information.
This bill must allow that to happen, and must not put any unnecessary obstacles in the way of these key objectives. The question is: do the general principles as mentioned in Part 2 fit comfortably with these objectives? I think that’s what we have to find out during this debate.
I’m going to ask some specific questions that may not have to be answered at the present time. There are a number of clauses which do concern me, and I had this specific clause raised by a gentleman who came into my office and I think it needs an explanation. Clause 7 deals with the ‘Nature of rights created by this Act’, and I think the Leader of the Opposition raised that matter, too. This says:
(c) nothing in this Act gives rise to a cause of action or creates a legally enforceable right;
and
be prosecuted.
My interpretation of that is that it tends to say that, well, if the government doesn’t do the right thing by this act, there is no penalty. If that’s the case then, to some extent, it could make this act non-workable if there’s no penalty for not doing what the act requires.
Section 13: I just need clarification on 13(a). It says:
13. When does this act apply to government information?
Perhaps I can’t read legal language but that sounds like anything under five years, you can’t have a look at. So it just doesn’t sound right. I would have thought that that’s the information you want.
Section 4: The words ‘unreasonably interfere’ come up every now and then. ‘Unreasonably interfere’ needs to be defined. It states here that ‘unreasonably interfere with the conduct of its operations’. That needs clarifying. I’m just trying to find the section. I have put down section 4, but I think it’s earlier than that. But I think you get the general thrust of what I was after there.
Section 21 also mentions the phrase ‘public interest’ and the member for Sanderson just raised it before. Some clarification as to what ‘public interest’ means would be worthwhile because if it’s too broad then it could be used as an excuse to stop people getting information.
There are a number of sections here, and I’ll just try and quote one. Section 31 says:
Further down it says:
That sort of statement comes up several times in more or less the same words. On one hand, it’s saying that the body referred to must notify the applicant in writing and then further down it says: ‘Well, if they haven’t notified you within 30 days, too bad’. I think there must be some requirement that they must answer in writing before the 30 days are up otherwise that clause just nullifies what you’re trying to do.
Section 29, referred to in 1(b):
disclose information about an Aboriginal sacred site or Aboriginal tradition;
I tried to look up ‘Aboriginal tradition’ and I was told to look at the Northern Territory Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act. I went to the Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act and it told me to go and look up the Aboriginal (Land Rights) Act, so I gave up because I haven’t got the Commonwealth act. I think that possibly should be clarified in the act.
I do have some concerns that genealogy is, perhaps, excluded on the grounds of Aboriginal tradition. My understanding from my family is that genealogy is not a secret matter, although I’m told that in the Aboriginal (Land Rights) Act it is. I think it’s one of those points of contention that needs to be assessed.
Section 38 refers to the conduct of a review. I would like to find out who does that review. It doesn’t seem to be clear on who does the review. It just says it can’t be certain people, but it doesn’t say actually who should do the review.
Another issue further along in section 67, which refers to publicly available information. In subsection 2, it talks about a public register is to be kept in compliance with the IPPs. I must admit I’m not fully across what Information Privacy Principles are. I was just wondering what the public register is meant to be; what’s it for and what does it keep?
The other one is, I suppose, related to a question I asked earlier on - clause 97. Clause 97 is about an annual report and it says the annual report should:
(2)(c) specify the number of exemption certificates issued by the chief executive officer of the Department of the
Chief Minister, including how many of those certificates neither confirmed nor denied the existence of the
information the subject of the certificate.
I would have to ask: why shouldn’t we tell people whether a piece of information exists? Surely that’s working against freedom of information? You mightn’t be allowed to tell them what’s in that piece of information, but I can’t see why you would say the piece of information doesn’t exist. I know there’s a section further back which says that can be used; if the government wishes it can neither confirm nor deny some information exists. I think that shouldn’t be part of the bill.
As I said before, I hope to put more information into this. Compared with the Leader of the Opposition, my submission today is fairly shallow and it certainly needs more work on it. I do hope that, if it’s possible, Minister, I can obtain some of the submissions. I wouldn’t want them all; I’d never get through them all. But, listening to the words of the Leader of the Opposition about the Ombudsman, it sounds like a fairly important document, so it would be nice to have a copy.
I was also given a Freedom of Information Pledge by people who call themselves Friends of FOI. They asked me whether I’d sign it, and I said I would. I said I’d also ask leave to table the document if other members would like to sign it. I’d like to read what the Freedom of Information Pledge says:
Finally, Madam Speaker, I listened to the Leader of the Opposition give initial speech on the draft and I thought it was quite a good one. I just hope that in this debate - because I think both sides of the House want freedom of information, and we can raise all the ghosts from the past and that might be easy for me to say being a new boy on the block, but I think that we really need to work constructively to produce a Freedom of Information Bill - one is that we can understand because that is not that easy to read; two is that a showpiece to the rest of Australia that up here in the Top End or in the Northern Territory we can do things just as well or perhaps even better than other parts of Australia. We can hold ourselves to conduct this debate, I think, on good civil lines and out of that we will get the best result.
Ms CARTER (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, just a few words on this. I agree with the member for Nelson on his comments. I know that one of the advantages of being in the Northern Territory as a relatively young jurisdiction is that we have been able to use legislation that has come in in other jurisdictions and make changes to it where necessary and actually come up with something that is really good. We have seen that in a number of our legislative things and so I hope that with freedom of information we are able to do that.
Having watched the debate over the last few years and having an ear to it, I notice that there does not appear to be any jurisdiction in the world that is actually happy with their FOI legislation. From that you can gather that it is a very difficult thing to balance things up with it. My expectation is that no matter what comes out of this process, we will continue to have problems with it. I am sure that we will work on the legislation as the years go by to fix any problems that it has and make it a good piece of legislation.
A concern that I have, and it was raised in Queensland a few months ago, is the cost of accessing information under FOI. There was some media coverage that in Queensland they were going to bring in a program of raising the costs to $31 if you applied for it and then charging $20 an hour for the public service to work on the gathering of the information. There certainly was an outcry in Queensland at that time over the costs that would cause.
My real concern with this legislation - and I am hoping that in the process of the debates on it over the next few months that the government will be able to allay my concerns - is that if you are working in the health profession and you are using patient notes and creating patient notes - I will hark back to examples of my experiences in casualty and orthopaedics, picking orthopaedics as an example. If you have a patient in who is a long term patient, you can often have problems with that patient, either with them as an individual or with their family members. My concern would be that if a nurse felt that his or her record could be made public to that patient or their family in the years to come, would that constrain the way that they wrote that record in that they might not put in pertinent pieces of information? For example, a family might be putting pressure on the nurse to do something which he or she doesn’t want to do. I can think of times where I would not have wanted a patient or their family to actually have read what had been written in the patient’s notes. It could come to pass that if those people were to get the notes and, for example, I had written ‘Family very difficult, refusing to take patient home …’ rah, rah, rah, something along those lines, you might be inclined not to put the note in and instead to rely on a verbal communication rather than a written communication, therefore leading yourself into the Chinese whispers sort of thing. Instead of putting accurate notes down as to what objectively happened, you are passing the information from one shift to the other just through a verbal process because you fear that one day you could end up in court having to explain why you used the term ‘difficult’ and you said this. They will then argue, ‘We never said that, we always wanted Dad to come home …’.
I just wonder if it could be explained at some point during the debate over the next couple of months - it doesn’t have to be today - would there be constraints on medical or nursing staff, would they have to be particularly careful about what they wrote and would there ever be a concern that they could end up going through a legal process because a family or a patient took offence to something that was said?
Another classic example, of course, is those with mental health issues. If a medical officer writes ‘I believe this person is schizophrenic because blah, blah or whatever…’, is this going to be grounds for legal cases in the years to come because someone says: ‘I am not schizophrenic and you have written something that is inaccurate? I just have a concern as to whether or not this is going to create a problem in the medical profession for the use of accurate recording of what a professional feels is the situation. I realise that this bill is still in the drafting process and I certainly look forward to seeing how we go in the future with it, and I wish the government all the best with it.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I rise to place on the record my brief comments in relation to the draft FOI legislation which is currently being considered by the Chamber. Before I do that there is just a preliminary matter I wish to draw honourable members’ attention to. Indeed, yesterday all members received a letter from the Attorney-General with a list of submissions which had been made and with an assurance that any comments that were stated in Hansard today or reduced to Hansard today in parliament would be incorporated into those submissions and be considered.
The member for Sanderson went through in detail and referred to some of those submissions and the body of those submissions and what was contained therein. I didn’t think anything of it at that stage, however, the member for Nelson stated to honourable members that he sought to obtain a copy of some of those submissions and was told by the Attorney-General that they were not available and that was the end of that. I am just concerned about how this backbencher got hold of those documents, if he did indeed get hold of them and, if so, on what pretext and it may be a matter which can be dealt with by way of personal explanation in that regard.
The freedom of information debate has gone on for a fairly lengthy period of time and there is some draft legislation in the form of the discussion bill currently before this Chamber and available to members of the public and indeed there are a number of written submissions. We have heard the Leader of the Opposition quite candidly talk about the cost and expense of engaging professionals to prepare this draft legislation. There were some exemptions contained in that legislation and the Leader of the Opposition said that he was in the process of reviewing that first draft to a stage that it would be acceptable to Territorians and would not be the subject of a fairly serious attack by the then opposition.
In the lead up to the election there was a reasonable expectation created in the minds of voters, and certainly those groups who were interested in FOI legislation. There was a reasonable expectation created in some of the barristers and solicitors around town that if there were to be a Labor Party win then quickly FOI would be brought on to the agenda and that some of the words that had come from the then opposition would form the basis of that draft legislation.
The member for Macdonnell has quite properly touched upon some of the comments that were made by the then Leader of the Opposition in creating and furthering this expectation. This is prior to the election. I independently obtained a copy of the Hansard from 22 April 1999 where indeed the then Leader of the Opposition went through and made it fairly clear - I’m not going to read everything that was said; the member for Macdonnell has gone through that - save to say that certainly on three occasions in that one fairly short speech there was absolutely no doubt left in a person’s mind who had heard that speech that introduced into the parliament would be legislation fairly devoid of any exemptions, and the whole couple of paragraphs are summarised in the last line of the submission made by the then Leader of the Opposition:
We look forward to the next session of parliament when I will reintroduce the piece of legislation without any exemptions, and then we’ll be able to join together and support the legislation.
The flip side to making assertions like that, and to avoid being painted as a whingeing, whining then opposition, you would expect the draft legislation to reflect what was said, and, certainly, the expectation which had been created. If the then opposition who are now in government are serious about consulting, then to start with this forum would be an ideal opportunity to retract what the then Leader of the Opposition said and concede that what was said on 22 April 1999 was an untruth or a mistake, or perhaps explain the exact context in which those comments were made.
The current opposition is mindful that this is important legislation and mindful that we have to get this right for the good of all Territorians, but the very tone and the undermining rationale of freedom of information legislation is about honesty, and it would be a good start if we could have a clear and concise statement as to exactly what the policy of this new government is. We have the comments, as I said, in Hansard by the then Leader of the Opposition, quite clearly stating that there would be no exemptions and now we have another, quite different piece of legislation before the House.
Another matter that has received some attention, but certainly needs to receive a lot more from a practical perspective is the enforcement of this legislation. It’s all well and good to have a world’s best practice and perhaps legislation without any exemptions - if we’re to rely upon what the then Leader of the Opposition now Chief Minister said - but at the end of the day it’s about properly resourcing the new government department to enforce and carry out its obligations under the new act.
There has to be a mechanism, and I’m hopeful the government will take this on board, to measure and determine whether the legislation is effective and whether those outcomes, which should be clearly set, have been achieved. The term ‘freedom of information’ is a term which has been bandied about and it’s probably the least understood term that’s fallen to be considered by this parliament. Everyone sort of understands what it’s about, but the huge scope of legislation which could be classified as FOI legislation can be anything from something which is completely useless, and you see that in several jurisdictions down south, to something which the Chief Minister in her time as Leader of the Opposition talked about as containing absolutely no exemptions.
So, there’s an enormous scope. There are some fundamental things that have to be considered, and I’m asking the government to - before we go further down this path - define clearly the parameters of what exactly this government intends to enunciate as a policy and then reduce into the legislation in terms of the exemptions. Are there going to be exemptions? If there are going to be exemptions, then how can that be explained in light of what was said on 22 April?
Second, a real commitment to the enforcement and the implementation of the legislation, also some sort of work on how much its going to cost the Territory taxpayer because ultimately it’s, of course, the Territory taxpayer who will foot the bill.
Madam Speaker, they are all the submissions I wish to make at this stage. Once we’re at a stage where we have a draft and a real solid position from the government, I’ll certainly be making further submissions on the legislation.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, thank you again to members of this House for their contributions. I was quite serious last week when I made the offer to allow you to generate comment on Hansard that will go to the review process that will be continuing on with Sue Oliver over in my department.
We definitely view this as work in progress, and I think one the most important stages in this work, now that we have responsibility for the development of this legislation, is the thorough consultations that we’ve engaged in. We now have almost a sacred responsibility to take the output of many, many groups that have responded to the chance to assess the discussion draft and come back to us with their issues.
I will table an up-to-date list of the submissions. I think there are just on 50 now either in hand or on the way. I’m very pleased with that. I think that when you look at the spread of organisations - Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority, Victims of Crime Assistance League, magistrates, Archives Service, the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment, Procurement Review Board, the Planning Action Network in Darwin here, the Tourist Commission, Pearler Executive Cleaning which is excellent to see that some of the private sector, University of Tasmania, Utilities Commission, private inputs and I won’t elucidate on the individuals. You can have a look at it, but we’re not going call attention to individuals other than to say good on them for putting into the process. I will table that so that it’s available to members if they want to have an up-to-date version.
As I said earlier in this House, 500 hard copies went out. There were a lot of hits on the web site. So even beyond the actual returns that we’ve received, there are a lot of people that have taken the trouble to have a look at this draft bill, and I’m sure that’s doing its part in promoting broader debate in the community as well as the formal submissions that we’ve received.
To clear up a matter that the member for Nelson and other members have commented on, I don’t propose to release the actual submissions to members but - hear me out - and I think it’s probably a good illustration of why this bill is something special. It has privacy in it, it has freedom of information, it has government record keeping. We would actually be compromising two information privacy principles if we gave you the submissions, and they are the two - IPP2 - which is the use and disclosure of documents. That basically says if you call for information from a private individual or an organisation, you can only use it for the purposes for which you called it. If people feel that they have written in to a review process based in the department, there would need to be a separate approval given for it to be disseminated in the public arena through members of parliament. Also IPP10 which is sensitive information. In other words, the comments in those submissions might reveal a political position or a religious position, some of which would be sensitive.
Now how we are going to get over this? How are we going to satisfy the insatiable curiosity of the members of the House, which I think is fantastic? What I will undertake to do is we will get a working summary of all 60 submissions which will be distributed to all members providing information on the issues that have been raised without identifying the source, organisation or individuals. So that is what I will do. That will get everyone across the issues to the extent that we are.
The comments about the earlier bill brought to the House by the member for Fannie Bay, they were comments about the bill that was brought into the House as a Private Member’s Bill. That bill happened to have a particular structure to it which did not have exemption clauses in it. That is not the bill we are talking about now, and I will stand on the right of any organisation, let alone a political one, to evolve their position on issues as they move along. Unless the CLP want to be locked into their 1975 policies, I think that we have to understand that that is how the thing works. A private member - and you will do it yourself - I think the member for Araluen brought forward a bill to this House last week which was dealing with areas of the Criminal Code that - and she realises that - and we have undertaken to supplant it with a bill that we will put there. So the member for Araluen has done exactly the right thing as a member of this House, she has brought to the attention of the House, through the presentation of a draft bill, some issues that she wanted us to consider as a House, and good on her.
I think there were some very valid things there that we are already working on, and I am sure that is a further sign that we should keep working on them. So let’s not get too locked into history about what was said and done in this House several years ago. We are talking about the bill that we have before us as a draft bill; we will be talking about the bill that we will bring in here in the June sittings, depending on how the work goes, and that is the bill that we will be debating, and I hope you will engage in that to the full.
The other one I will mention to the member for Macdonnell, he mentioned that he gave me a written response, I will certainly make sure that is in the hands of Sue Oliver. I will make sure that you get a response from me, too. I am not sure what timeframe you are talking about.
Mr Elferink: I wrote to you in November.
Dr TOYNE: Well, if it was in November, I am not sure. I will have to check why it did not get through to me for signing off.
Mr Elferink: It would be nice to have a response. It would be nice to be acknowledged on the list of submissions.
Dr TOYNE: Okay. I have given you an undertaking. Let’s move along. The key issues to emerge…
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Dr TOYNE: Madam Speaker, I’m finding it fairly hard with the buzzing in the background here.
Madam SPEAKER: I think that’s enough, Member for Macdonnell. You’re interrupting.
Mr ELFERINK: I thank the minister for his efforts.
Dr TOYNE: To reiterate the…
Ms Martin: You could stay in the House and [inaudible].
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, a point of order! The Chief Minister full well knows the rules of this House and I ask she withdraw.
Madam SPEAKER: That’s right. Withdraw, Chief Minister.
Dr TOYNE: I think all that does is swallow up time.
Ms MARTIN: Madam Speaker, I doubt whether it would have been picked up, except for the kind of acute ears of the member for Macdonnell who we appreciate …
Madam SPEAKER: Just withdraw without comment.
Ms MARTIN: I withdraw.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you.
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Macdonnell, no more comments.
Dr TOYNE: Madam Speaker, that’s two minutes less that I have to give members the responses they are after from me.
A general response across all submissions is I do not think anyone has significant problems with either the privacy or the records keeping sections of the bill. That is very encouraging; it indicates that we have two parts of the bill that seem to have met general approval. So let’s concentrate in terms of the issues that have arisen on the freedom of information section which we were not surprised drew the most attention.
The issues that have come through - and I can give some very broad options within the review framework that could be taken to deal with the issues that have been brought forward. The extent of exemptions has been a point. Now, pretty well all freedom of information bills, wherever they exist, seem to include exemptions over internal Cabinet papers and areas to do with security issues and police investigations, those sort of very sensitive areas where I think most people would accept on a common sense argument that you could be doing some very serious damage to either the process of government in those areas, or to the safety of individuals in the case of the security and law investigation areas. So it is really the exemptions around those that we have to look at, and I think that most of the comments that we have had back are to do with: are there too many of them, who in particular has the right to put an exemption over a document; and should there be a review process available?
It is fair to say that we will be very open to suggestions in any of those three areas. I think we have to try and find the line of best fit according to the public comment as to how widely exemptions should be framed. We will look at the balance of the comments that we have, and the weight of the arguments in behind them, and all I can say at the moment is those fencelines are not cemented in; they can be moved to respond to the weight of the comment that we have received.
The lack of review: there are three review possibilities, if there is going to be a review mechanism introduced. One is to have the Information Commissioner - himself or herself, I point out to the Leader of the Opposition; it could well be a woman - the Information Commissioner could have the right to go and review whether an exemption was fairly, or in a justifiable way, put across some information. Equally, we could go to a Supreme Court review of a decision. We could also have the relevant minister being open to come in and review what a public servant has done. Now, they are all open, they could all potentially be adopted for the final shape of the bill.
Retrospectivity: we have had comments, everything from ‘don’t have any’ to ‘let’s go back 27 years’.
A member: No!
Dr TOYNE: You can see already the controversy around this area. But on retrospectivity, we have to find a balance point which will come out of quite a few considerations. When you look across the information keeping of government at the moment and the state of our information records, there may be practical constraints on how far back you can go. We are certainly open to moving that timeline according to the weight of public opinion. We may go longer, to 10 years or something like that, but whichever way we go there is going to be a major job for the agencies in terms of their archiving arrangements and their access arrangements - and that is why, whenever this bill is finally acceded to, we are going to need to give the Northern Territory government agencies sufficient time to review and reform their record keeping so they can effectively respond.
A lot of material that I am sure people around this Chamber and out in the wider community would just dearly love to get their hands on about past events that they might still feel cranky or unsure about, that may or may not exist in the government archives. We do not know down to the nearest piece of paper as to what is likely to be still extant within the archives of our agencies. So we have to come to some common sense balance point in terms of retrospectivity, and we will put forward a final view, with the arguments behind it and, of course, we get to debate that in this House.
I must say, very much in line with the approach I have been taking with all sorts of legislation, that we will make sure that there is a bill out to members in time for you to consider amendments, get them to us in time to have them properly assessed. Now, that’s the way that you can introduce change into whatever comes forward, not by bringing it on the floor of the House during the debate and expecting us to immediately react to it. So, we will give you plenty of time to do that. We will make sure that there is time for a turnaround of you getting suggestions in to us, or amendments; we being able to assess them and either give our reasons for not adopting them or taking them on.
The cost of access: I will give you an undertaking right now we will bring the regulations forward with the bill. That will spell out the entire cost of access. It is pretty clear when you go around all the other jurisdictions that there is a baseline. There is a fairly consistent picture throughout Australia as to how much it costs to get information out of other governments that have FOI. We will have to be somewhere in the game plan there; we won’t be wildly off the scale. We will bring that forward, you can have a look at what its going to cost, and that will be part of the adoption of the bill.
The operational matters: I have mentioned the archiving arrangements that we have. Within our Archives Service, there is actually a very good electronic archiving system, but we have to connect everything to it and there is a huge amount of work to be done on that. So inherent in adopting this legislation is going to be quite a major challenge for our government agencies to get their information in a position where they can actually respond to requests for information.
To clarify why we are using the words ‘state of the art’: what we are meaning by that is that this is the first bill anywhere in the world to our knowledge - certainly in Australia - that brings together privacy principles, freedom of information and government electronic record keeping protocols into the one piece of legislation. We have had a very good example of that with the request for these submissions. That is exactly how it should work. You could get up and say: ‘Yes, under freedom of information I should get my hands on these submissions about freedom of information’, but because the bill is trying to balance the right to privacy of individuals and organisations against the right and the need to have openness regarding the information being kept by government, we can get those balances within the bill. The bill is set up, in its present form, so that privacy principles override FOI. If it’s choice between taking information that, to an individual, might be very sensitive, or to an organisation, like health information on an individual patient, that overrides FOI. People are not going to be given private information about a person’s health or their previous treatment on the basis of an FOI arrangement.
The member for Nelson mentioned the clause that appears to be attacking the right to information. What that clause is saying is that it in no way compromises the access rights that are spelt out in the future act itself. In other words, all the information that this bill is promising to give people are guaranteed under the bill. What that clause is saying is that that doesn’t carry by association a tort, a right under civil law, to take other action to get that information. In other words, the existence of the information bill in no way affects the broad arrangements in the community for right to gain access to information. That’s just simply a legal structure that is stopping this flowing out into the broader body of the law where it will be disturbing current arrangements.
The public interest: I will deal with a number of issues in the last few minutes I have, that were raised by the Ombudsman. I am very uneasy talking about any of the submissions, but the Ombudsman has put his submission into a different domain. He has given it to the opposition; he has given it to us. By doing that, he has indicated that his comments about the discussion draft are for public comment. As the Leader for the Opposition has already raised the issue of the Ombudsman, I want to give some very quick responses to it.
The question about clause 7 is that it’s simply a misunderstanding of the reason for that clause being in the bill. As I said earlier, it in no way compromises the access rights under the act itself, or the future act, of people gaining information they want. He simply misread the purpose of that clause. The similar situation exists in relation to the Anti-Discrimination Act. In the recent Pinecot decision, which members may remember we debated last week in the Anti-Discrimination Act Amendment Bill, the Supreme Court made the following comment of Anti-Discrimination provisions:
In my opinion the act does not create a cause for action in tort. The remedies provided for in the act are not able to be pursued in a court of law and the Commission is not a court.
So, again we see there that - I am wondering if I could get some more time, I would only need a little bit.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move an extension of time for the Attorney-General.
Motion agreed to.
Dr TOYNE: Thank you very much. The Ombudsman also comments on the important issue of exemptions. He comments that the exemptions do not make the public interest test central to the operation of the exemptions. Unfortunately, again, these areas of the submission appear to be based on a misunderstanding of the construction of the act. In fact, all areas of exemptions are linked to an overall clause in the draft bill which says that in all cases where an exemption is being contemplated, the public interest test has to be applied to it.
The member for Nelson raised the issue of what that means. Public interest is a very well-established principle in terms of a lot of legislation. For example, the competition policy would be a good example to look in there; there are public interest tests. There is a common sense and a precedent-related meaning to that word. In other words, if you are putting an exemption certificate over something, you have to prove that it is in the public interest to do that rather than allow that information to go public. All the exemptions contained in the draft bill are based on the public interest test. There are no blanket exemptions, unlike the arguments put forward by the Ombudsman. Because this point has been raised, the first category is absolute exemptions which identify four areas where it would not be in the public interest to disclose information such as security and law enforcement where the disclosure of a matter may endanger the life or physical safety of a person, or interfere with a lawful investigation. These are referred to as absolute exemptions, as there can be no doubt that the release of such information is not in the public interest.
The second category of interest is set up in Part 4, Division 3. All these exemptions are based on the public interest test in section 48, which is the key clause that flows into all the other exemption clauses. The Division works by making clauses 49 and 56 dependent on section 48, Public Interest Test. For example, in relation to deliberative process documents, these will be exempt from access if they contain advice or an opinion as part of a public sector deliberative process, and disclosure would not be in the public interest. There is no doubt that - particularly if there is a review function built into the new version of the bill - that we can test whether the government of the day is actually hiding stuff away to save themselves from embarrassment or because there is genuine public interest involved in that.
It is important that the legislation has not made the categories of information that may be exempt so broad that they defeat the objective of accountability in government. Equally, the public must be confident that the exemptions are effective and protect from disclosure information that legitimately requires protection.
It is very easy to read the exemption area of the current bill and say: ‘Oh, it looks like we are putting exemptions over everything’. It reads very broadly, but we intend, as a result of public comment, to spell out as a preamble to each of the three sections the scope of access that would be intended. In other words, in FOI we would spell out at the front of that FOI section of the new bill the expectation that the vast majority of legitimate information will be made available to the public. Exemptions will be a very small minority put over only a small minority of information that might be available. If we do that up front, then it will make the expectation of the legislation a lot clearer and more strongly spelt out. We certainly would look at doing that as we move into the redrafting of this legislation.
Thank you for your patience in allowing me to give a reasonably long response. In terms of the timeframe, we will try to get to May but I think it will be June. I will let members know as soon as possible as to how we’re going with the re-jig. I am very mindful that we want to give you enough time to assess the revised bill and give us any amendments that you feel might be necessary. We certainly won’t want to rush it through if that time is going to be curtailed. On the other hand, we want to give the agencies enough time to make their preparations if we are going to introduce this next year. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Motion agreed to; paper noted.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, all of you would be aware of the long standing relationship between the Territory and Indonesia. This relationship goes back many years but has been of particular significance over the past decade since the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding between the two governments when Marshall Perron, the previous member for Fannie Bay, was Chief Minister.
The signing of the MOU was an historic event. It was the first between an Australian state or territory and the government of another country and firmly established in the minds of many Territorians that our economic future lay not only with our fellow Australians but also with developing closer ties with our close neighbours in Asia.
The document opened up a world of opportunity but, sadly, that opportunity remains largely untapped. While we have developed markets in Indonesia for some Territory products and services, the trade between the two of recovered somewhat from the Asian crisis in the late 1990s but there is so much more we could and should be doing.
As members would know, this government has reinforced its commitment to that special relationship with Indonesia, firstly with the visit by my colleague, Paul Henderson, late last year and then through a delegation I led in late January to meet with President Megawati Soekarnoputri and a number of her senior ministers. The purpose of our visit was simple: it was intended to re-establish our ties by meeting with representatives of the Indonesian government at the highest level and to show that while there had been a change of government in the Territory, our commitment to our trade and business relationship with Indonesia remained as strong as ever.
Huge potential exists for this special relationship to grow to the benefit of both the Territory and Indonesia. The Indonesian government, from President Megawati, down supported this view. But on a number of occasions during our talks with government ministers, they also used a phrase to sum up their concerns about the state of the relationship in recent years. The phrase is NATO – No Action; Talk Only. While the Asian crisis and circumstances in East Timor have had a negative impact on the relationship with the Territory, it is clear that not enough was done to build on the good work of past strong supporters of that relationship such as previous Chief Minister Shane Stone and our previous Asian Relations minister Daryl Manzie. In short, the former government of the now Opposition Leader dropped the ball. It got lazy. It lost its way and with it, the many opportunities that still exist to bolster trade relationships between us.
My government has no intention of following the footsteps of the honourable members opposite. We are about taking action - action that should have been taken over the past three years - for the relationship that exists is indeed a special one. To many Indonesian ministers there is the Northern Territory and then there is the rest of Australia. They like and respect and want to do business with us. This is something we must build on because in today’s world we must take advantage of any special circumstances that exist that will give such a small population and economy has ours a head start on the rest of Australia.
The objectives of my visit were straight forward. First, to introduce the new Northern Territory Labor government and myself as the new Chief Minister to the new President of the Republic of Indonesia. As the new leaders of the governments of the Territory and the Republic of Indonesia, it was absolutely necessary for the growth of the relationship between the Territory and Indonesia that we, as the new Chief Minister and new President, established our personal relationship. This was achieved. President Megawati’s .reception was very warm and hospitable, acknowledging the long term relationship between our governments.
Secondly, the visit was to initiate my government’s proposal to work towards the development of a close and balanced government-to-government relationship with the Indonesian government. As the leader of the new Territory government, this was crucial and this was also achieved.
Thirdly, it was to confirm the Territory government’s commitment to participation in regional development. As the new government, again it was essential to unambiguously display our commitment to participating in developing the region and this, too, was achieved.
Fourth, to showcase developments in the Territory to potential business and trade partners in Jakarta and Indonesia. With the railway project set to connect the Territory to the rest of Australia and the East Arm Wharf ready to connect the Territory to the rest of the world, there are a lot of exciting things underway in the Territory. As the government responsible for bringing these developments to fruition, it was necessary to show that this government is behind these exciting developments all the way.
Finally, the visit was to provide an initial signal that the Territory government supports the development of trade and cultural ties with Indonesia in accordance with the terms set out in the Memorandum of Understanding. This also was achieved.
Madam Speaker, as well as the 1992 Memorandum of Understanding with Indonesia which had as its focus the facilitation of trade development, there are other more regional specific aspects of our relationship with Indonesia and the eastern provinces in particular. In December 1992, a separate document was signed with the province of East Kalimantan bringing it under the auspices of the Indonesian MOU. Later again, in 1996, in recognition of the benefits that could flow from the development of a government-to-government relationship, a memorandum was signed with the province of Bali. These memoranda have not been empty documents. They have seen the implementation of discussions directly aimed at developing trade opportunities and to seek cooperation in various productive ventures. They have also overseen projects in which the Territory has provided technological assistance in areas such as malaria and tuberculosis research, livestock and fisheries projects and water supply and technical training programs.
The memoranda have also fostered the development of a very successful exchange program of teacher and student exchanges that has been the cornerstone in directing the focus of the Territory towards the region. While this educational exchange program predates the memoranda and is now in its 28th year, it certainly has benefited from the support of the memoranda.
But with a new government comes a fresh approach to the way we want to do business, to the way we want to work with our friends and our business partners. It is time for us, as a government, to provide greater leadership and a clear sense of direction. There are great opportunities for Indonesian businesses to sell their goods and invest in the Territory such as the new East Arm port facilities the Alice to Darwin rail link and bringing gas to shore. The availability of gas will stimulate major growth in Darwin, in its industrial base, the number of jobs and business opportunities. With a pipeline from the Bayu Undan field expected to be in Darwin in late 2005, the Territory government wants to work with the major companies involved to develop a range of gas manufacturing and energy opportunities. Increasing the capacity of Darwin and the Territory to service both the gas and oil potential of the region will inevitably have benefits for the eastern Indonesian islands for both petroleum and mining activities.
I believe there are very significant opportunities for Territory and Indonesian businesses to forge business connections as a result. This is where my government can play a particularly strong role because all the MOUs in the world are absolutely nothing if the government of the day does not lead by example and work with business and community to reap the benefits of this special relationship.
I will use this opportunity this afternoon to give members a brief outline of various meetings we had with Indonesian government ministers, to give you an understanding of what was discussed. Minister Henderson and I met with His Excellency Hassan Wirajuda, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, who provided us with a brief of recent developments in Indonesia and on the priorities and the aspirations of his president and her government. We requested the Indonesian government consider appointing a high profile business representative to the joint policy committee which oversees the Memorandum of Understanding, and Minister Wirajuda agreed to this proposal.
Our meeting with His Excellency Jusuf Kalla, who is the Coordinating Minister for People’s Welfare, provided the opportunity to recall that the Territory has a long history in contributing to the progression of the Indonesian people’s welfare. I was particularly delighted to meet with Her Excellency Rini Soewandi who is the Minister for Industry and Trade and whose vision of the relationship between the Territory and Indonesia very much reflects our own.
The trade and business relationship between Indonesia and the Territory is strong and the evidence is clear. At present, Territory trade with Indonesia has seen steady development to the point that the value has grown back to $AUD135.1m in 2000-01 after the problems of the 1998 economic crisis. Indonesia is the Territory’s eighth largest export market with food and live animals making up 50% of the total trade. Other exports to Indonesia include machinery and transport, chemical products and an assortment of manufactured goods. Imports from Indonesia into the Territory have shown steady growth from $AUD6.1m in 1996-97 to $AUD17.6m in 2000-01 and represent our sixth largest source of imports.
There is also significant Indonesian investment in the Territory ranging from property development projects in Darwin to large cattle station ownership and investment in horticultural projects in the Katherine-Daly region. We reminded our Indonesian colleagues of the strong business partnership that has developed in the supply of live cattle. That partnership involves the breeding of cattle in the Territory, shipping them to Indonesian feed lots, and then through the abattoirs to the Indonesian markets. It has been very successful. While the number of live cattle is down from figures prior to the economic crisis, in 2000-01 approximately 130 000 head of cattle were exported to the value of $67m.
Our trade relationship with Indonesian is strong. However through the Economic Development Summit I convened upon being elected, and through the business survey Minister Henderson conducted before our visit to Jakarta, Territory business has told my government our commercial relationship with Indonesian can be and should be stronger. Other prospective sectors for trade and investment growth include horticulture and agricultural produce, environmental services and technologies, construction expertise, marine transport equipment and capabilities, education and training, health services, communications, resource management, professional services, project management and government administration.
During our discussions with Minister Soewandi, Minister Henderson and I emphasised that my government is keen to see that our trade relationship continues to grow and we are taking steps to ensure that it does. I have officially invited Minister Soewandi to visit the Northern Territory.
We also met with representatives of His Excellency Manuel Kaisiepo, State Minister for the Acceleration of Development of Eastern Indonesia, to brief them on the massive resources to which the Territory has access and the opportunities for Territory business to participate in the growth of Eastern Indonesia. We referred, for example, to our knowledge base capacities that are of potential value to the development of the eastern provinces of Indonesia including tropical environmental sciences, aquaculture, science and technology and tropical health sciences.
We mentioned the Territory’s well developed remote area service provision industry. The nature of these services makes the technology and principles behind them very appropriate to the Eastern Indonesian situation. We briefed His Excellency Agum Gumelar, Minister for Transport, on the railway and wharf developments and the exciting opportunities that will develop for expanding regional trade flows to and from the Territory when those projects become operational. Later, we discussed with the Minister for Finance, His Excellency Boediono, the Indonesian Customs Facility project. This is an initiative of the Australian-Indonesian Ministerial Forum, passed on to the Joint Policy Committee of the MOU with Indonesian and is scheduled to start as an implementation trial later in 2002.
This project will see the smoother flow of development related imports into the eastern part of Indonesia. The project involves the placement of Indonesian customs officers in Darwin to pre-inspect consignments to ports in Indonesian outside of Java and Sumatra. It is expected that the trial phase will end and full implementation of the program will commence to coincide with the completion of the Darwin to Alice Springs Railway in 2004.
We also discussed a variety of issues with His Excellency Gde Ardika, the Minister for Tourism, and agreed to develop proposals for joint tourism co-ordination and mutually beneficial cooperative programs. Australians spend more in Indonesia than any other visitors to the country, while the through-flow from Bali to the southern states is a segment we have under-emphasised. The backpacker market is a prime target for both our industries. We want to work with our near neighbours to our north to maximise our returns in this sector.
Finally, I was a keynote speaker at a luncheon for the Indonesian business community in Jakarta hosted by the Indonesia-Australia Business Council. This was a good opportunity to showcase recent developments in the Territory and highlight the potential and capacity we have to do more. It appeared to be well received and we are following up a number of potential trade and investment issues raised by business representatives. During our trip, we also visited the Territory’s representative office in Jakarta. I would like to make special mention of this government’s - and the previous government’s - representative in Indonesian, Dr Frans Seda and his staff. I salute their capacity to help facilitate access to government in Jakarta and their key ongoing role in building the relationship between the Territory and Indonesia.
This government intends to continue the representative offices in Jakarta and Dr Frans Seda will continue to be our representative there. His ability to open doors for the Territory government is simply second to none. I am pleased to give credit to former CLP governments for securing Dr Seda’s appointment. Dr Seda is certainly a friend to the Territory, but more importantly, he is a friend and close confidante to many powerful people in the Indonesian government and, as we very clearly witnessed, to the President herself.
In conclusion, I would like to thank those who organised the visit. It was both educational and successful in that as a new government, we learnt much about Indonesia and at the same time made clear the depth of our commitment to building on our relationship because the potential is enormous. The trade and business relationship between Indonesia and the Territory is already strong, but there is so much more scope for it to grow further. The Territory is Australia’s gateway to Asia - there is no doubt about that - but the Territory is also Asia’s gateway to Australia. We have to work harder and smarter to reach our full potential. My government will stop the talking and get on with the job of developing a clear plan on how the Territory needs to engage with Southeast Asia and Indonesia in particular.
We want to further develop trade and development opportunities; we want to work with Territory businesses to reap the benefits of the relationship with Indonesia. We want to encourage greater Indonesian investment in the Territory. We want to increase two-way trade to the benefit of both our economies and we want to work harder and smarter in the way we do business. Over the next six months we will build on the success of the past 10 years and develop a clear, coherent and realistic strategy to maximise the clear opportunities that exist to increase trade and investment to our mutual benefit.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, we welcome most of the statement; what is essentially a report of a visit over a few days to Indonesia to meet the President of Indonesia, meet a few ministers, and having been at many of those meetings in the past, you don’t have to convince me what is achieved. It is good that you saw each other and I am sure that the introductions were well worthwhile. I am sure that issues were discussed that point for future directions in terms of that relationship. In that regard, the opposition welcomes the statement.
We welcome the fact that the government intends to pursue those initiatives further but, gee whiz, Chief Minister, you really can’t overlook a style that is developing. It really is petty. It is not only illogical in the way you make some of your comments, but can I say to you that it seems to a number of us to be almost childishly jealous now in the way that you can’t help but make the comment which is a crack at the previous administration that, in context, is just totally illogical. More childish than jealous. For example, the references to re-establishing our ties and the line in the Chief Minister’s statement, and I quote:
Mr Stirling: Daryl never used to tell us anything.
Ms Martin: And did four trips in one year.
Mr BURKE: As he had been. Throughout the whole period of my administration, Daryl Manzie was the minister for Asian Relations and Trade as he had been under the former Chief Minister, and I am sure her praise will also come as a surprise to Mr Manzie because it was only in October 2000 that she bagged him in a statement in the Hansard for his efforts, although a few months before that she heaped praise on him.
So, if you drift back in the Hansard you will see that she goes from praise on the one hand for his efforts, then to bagging, and now when he is gone and she wants to bag someone else, she will then praise him again which is pretty typical of the developing demeanour of this Chief Minister.
Her attitude is pretty well one of: ‘Don’t worry about anything I have said before because what I am saying today is my position irrespective of how much it contradicts my previous positions and statements’. So I just ask the question: why do you have to carry on in such a childish way, particularly with this sort of statement? Frankly, we on this side of the House are quite happy to hear about your visit. We are pleased that Dr Frans Seda continues to enjoy the support of the Northern Territory government; we are delighted that he was able to get you a similar entre to that to which she was able to provide to previous CLP chief ministers and ministers. We are interested to hear of the issues that were raised with the various Indonesian ministers, and we wish you well in continuing and perhaps strengthening both our relationship with Indonesia and our cultural and economic links, but, Chief Minister, when you carry on in this way like a spoilt and envious child, you must expect some small rebuttal.
It is good that she has finally got to Indonesia and met President Megawati Soekarnoputri, although I wonder how much the President feels about being verballed as much as she has been in this statement. However, I hope you can continue to build on the relationship and, in relation to that relationship, I would like to return to what one of its strong supporters reported to this House just over 12 months ago. It was Daryl Manzie, and it is probably a good example of the difference between the sort of statements you are getting from this new government and the statements that were issued in the past by ministers because this statement that the Chief Minister has delivered today, really at best, is a report of a visit and a pretty cursory one at that. Really, at best, it should have been a ministerial report in this House, and if it is going to come in as a statement, it needs to contain much more content than it does.
The only thing that is worth commenting on in any detail is the rebuttal of the childishness of some of the comments. But when we look at what has been done in terms of the previous government dropping the ball, it is worth recalling some of the factual things happened and were reported on by Minister Manzie in October 2000. He said:
He said:
He went on to talk about the Australian-Indonesian development area initiatives, BIMP-EAGA:
So I guess that is an example of dropping the ball, according to our Chief Minister. You will notice that Minister Manzie referred to how the strength of the special relationship with Indonesia overcame the problems caused by the East Timor crisis and the incredible role the Territory played in supporting the people of East Timor. Reading this speech of the present Chief Minister, you would think the only hiccup in the relationship with Indonesia was that we dropped the ball. So I will just turn briefly to that.
First, as minister and Chief Minister I met four of the only five presidents ever in Indonesia, including Megawati Soekarnoputri. I also met Suharto, Habibe and Gus Dur. Is that dropping the ball? I point out that when we went we always took business people with us so that they could benefit from the access we received and the endorsement that meant they had with local business. Mind you, when we took local business people, we would probably be cautious who we took, I do not know how Kevin John Ennis figured as the businessmen that the current minister took with him.
Mr Henderson: No, we did not take him. Didn’t take him.
Mr BURKE: Well, in fact, I will forewarn you because I am interested in the story. We have sort of been finding an opportunity, but I would be interested - not as a point of criticism; I am just interested - how a guy who was a deportee from Indonesia according to the reports came to be on a government delegation. It seems strange to me. Someone should have done some checking as to what was his status. It is one thing to have contacts, it is another thing to have some sort of status, and a man who is a current deportee, I would have thought should not have been with your delegation, and you would have to be obtuse not to think that the Indonesians would not be well aware who was part of that delegation, who was walking around accompanying you, whether he was there in a formal capacity or not because they have a very good intelligence system. So in that case I would definitely drop that particular ball if I were you, minister.
Let’s get back to what we did. Is achieving the first visit by an Indonesian President to Darwin dropping the ball? Are concerted discussions directly aimed at developing trade opportunities and seeking cooperation on various productive ventures in Bali examples of dropping the ball? Is providing technological assistance in areas such as malaria, tuberculosis research, livestock, fisheries and water supply projects some examples of dropping the ball? Are successful teacher and student exchange programs dropping the ball? Is achieving the Alice to Darwin rail link to further develop Darwin as the gateway to Asia another example of dropping the ball?
Was His Excellency Jusuf Kalla, Coordinating Minister for People’s Welfare, recalling with pride the Territory’s long history in contributing to the progression of the Indonesian people, or did he complain that we had dropped the ball? Having been in many of those meetings, those ministers would have been far too courteous to even raise anything of that sort and it’s quite unfair to make the suggestions that those sorts of issues would have been raised.
Let’s just look at the statement by the Chief Minister and what she’s actually said. She proudly announced trade and she said in relation to trade:
… has seen a steady development to the point that the value has grown back to $135.1m in 2000-01 after the
problems of the 1998 economic crisis.
Well, I could have sworn that we were in government at that time. It really beggars belief that the Chief Minister would believe that we were so busy dropping the ball that we missed this growth in trade. The Chief Minister continued and talked about imports from Indonesia increasing from $6.1m in 1996-97 to $17.6m in 2000-01. Indeed, the Chief Minister lists a litany of achievements and endeavours, all of which took place under the administration of the CLP.
All of us in this parliament support the strong ties with Indonesia. All of us applaud that the Chief Minister has taken the first opportunity to visit Jakarta and assure the President and her ministers that the attitude and policies of the Territory in regards to that relationship have not changed. All of us are pleased to hear her report back on that successful visit. So, why do you have to carry on in such a childish way?
As has been quite clearly shown in this statement, the Chief Minister and her other ministers, the Minister for Asian Relations and Trade, have big shoes to fill in fostering the relationships that have been built up over many years with our Asian neighbours. It is important that you do fill them. But I would caution you about using Indonesian ministers for your own political ends at the very beginning of your stewardship.
It’s also a bit rich, after outlining over 11 pages all that has been achieved by previous administrations and saying how good it was, and how you intend to follow on, and how you reinforced that in the meeting with President Megawati Soekarnoputri and letting us know all about your other meetings with ministers and addressing the Indonesian business community which, unfortunately, only appeared to be well received.
There were so many meetings and so much talk that, at the end of 11 pages, the Chief Minister then has the temerity to say she does not intend following the lead of her predecessors. Instead, the Chief Minister says they are going to get on with the job, not of developing more contacts, more trade – oh, no! - they’re going to take six months off to talk about developing a clear plan for the road ahead.
I might point out that in the debate on the speech by Minister Manzie that I referred to earlier, the then Opposition Leader, in her contribution did say:
I welcome the minister sharing with this House some of the strategies that he has, this government has, in terms of achieving export success.
If we turn our minds back to the appropriation debate in June last year, when the then Leader of the Opposition was questioning the then Minister for Asian Relations and Trade, she asked him about Territory exporters and the assistance he and his department were giving those businesses. At the end of the minister’s answers, the then Leader of the Opposition replied: ‘I appreciate the minister’s answer. That is terrific’.
But as I said, it seems the Chief Minister’s attitude now is: ‘Forget everything I said in the past; that is today’s story’. Most of her statement today indicates she still really believes that what we did is terrific, but she was unable to restrain herself from politicising the issue with illogical attacks and false claims.
As I said at the outset, we welcome this statement and the commitment of the government to furthering the long-established and special links between the Territory and Indonesia. We look for further statements to show more detail about what actually is being done, rather than more statements of all the things that you are going to achieve. We do hope that soon - I hope very soon - those in government will realise that they are actually in government; that they don’t have to raise pathetic and illogical political points every time they speak because in the case of the Chief Minister, she is looking more and more childish every day.
I welcome the statement, certainly the factual parts of it, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Mr HENDERSON (Asian Relations and Trade): Mr Deputy Speaker, I am very pleased to talk in support of the Chief Minister’s statement tonight and report on our visit to Indonesia back in January. As Minister for Asian Relations and Trade, I can say to this House that I have an absolute passion for furthering our engagement in the Northern Territory with our Asian neighbours, economically, socially and culturally. This is the region of the world where we live. This is our future; our future lies in this region. Our future, in terms of developing our economy, is wedded to the region and there is no more important country in terms of building those ties at all levels than Indonesia.
This, in fact, was my second visit to Indonesia. I did attend a mining conference in Jakarta back in October and I will report back on that further on in my comments. In terms of the symbolism of the visit, the Chief Minister’s first visit into the Asian region to do that, to make that commitment to Indonesia, to formally introduce our credentials to the Indonesian President, Megawati Soekarnoputri, as well as being symbolic, it will lead to further economic outcomes for the Northern Territory, given the strategies that we have put in place to capitalise on this visit.
I pick up on the Opposition Leader’s comments, and I do pay tribute to former CLP administrations who were ahead of their time in terms of developing this relationship with Indonesia. But I have received a great deal of warmth in terms of when I’ve been received in Indonesia as the new Minister for Asian Relations and Trade purely based on the fact that we are the Labor Party. The Labor Party is very highly regarded in Indonesia, given the Labor Party’s historical links with Indonesia and the support that the Labor Party gave Indonesia during its time, in terms of seeking independence from the Dutch colonies. The union movement is well regarded; and the wharfies, in terms of holding up Dutch ships in terms of trade with Indonesia. That history is actually still taught in schools in Indonesia - the importance of Australia, the importance of the Labor Party and the union movement in assisting Indonesia achieve independence from the Dutch. There is an enormous amount of warmth for the Labor Party in that particular country and, I have to say, particularly for Paul Keating. As soon as people realise you’re from the Labor Party, they want to talk about Paul Keating. They have a very high regard for the ex-Prime Minister and his absolute understanding of the need to develop a very secure and close relationship with Indonesia and with Asia, and that embracing of the region, embracing the importance of Indonesia does stand in stark contrast in the minds not only of the Indonesians and the media in Indonesia, but the media in the region, particularly in the run up to the last election. There was, throughout the region, almost universal support. Every newspaper article that I saw of the time in the lead-up to the election was hoping for a Labor victory in terms of re-establishing links with Australia that were based on mutual respect and understanding, and the absolute certainty that Labor has always had, federally, that our future lies in the region. We have to have that mutual respect and understanding.
In terms of making those comments, I also say that previous CLP administrations were certainly ahead of their time in terms of the Commonwealth at particular points, and other states. That relationship is still held in high regard and we went over not only to re-commit to that, but to build on the work of our predecessors and build on the good reputation that the Labor Party does have in Indonesia.
As well as the economic ties, I believe that there are many opportunities to build on the social and cultural ties. In terms of our strategy for engagement in the region, that strategy is going to be worked with and through our various ethnic communities here in Darwin. I strongly believe, as minister - and will be talking if not tomorrow certainly in the next sittings - about a population statement and policy that this government is working on.
But a key to developing those links is through our people. We have a very strong Southeast Asian community in Darwin. All of those people have friends, family, business acquaintances back in the region and in terms of really developing opportunities for the Northern Territory, really cementing those relationships, the best strategy is to work through the people we have here as part of our community. That is very much the way that this government is going to be doing business.
In terms of some of the specific meetings that we had - and I know that the Chief Minister has been through some of these - the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Minister Wirajuda, agreed to revamp the Joint Policy Committee that oversees the Memorandum of Understanding and very much it was a suggestion of this government that a business representative was actually put on that Joint Policy Committee to give more focus to business and trade outcomes. I don’t know whether the Chief Minister mentioned in her statement less focus on NATO, which is the Indonesian No Action; Talking Only acronym. This is underway and it will be good to see a business representative on the Indonesian side of the Joint Policy Committee.
Minister Soewandi, the Trade Minister, is very keen to build on the existing trade between our two countries. As the Chief Minister said, $135m worth of exports last year. A very significant dominance in those figures in the live cattle trade and Indonesia is our eighth largest export market. But there is certainly potential to grow that market and the Indonesian Trade Minister was very interested in what is happening in terms of the development of our port and our rail links and the capacity for that infrastructure to reduce the cost of Indonesian exports in to the southeast Australian market places. Something that we really will be doing is actually getting back through the Trade Minister, the Chamber of Commerce, with those numbers in terms of the potential for those reduced costs which will make Indonesian exports much more competitive internally within the Australian market place, and she was very keen on learning more about those opportunities.
In terms of meeting - over the two visits to Jakarta - many Indonesian business people as well as Australians doing business over there, it is a very difficult market for Territory business people to be in, particularly with the state of the Indonesian economy at the moment with an estimated debt of about $160bn and 50% of the government’s budget servicing that debt. We are not quite in that position, thankfully, but certainly the Indonesian President has a huge job on her hands in terms of managing the economy and managing that debt burden. It is a difficult market to be in. But as well as the big risks in terms of being in that market, the rule and the application of commercial law, there are big returns for people who stick at it, for people who do learn the culture, learn the language, and seek out the appropriate Indonesian partners. There are big returns to be made in that market place, but along with big risks. It is a difficult market to be in and I have every admiration of Territory business people who are actually making a success and a go of what they are doing in that market place.
Opportunities are emerging. With the new government has come an emphasise on decentralization from Jakarta in terms of a policy of autonomy for the regions and regional decision making. Whilst that is commendable in terms of community empowerment and local decision making, it has created, at this point in time, a bit of a climate of uncertainty in terms of regimes in various regions in Indonesia. There are differences between those regional regimes and coming to grips and understanding in which regions you are better off maintaining your effort at the moment given the fact that the country really is in an enormous transitional period not only politically but also economically.
To assist with business in that regard - talking to the Chair of the Indonesian Chamber of Commerce, they had conducted their own assessment in terms of the business profiles or the profiles for business in each of the regions in Indonesia and have basically produced a ranking system of where they thought you would be safer in terms of trying to invest. Certainly, that sparked a lot of dissent amongst some of those regional areas that were towards the bottom of the list. We have a copy of that and we have made it available to the Northern Territory Chamber of Commerce.
In terms of specific areas where I see that there are immediate opportunities, I think the mining service and supply industry is one where I have tasked my department to develop a real strategy around. If we look at Darwin now with the railway on its way and the new port, we really do have the capacity to provide services and supply product into those mining areas. For example, the proposed Tangguh project in Irian Jaya is going to be a huge gas project. Tangguh has been shortlisted by China in terms of one of the preferred suppliers, the North-West Shelf is another and Qatar is the third one in terms of providing huge volumes of LNG into China. Those reserves are enormous, 14-22 trillion cubic feet which makes Sunrise – yes, it is about three times the size of Sunrise. BP is contracted to Pertamina, the Indonesian oil company to develop these gas fields.
As a result of them being shortlisted, we are talking to BP as I speak, to look at the opportunities for Territory business to secure some of those capital projects in terms of building that massive LNG plant and investment, and the capacity for us to be able to service the development once it is up and running. That is a sign of this government being proactive in terms of a project that has not even started yet and getting in there at the design stage and saying: ‘Hey, we really can do this’.
Freeport is the world’s biggest and lowest cost copper producer, again in Irian Jaya. A lot of those service and supply contracts for Freeport are coming from Cairns. Well, I can tell Premier Beattie that we are out to get some of these and we are going to be very aggressive and there will be no holds barred. Even though we have political alliances, we are certainly after some of those contracts that Cairns has in terms of supplying the largest copper mine in the world.
Already we have linkages in training for the health and medical areas and some patients do come down to Darwin Private Hospital. Freeport use Darwin for visa renewals at the consulate here. Work is underway to secure increased fresh food supply to Darwin by the Hero Supermarket Group in Indonesia. Certainly, I commend Northern Gateway and Penny Tastula in terms of establishing an air link to Timika and not only opening up the passenger opportunities, but also the freight opportunities into the mine and it really is great to see a Territory business taking the lead to open up that part of the world to us.
Timika and Freeport are really going to offer us opportunities as well as a number of other large mines the Newmont Batu Hijau Mine on Sumbawa Island is another huge base metal mine and so there are opportunities there. Currently, a lot of the service and supply comes from Singapore and Jakarta and we have a targeted strategy to see what opportunity there is there for Northern Territory business, and talking to the people in the mining industry, they think we have real opportunities. I am excited about developing those opportunities and the department is working on that now.
Tourism is another area where I think we can achieve imminent progress. The Minister for Tourism met us at short notice, Minister Ardika. It was interesting to learn when we were flying to Jakarta, reading the Jakarta Post that the ASEAN Tourism Ministers were meeting, and part of the article was a commitment from Minister Ardika that in terms of responding to September 11 and the downturn in international travel and air links that those Asian countries come together and support each other in terms of tourism within the region. Although Minister Ardika wasn’t originally on our schedule to meet, through the office of the mercurial Frans Seda, I mentioned to him that I would really like to meet the Minister for Tourism because, even though we are not members of ASEAN, I certainly think that we’re part of the region and we should be part of this strategy.
He did meet us at short notice. We had a very good meeting. We have an exchange of officers looking at how we develop a tourism triangle, being Darwin, Dili and Eastern Indonesia, particularly in ecotourism and the backpacker market. Central to opening up that region is to get the Kupang-Darwin service back up and running. I certainly believe that the opportunity is there; the volume is going to be there.
The big problem we have at the moment is the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade have a warning notice out on Kupang for Australian travellers. I have written to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Alexander Downer, based on this government’s assessment and our linkages not only with West Timor but also East Timor, saying that we really don’t think the area is as dangerous as some people make it out to be and that notice should be lifted. I believe once that notice is lifted - and the refugee issue on West Timor is going to be resolved in the not too distant future, I am advised - I see opening up that link between Kupang and Darwin as imminent and that really is going to start developing that tourism triangle concept that we spoke about.
Further, it is important for us because it is not only people exiting Darwin in to Kupang and then on through Asia, but also bringing people back the other way. So that was a very productive meeting and, as I have said, we have exchanges at officer level working on how we develop that concept.
Again, a good contact made over there at the lunch for the Australia-Indonesia Business Council was the Qantas Regional Manager, Geoff Brown, who was very persuasive and very insistent that we actually start spending some money promoting Darwin not only in Indonesia but also in the region, and was saying essentially the Northern Territory is totally absent from any advertising strategy. In Jakarta, even if you just looked at the expat community: 14 000 expats looking for somewhere to go on the weekend. We are only three hours away. Geoff Brown really believed that if we spent some money marketing ourselves in the region, it would develop the demand to allow extra capacity.
I mentioned this to the Federal Tourism Minister, Joe Hockey, when I met him a couple of weeks ago and we are now looking at a partnership between the Australian Tourist Commission, the Northern Territory Tourist Commission and also some individual enterprises here in the Northern Territory to get on with a marketing campaign and see if we can a develop some of that demand. So, again, very beneficial to get that observation from people on the ground in Jakarta.
In wrapping up, the cattle industry, as I’ve said, is basically 50% of our export market. The AustAsia company, who have made a significant investment in Katherine purchasing the dairy and looking to turn that in to a feed lot to precondition cattle prior to their journey to Indonesia, have made a massive investment and we will continue to work with them in partnership to further develop the value of that cattle trade.
In closing comments, Mr Deputy Speaker, a very important country in a part of the world and the region that this government is totally committed to in terms of building on the success of the past and building on those trade, social and cultural opportunities that exist for us.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to add my comments on this statement and I begin by referring to the previous speaker. It is most heartening to see the detail that is contained in your report, Minister. Some key issues that I wanted to be aired have been addressed very well, and it gives me great heart to hear that they have been recognised and are progressing.
The issue of our relationship with Indonesia, our closest neighbour, is one that can only progress through bipartisan support. It is not the place to play politics; it is the place to work constructively because the whole issue of a relationship with a near neighbour is not about point scoring, it’s not about short term gain, it’s about the longer term project. I particularly appreciate the reference in the last speaker’s presentation with regards to those foundations which have already been laid. The Chief Minister’s comments gave scant recognition of that without spending more time, however, on the politics of endeavouring to claim ownership of the relationship with Indonesia and we are going to do it better than the former government. I don’t really think that is necessary because the issue is one of such great complexity that it can only be enhanced with an attitude that is going to see us build on all that which that has gone before. There is so much work to be done. It is not a simple matter to deal with a near neighbour of great complexity and internal tension like we have in Indonesia.
Our near neighbour will not go away. It will be there for our children. It may be there in a different form in years to come than it is today, as is was even for our grandparents a different place. It is changing. It has enough troubles of its own without us being able to simplify the interaction that we, a little place, have with such a complex country as Indonesia.
I would urge a continuation of the attitude of bipartisan support, of recognition for that which has gone before and, please, keep politics out of it because this is the place that is going to stay there and it is a relationship that is ongoing and it cannot be used for immediate and personal glory. I am driven to make comment on that because the reference to the great opportunities you had to speak to different people over there is fantastic, and so there should be and would be. I would fully expect in all my dealings with Indonesia, which have been extensive, that they are a people of tremendous respect and protocol. It was only right and fitting that the new government should present to the hierarchy in Indonesia. I fully applaud and respect that move. It has my complete support. I’m sure it has the support of every member on this side of the House. It is the appropriate thing to do.
I also congratulate the Chief Minister and the minister on being given the opportunity to be the keynote speaker at the Indonesia-Australia Business Council. That is good stuff. I am glad to hear that contact was made and will be continued with Dr Frans Seda and I reiterate the fact that these structures are already in place and can only be enhanced by recognising what we do have and build on that. I am prepared to play my part in ensuring that the equation is equal and together, with creative tension, that we would move forward. On that, I am just growing tired of this constant need to claim a differential ownership of issues, even our relationship with Indonesia, and also the response that would come upon any raising of an issue which is the prerogative of the opposition to be viewed in almost hysterical response as though we are denigrating or degrading such institutions.
I have to say that we are going to have to get used to the idea that the opposition, as far as I am concerned and members who sit on my side of the House…
Mr Stirling: Well, you’re speaking for them at the moment. There’s no one else. You’re it.
Mr MILLS: They are here. The issues that we need to address are ones which need the complete and unified support that may come, at times, in terms of criticism or a question. It does not warrant an hysterical response. Rather I think - in particular issues on Indonesia, using this as a case - it needs to be a proactive and a constructive approach to any criticism or any question that might be raised because we have bigger fish to fry, we have a bigger agenda to drive, particularly in terms of something as important as our near neighbour who will not go away.
I would like to raise a couple of points. It was pleasing to hear the member for Wanguri make specific mention of one of them, which I would raise at this point, and that being Merpati. To me, the air link between Darwin and Kupang is critical in the relevance that Darwin plays as our part in the region. We may get an inflated sense of our own importance up here in the Northern Territory when we wander around the eastern provinces of Indonesia. Truthfully, the Indonesians are extremely polite, exceptionally respectful, and perhaps may be so polite as to not allow us to understand that we actually are very, very small in their scheme of things. The issues between provinces are probably far more dominant in their minds than the relationship of the Northern Territory and Indonesia.
Nonetheless, the way to progress is, of course, making sure we have a personal interaction with the key players in Indonesia at all levels, from the political, the business, the cultural interface. It is absolutely critical that we maintain a constant interface between people. It is relationship that will make this thing go forward - it is not rhetoric. We have this reference to NATO. I’ve heard the phrase before, and I am glad that has been placed on the record, because that is exactly what is needed, and that being ‘no action; talk only’. We must make sure that the action is primarily driven by an interface between different levels of the Northern Territory as it is reflected in Indonesia.
I would urge members to reflect on the records in Hansard of reports that have been placed before this parliament in past times on a similar topic. They cannot be thrown away nor discarded; they must be built upon. The last report, I understand, was in 2000 when then Chief Minister Burke made a presentation. At that time, he was able to report that not only did they meet with the President, Abdul Rachman Wahid, but the Vice-President and six other ministers, and gave a detailed account of the discussions that were held between each of those different ministers. I would like to see more detail in the statement that we have had from the Chief Minister. More grit, in a sense, because it is about the personal interaction, it’s not just a travelogue or a report on the people that we met. In fact, in the tone that it is, I’d have to say, without being deliberately provocative, it fits the category, I think, of a ministerial report that would occur earlier on in the sittings.
So, for that reason, I would like to raise a few points that I would be seeking to see progressed. One is the Merpati link, which has already been referred to, and I appreciate that. The other one is the status of cultural exchanges between the education sector here in the Northern Territory and the different provinces of Indonesia. They cannot be let slip, and if you’ve seen my record in the short time I have been in this Chamber, that is one area that can be easily overlooked because, we have to be honest, many times our interaction with our closest neighbour is driven by economics. When the Rupiah loses its value, it seems that the attention wanders off somewhere else. But as said before, we all acknowledge our neighbour is not going to go away. We will not be fair-weather friends with our neighbours, and the cultural exchanges are absolutely vital in securing and ensuring a future that we can work with. I would urge due and serious attention to the status of the cultural exchanges. The Merpati link is critical in that as well, in regards to the affordability.
The second one is that sister city relationships have a part to play in this - Palmerston and its relationship with Kupang, and Ambon with Darwin. They need to also be brought into the equation and put in their right place in terms of important building blocks in establishing our relationship.
I would like to see a reflection, too, of the current state of play with regards to the East Timorese crisis and how that is reflected on the mind of Jakarta and our relationship with Jakarta. That is still an issue in terms of the way we are viewed here in this place in the world, and our previous engagement and our involvement, just by geographic location, with the conflict in East Timor. That is going to be an issue that we really will have to watch and very delicately acknowledge and proceed forward.
I would like to make sure that we keep the House updated on progress with regard to the Trade Expo, and also - and probably very importantly, I think we’ll find in a later debate - the potential links between the different provinces, different universities in the provinces and the Northern Territory University. That is a critical link and I would like to have seen a little more detail on those sorts of issues being raised.
In going back over Hansard, I was interested to see the report when then Chief Minister Burke made a report to the parliament. He said he had the opportunity to meet Megawati Soekarnoputri and she said, at that stage, that she would be very pleased to visit Darwin. She said that she hadn’t been to Darwin before and would be very open to an invitation. I would be interested to know whether that has been progressed. Also, often we forget just how things have developed over time. It wasn’t that long ago, in fact, that we had the historic visit of President Wahid here to Darwin and had the opportunity to speak to 250 delegates here in Darwin. I mention that, one as a historical reminder of the proactive role that the CLP government has played in maintaining and developing the relationship, to have the visit of a president here in Darwin, but, more importantly, to counter what I find a rather disturbing thread that is woven through the statement of dropping the ball and the like. Accusations can be made like that, and they are rather cheap shots, because we reflect on what actually has occurred at that historic time.
If you look behind the scenes, there may have been a change in emphasis, there may have been, but you would have to acknowledge there has been a dramatic occurrence behind the scenes in Indonesia at that time. For those earlier times, in the earlier stages of our relationship with Indonesia, that was the very beginning. It is easy to start something, the difficulty is maintaining things. As the changing fortunes of the different political structures and regimes within Indonesia, the interaction that the East Timorese situation has placed upon the psychology and the attitude of those in Jakarta - those things are incredibly complex. So I think it is really quite crass to be able to make a judgment such as that and say ‘dropping the ball’. There was a heck of a lot going on at that time when we reflect on the early stages which, you know, is open pastures; you are just beginning something. To maintain it is the challenge.
I conclude with the reference to NATO. I will be watching to make sure, and playing my part as a parliamentarian, that there is a lot of real, sensitive action - and I mean sensitive in the sense that we have to be very culturally mindful of the way that we interact with Indonesia, and that there is a limited amount of talk and rhetoric, but there is real progress made from this point on into the future, without a temptation to look over the shoulder and cast aspersions on that which has gone before. There is no point to be gained in that. The future lies ahead of us, and I will play my part as a parliamentarian to make sure that that is the focus of our attention
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I thank everyone for their contribution to this debate. I’m a little bewildered about the preciousness of the opposition in their response to this debate. When a party has been in place for 27 years and then they move to opposition and there is a change of those in power, we are happy to recognise when things are working. But, I say - and let’s just keep this debate to the relationship between the Territory and Indonesia - we have been strongly supportive over the years of the relationship with Indonesia, and I have stood in this place and commended the good work being done in the past. I also point out to the opposition that for the last two to three years, I have stood in here and asked: what was the strategy that we were following when it came to Indonesia and Asian relations, generally? If you want to check the Hansard, there was no strategy. I grew very concerned that what we were having were ministers travelling in an ad hoc way in to Asia on what seemed to be a whim with no strategy and no real targeting. I raised those questions in here. Only last year, I said to the then minister - who I think in the past did good work, but over the last two to three years, it really had, in the words of the statement I made, dropped the ball. The previous administration had dropped the ball because we had an Asian Relations minister who, over a year, went four times into Asia on business to do with his portfolio. Now, if that is not dropping the ball, when the same minister could not say what the strategy was in terms of either Indonesia or Asia or Southeast Asia generally, then I think that our criticism is valid. It is not a criticism that I make, actually having gone to Indonesia in isolation, but a criticism I was making before I went and from the position of Opposition Leader and opposition spokesperson on Asian relations and trade.
I suppose it didn’t really come as any surprise to me when we met with particularly Indonesian government ministers - and may I say how impressed we were with the quality of those ministers. They knew what they were doing; they are expert in their fields. Certainly, we came away from a whole range of ministers thinking that, despite the overall difficulties facing Indonesia - and you can’t deny you have overall difficulties when 50% of your budget goes towards repaying debt - that those ministers really were employing strategies and moving ahead despite enormous difficulties.
When Indonesian ministers said to us: ‘We treasure the relationship with the Territory. It is a special relationship. Good work has been done but we’re tired of “no action; talking only”.’ It came as a surprise when the first minister leant across and said very firmly to us: ‘This relationship is important, but we’re saying to you enough of NATO’. We said: ‘What’s this NATO?’. It was spelt out very clearly - no action; talking only.
The response we got in Indonesia was yes, a very important relationship, one that has been there for a long time, but one where the ball has been dropped, one where there is no direction coming from government about where the relationship should be heading. We were told this very clearly. I don’t come back lightly into this House and say the words I did. I’m not saying them necessarily to score points from the previous government. I’m saying, this is a fact of life. The strategies are not there in our relationship with Asia; the strategies are not there in our relationship with Indonesia and that was very firmly pointed out to us when we were in Indonesia. It is with a very firm commitment that this new government says in this House and to Territorians generally that we will be having a very strategic approach to our relationship to our neighbours to our north, to Indonesia and the other neighbours that we have good, strong relationships with. But it will be targeted and it will be focussed, and we will not be seeing travel around the countries to our north simply on the whim of ministers. The travel will be happening but we will have a strategy, and that strategy is now being very firmly worked out based on the successes of the past but I would exclude the last two to three years from that past.
I don’t want to hear preciousness from the opposition. We’re not in here setting about to bag you but when you haven’t done the work, and when we’re told overseas that the work is not happening, then it is important for this new government to listen and act - and that’s what we’re doing.
Madam Speaker, I do thank members for their contributions to this debate but I put on the record very firmly that you will see a reinvigorated and much more strategic approach from this new government than we’ve seen over the last two to three years from the previous administration.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to place on record my congratulations to some very important and crucial constituents within my electorate.
On Australia Day, awards were presented to use in the category of citizens of the year. I’m very proud to say that we have an impressive list of young talent, people who, in their generation, are showing the way of leadership, enthusiasm and energy and contributing to our society. I’d like to read into the Parliamentary Record the names of the students in my electorate who have been honoured in receiving NT Citizen of the Year, Youth Awards, and to note that the feedback I have from the electorate is that we are all very proud of them. I’d like to congratulate: Cameron Francis and Joel Sullivan of Holy Family School; Tiffany Crane from Karama Primary; Frances Aaternir from Malak Primary; Daniel Day from Manunda Terrace Primary; Sarah Latham from Mararra Christian School; Mary Chapman from O’Loughlin College; Fallon Hintz from Sanderson High.
A very hearty congratulations to these students. I commend them on their efforts and the recognition they’ve received from these awards. I reiterate that, as a community, we are very proud of them. They are showing the way for the future.
Mr McADAM (Barkly): Madam Speaker, this evening I’d like to bring members’ attention an opportunity that has arisen to establish eye surgery facilities in Tennant Creek. This opportunity has arisen due to the recent arrival in Alice Springs of a dedicated young ophthalmologist surgeon who is committed to providing ongoing quality facilities in Tennant Creek.
After following due process, the doctor’s eligibility for registration has been confirmed by the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Ophthalmologists and he has been recognised as a specialist practitioner in ophthalmology. He is currently seeking continued recognition by the Medical Board of the Northern Territory and he has my total support in respect of this.
After meeting with the doctor, I am satisfied that he is committed to residing in Central Australia, and to providing high quality, ongoing service to Central Australia and the Barkly. The proposal is to equip and utilise available resources of Tennant Creek Hospital to perform eye surgery, such as cataract removal, in the region. Currently there is nowhere in the Barkly where such surgery can be performed and clients requiring treatment have to travel to Alice Springs.
Operations such as cataract removals are classified as elective surgery, and have the longest waiting list for treatment. Clients regularly have to wait more than 12 months with deteriorating eye sight before they can undergo surgery. Having to wait such a length of time when the problem can be solved by a simple operation causes severe hardship. In many cases, the eyesight deteriorates to a point of virtual incapacity. I’m sure that the House agrees that support should be given to any project that will alleviate such a situation.
Based on current figures, it is estimated that, initially, a minimum of 50 to 60 operations can be performed annually if a facility were available in the region - that’s in Tennant Creek. Projected growth in this number can be expected over time.
Such a facility would also attract other services such as ENT and orthopaedics. While some additional set up costs would be incurred, the major cost would be for the purchase of a cataract machine. This would involve a once up capital outlay of approximately $95 000 or an annual lease of around about $26 200 over a period of about four and a half years.
This cost is more than justified for the following reasons: currently an average of 60 clients and 50 escorts travel from Tennant Creek or Elliott to Alice Springs for surgery each year. Each trip requires payment of return travel and between three and seven nights accommodation. The annual savings from these costs alone would be equal to the annual lease costs of the cataract machine. Two other important benefits that would result from this proposal are the reduction in administrative overheads in organising client travel and the expected reduction in waiting time for clients to undergo surgery. A facility such as that proposed could also function as a back-up for Alice Springs. Currently, visits with respect to eye health care are made to the Barkly every two months. If a facility is made available in Tennant Creek, it is proposed to include the performing of ophthalmic surgery during those visits.
I address this issue tonight as it provides members of the House an opportunity to put their support behind a tremendously worthwhile proposal in a professional, committed young man who wishes to address a major incapacitating health issue in the Barkly region. I look forward to all members of this House giving their full support.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to make comment on two issues. First of all, I would draw to your attention comments made by the member for Karama when she spoke about her trip to Melbourne on her way to Tasmania. She examined, with her colleague in Victoria, the issue of public housing. She then went and spoke about the so-called housing ghettos in the Northern Territory saying that it was in fact a bad policy of the CLP government. May I remind the member for Karama that the Kurringal Flats were built by the Commonwealth government back in the late 1950s, early 1960s and it was the CLP government as recently as 1998 that introduced Housing 2003. Through that program we have provided housing for many who require assistance and also part of the program included removing some of the blocks at Kurringal units. As you know, Block 1 has already been demolished and others are on track.
The member for Karama needs to have her facts right when she talks about housing in the Northern Territory; that she really gets to do her research, look at what good value Housing 2003 has brought about in the Northern Territory. I understand that the department of housing, whatever it is now called, is looking at further programs for the next few years. I look forward to the Minister for Housing reporting on further developments based on Housing 2003.
The other matter that I would like to raise was a comment made by the Minister for Justice, member for Stuart, when he spoke about Willowra a couple of nights ago. The member for Stuart gets up in a Holier-than-thou attitude, talks about how badly Willowra has done in recent past. Little did he mention that his fingerprints were all over it.
Dr Toyne: Let it go Richard, for heaven’s sake. You’re getting obsessive.
Dr LIM: Me, obsessive? I take on that interjection. Me, obsessive? He was the one who brought it up in the first place. And let’s talk about it. Let me quote the words that the member for Stuart used a few years ago - and I’m sure he knows where he said those words - when he said, and I quote, and I know it may sound a bit out of context because some of the paragraphs above it relate to Yuendumu and Yulara and CDEP programs. But let me quote:
He said:
So, he himself recognised that Warlpiri people of Yuendumu and the Warlpiri people of Willowra are two distinct groups of people.
During our investigation of Willowra and the dysfunction that that community has gone into in my time as a Minister for Local Government, we found that the then Town Clerk was not complying with instructions that were provided to him, in fact by yourself, Madam Speaker, when you were the Minister for Local Government. He wrote me a long diatribe which really did not address the instructions that he was given. For the member for Stuart to then have the audacity to get up and say that it was through my unilateral action that Willowra lost its community government status, it was in fact that the Town Clerk could not in any way rescue that community. It was taken away from him.
Prior to the community government rights being taken away from Willowra, that community had been talking with the Anmatjere Council about a rescue package to help bring about some repairs to the homes that were in such a disused state. The member for Stuart himself admitted in his speech that the houses were in a very run down state. People were not living in them, choosing to live in the river bed instead. The houses were so bad that bare electrical wires were exposed where power points or light switches used to be and there were animals living in those houses.
So, in fact Willowra was quite dysfunctional; the community, the houses, the physical property that were in the community were not useable by the people. It was for that reason that we took the rights away. The cause of it - apart from a Town Clerk who syphoned a lot of money from the community - we had a second Town Clerk who did not have the expertise to manage the community. That Town Clerk, Alan Riley, was somebody the member for Stuart assisted to put in place. He has to accept responsibility for what he did. And for him to come to the Chamber to say that we, the CLP government, were the ones who caused the problems is in fact untrue.
In closing, Madam Speaker, I just want to make one last comment. The Chief Minister had a go at me yesterday for saying that she did present herself reasonably well on television. If I was wrong in that case, I withdraw those remarks and say that maybe she is not. I don’t know.
Mr BONSON (Millner): Madam Speaker, I’d like to take this opportunity in adjournment to speak about Nemarluk School. Earlier this year I had the opportunity visit a wonderful school in my electorate of Millner, and I readily admit that prior to my visit this year, I knew very little about this school and the important role it plays in the education system. In fact, I think I could safely say it would have to be one of Darwin’s least known and under-appreciated schools.
To fully appreciate how important Nemarluk School is, I would like to start with a little history lesson. This school first opened in 1968, almost 34 years ago, and was known as the Darwin Special School. The school was set up to cater for the educational needs of disabled children in Darwin. Prior to 1964, there were no educational facilities in existence in Darwin to cater for children with disabilities. Back then, parents had two choices: they could either send their children to institutions interstate which - because of the stress and emotion involved - usually resulted in the entire family moving interstate as well; or they could keep their children at home and provide what care and training they could, usually without any sort of support services.
Back in those days, preschools would not accept mentally or physically disabled children. Similarly, integration into primary schools was not contemplated. Back in the early 1960s, this is what faced parents who had handicapped children. Only 40 or so years ago, in 1964, Harold Garner, as the then Principal of the Adult Education Centre in Darwin and also the parent of a child with a disability, called a public meeting to discuss the needs of disabled children in Darwin. The result of this meeting was the formation of the Slow Learners’ Association with Harold as the president. The Rotary Club also assisted with a donation of 1000. This donation enabled a Saturday morning class for disabled children to start. These classes were run from the Adult Education Centre in Woods Street. Not long after, the number of children attending doubled, and the school increased its hours to five mornings a week. A regular teacher was employed with her salary being paid through the fund raising efforts of the Association.
Two years later, in 1966, the Superintendent of Education called a meeting that was attended by the Superintendent Norm Jolly, the Director of Welfare, Harry Giese, the Assistant Administrator, Allan Atkinson, Harold Garner and another parent from the association. The result of this meeting was formal permission to conduct classes that had been operating for two years, the provision of three classrooms, the provision of a teacher by the South Australian Education Department who at the time was responsible for the education in the Northern Territory, the granting of a full-time status to the class.
In addition, the Slow Learners’ Association was granted nine acres of land in Coconut Grove. Later, they would establish a preschool and residential home for disabled children who lived outside the Darwin area. The Education Department acquired this land after Cyclone Tracy and developed it as the Coconut Grove Development School for Senior Students.
In 1982, this school moved into new buildings and became known as the Henbury Avenue Special School, but the most significant outcome from the meeting was an undertaking by the Northern Territory Administrator to build a special school for disabled primary school students at Ludmilla, the Darwin Special School. This school was finally completed in 1968 and comprised four square, brick buildings. Miss Kirkpatrick, who was originally recruited in 1966 to teach the class at the Adult Education Centre was the first principal of this new school and was assisted by Mrs Dorothy Jones. Approximately two years later, Rick Venning came from South Australia to replace Miss Kirkpatrick as principal; Rick Venning would retain this position until 1974.
Interestingly, prior to the opening of this school, the term ‘special education’ referred to Aboriginal education. The main person responsible for changing this perception was the Principal Education Officer, Ted Robertson. Though most of the students came from Darwin; there were some from as far as Larrimah, Tennant Creek and what was then known as Hooker Creek. These children lived in the Coconut Grove residence. Teaching and managing the children in the early days was no easy task with very little in the way of advisory and support services from the Education Department.
When Pat Potter, a specialist education teacher, joined the school in 1972, she introduced a number of changes. Pat Potter encouraged the use of individual observations so that specific programs could be developed for each child: a sensory motor program; early language and number concepts were also introduced. When the Darwin Special School closed in 1974 for the Christmas holidays, it had an enrolment of 22 and a staff of four. After Cyclone Tracy, the school became the temporary home for the Fire Brigade until 1975. From 1975 until late 1977, it was the temporary home for the Maranga Preschool which had its building destroyed in Winnellie.
Mark Smith, who took over from Ted Robertson as PEO and his advisory staff were responsible for introducing a number of programs that would be beneficial to the staff and students of the Darwin Special School. 1975 to 1978 saw the introduction of a diagnostic service and the development of improved methods of identification of children with special needs, and an early intervention program for children from birth to preschool were established. From 1975 to 1978, Mrs Kit Holtham was responsible for providing sport and supervising development of programs for teaching assistants who worked with these children in their homes and in regular preschools and primary schools on an individual basis.
As a result, special units were created in primary schools that catered for children who were mildly disabled and meant that the Darwin Special School could concentrate on those children with moderate or severe disabilities. When the Darwin Special School reopened in 1978, it had five students, but by the end of the year, this had grown to 14. Mrs Kit Holtham was now the Principal with Bob Walker and Michelle Levy as the teachers, and Andrea Pownall as an assistant. Funds for operating the school were extremely low due to the factors of funding on a per capita basis and with so few students, it was always a battle to meet the running costs. Staff and parents were left with the responsibility of having to fund raise in order to keep the school alive.
By 1979 the school was at 100% capacity with the staff room also being the principal’s office and the sensory motor program being held outdoors. 1980 saw the welcome addition of three demountables; two were used as classrooms with the third being used as the sensory motor program room. 1980 also saw the name of the school change to Ludmilla Development Unit and the Ludmilla Primary School assumed responsibility for its operation. The 1980s saw a shift in how children with disabilities should be educated. This was a result of input from parents and a change in attitude by professionals in this area, and generally an expectation that all children had a right to be educated.
In 1986, the school regained its autonomy from the Ludmilla Primary School and was renamed Ludmilla Special School. Over a number of years, it had become increasingly evident that the school had grown to such an extent that a major expansion was required if it was to cope with an increasing demand on its services. In 1987, a major expansion of the school was completed with the addition of an administrative area, staff room, physiotherapy room, three classrooms and an ablution block.
In 1994, the Education Department launched a special education policy for students with disabilities. The policy recognised a range of delivery service models including special schools. 1994 also saw the school change its name to Nemarluk School. This was done to remove the label ‘special’ and to alleviate any confusion with the Ludmilla Primary School. On 14 April 1998, the Nemarluk Preschool was opened. Nemarluk Preschool caters for children between the ages of four to five years. Today, Nemarluk has a total of five preschool students and 53 primary school students.
It has a staff of 29 incredibly dedicated people with Pam Young heading the team up as Principal, and I say ‘team’ because this is what they are: Lorraine Hodgson as Assistant Principal; Henni Lovell as Executive Teacher; and teachers Kieren Minogue, Catherine Hickey, Debbie Reichelt, Noor Wright, Allison Lingo, Sofia Dodds, Helen List, Helen Tate, Ruth Grovsner, Fayn Brook-Jones, Tanya Babic and Judith Durnford. Assistant teachers: Joan Angeles, Prue Birdling, Rosemary Bock, Kim Crick, Elaine Gould, Karen Simpson, Glenys Zanker, Wendy Whannell, Wendy Johnson and Joanne Feick. Nemarluk also has the services of an Aboriginal Indigenous Education Worker, Sharon Wills. Finally, on the paperwork front, to keep everyone in line, there is Mignon Lush and Alayne Amamatidis - and I’ll supply that later for the Hansard.
Throughout the entire history of this wonderful school there has been a strong involvement by parents towards providing the best possible education for their children attending the school. The current school committee of Megan Williams as Chairperson, Felicity Benson as Secretary, Mignon Lush from the school as Treasurer, Tim Timotheo, Rhonda Gilchrist, Alex Sheppard, Sue Glasgow and Craig Morrison as committee members face the same problems as those faced by their predecessors: funding and recognition.
In relation to the funding we can see that throughout the history of this school, there has always been a battle for funding so that their special education needs can be met. Fortunately, these days there is a lot more in the way of specialised equipment available to children with disabilities than ever before. Specially designed computer software, motor and sensory development equipment are some of the things that have become a little more readily available. Unfortunately, this specialist equipment comes with a price tag to match.
Another issue that came up in the meeting with Pam Young was the importance of continuing staff development. This is an important issue because in this specialised area of education, it is vitally important for teachers to be able to access courses to ensure that any new developments in this area of specialised teaching are incorporated in the curriculum. It is also important to allow this to happen as it is recognised the specialised role these teachers play and the importance we place on them and their role in society. I plan to be helping Nemarluk School by fundraising and lifting their profile.
Finally, Madam Speaker, I would like to thank Pam Young and staff at the Nemarluk School for allowing me to visit and for answering what must have seemed like a never ending series of questions.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to raise an issue that was raised in this House about a week ago during a ministerial statement, and I just want to re-visit it because I think it is a very important issue and it goes to the Alice Springs Hospital and how it is functioning.
The week prior to sittings I had the privilege of going to the Alice Springs Hospital and receiving a briefing along my colleagues, the member for Greatorex and the member for Araluen. During that briefing, a staff member from the Chief Minister’s office was present and a couple of staff members from the hospital itself including the Hospital Superintendent. The reason that I rise tonight - and it was an issue that I raised in the debate last week - I was astonished during that briefing process to hear the Hospital Superintendent say during that briefing that he considered, because of some of the staffing issues at the hospital, that the Intensive Care Unit had become – and to quote him - ‘unsafe’. He then went on to say that the hospital was in a state of continual crisis. I found that an extraordinary thing for a Hospital Superintendent to say because this was a man who was obviously in a position where he had reached the stage where he wasn’t getting the satisfaction he wanted out of the environment in which he has to operate, and so he is clearly saying things which are extraordinary. It seems to be a fairly desperate act that a Hospital Superintendent would make these sorts of comments. So much so, that I wanted to make sure that he was quite clear about the adjectives that he chose to use to describe the situation in the hospital.
So I revisited it, and I asked him again - predicating my question with the comments that this seems like an extraordinary thing for a hospital administrator to be saying - what would you tell me? What are you telling me in relation to some of the problems this hospital faces. He revisited those very same comments. He said, again - fully aware that I was concentrating on the words he was using - he said again that the ICU was unsafe and that he felt that the hospital was in a state of continual crisis. I raised these issues with the Health minister in debate last week, along with another issue which deals with up to $24 000 worth of funding being taken away from the doctor’s position based in Hermannsburg.
I was hoping that some time in the next few days the minister for Health would take it upon herself to brief this House as to what she is doing. Now, I listened carefully to her response in that debate and in her response in that debate she said she’d been back to Alice Springs three times and during that time she had - or the situation was turning around and it was now under control. If she is going to take the Vene, vidi, vici - I came, I saw, I conquered - approach to the problems at the Alice Springs Hospital and tell us that everything is fine when the Hospital Superintendent two weeks ago was saying that the ICU was unsafe and that the hospital was in a state of continual crisis, I think that the Health minister has to understand that there is now a vast gap between what she thinks the condition of the hospital is and what the Medical Superintendent’s opinion of the hospital is.
I find that astonishing that we have heard no more from the Health minister in relation to these issues, and I strongly urge the Health minister - in fact, I strongly urge the Chief Minister to get across this and find out what’s happening at the Alice Springs Hospital and act to rectify it because if the Medical Superintendent is prepared to sit there and make these sorts of comments about the operation of the hospital, it is my opinion that he is getting to the point where he is fairly desperate. This is a very straightforward issue. The minister, I think, as a matter of importance should be briefing the House in relation to this situation as it exists in Alice Springs. I think that she should be honest to all members of the House as well as to the people of Alice Springs as to what the true condition of the Alice Springs hospital currently is and what programs she is going to put in place to fix it because if the hospital ICU is unsafe, and because of some sort of environmental problem or because the hospital is in a state of continual crisis and people, as a result of that situation, suffer some sort of illness or worse, then I am very concerned that this government is exposing itself to a liability.
The minister for Health, as do all government ministers, has a duty of care to the people of the Northern Territory to maintain certain standards. I think that the hospital administrator has clearly signalled on this occasion that he believes that those certain standards are not being met. The duty of care that we always hear about is also underpinned by another concept at law called the ‘standard of care’. I am concerned, that based on the comments by the hospital administrator that that standard of care is not being met. I urge the Health minister to come into this House and tell all Territorians what the situation with the Alice Springs Hospital is, and I urge her to tell all Territorians exactly what she is going to do about it. I urge her to inform this House whether she agrees with the administrator of the Alice Springs Hospital that it is in a state of continual crisis and, more importantly, that its ICU is unsafe.
Mr STIRLING (Nhulunbuy): Mr Deputy Speaker, my office received some distressing news this afternoon. Mrs Joyce Williamson, a long term Territorian, former public servant and a full time volunteer for Neighbourhood Watch, has received concerning news about her health and is currently in Perth Hospital battling a serious illness. She is a remarkable woman. She walked through the doors of Neighbourhood Watch at Berrimah in 1997 volunteering to help. She works four days a week for Neighbourhood Watch, the other days she works for other voluntary organisations. She is the one person who holds together the membership records, constantly updating and keeping them clean. She attends Neighbourhood Watch meetings and is involved in their many functions.
Joyce is such a keen member, she used to seek leave so she could take time off from the job. She is much loved by all Neighbourhood Watch members. Her illness is a blow to them and to us. On behalf of the Chief Minister, myself and government, I wish Joyce God speed. On behalf of Commissioner White and the Police and the Neighbourhood Watch Board, I pass on their thoughts and best wishes.
On December 8 last year, I had the pleasure of officiating at the opening of the renovations to the Captain Cook Shopping Centre in Nhulunbuy. They included a complete upgrade of the shop front and a cover for a modern, outdoor eating area. The business proprietors are excited about the finished product as they believe it will attract many customers to take a break in pleasant surroundings. They have also provided a large bus and taxi shelter with good access. The renovations included air conditioning the Mitre 10 store. Mitre 10 and IGA supermarket have also merged as one large shop sharing resources, and IGA is planning further internal renovations to provide 100m of retail space. Tenants at the Captain Cook Shopping Centre now employ 56 staff, a significant improvement from its first year of operation in 1987 when 30 were employed. The company has demonstrated a continuing commitment to Gove through its building and renovating program. They have spent $750 000 over the last three years and that is a substantial commitment in a small community.
On 10 and 11 February, Cabinet held its meeting in Nhulunbuy for the first time, the first of many regional Cabinet meetings that will be held by this government. We see the perception of the Berrimah Line as a real issue for Territorians and regional centres and we expect that these regional meetings of Cabinet will help to break down those perceptions. Ministers held over 20 meetings with community groups and individuals. There were further opportunities for Nhulunbuy citizens to meet Cabinet members informally during their stay. There was no shortage of residents willing to take the opportunity of Cabinet’s visit. It was a popular move and well received by the people of my home town.
Ms Martin: And the skate park announcement.
Mr STIRLING: The Chief Minister announced Nhulunbuy was to get its long-awaited skate park during the historic Nhulunbuy Cabinet meeting. This is a culmination of a campaign conducted by a large number of our citizens, not least many of the young skaters who have great plans for the facility. The government’s contribution to the cost is $70 000; Nhulunbuy Corporation and Nabalco are joining with government in this venture. Nabalco has committed to provide the land and site works during construction, and some of its construction costs. Nhulunbuy Corporation is also making a financial contribution. The project would not have reached this point without the tenacity demonstrated by a number of people in the community: Dion and Hayden Forbes and their skating friends, Klaus Helms from Nabalco, Norm Jarvis, Dave Mitchell, Rotary and St Johns Volunteers, Rene Baker and Eva Cantrell, most notably, and many others. So congratulations to all those involved and I look forward to it opening some time, probably in August or September, although I don’t see myself as being a participant.
The William Gove Award for 2001: Kristopher McConnell was announced as the winner of the William Gove Memorial Award for Youth Achievement for last year, 2001. His employer, Ray Carter of what was then called the NT Department of Transport and Works, nominated Chris. He was nominated for outstanding achievement since commencing as a Building Technician apprentice. Besides receiving consistently high results in his external studies program with NTU, he has demonstrated that he is much valued as an integral part of the day-to-day operations of the local office. Nabalco’s General Manager of Community Affairs, Klaus Helms, presented Kris with his award and a cheque for $1000. Kris is to be congratulated for his achievement.
For the first time, a second prize of $500 was presented to another young achiever. Mark Keogh, a Year 7 student at Nhulunbuy Primary, has one his award for achievements in BMX riding. He has been riding since he was two. Mark has risen to be ranked fourth in Australia for his age group. He is competing at an international level. He is an active member of both the school and town bands. He was presented with his award at a school Assembly.
The William Gove Award was established by Nabalco in 1993 to commemorate the death of Flight Navigator William Gove, who was killed in a mid-air collision in 1943. The award recognises achievements of a young person from the Gove region who has demonstrated excellence in their field of endeavour.
Rene Baker was Nhulunbuy region’s recipient of the Citizen of the Year Award for 2002. The award was announced as part of Australia Day celebrations for this year. Rene was raised and educated in Nhulunbuy and now has her own young family. Raising a family has not prevented Rene from her commitment to community organisations which include: Brownie leader with the Nhulunbuy Guides Group; volunteer and President of Nhulunbuy BMX Club; trainer for the Sprocket Rockets BMX Club; organiser with events Across the Top Challenge and Territory Championships in BMX. She is an active member of St John Ambulance and attending events such as Speedway, Rugby League, BMX, Active Australia Day and wherever first aid treatment is required.
Rene is highly regarded by the community as someone who goes the extra yard for her friends and neighbours, and is an outstanding example of the Australian spirit in action. Rene is a lady with strong family values. She extends those values into the community and whatever she does, she does well and without reservation. Rene is to be congratulated on her award that we believe she so richly deserves.
Long-term resident, Rob Gelok, was appointed a Member of the Order of Australia on Australia Day. He was recognised for his community service to the community of Nhulunbuy through the local volunteer unit of the Northern Territory Emergency Service. Mr Gelok served as Cyclone Warden for Nhulunbuy from 1973 to 1977. This was before radio and television service came to Nhulunbuy and he played a critical role in warning the community of impending cyclones. In the 1980s, he became Unit Officer for Northern Territory Emergency Services and has continued in that role to this day. He has been responsible for the maintenance of the unit to a high standard of preparedness and readiness to respond to community needs. These needs include: counter-disaster measures; road accident rescue; supporting police during searches and crime scenes; and aviation search and rescue. He has also overseen the manning and maintenance of the Northern Territory Emergency Service search and rescue vessel.
Rob has played an active role in the training of volunteers and other members of the community, particularly maritime skills. These include marine radio operator, shipboard safety and coxswain courses. Rob Gelok is a worthy recipient of this award and I congratulate him on receiving the Order of Australia in recognition of his efforts.
I want to comment on Warwick Otley’s retirement. Warwick Otley began teaching in Dongara, Western Australia, in 1963 after completing Teacher’s College in 1962. He was headmaster of three small schools in Western Australia from 1965 to 1970. He started his career in the Territory at Jingili Primary School in 1971. After Assistant Principal positions at Moil and Millner Primary Schools, and as a maths and science consultant up until Cyclone Tracy, Warwick worked in the staffing section while schools were rebuilt and refurbished. Reluctant to leave the northern suburbs, Warwick was then Principal at Jingili from 1976 to 1980; Alawa from 1980 to 1984; Nightcliff from 1985 to 1999. It was at Nightcliff Primary where Warwick particularly left his mark as a caring and committed educational leader. At a very sensitive time for education - and I certainly remember how sensitive it was - Warwick was required to successfully amalgamate the former Rapid Creek Primary School with Nightcliff Primary School in 1991.
Warwick managed an extensive and impressive building program to cope with the increased school population. His tremendous commitment to school maintenance and beautifying the school grounds was, and still is, greatly appreciated by the school and community. More recently, Warwick worked at the Human Resource Branch and as Principal at Manunda Terrace Primary School. Warwick commenced his long service leave in October 2001, officially retiring on 19 February 2002. A talented golfer, skilled craftsman, a renewed fisherman, he will have plenty to keep him occupied in the Territory in his retirement. He continues to keep an interest in education, moreso with his wife Janelle, who is still teaching at Nightcliff Primary.
Warwick’s attributes are best summed up in the attached Peoplescape excerpt. Peoplescape is a national centenary project, and Warwick’s life-sized figure has recently adorned the slopes of Parliament House in Canberra. Under the heading: What contribution has this person made?
As Minister for Education, I’d certainly like to thank Warwick Otley for all his efforts in the Territory, particularly in those fields and his time at Nightcliff Primary, and I, and on behalf on all members - I would have thought - of this Assembly, wish him all the best for his retirement.
Ms MARTIN (Fannie Bay): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to Valmai Scott. Valmai retired as Director of Counselling Services with Crisis Line at the end of January this year. As Director, she has made a substantial contribution to the Territory over a significant period of time. Her previous working history is: from 1975 to 1987; she was Hostel Manager for Aboriginal Hostels; in 1992, she worked as a Domestic Violence Counsellor for Danila Dilba Medical Service; and she started at Crisis Line in 1993 where she worked for the final eight years of her employment.
She has made an enormous contribution in a variety of areas and, certainly, the position of Director of Counselling Services with Crisis Line is a very challenging one. I think we should thank her very much for her contribution to the Territory. She intends to remain here and will be active in community life, and I certainly thank her for her work over her years and wish her a very active and healthy retirement.
On a specific electorate issue, I would like to say that one of the true delights of coming into government on 27 August last year was to be able to finally sort out a rather controversial site in the electorate of Fannie Bay. The history - in my time which is never seven years now in this House, or six and a half years - of what has become known as the Dundas House Site in Weddell Street in Fannie Bay has been one that’s been argued through those years, both with residents, with the previous administration and one that has been argued in this House many a time.
Dundas House used to be the rehabilitation centre for Darwin where a lot of the rehab went on. That changed and once it was closed, which was around about the time of 1995, the previous government made the decision about a year later to install the Christian Outreach Service there. Now, between that time, when the rehab closed and Christian Outreach was installed there, there was a lot of resident discussion about what should happen with this old building and whether the building should be utilised or whether they were past their use by date and what should happen to that site.
It’s a large site. It’s about five ordinary house blocks and it’s Lot 4131 in Weddell Street. There was a lot of community attachment to this site, and I take someone like Jean Vickory. Jean has lived since 1948 - I don’t think I’m wrong there - opposite that site in Weddell Street, opposite that particular block. Jean was there before it was built and she still remembers that when she first built her house in Weddell Street, you could actually see out to Fannie Bay - times have changed since then. There has been a fair amount of construction. She can’t see that any more, but she certainly has a long association with that block and was very involved in the community discussions that went on.
We were all disappointed – the community, people like Jean, the Parap Residents Association - when the previous administration decided against all the arguments that had been put that this would become a site for crisis accommodation, a totally inappropriate site in a suburban area like that. Totally inappropriate. It was a very uncomfortable period both for the residents and the Residents Association because when you suddenly put a crisis accommodation facility in an area like that, it’s not going to work. It was never going to work. I was very suspicious of the previous government’s motives for doing so.
The Christian Outreach, which provides a good service, have moved on. Since then, there was backwards and forwards between Council and government and residents and the local member about what would happen to this block. Lots of discussion went on, but nothing came to fruition. So it was with much pleasure on coming to government that we were able to say that what the residents wanted, what the Darwin City Council wanted, would be put into place. Lot 4131 Weddell Street has now been rezoned as park land. It is a real recognition of what the community wanted, what Darwin City Council was able to say quite clearly they wanted but which the previous government simply wasn’t listening to.
It’s an area of quite high density. That block in Weddell Street goes from Weddell Street through to Charlotte Street in Fannie Bay and that area of Fannie Bay is reasonably high-medium density. There weren’t any green spaces. There’s quite a lot of green space in Fannie Bay along the foreshore, but within Fannie Bay itself and into Parap, there aren’t many open spaces. This one was to be treasured. That’s what the arguments were; it was treasured by the local community, even when it was a kind of unkempt block. Now it is with great delight that I as Chief Minister and member for Fannie Bay with the Planning and Infrastructure Minister have been able to say that now that land is parkland.
So it has been a good outcome. It has been a long time in coming. It has been six and a half years of arguments and fights with the previous administration, but I think that the residents and Residents Association and women like Jean Vickory, who have made such an enormous contribution to the area, are now able to say that there is a final outcome and that that land will now be park land. And that’s great.
I would also like to pay tribute to Carmen Que Noy who is a Darwin High School Year 12 student who was chosen to go to the National Youth Science Forum in January. Carmen is a terrific young woman and she really deserved to win that place at the National Youth Science Forum. She went with other students and reported back to me that they were taken around Canberra and given a kind of scientific introduction to Canberra where there are many kind of major institutes of scientific research. Carmen said that the trip has been a life changing experience for her and she is now looking forward to doing a Bachelor of Science when she’s completed Year 12. Carmen was also one of three students in the Fannie Bay electorate who received Australia Day Council Student Citizenship Awards and that, again, well deserved from Carmen.
Another was Jessica Chin, a delightful young woman from Parap Primary School, and Amy Southwood at Stuart Park received a Citizenship Award. Knowing all three young women quite well myself, I couldn’t think that they were better deserved. Jessica is a great contributor to Parap Primary and, as a member of the Chung Wah Society, is involved in all their activities and was one of the dancers at the recent cultural evening celebrating the Year of the Horse and did it beautifully.
Amy Southwood at Stuart Park Primary is very active in all aspects of school life and is a great sporting participant, is one of their academic achievers and is also someone who has made an enormous contribution to Stuart Park.
I think both with Jessica and Amy, both their schools, respectively Parap and Stuart Park, were very sad when those girls finished Year 7 and now have gone on to Darwin High. But they made an enormous contribution. They should both feel very proud of themselves. I’m sure they will make a great contribution in all aspects - in academic life, in sporting life and in the general activities of Darwin High and I think that they will, over their years there, be two young women who will be remembered. It’s great when young women you know who deserve those awards receive them.
Talking about young women who have made great contributions and deserve recognition, there are two former Parap Primary School students - Geraldine Chin and Ingrid Barnsley who came through the Gifted and Talented Program in the late 1980s in Parap - have recently been awarded scholarships of very high regard. Geraldine was awarded a Fulbright Scholarship to Harvard to do a Masters in Law and Ingrid has a Rhodes Scholarship to Oxford, a real tribute to young women who were educated in the Territory and now have gone on respectively to Harvard and Oxford. It shows that you might have been educated in the Top End of the Territory at a smallish school like Parap, but the talent has been nurtured there and both Geraldine and Ingrid have gone on to do quite remarkable things academically. I wish them the best of luck.
Late last year I was delighted to attend the Young Australian of the Year Awards. The night was a showcase of the talents and the abilities of our young Territorians, something that we should also be very proud of. I presented the Minister for Young Territorians Excellence in Youth Leadership Award and this award is presented to a young person who has led the way in the field of youth leadership whether it’s in their career, academic life, community service, or through their recreational pursuits. This year’s winner was Garth Forrester. Garth has made a direct contribution to the natural and cultural heritage of Central Australia through activities such as land and fauna management. As a Ranger with Parks and Wildlife, Garth’s commitment to caring for the natural and cultural environment of Central Australia stems from his Arrente-Luritja heritage and desire to combine country methods with a solid western scientific approach to environmental protection. Garth is currently working in Nitmuluk National Park. Having met Garth, what an impressive young man.
The winners for the NT Young Australian of the Year Awards categories were the NT University Arts Awards - and that wasn’t any surprise there, a young woman with an amazing voice - Bernadine Crute. I wish her luck. She has won a scholarship at the School of Arts in Sydney. She is in Year 11 this year; I hope it works out for her. I know it is pretty competitive when you go into the bigger pool, but I think with her talent, Bernadine will go very well this year.
The TIO Sports Award was won by cricketer, Kenneth Skewes; The Power and Water Authority Science and Technology Award by Yin Paradies; The Federal Government’s Regional Initiative Award, Rosie Dwyer; The Pacific Access Community Service Award, Liam Campbell; The Unilever Environment Award, Belinda Ainley; The Commonwealth Minister for Youth Affairs Career Achievement Award was Daniel Leesong; The Channel 8 Young Achiever of the Year for the Territory was the winner of the Power and Water Authority Science and Technology Award, Yin Paradies. Yin is well on his way to becoming one the leaders of indigenous health research in Australia. He is passionate about advocating and representing health related issues and wellbeing on behalf of the indigenous community. Yin has completed a Bachelor of Science in Maths and Computer Science and is currently completing a Master of Medical Statistics with a view to commencing a PhD in Social Epidemiology in 2002 - this year.
The leadership and hard work of these young Territorians is inspirational, and I congratulate them all.
Finally, I want to talk about the Women’s Advisory Council Media Awards. The awards were presented by my colleague the Minister for Central Australia in Alice Springs in November last year. There was a really impressive number of women who attended the forum and that indicates that women have a lively interest in forging links with the media so that stories can reflect the realities of their lives. This new award, the Women’s Advisory Council Media Award, has been established to form a dynamic partnership between women and the media.
Entrants in this award have been judged on their capacity to reflect women’s lives as we know them to be: diverse, busy, involved and rich in experience. Entrants were judged on work that had been published or broadcast between 1 January and 30 September last year. The judges of the award were Carole Miller, Barbara James, Jane Munday, and the Convenor of the Women’s Advisory Council, and they decided to confer two Highly Commended awards. They were to Lesley Branagan of 8CCC who entered three tapes. The judges were impressed with her intelligent questioning of interviewees, and especially liked her story on the Desert Mob art exhibition. The other highly commended was Megg Kelham and Maria, who also entered three tapes in a documentary style which were thought provoking and original. Their story of home birth in Alice Springs was especially commended.
The winner of the inaugural Women’s Advisory Council Media Award for Excellence in Reporting Women’s Issues was Kieran Finnane. Kieran is a reporter, although to describe her as a reporter on the Alice Springs News doesn’t do her justice. Kieran entered three articles, and the article which won was called Blue Eyes, Fair Skin and Still a Warlpiri. The judges unanimously agreed that this article was brave, thought provoking and engaging. It dealt with sensitive cross-cultural issues with integrity and sensitivity, and even a touch of humour.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I’m sure all honourable members will join me in congratulating Kieran, Lesley, Megg, Maria, the Women’s Advisory Council, the Alice Springs News and all those involved in the inaugural Women’s Advisory Council Media Award.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to speak tonight about a number of exciting projects – well, some exciting and some not so exciting - but certainly worthy of mention.
I’d like to say a few words about the involvement of the Tiwi Health Board in getting up its pharmacy, an achievement by its management to get this area implemented. The Tiwi Health Board realised at the outset, as have most similar organisations, that existing methods of delivery were inefficient, if not downright dangerous. But with all other changes the Board required, improvements to pharmacy arrangements took a back seat. Midway through 2001, the board engaged a consultant by the name of Rollo Manning. He undertook basic research as to what improvements could be effected within the resources that they had available. Mr Manning has vast experience in pharmacy, both within government and within the private sector and this experience together with his contacts proved invaluable.
Rollo was quite staggered that after a month in one of the largest clinics on the Tiwi Islands, particularly Nguiu, it was possibly the first time that a pharmacist had spent such a period in the community clinic and that was, in his opinion, the only reason there had not been far greater misadventure arising from dispensing errors because of non-compliance. Before we get too excited about non-compliance, we should be putting far greater emphasis on assuring ourselves that the correct drugs, quantities and instructions are being handed out in the first place.
The board have now operated the pharmacy for six months with substantial improvements to pharmacy access within the communities they service. It didn’t take the board long to realise that ultimate improvements in the manner in which pharmaceuticals are dispensed in community clinics depended on being able to completely change the traditional means of accessing drugs and the distribution to patients. Not only would this involve breaking away from accessing prescriptions through Darwin pharmacies or Royal Darwin Hospital where filling prescriptions can take up to two weeks, but the board needed a more foolproof method of distribution designed to reduce human error to the minimum.
What this represents is a huge step forward in overcoming some of the dangers that are inherent in the current system. They are now able to track the dispensing of pharmaceuticals as never before through the use of dedicated software, touch screens, scanners and label printers to know exactly what has been dispensed, by whom and to whom and what instructions have been provided. Inventory control is integral in the system, and all this has been accomplished while maintaining total simplicity of operation. Inventory control is, of course, the greatest bug bear of the current system that applies in community clinics. Traditionally, thousands of dollars worth of out-of-date drugs are regularly destroyed because of over-ordering, bad shelf control and non-existent stock taking.
On the other hand, when the drugs are under-ordered, lives can be put at risk through inability to fill prescriptions. Given reasonable attention to the requirements of the system, the board’s ability to provide a first class service to community residents will be improved. A recent demonstration was provided by looking at the clamshell packing system that should greatly reduce the wastage that currently occurs with the many patients whose level of chronic disease requires them to undertake multiple drug therapy.
This advance could save clinics thousands of dollars by reducing the need to replace drugs that have deteriorated through the inadequacy of existing packing methods. Also, a remarkable new robotics system designed to fill the new packaging for multi-drug reservoirs and thus dramatically reduced the scope for human error. Such risk is incumbent in current methods that require hours to be spent every week undertaking repetitive tasks universally regarded as sheer drudgery.
The board is currently discussing with MediTrax means by which these innovations may be made more widely available to other community health organisations and the possibility of the software being integrated with the primary care information system currently undertaking final testing prior to implementation for the Department of Health and Community Services.
At a time when there has been a lot of hype about drive-through drug houses and the proposed changes to drug laws to allow police powers to raid nightclubs, an equally sinister activity is taking place - quietly, well out of reach of the media glare. On Tuesday 26 February, a man was caught allegedly trying to smuggle into Maningrida about $38 000 - which equates to about 700 grams - of cannabis from Darwin. The stuff was stashed in the back of a television set.
Whilst it doesn’t sound much, it is also alleged that about $50 000 worth of drugs is being brought into Maningrida fortnightly. Many other communities are being similarly targeted. Imagine for a moment the impact that this is having on those communities. Quite apart from the financial burden that this is imposing on families, anecdotal evidence suggests that almost all attempted and completed suicides are drug related. The cost of our drug problem is escalating on communities like Maningrida and changing the whole fabric of community life.
There has been, in the past, a lack of funding for innovative men’s programs in communities, and my colleague, the member for Johnston, mentioned a male Aboriginal health worker the other night whose work and commitment to health is often overlooked. I am pleased to say that many men in the various communities are certainly working towards getting a men’s social and emotional wellbeing centre, and their issues addressed. There are a couple of programs that have recently commenced and I take this moment to highlight them.
For at least the last two years, the men living at Pirlangimpi have been meeting to discuss ways to improve their health. Recognising they needed to take responsibility for their own health, they set about looking for a separate men’s place which they could call their own. After a lot of work and numerous meetings, I am proud to be able to say that they have achieved their aim and the men’s place is now completed.
Congratulations in particular should go to the men at Pirlangimpi: Lawrence Coster, the CDEP Coordinator, officers of the Male Health Policy and Health Promotions Unit in the Department of Health and Community Services, the Tiwi Health Board and others. This initiative, which was started by Terrence Guyula and the Gapuwiyak community, is spreading around the Territory and is a very exciting and innovative idea which has come from the men themselves.
Recently, the men from Yarralin community, although not in my electorate but a community that I had a lot to do with in my previous life, opened a new men’s health clinic and centre. This separate facility has been a long time coming, and with the support of the Katherine West Health Board, ATSIC, through the Aboriginal Community Assistance program, in partnership with the Army and the community of Yarralin, has seen the completion of this building.
I offer my congratulations to all the members of the Yarralin Council, especially young men like Brian Pedwell whose vision, commitment and enthusiasm is to be admired and respected. Development of these discreet and separate centres will allow these men to feel comfortable in knowing that their issues and concerns will be addressed sensitively and confidentially.
It is early days yet, but it is hoped that these men’s centres will address the many issues facing our communities such as domestic violence and the crisis situations that are facing our young men in terms of the increasing rates of youth suicide.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
MESSAGE FROM ADMINISTRATOR
Madam SPEAKER: I lay on the Table message No 3 from His Honour the Administrator advising of his assent to proposed laws passed by the Assembly during the November 2001 sittings.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: I would like to draw honourable members’ attention to the presence in the gallery of Year 11 legal studies students from St John’s College accompanied by their teacher, Angela Hollis. On behalf of all members, I extend a warm welcome.
MINISTERIAL REPORTS
Office of Territory Development
Office of Territory Development
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I wish to update this House on the work of the Office of Territory Development within my department. The office was formally established at the time of the announcement of the restructure of the NTPS on 13 November last year and is an initiative which complements the appointment of Bob Collins as Investment Ambassador for the Territory. The office is currently headed by an acting director and a permanent appointment to the director’s position will be made in the near future. The component parts of the office were drawn from all over the NT public sector and they are officers involved in oil, gas and minerals processing projects from the Office of Resource Development; logistics staff from the previous Department of Transport and Works; the science, desert knowledge and new business group from OCSAT, and two officers from the railway group in the Department of Chief Minister.
At present, the office is operating from several locations, however plans have been finalised for consolidation to accommodation in NT House before the end of the month. The Office of Territory Development is a major initiative for further engaging with business and is a key part of my government’s jobs plan. The office is developing a credible capacity for investment attraction and will facilitate and drive those medium and long term projects which are allocated to it by government. One of the key tasks of the Office of Territory Development is the formulation of an economic development strategy. This strategy will build on the recommendations of last November’s Economic Development Summit with a key theme of building on the Territory’s strengths in such areas as transport, land, major projects, primary industries, natural resources, tourism and trade.
However, it is not enough to simply have economic goals; equally important is how those goals are to be achieved. My government will be seeking to achieve our economic objectives through a range of avenues including, as you would expect, the railway and Timor Sea gas, but will also have a strong emphasis on indigenous economic development, education and training, the knowledge economy, regional development and communications. The economic development strategy for the Territory is on track to be finalised by the end of the month.
Attracting strategic investment is another key priority of the Office of Territory Development. In order to fuel the Territory’s development, both general marketing and targeted marketing will be undertaken to attract new investment. This will be underpinned by research to help identify potential investors and investment sectors. Marketing initiatives to be used in these exercises are nearly completed. Gas and rail are obvious targets for investment, however we will also be seeking to diversify the economy through attracting investment to knowledge-based industries and through more established industry sectors such as tourism. Marketing to financial institutions in addition to industry and business, national associations and international entities will also be a core activity.
The office’s role will extend to identifying the support required by new investors, whether this be in the area of infrastructure, training or other services and support. It will also liaise with Invest Australia to jointly develop support packages for major projects. Major project facilitation is another key area for the office. Gas is clearly a major area for activity for the office. My government’s vision is to establish Australia’s fourth gas hub here in Darwin by 2005-06. If we can secure gas onshore from both the Bayu-Udan and Sunrise fields, this will deliver cheap energy, substantial gas manufacturing and mineral processing industries and a link to the national grid. The office is responsible for supporting the Gas Task Force and developing and implementing strategies to achieve our goal for gas onshore in Darwin. This work is important and ongoing.
The office will also focus on development of the central trade corridor concept to truly make Darwin the gateway to Asia. A joint South Australian-NT Working Group of officials was formed early last year to progress development opportunities along the central trade corridor and the Office of Territory Development is progressing this. I outlined some of the initiatives of this group in my statement to the House last week. The Office of Territory Development is working with Freightlink, the company which will operate the railway, on research to identify commodities which will benefit from the new integrated transport facilities planned at the East Arm Port precinct. This is expected to include large scale food processing and cold store facilities for major multinational distribution companies.
The Darwin Convention Centre is another project of important for the Territory that the office is responsible for, and I outlined to the House yesterday the progress on this important project.
The office is also working closely with the project group in Central Australia which has responsibility for the Desert Knowledge Project. This is a very exciting area of knowledge and innovation that I believe holds great promise for the Territory. The office has a vital role in supporting the Desert Knowledge initiative and all the work being done by the various stakeholders on this project. Suffice to say, it is a project that offers enormous potential in terms of economic development and associated social benefits for Central Australian communities. The opportunity to refine arid zone knowledge and technology and export this expertise to other parts of the world is quite remarkable.
Tropical knowledge is another area I have put on the agenda for the Office of Territory Development. There is a growing international demand for knowledge about such areas as tropical living, medicine, ecotourism and sustainable development. The Territory already boasts world class research in aspects of tropical medicine and has many examples of best practice ecotourism. Sustainable development is another area of tremendous potential for the development of local expertise. If we can encourage the further development of this expertise and market it to the world, we will have in our grasp another innovative commodity with which to build our economy and our future.
The Office of Territory Development is well and truly established and working on key areas and projects that are critical to the Territory’s future economic development. Madam Speaker, I move that this Assembly take note of the report.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, the first thing I would say is that what is foreshadowed as a ministerial statement has now become a ministerial report. One only had to listen to Chief Minister running over her words to try and get it in in five minutes. There was a wealth of information that deserved a ministerial statement. How you respond to that in two and a half minutes is beyond me. Let me say at the outset, though, that we do wish the Office of Territory Development all the very best in their endeavours; we hope they are bedded down as soon as possible.
At first glance I would say to you that the terms of reference are far too wide. I would have thought that the focus should have been absolutely on oil and gas and, because that is the driver of everything else, I would have thought that the Office of Resource Development could have become an enhanced Office of Resource Development and focus on that issue. What we are seeing is the Office of Territory Development, by that report, being given such a wide ambit of responsibilities, most of which I would have thought rested with the Department of the Chief Minister to coordinate many of those priorities which are both social and economic, that one wonders just how effective it is going to be in the long term. That aside, I do wish it well. It certainly has some very important goals to achieve.
I was a bit concerned the other day when I heard Bob Collins speak at a forum where he focussed a lot of his time on things such as timber processing, horticulture and aquaculture. They are important economic issues for the Northern Territory but, certainly, I wouldn’t have thought a high priority for the Office of Territory Development. It should be focussed, very small in terms of its area of activity, and very small in the expertise of the staff it has. You need to be the best you can get and driving - not unlike the model that was put in place in Western Australia that drove the North-West Shelf Project and associated developments from then on.
Again, I wish them well. I believe they should be more focussed and we look forward to seeing the results of their efforts.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): I thank the Opposition Leader for his level of support. Let me assure you that this government and the Office of Territory Development very clearly have, as the highest priority, the development of a gas hub, the fourth gas hub for Australia from Darwin.
Whilst pursuing that target vigorously, we are also looking at building the capacity of the Territory across the board. The Office of Territory Development has a clear focus and it does have projects and objectives that are defined. They will be allocated as appropriate and then they will move on to other areas once the initial development is done.
There is a clear focus for the office, but I think there is great excitement right across the Territory about the potential we have for knowledge industries. Desert Knowledge is just the first part of that. When you consider that 40% of the world’s population lives in the tropics, the potential that we have to develop industries based on Tropical Knowledge is enormous.
I say, Madam Speaker, it is a matter of walking and chewing gum. We can do both.
Multicultural Events Calendar
Mr VATSKALIS (Ethnic Affairs): Madam Speaker, I rise to present to the Assembly the Calendar of Multicultural Events. The Northern Territory can proudly and justifiably claim to be a multicultural society. Not only do we have a rich history of cultural harmony and tolerance, the 1996 Census showed that Territorians were born in more than 150 different countries. This tapestry has made the Territory what it is today: a vibrant and multicultural society with great prospects.
The Martin government is focussed on further enhancing our lifestyle and delivering these prospects for all Territorians. In recognition of our diversity and desire for Territorians to experience the culture of their fellow citizens, the government, through the Office of Ethnic Affairs, produced a Multicultural Calendar of Events. The calendar was developed in consultation with the community and is available from the Office of Ethnic Affairs web site. I can assure the member for Macdonnell that the site is not interactive.
This calendar, which I table for members’ information, contains a host of significant events such as important local community events, national and international days, commemorations, festivals and religious observances. Examples include the Chinese New Year Celebration, which this year was celebrated on 3 February. The Vietnamese community also celebrate the Lunar New Year. The Territory Chinese community joined together to host a wide range of events to celebrate the new year. I think members would be aware Chinese New Year is celebrated as a family affair and, amongst other things, it [inaudible] family unity. It is a time of reunion and thanksgiving. Here in the Territory, events started on 2 February with the Hakka Association Chinese New Year banquet and ended on 3 March with Dragon Boat races at Cullen Bay. I congratulate and recognise the efforts of many members of these community groups for these many events which included the Chinese Culture and Language Centre, the Chung Wah Society, the Hong Kong Club, Dragon Boat Northern Territory, the Australia China Friendship Association and the Hakka Association.
On 23 February we celebrated the Eid-ul-Adha or Festival of Sacrifice that signifies the climax of the pilgrimage to Mecca and is celebrated by Muslims around the world. The Eid-ul-Adha is a major religious event in the lives of Muslims. It is also a time when many Muslims will undertake a special pilgrimage with Mecca.
On 21 March we will celebrate Harmony Day, a fantastic opportunity for all Territorians to celebrate cultural diversity and harmony. This celebration coincides with the United Nations International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and this year the Martin government is sponsoring 26 different events throughout the Territory. The Territory is a truly harmonious, tolerant and multicultural society. In the Territory, we are able not only to share, but also possibly to participate in cultural events or celebrations of our neighbours. Since the ethnic links of the Territory ensure that in most cases, it’s most probable we are living next to a family of which at least one of its members is born overseas. It is one of the few places in the world that we started with a western New Year Day celebration followed a month later by the Chinese New Year, the Eid-ul-Adha celebration of the Muslim community and then celebrate with a big bang Greek Easter.
This is the place where Aboriginal people, the indigenous people of this country, live in harmony with people who came here after escaping civil war in Sudan, with descendants of the Afghan cameleers and the Chinese miners, with people who came from the Greek Islands, with refugees from Vietnam or other places in Southeast Asia and descendants of the English, Irish and other European people. We are the only people who can boast that we have friends from all over the world.
Madam Speaker, I encourage Territorians to attend as many local ethnic events as possible, to further their appreciation and understanding of different cultures and to show support to their fellow Territorians. I strongly believe that whilst we come from many cultures, we have decided to call this beautiful place our home, so together let us build a better Territory.
Members: Hear, hear!
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I recognise that we have many diverse ethnic groups in the Northern Territory. In fact, I said the other day there are about 120 formalised ethnic organisations in the Territory serving the 200 000 people living here. In my office upstairs, the calendar from the Office of Ethnic Affairs hangs proudly and reminds me of the many events that our multicultural society has in Darwin. The minister mentioned the Chinese New Year celebrations that we had over the last two weeks. Indeed, that was a very popular and well supported event starting with the Hakka Society’s dinner about three weeks ago with many events conducted throughout the two weeks including mah-jong, the sedan chair races which included the member for Wanguri. Unfortunately, he should have been there a bit longer to assist his team to a winning position. Last Sunday, for instance, with the member for Port Darwin, we were there at Cullen Bay to take part in the Dragon Boat races.
Mr Kiely: So was I.
Dr LIM: Yes, yes. The member for Sanderson was there. That is why his face is quite red today with the sunburn that he suffered during the weekend.
Anyway, I believe the ethnic societies in our community contribute significantly to the richness of the Northern Territory and I look forward to all members of this House supporting our ethnic groups and turning up in about two weeks time with the Islamic Society for their Awareness Week.
Mr VATSKALIS (Ethnic Affairs): Madam Speaker, I am very pleased and very proud to see bipartisan support for our ethnic communities. As a member of an ethnic community, I acknowledge the support of the previous administration [inaudible] all of the events that ethnic communities organise and we will continue to do the same. I was also very pleased to see people attending this event. It is significant that ethnic communities do not feel excluded, and I was very pleased to see the member for Greatorex with us in the Chinese New Year and also following out at the Kalymnian Hall and having some attempts in Greek dancing. That’s very pleasing that we are prepared to share other people’s cultures, even if we don’t know a lot about it, but we are also prepared to learn.
Madam Speaker, I have to advise that the Martin government and myself will support all ethnic organisations in their endeavours here in the Territory.
AustralAsian Railway – Construction Progress
Mr HENDERSON (AustralAsian Railway): Madam Speaker, I rise to inform the House of the construction progress for the Alice Springs to Darwin railway. The railway is a defining and unifying Territory project which was first mooted 140 years ago. Appropriately, it has always enjoyed bipartisan support in this House and I commend the previous government on their commitment to the railway. I look forward to the continuing support of the opposition as our government manages the project through to completion.
Recently I visited the Katherine Sleeper Factory and associated works in the Katherine district. Despite the onset of the Wet, and it was a late onset – thankfully, for the railway project - construction of the railway is reaching an exciting time. The Katherine Sleeper manufacturing and the rail joints and plant reflects the acceleration of the railway’s physical progress and there is a high level of manufacturing activity taking place. Our government has a commitment to maximising local involvement in the Alice to Darwin railway. During my visit to Katherine, I was impressed by the obvious presence of local subcontractors working for ADrail on various aspects of the construction works as well as plant maintenance.
It is absolutely essential both for the Territory’s development and social harmony that indigenous Territorians share opportunities for economic development. Our government is committed to working in partnership with business to encourage the employment and training of indigenous Territorians on major development projects such as the railway. It was very satisfying to witness the significant number of indigenous workers making their contribution to the railway. The factory is now at almost full production. Of the 865 000 sleepers that will be produced in Katherine 68 700 have rolled off the plant and have been stockpiled. It really is a very impressive sight to see that stockpile.
Our Chief Minister officially commissioned the Tennant Creek Sleeper Factory late last month and it is slowly ramping up to full production. The Tennant Creek sleeper plant will manufacture 1.1 million sleepers over the life of this project and to date 27 700 have been produced. For those Top End residents who still say: ‘I will only believe it when I see it,’ the physical approach of the railway should now be evident.
I am impressed by how far work has managed to progress in the extra few months of dry weather, and certainly everybody on the project is very pleased about the late onset of the Wet. Mind you, the majority of people in the northern suburbs were suffering a pretty bad Build-Up.
The financial benefits are now also flowing to Top End contractors and residents. There are approximately 112 Darwin people employed by the Asia Pacific consortium and ADrail with many more employed by subcontractors. Levels of employment will increase as work again ramps up in the Dry Season. Completed earthworks have now advanced 95km south of Katherine and six bridges south of Katherine have been completed. Clearing around the Elizabeth River Bridge has begun. The new railway bridge will be some 600 metres long and will be just three metres away from the existing road bridge.
Track laying is due to start in Katherine in April heading south towards Tennant Creek, whilst a separate crew will start about the same time in Tennant Creek and head north. Earthworks are proceeding well in the Tennant Creek area, now reaching 39km north and 130km south of the town. The Katherine and Tennant Creek track laying crews should meet somewhere in the middle around December, and there is a degree of competition between those two teams as to who is going to progress the farthest. I am advised that there are some quite interesting wagers being placed. So, in all areas of activity the competitive nature comes out and its good to see.
There are concerns in Adelaide River that track laying for the railway will have a detrimental impact on the Adelaide River Heritage area. Every compromise possible that doesn’t affect the operational capacity of the railway has been made, and I have been provided with assurances by ADrail that there will not be a negative impact on the heritage area by the railway. This has been verified by both the Heritage Conservation services of the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment and the Heritage Advisory Council.
In Alice Springs, road trains hauling track and rolling stock through the town and heading north have become a familiar sight. Earthworks will soon start in the Centre.
Madam Speaker, it has been pleasing to see the level of business which has been generated in the Territory by the railway. People often only think of big machinery when they look at a project of this size, but the work is being spread around a whole range of businesses around the Territory. One of the reasons our government is committed to the railway is the benefits it will have for Territory business, both large and small. It is satisfying to know that so far $325m worth of contracts have been let to the Territory since the project began in April, compared with $276m for South Australia to date. 4511 separate orders have been placed with 514 Northern Territory businesses. Some of these are very large projects, such as the freight of materials from Alice Springs north or the purchase or hire of heavy machinery, but many of these are small day to day items, everything from television sets to drink bottles, hammers to safety boots.
A number of major tenders will be going to the marketplace in the next few months, including the supply of piles for the Elizabeth River bridge, loading of ballast construction for four overpasses in the Katherine region, Alice Springs and Woolcot Creek, rail signage and level crossing signalling...
Madam SPEAKER: Order! The Minister’s time has expired.
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Speaker, just in completion, I would like to table the latest series of construction progress charts for honourable members.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his progress report on the railway which contains some interesting observations. Included in those, I am sure, is now an observation by the current government that the contractual parameters that were put in place after many months and years, in fact, of negotiation to ensure that jobs did flow to the Northern Territory, that heritage value was preserved, that indigenous employment was accommodated, is all there and is all happening and that is something that is very pleasing to all of us.
I am particularly interested - and I would ask the minister in future statements if he could give us further detail on just exactly where the contracts are going. When we talk in terms of local business, I would like more specifics as to what businesses have contracts, who they are, how many they employ, because there is concern out there as to the fact that the northern sector is going to be done inhouse and that is a very important sector for employment growth in the northern part of the Northern Territory. Many are watching that very closely, watching how ADrail will accommodate local employment and local businesses in that particular sector. So I just ask the minister that in future statements, he gives us more information in that regard.
Also what is disturbing is the fact that notwithstanding the growth of employment on the railway as stated by the minister, we still have unemployment in the Northern Territory historically high at 8.3%. The only deduction one can make from that is notwithstanding the impact of the railway, this government has done nothing to grow jobs in the Northern Territory. That should be of concern to all of us and something I would urge the government - if they have a jobs plan for the Northern Territory, what is it, who is getting jobs and how are businesses advantaging from it?
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I would like to put on the record that I have long been a supporter of the railway, even as President of Litchfield Shire Council. I believe the economic benefits will be great for the Territory, plus I think it is a very important thing strategically, especially as we are an area that is strategically placed as regards the defence of Australia. So I think the rail is important.
I would like to put on record also that I met with ADrail representatives at the Livingstone Airstrip. There was some concern that Livingstone Airstrip would be demolished with the construction of the rail. They informed me that the rail corridor there will be probably the narrowest at 40m, and the actual airstrip will not be destroyed, so I was very happy to hear that. They are taking on board some of the heritage issues that arise with the construction of the railway and I would like to thank the ADrail people for that.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister in reply.
Ms CARNEY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I would like leave to speak on the railway. It directly affects my electorate, it goes straight through it, and I note that the member for Nelson has been afforded the opportunity not only today, but on a number of occasions previously. Whilst not being a member of the opposition, he has been afforded the opportunity of replying to ministerial reports. Given that leave has been apparently given to him, then it is appropriate, in my view and in the view of my colleagues, that on issues affecting our electorates, we be given the opportunity to speak as well.
Mr STIRLING (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, in relation to a matter such as this, the shadow minister has the call. It should be worked out in advance by members opposite that if a member has a particular need or desire …
Mr Reed: How can you do it in advance when you do not know what the statements are?
Mr STIRLING: You have five minutes while the minister is delivering his…
Members interjecting.
Mr STIRLING: Well, how long does it take you to work it out? You have about five minutes. I am just wary, Madam Speaker. I am not opposed per se to the member speaking on this issue, but it would create a precedent and we would have every member jumping, rightly, if we were to allow the member for Araluen to speak this morning. But she could have across to her leader and said: ‘This affects my electorate, I want to speak on this.’ So we are not of a mind to change.
Mr BURKE: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker, first, can I make the point that it seems to me that it is not the Leader of Government Business’ call; it is your call. He can vote and disallow it on his own numbers, but the standing orders are quite specific, and that is that the minister makes a report for five minutes, the opposition only has two and a half minutes, and there is no other mention in standing orders. Now, leave has being given by the Speaker to another member to speak and another member now seeks similar leave. If you do not want to approve that through your numbers that is your call against the Speaker, but it is her decision.
Mr HENDERSON: Speaking to the point of order as well, Madam Speaker, just in terms of the rationale for ministerial reports and the argument put by the member for Araluen inasmuch as it affects her electorate, she will have an opportunity, and she does have an opportunity in the Adjournment debate to make any comments in relation to this issue in that debate which is really reserved for members to speak on issues affecting their electorate.
Madam SPEAKER: I just make comment on this: when we were negotiating about ministerial reports, and giving the opposition the opportunity to respond, it was also considered that the Independent members should also have an opportunity. You may be well aware the Independent member does not respond to every report that is made, only a few. So that was negotiated as an agreement, that he should have the opportunity on occasions and, as I say, it does not happen very often. I am quite comfortable with that arrangement, but perhaps some of these things should be brought up at a Standing Orders Committee meeting which we are proposing to organise because there have been a few incidents that have occurred.
We are up to closing remarks, Minister.
Mr HENDERSON: I will be brief, Madam Speaker. Just picking up on the comments of the Leader of the Opposition, and we will not get into the debate about unemployment - there are other times for that - but in terms of his suggestion that I bring further specific details back to the parliament in terms of contracts awarded and to which companies, I will do that in the next sittings, and if the Leader of the Opposition would like a briefing specifically on those matters, I can arrange it for him.
Athletics Australia
Mr AH KIT (Sport and Recreation): Madam Speaker, I am sure that all Territorians will be pleased to know that Athletics Australia has chosen Darwin as the venue for their main pre-departure preparation for the Commonwealth Games and World Junior Championship teams in 2002. Our athletes will be competing at the Commonwealth Games to be held in Manchester in July and August, and our juniors will be competing in Kingston, Jamaica in July also. I am absolutely delighted that Athletics Australia has chosen Darwin for its pre-competition training camp, no doubt attracted by the excellent facilities …
Mr BURKE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The point of order is this: if we are going to adhere to standing orders with regards to ministerial reports, could I remind you that the time for ministerial reports is over.
Madam SPEAKER: I was just asking the Deputy Clerk. We had some time left for the minister to speak. Is it now up? Two minutes left.
Mr AH KIT: … no doubt attracted by the excellent facilities, outstanding weather during June and July, and the generous cooperation that has been extended by NT Athletics. It is anticipated that the majority of the Commonwealth Games athletics teams will be in Darwin from 8 June to 1 July, and the world junior team from 21 June to 1 July. This means that, at its peak, Athletics Australia will have around 110 athletes and 35 support staff in Darwin.
During that time, the team will compete in a number of competitions, generally on weekends, and Athletics Australia has invited local athletes to join in the competition. So Darwin spectators will be able to see our Australian team go through their training schedule during the week and attend the competitions on the weekends throughout June. There are also plans to hold a couple of mid-week competitions on Wednesday 12 June and Wednesday 26 June.
While the teams are in Darwin they will have full access to the facilities of the Northern Territory Institute of Sport, and this will include weights facilities, sports science testing and administration facilities. I am also pleased that Athletics Australia will be making available their coaches and athletes to run coaching clinics during their stay. It is also important to point out that it will provide Athletics Australia with an opportunity to progress work that has been initiated by Tim Forsyth, Cathy Freeman and Kyle Vander-Kuyp. These three athletes have been involved in developing a program called Come On, Let’s Go!
$300 000 is going to be set aside and spent when these athletes come to the Northern Territory. They’ve budgeted that and it will be spent, and doesn’t take into account personal expenditure by individual members of the group particularly to the retail, entertainment and hospitality sectors. So, I’m sure we all look forward to the arrival of these athletes in June and, no doubt, Northern Territorians will support and encourage them as they prepare for elite competition representing Australia in Manchester and Kingston.
Members: Hear, hear.
Madam SPEAKER: I am willing to allow the member for Blain to respond even though time is up. If we could just have a brief response.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, I applaud the announcement that’s been made with regards to activity in the Top End. This has occurred in previous times and it certainly does stimulate the local competition and provide the inspiration that young people do need, and a shot in the arm for NT Athletics.
However, there is a serious gap in the activities of the sports minister’s portfolio at this point. The Arafura Games has received a significant profile in terms of press coverage. This event is occurring next year and is another tremendous Top End-centred event and is due all the support and applause that is does deserve. However, the Masters Games is a Central Australian event - a premier event, the first event of its kind in the nation with regards to masters athletics and the whole range of sports. In fact, it’s of a greater size than the Arafura Games, and to this point it has received no air play and apparently no support. The messages coming from Central Australia are of serious concern about the support that the Top End is giving to a critically important event that’s run in the centre of Australia.
Mr AH KIT (Sport and Recreation): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker, for my minute to reply.
What worries me is that the shadow sports minister is not being given the right information. It seems to happen on that side of the House. The Masters Games is getting a lot of support and I will, in the next day-and-a-half, make an effort to ensure that in this Chamber, a report of some sort is given to explain to members opposite - and especially the members from Central Australia - what my department and my office is doing in regards to getting behind the Masters Games. What was said yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition and by the member for Araluen is totally incorrect. They should not be talking the Masters Games down; they should be talking it up because this is going to boost the economy in Central Australia.
Madam Speaker, that is what we are on about, and I will provide a report in the next day-and-a-half.
Reports noted pursuant to Sessional Order.
FIRST HOME OWNER GRANT AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 41)
(Serial 41)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The First Home Owner Grant Amendment Bill serves to implement the Commonwealth government’s extension of the additional First Home Owner Grant for new homes. As a Commonwealth government policy initiative, it is to be fully funded by the Commonwealth. However, as with the existing arrangements, the states and territories will administer the scheme.
This additional grant was to have ceased on 31 December 2001 but has now been extended, with some modifications, to operate until 30 June 2002. The modifications are twofold: first, the amount of the additional grant has been reduced from a total of $14 000 to a total of $10 000 for all eligible transactions entered into from 1 January 2002. The original grant of $7000 remains for people purchasing established homes.
Secondly, the eligibility requirements for the commencement and completion of construction of a new home have been relaxed with effect from 9 October 2001. This means that construction is to have commenced within 26 weeks of a building contract being entered into instead of the prior period of 16 weeks; and the contract must specify a completion date within 18 months after the building work commences instead of the prior period of 12 months. A transitional provision has been inserted to maintain the integrity of the prior commencement and completion dates.
Finally, this bill includes the ability to amend the amount of the grant and the date on which the grant extends by the Administrator making a proclamation in the Gazette. This has been inserted to facilitate any further extension or variation to the scheme required by the Commonwealth government.
Madam Speaker, I seek to table, along with this bill, the explanatory memorandum which I do have here somewhere. I commend the bill to honourable members and table the explanatory memorandum.
Debate adjourned.
STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL
(Serial 47)
(Serial 47)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to amend various Northern Territory laws, none of which reflect substantial changes in policy. I now outline some of the changes that are brought about by this bill.
Sections 194 and 208 of the Local Government Act are being amended consequential to the Fines and Penalties (Recovery) Act that commenced on 1 January 2002. Under the new enforcement scheme established by the Fines and Penalties (Recovery) Act, non-payment of infringement notices will not be enforced by prosecution, but will be enforced by a range of other enforcement measures such as licence suspension and community work orders.
Currently, section 194 of the Local Government Act is unclear that it is the issuing of an infringement notice that is the alternative to prosecution, not the payment of a penalty under the infringement notice. This bill removes the doubt. It is now to be clear that the issuing of the infringement notice is the alternative to prosecution.
Under the Fines and Penalties (Recovery) Act, the Fines Recovery Unit is now responsible for collecting most court fines and all outstanding infringement notices. The amendment to section 208 of the Local Government Act clarifies that the amount of the court fine or infringement notice penalty is still payable to the relevant council.
Most of the other amendments made by the bill are of a very minor nature and are generally self-explanatory. However, there are some that require further explanation, and I will briefly summarise the amendments that are of greater significance.
The Marine Pollution Act 1999 which has not commenced operation, provides in Part 4 for the prevention of pollution to coastal waters. Part 4 contains an offence concerning the jettisoning of pollutants . Currently the term ‘jettisoning’ is defined so that its ordinary dictionary meaning is taken to include ‘leaking’. Clause 3(1) amends section 26 of the Marine Pollution Act 1999 so that it is clear that includes in its meaning ‘accidental discharges or losses’.
The Radioactive Ores and Concentrates (Packaging and Transport) Act provides in section 25 for recognition by the minister of codes relating to the packaging and transporting of certain radioactive materials. Currently, section 25 provides that such codes must be codes approved by the International Atomic Energy Agency or approved under the Environmental Protection (Nuclear Codes) Act 1978 of the Commonwealth. However, there are severe operational difficulties in complying with this section. Australian codes are not now approved under any relevant international agency. Rather, they are formulated by the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency. Additionally, the Commonwealth act referred to in section 25 no longer exists. Clause 4 of the bill proposes that section 25 be amended so as to remove the cross-references to the international codes and to the Commonwealth legislation. Instead, the relevant code will be one approved by the minister.
Regulation 26 of the Fisheries Regulations is to be amended to reflect the fact that the Commonwealth’s Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1982 has been replaced by the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.
The remaining amendments are consequential to: the change in the name of the Law Society; the amendments made to the corporations legislation; and the Commonwealth legislation relating to various Commonwealth lawyers.
I commend the Statute Law Revision Bill 2002 to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
MEAT INDUSTRIES AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 39)
(Serial 39)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr HENDERSON (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill now be read a second time.
Madam Speaker, there is a small, emerging bait meat industry based on the harvesting of feral animals to produce bait meat for crab fishing. This small industry operates mainly in the Borroloola area and is unique to the Northern Territory. The estimated volume of the industry is six to eight tonnes per week for eight months each year. The estimated industry value is $250 000 annually.
Pet meat operators also harvest feral animals for pet food. Pet meat operators are licensed, must process the meat in approved premises and dye the meat blue. Pet meat operators expressed a concern that the new industry could jeopardise the human and pet meat markets if there was substitution by bait meat. Meat wholesalers and retailers have similar concerns.
The risk to public health is very high with a perishable product such as meat. There is ample evidence throughout Australia that food poisoning is on the increase and some outbreaks can be directly traced to uncontrolled meat slaughtering and processing.
The contamination of meat during field slaughter and processing is a major risk factor to the avoidance of human health crises caused by food poisoning. The consequential detrimental effect on the red meat industry, currently worth $4bn, would be substantial. The last major crisis in Australia was the Garibaldi crisis caused by contaminated sausage meat in the late 1980s.
The purpose of this legislation is mitigate the risk of bait meat prepared in unhygienic conditions during the field slaughter of feral animals entering the human food chain. The amendment bill will foster the small bait meat industry and protect human health by reducing the risk of unhygienic meat prepared for bait meat from entering the meat chain for human consumption or for pet meat. The legislation establishes a licence; requires the identification of bait meat by a green dye; and record keeping to facilitate audits by meat industry officers.
The proposed legislation imposes effective controls on the bait meat industry while not imposing excessive burdens upon them. By not requiring approved processing premises the additional costs for fishermen are minimised. The dyed green meat will be an effective control in the prevention of the substitution of bait meat into the human food chain.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT BILL (No 5)
(Serial 23)
(Serial 23)
Continued 28 November 2001.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, although the matter was adjourned, I believe, by the shadow attorney-general, I have picked up carriage of this legislation and would like to raise some issues in relation to it. I would also signal to the Attorney-General that I will be proposing some amendments and I would like to cover those as I speak today.
On this occasion I do begin by saying to the Attorney-General that the general thrust of the legislation is of no offence to me whatsoever. In fact I applaud the Attorney-General for bringing such important legislation before the House. The bill deals with matters of sexual servitude, basically sexual slavery, and the requirement under the Criminal Code to make such an activity an offence, and that has the wholehearted support of members on this side of the House.
However, there are some issues that I did wish to raise in this Chamber and I have signalled to the Attorney-General that I would be raising these issues. The first one relates to the definition of ‘reasonable grounds’ under the threat provisions provided by the Code. The concern I have is that under the threat provisions sub-subsection (c) of definition provides for a threat or other detrimental action unless there are reasonable grounds for the threat. The issue that I raised with the Attorney-General in a letter to him dated 14 December raised this issue; the matter I wanted to hear from the Attorney-General about was the reasonable grounds for the threat.
Simply, the question I put to the Attorney-General was that I was interested to know what circumstances the Attorney-General would anticipate, would require the legislation to provide reasonable grounds protection above the elements already provided for in the Criminal Code dealing with the issues of authorisation, justification and excuse. The Attorney-General has sought counsel on this issue and I am pleased to report to the House that he has signalled to me that he realises that that section of the definition of threat should be removed. Consequently, I believe he is bringing an amendment before this House. Certainly it is on my amendment list and I am sure during the committee stages we can negotiate out who gets the amendment up.
I now move on to some other aspects of the legislation and one part that concerned me was the aggravation section. I draw members’ attention to sexual servitude, the proposed new section in the Criminal Code, section 202B(1):
A person whose conduct causes an adult to enter into or continue sexual servitude is guilty of a crime and
liable to imprisonment for 15 years.
Subsection (2):
A person whose conduct causes a child of or over the age of 12 years to enter into or continue in sexual servitude
is guilty of a crime and is liable to imprisonment for 20 years.
Subsection (3):
A person whose conduct causes a child under the age of 12 years to enter into or continue in sexual servitude is guilty
of a crime and is liable to imprisonment for life.
I have no major problem with subsection (3) however, I am concerned that the cut-off date for the purposes of aggravation under the act is pegged at 12 years. I believe that this is a very serious offence and, although unlikely in the Northern Territory - I would have thought unlikely in Australia until the Attorney-General advised me that there had been circumstances of this offence occurring in other places in Australia - but unlikely as it is in the Northern Territory, the message, I think, that this parliament should be sending to the courts is that we do not accept that 12 years is low enough. We believe that the aggravation for life imprisonment should be raised to 16 years.
The reason I believe that is because I was struck by an article in Time magazine, the issue dated 4 February 2002. I would like to quote from Time magazine. It is the opening couple of paragraphs:
Mama San won’t budge from $1000. There’s the food, the clothes, the makeup, the perfume and condoms,
not to mention the fees of the middlemen. At $1000 she’s making nothing, she says. She taps out the figure
in baht on a calculator and holds it up: 43 650. You won’t get a pair of 14-year-old Burmese girls for less
than that in this town.
When you read this article in its entirety - and I notice on page 42 there is a rather graphic photograph of a young girl, probably above the age of 12 but certainly below the age of 16 years, sitting in a bedroom in Thailand. If those offences were committed here in the Northern Territory and, indeed, if Mama San was operating here in the Northern Territory, if it was in my power I would give the court the opportunity to send or to sentence this individual to damnation. Naturally, it is not in my power, but I think it is within the power of this parliament to make certain that operators like Mama San, if they ever exist within this jurisdiction, have to face the penalty for life. I don’t think we should be hamstringing the courts with a mandatory maximum sentence in relation to somebody dealing with 14 year old girls in this fashion.
I believe that the mandatory maximum should be raised so that a girl under the age of 16 - or a boy for that matter, operating under the age of 16 - the courts should have the power to sentence people like Mama San to life if they exist in this jurisdiction. That is an example and I seek leave to table this magazine for the edification of the honourable the minister.
Leave granted.
Mr ELFERINK: The last issue deals with a letter I received from the minister only very recently in reply to the one that I sent to him on 14 December and, once again, it was a little bit late. However, I have spoken to the minister in relation to this matter and I want to propose a further subsection which addresses the issue of employees of people who work in these environments or in these sorts of sexual servitude environments.
Indeed, the Attorney-General proposes to this House under the proposed section 202C that a person who conducts a business or manages such a business, takes part in the management, exercises control over or provides financial assistance to such a business is indeed a person who would be convictable under this offence. What concerns me is that staff of such an environment or such an institution would not be convictable under such an offence. I raised the issue with the Attorney-General and he advises me that under section 8 of the Criminal Code, staff such as cleaners, bar tenders, drivers would be aiders and abettors. However, on my reading of the Criminal Code I am not entirely sure that staff fall within those parameters and I will read out the two sections concerned.
Section 8 of the Criminal Code reads:
(1) When two or more persons form a common intention to prosecute an unlawful purpose in
conjunction with one another and in the prosecution of such purpose an offence is committed
by one or some of them, the other or each of the others is presumed to have aided or procured
the perpetrator or perpetrators of the offence to commit the offence unless he proves he did not
foresee the commission of that offence was a possible consequence of prosecuting that unlawful
purpose.
(2) Two or more persons form a common intention to prosecute an unlawful purpose in conjunction
with one another when they agree to engage in or concur in engaging in any conduct that, if
engaged in, would involve them or some or one of them in the commission of an offence or a tort.
I am not entirely sure that a cleaner in a place of sexual servitude would be engaging in a common intent. That as an aside, the intent of my amendment is not aimed at catching people through an aider or abettor scheme, it is to place upon the shoulders of any person who derives an income from such an environment a duty to report that such a thing is occurring, and I feel that that is such a serious issue that the penalty for failing to report such an environment or such an institution should be five years’ imprisonment.
However, I brought these issues to the Attorney-General’s attention. He and I have discussed the issues and I am certain that he is going to make his own comments. So I look forward to the committee stages. Madam Speaker, generally speaking, the opposition does support the bill, however we would like to tighten up a few of these issues.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Madam Speaker, I rise this morning to support and commend the Minister for Justice in passage of this legislation dealing with the issue of sexual servitude. I sought a briefing from staff in the Department of Justice and it is based on that briefing that I am commenting today.
The whole issue of legislating for sexual servitude arose out of discussions held throughout all jurisdictions in 1998 and, indeed, I will be speaking from notes that are contained in the Alternative Law Journal, Volume 23 No. 4, August 1998, and I will be seeking leave to table this information for you.
Essentially, on 1 July 1998 the Criminal Code Amendment (Slavery and Sexual Servitude) Bill 1998 was introduced to the House of Representatives in Canberra. That was the first time legislation of this nature was introduced into any jurisdiction in Australia. It came about as a result of the Model Criminal Code Discussion Paper which was looking at offences against humanity and specifically slavery.
The Alternative Law Journal states that the bill implements Australia’s international obligations under a wide range of international instruments to prohibit servitude and the trafficking in persons for the purposes of sexual exploitation. These include the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (1979), the Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948).
The legislation that the Territory government is seeking to pass through the Assembly conforms with the Model Criminal Code, it conforms with the existing Criminal Code penalties in the Territory and certainly conforms with Commonwealth legislation. So far, the ACT has introduced similar legislation, as have South Australia and New South Wales.
I can say categorically that the advice I received is that no such offences have ever occurred in the Northern Territory. I repeat: no such sexual servitude offences have ever been found to have occurred in the Northern Territory. This is legislation that states very clearly and puts on record for everyone that this government will not countenance moves towards such offences and the penalties contained in this legislation are very severe.
I represent an electorate that has the highest non-English speaking background constituency in the Territory, that is the electorate of Karama.
Mr Elferink: You sure about that?
Ms LAWRIE: I am sure of that; you can check the demographics. The member for Blain can confirm that. He has already checked it.
Mr Mills: I have checked it. It is true. I thought it was Blain.
Mr Elferink: Eighty per cent of mine don’t have an English speaking background.
Members interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: Ignoring the inane interjections from the member for Macdonnell, what I want to say is that I am aware of concerns among women from a non-English speaking background of similar offences that are occurring in their homelands. It is not news to some of us that sexual servitude occurs in some areas of Asia, our near neighbours and, clearly, we do not desire to see any similar practices being introduced into Australia. I, therefore, see this legislation as sending an important, timely and strong, clear signal to our Asian neighbours that the Territory provides a safe haven for women from all corners of the globe. That is an issue that is very dear to my heart and one of the reasons why I chose to speak in support of this legislation today.
I repeat: no offence of this nature has been found to have occurred in the Territory. Really, there is evidence that in other jurisdictions in other nations, immigrant women have been forced to perform sexual favours and have been held against their will. This is not a problem in the Territory and I believe that with this legislation in place, fortunately, it may never be a problem in the Territory.
This legislation was initially introduced under the CLP government. It was reintroduced by ourselves in November. That is the advice I have received from the Department of Justice. It contains in it very severe penalties. The penalty for adults found to have created sexual servitude is 15 years. For someone forcing anyone between the age of 12 and 18 years into sexual servitude, the penalty is 20 years imprisonment and for anyone forcing anyone under the age of 12 into sexual servitude, the penalty is life.
The member for Macdonnell has flagged his intention to try and amend this element of penalties by varying the age from 12 to 18 years to making it 16 to 18 years and therefore making anyone 16 and below, the penalty there is is life. I want to point out at this stage that these penalties conform with penalties under the existing Criminal Code. They are not penalties that are just plucked out of the air; they are penalties that conform with the Code and that certainly meet the recommendations of all jurisdictions in the Model Criminal Code as well.
Certainly, the member for Macdonnell raised the issue of threats and sought to have the words ‘unless there are reasonable grounds’ removed. The Minister for Justice has already flagged his intention to acquiesce to that request. It was a reasonable request followed through appropriate processes, and the member for Macdonnell will have his amendment acquiesced to and I think that is a win for everyone. I agree with member for Macdonnell; I can see no reasonable grounds ever existing for sexual servitude.
The issue raised by the member for Macdonnell in terms of an obligation to report, that he would like to see the sexual servitude legislation be broadened to include cleaners, staff - really, the clear legal advice to this government is that under the existing Criminal Code, sections 8 and 12, all staff could in fact be found to be aiding and abetting if they don’t report instances of sexual servitude. So we have adequate liability there existing in both the Criminal Code and the Community Welfare Act in reference to reporting offences on children.
I repeat: we are not aware of any offences of sexual servitude in the Territory. There are instances of sexual servitude that have been found in two other jurisdictions - Victoria and New South Wales. We are a government that seeks to protect the rights of women and enshrine the rights of women in legislation.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, my contribution will be brief. I rise essentially in my capacity as shadow minister for Women’s Policy. With one or two exceptions that will be obvious to anyone reading this debate in due course or listening to it today, I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiments expressed by the member for Karama.
The Chief Minister commented when we were having a debate last week about violence on Aboriginal women that it was very rewarding and pleasing that in this House from time to time on very important issues, there is agreed common ground. I am not sure whether that is just because we have seven women in this place. I suspect it is because all of us are, at the end of the day, decent human beings. We represent the decent human beings in our electorate. This legislation is decent legislation and it is very much applauded and warmly embraced by me, not only as a member of the opposition, as shadow minister for Womens Policy, but also by me in a very personal sense.
I do thank the member for Macdonnell for his contributions. I know he has worked well and hard with the Attorney and whilst perhaps not all of his amendments will succeed, some of them will, and as the member for Karama said, that is a win-win situation however anyone looks at it.
____________________
Visitors
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: Before we continue, I would just like to advise honourable members of the presence in the Gallery of Adelaide River Primary School students accompanied by their teacher Samantha Willcox. On behalf of all members I extend a warm welcome to our visitors.
Members: Hear, hear!
____________________
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Madam Speaker, I rise to speak in relation to the Criminal Code Amendment Bill in respect to sexual servitude. The use of both physical and economic duress to force women to provide sexual services is certainly not a new phenomenon, one that unfortunately is not unheard of in the Northern Territory. As outlined in the Attorney-General’s second reading speech, the proposed amendments to our Criminal Code seek to implement a uniform regime throughout Australia that will hopefully enable both federal and state and territory law enforcement authorities to effectively strike at internationally coordinated criminal operations.
The scenario conjured up by the bill and the information provided in the Attorney-General’s speech is one of a sinister and clandestine trade in oppressed, predominantly Asian women victimised by well organised international syndicates. However, when it comes to those sections of the bill that relate to the sexual servitude of minors, this bill will in fact modernise and improve on aspects of the existing Criminal Code that may have very important local implications, not just in Darwin or Alice Springs, but in more remote communities as well.
Section 131 of the Criminal Code is in the following terms:
- (1) Any person who attempts to procure a child who is under the age of 16 years to –
(a) have unlawful sexual intercourse either in the Territory or elsewhere; or
is guilty of a crime and is liable to imprisonment for 3 years.
- (2) If the offender is an adult he is liable to imprisonment for 5 years.
believed, on reasonable grounds, that the other person was of or above the age of 16 years.
The amendments to the Criminal Code that are included in this bill will have the effect of imposing harsher penalties than those available under section 131 where a child has been recruited into providing sexual services by way of force or deception, and purported lack of knowledge by the offender of the child’s age will be immaterial and will not provide him with any defence. This law will be useful tool in the armoury of those tasked with protecting children in our community.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Madam Speaker, the opposition does indeed support the passage of this bill. However, I note with concern some of the comments made by the member for Karama - the suggestion that because there has been no record of the offence or an offence likely to be caught by the scope of this provision in the Northern Territory that we should settle for second best. In that regard, I support wholeheartedly the submissions made by the member for Macdonnell. These are minor changes, but changes which would make the legislation operate even better. We already have a concession from the government, it seems, in relation to some surplusage contained in section 202A(1), but really the balance of the changes, apart from that, are to deal with very specifically the ages of the victims, the real people we are trying to protect and secondly, imposing an obligation upon people who may be employed by an institutional organisation to come forward and report that activity to the police.
There is a need, in my view, for some sort of consistency. Under the Community Welfare Act, the age of a child is, I think, less than 18 years of age, and under the Northern Territory Criminal Code of course, the age of consent for females and males is 16 years of age. There are some other exceptions, but in terms of heterosexual activity, it is 16. It seems unusual then for this legislation to be drafted in terms of conduct involving a child and making the benchmark 12 years of age. There needs to be some consistency, and the suggestions put forward by the member for Macdonnell are sensible. I urge honourable members of this House to give them serious and proper consideration.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I again thank members for their contribution to this debate and, as the shadow Attorney-General said, a particular thanks to the member for Macdonnell for the diligence that he has taken with this legislation. I think we are going to end up with a better act because of that, as well as the ideas that we put forward. I will deal with the various issues that have been brought up in turn.
Starting with the issue of the wording in the act, again, we have accepted the arguments put forward by the member for Macdonnell. I will read the explanation of the committee stage amendments that we will be bringing forward in response to those points. The first amendment is to remove the phrase ‘unless there are reasonable grounds for the threat’ from the definition of ‘threat’. The phrase can safely be omitted in the Northern Territory because of section 31 of our Criminal Code which would excuse a person from criminal responsibility if he or she did not intend or foresee that the threat would result in a person being forced to remain in sexual servitude. So, it is adequately covered within section 31. We don’t need that wording in there; we will drop it.
Thank you for that. I think those two amendments will improve the clarity of that part of our bill. I’d remind members in general that we are serious about taking on board ideas of merit from all members of parliament, and here’s another example where we are putting our actions where our mouth was.
The issue of the actual age categories built into the bill, this really is a case where we just have to make a judgment as to what best fits in with the landscape that’s around this particular decision. Now, in terms of our Criminal Code, there’s anything but a clear picture embodied in the Criminal Code in terms of what ages trigger off what offences and what penalties. I will give some examples. There are many age thresholds you will find in various parts of the Criminal Code, from children under 12 years, to children under 16, to children under 18. They will vary from offence to offence. For example, sexual intercourse or gross indecency between males: the threshold for aggravation on the basis of age is under 14 years – that is sections 127 and 128 of the Criminal Code. Similarly, under section 129 of the Criminal Code, to even be guilty of an offence of sexual intercourse or gross indecency, the age of consent is 16 years and the threshold of aggravation on the base of age is 14 years. So, we have quite a variation.
Further to that, the offence of unlawful relationship with a child, section 131A of the Criminal Code, only applies for victims under the age of 16 years and attracts a maximum of seven years for the offence. If the offence of rape occurs during the unlawful sexual relationship, then the maximum is life. So, there is an enormous variation in the way that age is a factor in the offence.
Section 132, indecent dealing with a child under 16 years of age: the offence only occurs if a victim is under the age of 16 years and a maximum under section 132(2) is imprisonment for five years. If the child is under 12 years and the offender is an adult, it is imprisonment for 10 years. If we look further afield beyond our own Criminal Code, the Commonwealth act uses the thresholds of 15 and 19 years, but the Commonwealth act also embodies far less stringent penalties than we are proposing today. For the general offence it’s 10 years, for the aggravated offence it’s 19 years. The South Australian act mirrors the penalties that we are bringing forward today, which is the two trigger points at 12 and 18 years.
Just to complicate matters even further, if you want to look at the age of consent as some sort of benchmark, the age of consent for girls is 16 however, the age of consent for boys is 18. So, when you look around the body of law that this is going to provide the context for this particular bill to be introduced, there is anything but a clear and consistent picture as to the use of age. What we’ve opted for - and I would signal at this point that we would certainly want to stand on our decision on this aspect – we’ve opted for quite stringent penalties; in fact, very severe penalties. The three penalty levels of 15 years, 20 years and then life should provide absolutely ample disincentive for any would-be offender coming into the Territory.
I take the point made by the member for Karama. I hope this law never has to be applied to an offender because, thankfully, we have not had any case of sexual servitude in the Northern Territory to date. National law reform was triggered by a case in a major capital city involving some Thai women. As the member for Karama pointed out, it is certainly not an unknown offence overseas and in countries, in many cases, fairly close to our shores.
What we will say here is we believe we have a set of penalties that are sufficiently severe. We believe that protection for the 18-year-olds down to 12-year-olds, where there is a 20 year maximum penalty for that category, are sufficiently protected. We have indicated that particularly with young children, the penalty should be the maximum that is available to any Criminal Code around the country short of capital punishment, which I am not going to enter into, certainly life imprisonment is the most severe penalty we can impose on any crime. I have absolute ease of mind for that penalty for the situation we are talking about. It is absolutely unconscionable that any human being would be doing this to a child and they deserve to go away, and they deserve to go away for their life.
The issue of the people who may be involved in working in these establishments if they occur: while the member for Macdonnell quoted section 8, parties to offences section, of the Criminal Code, the section to which we would refer him is 12. This is dealing with abettors and accessories before the fact. I will read it out for members’ benefit:
- (1) When an offence is committed, the following persons also are deemed to have taken part in committing
the offence and may be charged with actually committing it:
(a) every person who aids another in committing the offence;
aiding another to commit the offence; and
That’s the area of the Criminal Code that would be most likely to be triggered if there were people involved in the establishment in which this activity was going on. But I want to point out, just to clarify it, that all people would be charged with the offence of sexual servitude or promulgating sexual servitude. So the collective of people who are attached to that premises or the activity would all be subject to the charge of sexual servitude and the penalties that apply to it. If there is a simple case of failure to report the crime, there are punishments for a person who becomes an accessory after the fact. In the case of any other crime other than murder and terrorism, section 294(2) states:
- Any person who becomes an accessory after the fact to any other crime of such a nature that the offender
may be sentenced to imprisonment for a term greater than 3 years is guilty of a crime and is liable, if no
other punishment is provided, to imprisonment for 2 years.
Any person who becomes an accessory after the fact to any other crime or to any simple offence of such
a nature that the offender may be sentenced on being found guilty summarily to imprisonment for one year,
is guilty of an offence and is liable to a punishment equal to one-half of the greatest punishment to which the
perpetrator is liable on being found guilty.
We are talking about very serious crimes here. We are talking about long periods of imprisonment. Any person on that premises, unless they can prove absolutely beyond doubt that they had no knowledge of or involvement in the activities we are talking about would be very much liable to substantial punishment. We believe, having looked at the concerns you raised, that we are covered in that area.
I will provide some further information in regards to this issue. Prior to the introduction of the Criminal Code in 1984, the NT had the common law offence of misprison of felony – you wonder why we don’t use English in law sometimes! - which made it an offence not to report a felony or a serious crime. When the Criminal Code was enacted, no comparable offence was introduced save for the accessory after the fact and other forms of criminal responsibility for aiders which we were referring to just now. It is inappropriate to now introduce criminal responsibility for failure to report for one offence in the Criminal Code only, without reinstating an entire system of failure to report across the whole range of criminal offences. In the case of child abuse, this is one of the few areas where there is a statutory obligation for a person to report. They would have to report sexual slavery if it involved children under our Community Welfare Act.
We are certainly depending on the general moral principle throughout our community that it would be expected of a citizen, as part of their duties as a citizen, to report serious crime. While that might not be legally binding, when you take it alongside the areas of our Criminal Code dealing with abettors and accessories, we have both in the formal sense and the informal sense considerable expectation that someone associating themselves with a premises where this activity is going on or with people carrying out that activity as the prime offenders would be very much liable to prosecution and punishment under our combined act of the law.
I hope I have dealt with those issues. I propose now that we will move to committee and deal with the amendments.
Bill read a second time.
In committee:
Clauses 1 and 2, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 3:
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move my first amendment. This is amendment 12.1 where the proposed section 202A(1), the definition of ‘threat’, paragraph (c), omit ‘unless there are reasonable grounds for the threat’. I have given members the underlying reason for that and it is in response to the member for Macdonnell’s concerns.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chairman, as I said before in the debate, I have spoken to the Attorney-General about this. I am quite happy to accept his amendment. Mine is worded in exactly the same fashion and I invite defeat of 8.1 on my amendment sheet. I am quite happy to withdraw 8.1 on my amendment sheet. The Attorney-General has the same amendment that I have.
Amendment agreed to.
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I propose a further amendment to section 202B in the section of the bill dealing with sexual servitude and the penalties that apply. This amendment omits the words ‘whose conduct’ and replace it with just simply ‘who’. I will read it out. 12.2 proposed section 202B: omit all references to ‘whose conduct’ and substitute ‘who’. Again, it clarifies any confusion that might be associated with the use of the word ‘conduct’.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chairman, the opposition puts on the record that we support any legislation that seeks to avoid confusion.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chairman, I am going to proceed with my amendments in relation to the issue of the circumstances of aggravation being raised from 12 years to 16 years. The reasons that I outlined were the same ones that I relied on in my second reading debate. Quite frankly, if a person like Mama San operated an institution such as the one outlined in this Time magazine in the Northern Territory, I would like to give the court absolutely every possible latitude to send people to gaol.
I understand that the Attorney-General has clearly signalled that they will be resisting raising the age of aggravation for the purposes of sentencing from the age of 12 to 16 years and he cited basically the dog’s breakfast that the sentencing elements of the rest of the Criminal Code are, and then he went further afield to quote federal and South Australian legislation. It is clear from that that each case and each offence should stand on its own merits and that the penalties in the rest of the Criminal Code and circumstances of aggravation going from 18, 16, 14 and to 12, are reflective of this parliament’s opinion that in those offences the sentences that are recommended to the courts are commensurate with the offences that they seek to outline.
What I am suggesting to all members in this Chamber is that where a child of the age of 14 years or 15 years has been forced into a state of sexual servitude then it should be within the contemplation of the court to send the person who forces that child into sexual servitude to prison for life. That is simply the issue that I am bringing up.
I would like to see the Attorney-General soften his attitude towards this and toughen up the legislation in relation to it. Therefore, I am going to continue on with the amendments I propose and I once again appeal to the Attorney-General to revisit this issue at this 11th hour and accept that 16 years of age is a more appropriate age than 12 years of age.
Dr TOYNE: I can only say to the member for Macdonnell that I totally respect the view he is putting forward. This is a matter of judgement and all we can really say is that we have made two different judgements on the issue of the age thresholds. We have made a judgement that at least keeps us in reasonable consistency with the jurisdictions around us. We believe the penalties that we have applied to the three age categories in the bill are severe and they are certainly severe enough to deal, if the court so desires, very powerfully with offenders who come before it.
There are some things in a subjective area like this where there are not clear precedents or guidelines around us, we simply have to make a judgement and we have made the judgement. It is probably no more objective or subjective than the judgment you have made; I think we just have to respect the fact that we’ve come to two different points on this. We’ll be sticking with our position.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chairman, just as a matter of record, I hear what the Attorney-General has to say. I am not going to die at the stake over this issue, however I do point out to the Attorney-General that if it is a subjective issue and it is an issue of judgment, then we should free the judges up to make those decisions.
Amendment negatived.
Proposed amendments 8.3, 8.4 and 8.5, by leave, taken together:
Amendments negatived.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 8.6 standing in my name. I listened carefully to what the Attorney-General had to say about this and, quite correctly, he pointed out that I didn’t read out section 12 of the Criminal Code where I intended to. However, once again, it returns me to the same issue that I raised after reading section 8 of the Criminal Code. That is somehow, I do not believe that a cleaner in such an institution would be captured by section 12 of the act no matter how you read it.
The other thing is that is not the issue I am trying to raise. The issue I am trying to raise with this new section is that it clearly places a responsibility on people who work in such institutions as brothels where sexual slavery occurs should have a duty thrust upon their shoulders to report what happens in those brothels, and it should be a serious crime not to report sexual slavery, an offence which carries a penalty of five years’ imprisonment.
However, the Attorney-General has said it is up to the people who work in such institutions where they are charged with being an accessory, where they have a burden of proof which is beyond doubt that they are not an accessory. I point out to the Attorney-General that beyond doubt is not a burden of proof in law and never has been. It is either beyond reasonable doubt, which is what a prosecution has to satisfy when pursuing such a person, or, in the case of a person trying to resist a charge which is brought against them by a prosecution, to the balance of probabilities only.
I wanted to clearly demonstrate that the Northern Territory as a jurisdiction would not in any circumstances accept any person making any sort of income in relation to this sort of behaviour and this sort of sexual servitude. As a consequence, I rely on people like the member for Karama and the member for Araluen and the shadow Attorney-General to throw their weight behind this because the message has to be clear to protect women and men press-ganged into these institutions. It has to be utterly clear that we will not accept any form of acquiescence to these sorts of institutions. I would hope that the member for Karama, with her strong feelings in relation to the rights of women, would support such an amendment.
However, once again, I am not going to die at the cross over this. These are issues that this side of the House feel are important and should be addressed, and if the government of the day chooses to run dead on such issues, then that is entirely their business.
Dr TOYNE: I certainly would have to challenge the fact that we’re running dead. The fact that we brought this legislation into the House today says anything but that. The weight of legal opinion that we sought in response to your indicated issues says that yes, it would be quite practical for a prosecution to prosecute a person such as a cleaner in a premises such as this. What would need to be proved is that that person knew the activity was going on in that premises and therefore became part of the collective that was running the activity on that premises.
It’s a relatively low bar for the prosecution to achieve to prove to a reasonable person that the cleaner could not have carried out their duties in that facility without being aware of what was going on there. If there was a case where that can’t be proven, they may well be innocent. But certainly, I’ve been reassured, after a serious examination of your proposal, that there are the legal means to prosecute these people within our Criminal Code in the sections I’ve indicated and therefore we believe that aspect of this law is covered.
Ms LAWRIE: I would like to concur with the Minister for Justice on this. The member for Macdonnell seems to miss the point that there is provision in existing legislation for staff to be netted in to be prosecuted in terms of sexual servitude if they have indeed been proven to have been aiding and abetting. That’s the point. Law exists. Legal minds out there say there is provision for it and I must say that I find it disappointing that the member for Macdonnell finds the passage of laws an opportunity for him to put his own individual interpretation on matters instead of weighty legal advice.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chairman, I just point out to the member for Karama that I had a number of people in the Northern Territory called voters vote for me to make me a law maker in this Chamber. That’s what we do. That is the primary responsibility of this Chamber: to make law. Without entering in to it any further, that’s just a bizarre comment by the member for Karama.
That aside, I have brought my concerns to the parliament The government has decided to go in a direction with which I do not agree. Nevertheless, as an overall statement, this is good legislation. I just think it could be improved with a section like this, and I think we should get on with the business of today.
Dr TOYNE: May I reiterate my approach to this process and again say to the member for Macdonnell that I would encourage you to keep doing what you are doing.
Amendment negatived.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Bill, as amended, reported; report adopted.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
MOTION
Note Paper - Freedom Of Information Bill, Discussion Draft
Note Paper - Freedom Of Information Bill, Discussion Draft
Continued from 23 October 2001.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I am not quite sure why the government has brought this on today. I assume it’s to get it off the Notice Paper. There is a draft bill and a draft discussion paper out for public discussion and comment. I understand that there is a great deal of comment being brought forward to the government, and I will confine the bulk of my comments to the time when the government does bring forward into this House what is its proposed legislation.
Government has got itself a bit of a problem with FOI and it falls around raising expectations in the community, and those expectations have been raised enormously by the present government when in opposition. One only has to go to the Hansard where the now Chief Minister, as Leader of the Opposition, stated that we should have an FOI Act in the Northern Territory that has no exemptions whatsoever, and if we had such FOI legislation we would be the envy of all jurisdictions in Australia.
Unfortunately, the legislation that they’ve brought forward falls far short of that, and now they have the problem in meeting the community expectations because of the level they’ve raised the bench to, as opposed to what is practical and workable FOI legislation in the Northern Territory. I was surprised that when the Attorney-General introduced this draft legislation, as part of his second reading speech, he said this:
- It is with an enormous sense of pride that I table this discussion draft information bill and the accompanying
discussion paper in this first parliamentary sittings of the Labor government.
And he went on to say:
- This proposed legislation is cutting edge and reflects world’s best practice in those areas covered in the
draft bill.
Dr Burns: Hear, hear!
Mr BURKE: Okay, well the member for Johnston says hear, hear. If you’d taken a little bit of time, member for Johnston, and done a little bit of research, which I’m sure you haven’t - you’re pretty good at saying ‘Hear, hear’; if you could suck as well as you could blow, you’d empty Manton Dam, I can tell you.
A member interjecting.
Mr BURKE: Well, the comment from the member for Johnston is indicative of new Labor members who are quick to comment but pretty slow to do any background research. Now the legislation that has been brought into this Chamber is the legislation that was drafted for the former CLP government and it took a great deal of time and effort to get that legislation drafted. What I would have liked to have seen in the second reading speech is some sense of hesitancy by the Attorney-General by saying: ‘Well this is the legislation, this is as far as we’ve gotten so far. We have some concerns with this legislation. We’re not entirely happy with what’s come forward, but what we’ll do is we’ll put it out for public discussion, we’ll listen to what everyone says and then we’ll improve on it’.
Why, then, does the Attorney-General say this is world’s best practice? I mean, you obviously don’t think it’s worlds best practice or you wouldn’t have brought it forward, and you wouldn’t have put it out for discussion or amendment.
Or does the opposite apply, and that is that we’re going to put it out for discussion but because we believe it is world’s best practice, we won’t amend it in any case, anyway? I mean, what is the true situation? Now, the true situation is exactly what I’m stating: this is the legislation the CLP government had considered, and considered for many, many months at great cost, and with a large degree of consultation, certainly in the public service and to some extent in the community. You will never satisfy the Labor government about the degree of consultation, but that’s something that they have to deal with from now on in terms of how you satisfy the community’s expectations.
The truth, Madam Speaker, is that, in the opinion of the CLP government at the time, this legislation fell far short of what the community themselves would …
Dr Burns: You didn’t propose anything like this.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr BURKE: You don’t know what you’re talking about. That’s the fact of it. Give yourself a rest. It was all drafted prior to the election, you fool.
Now Madam Speaker, this legislation…
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, do withdraw that remark, Leader of the Opposition.
Mr BURKE: What, the fool?
Madam SPEAKER: Yes.
Mr BURKE: Surely, Madam Speaker, I …
Madam SPEAKER: I am trying to raise the standard and I said yesterday that we are not going to call each other rude names. Withdraw it.
Mr BURKE: I withdraw, you ignorant man.
Now, Madam Speaker, the truth of the matter is this: the legislation was drafted over many, many months. In fact, as I recall, consultants were brought in shortly after I became Chief Minister.
Dr Toyne interjecting.
It disturbed me - this is the truth of it; just listen! It disturbed me, frankly, how much that cost, and my recollection was the consultant’s costs from Attorney-General’s was in the order of $200 000 plus in bringing forward this draft legislation in a manner that would meet community expectations. And I might add, those community expectations that were raised considerably by the Labor opposition at the time, and without giving away the deliberations of Cabinet, I can tell you that my opinion on this legislation as it exists now, as brought forward by the Attorney-General in draft, was that it would be attacked mercilessly by the Labor opposition who would condemn it as being freedom from information, not freedom of information, who would say that it was a typical CLP ploy to bring out legislation, but when you look at all the exemptions, it fell far short of what the community wanted.
That was the primary reason that this legislation was not enacted by a CLP government, so I just say it’s a – you’re hoisted on your own petard here when you come out and you bring legislation that we terrible CLP people ourselves felt was faulty, and you’re now coming out in the public and the minister for Justice, the Attorney-General says: ‘This is cutting edge, this is world’s best practice’. Well, it certainly isn’t.
It’s not world’s best practice. It needs some improvement and the degree of improvement, after community consultation, is something we’ll look forward to seeing. But I can tell you that when you’re looking at how strong the support is, and for those who do a lot of speaking, such as the member for Johnston - have you read the Ombudsman’s comments? Haven’t quite got around to them yet, have you? Oh, well, that’s a bit of a pity. Talk to the Attorney-General. This is one of the submissions you’ve received. It’s probably the bulkiest and best submission I’ve seen written on this or any other subject to government. I implore the backbenchers of the new Labor government to have a read of this because it’s good.
Dr Burns: I will read it. I will.
Mr BURKE: Good! The member for Johnston says he will. Pretty quick to talk in this House and make comments, but now you’ll go back and have a bit of a read, good! That’s why you’re an ignorant fool.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition!
Mr BURKE: I withdraw. An ignorant man, an ignorant man.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: That’s all right, he withdrew.
Mr BURKE: Now, Madam Speaker, one can go no further than to refer to some of the comments that the Ombudsman made, and I will seek the leave of this House to have incorporated a summary of his comments into the Hansard because I think it’s an excellent summary in terms of not only encouraging the new government to bring forward legislation that deals with FOI in its entirety, but also to attend to what the Ombudsman sees as the particular weaknesses of this legislation. He talks about the fact - and I’ll just quote a couple of parts:
- FOI has given rise to widespread debate in areas such as the relationship of legislation to true democratic
government, the need to consider the right to access to information as undeniably flowing from the right to
participate in government and influence government decision making. In New Zealand, it is equated to a
constitutional right.
The draft bill…
the one you so love
…deliberately, it appears…
and he refers to clause 7 in particular
- …attempts to reduce the significance of the right to access and hence its importance in the process of
democratic government. Similarly, there is substantial debate as to the extent of exemption provisions,
whether they need to be broad based or restricted and narrow in their application and subject to an
overriding presumption of the right to access limited only by stated and specific exemptions and then
only when there can be shown to be real and substantial harm by permitting disclosure.
He says:
- If government ultimately chooses restrictive and limited FOI legislation (such as the current bill proposes)
then at the very least it needs to be up front as to why and to be able to acknowledge the issues and divergent
views that flow from it.
He says:
- The Draft Bill unduly restricts debate to the key provisions of the Bill and does not permit or effectively
encourage debate into key philosophical and policy issues around FOI.
…those who have some understanding of the issues and debate in respect of FOI are quickly able to perceive that
the Bill does not in truth give effect to real access to information due to the inclusion of restrictive provisions and
broad based exemptions.
He talks about how he believes the bill should be put to a parliamentary committee. That’s something that the government can consider. He gives a whole process of how he believes it should be dealt with, rather than the government moving forward with legislation so quickly and he makes some other general comments and I quote some of those.
- …the public will be most interested in the provision relating to access to government information…
And, really, it falls around that. There is no concern about the privacy or record keeping aspects of the bills, we can dispense with that. It really falls around freedom to government information, the role of the Information Commissioner and the role of CEOs and ministers in government.
Dr Burns: The two are inter-linked.
Mr BURKE: You really don’t know what you’re talking about.
Dr Burns: Privacy and FOI are linked within the legislation.
Mr BURKE:
- …the public will be most interested in the provision relating to access to government information.
Regrettably …
A member: You have no shame.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Members on the government side, you will have your opportunity to have your say.
Mr BURKE: He says:
- Regrettably, it is in this area that I am of the view that the Bill falls far short of providing broad based and real
access of public sector information to the public such that it would meet the stated objectives set out in the
proposed Bill. In this regard, I believe that the proposed Bill is inherently flawed and misguided.
They are pretty tough comments from the Ombudsman, that the proposed bill is inherently flawed and misguided.
- From my understanding of the current state of FOI legislation and, particularly, some of the law reform proposals
in regard to FOI, the proposed Bill, together with the exemptions as proposed within the Bill are headed in a
direction whereby any legislation will fail to meet the requisite requirements of basic FOI design principles.
Fundamentally the Draft Bill fails to provide any real opportunity or scope for the public to access government
information to participate in the decision making process and, ultimately, to influence government policy and
procedures. This is, in my view, a key focus and value of FOI legislation in a truly democratic society.
He goes on:
- In my view, the objects clauses of the Draft Bill evidence some noble statements promising access to information
while the substance of the Bill merely focuses on restricting the degree of access that the public would have to
government information to such an extent that the concept of Freedom of Information is significantly undermined
and the objects and purposes of the Draft Bill are simply not met.
One could argue that the real perception arising from the Bill is that the interests of public sector organisations
have been given precedence in the proposed framework of the legislation.
He says:
- It effectively excludes any real participation of the public in the processes of government and renders the concept
of accountability to less than a meaningful concept.
The restrictive threads of the Bill flow through and are demonstrated by:
the lack of a significance in terms of the purpose and objects of the Bill;
democratic government (ie not a legal right but something less);
the broad based exemptions;
I seek leave to incorporate the full summary of the Ombudsman into the Hansard record.
Leave granted.
In summary
I would submit strongly to government that the next steps following initial receipt of responses to the Bill is to:
draft legislation should only follow that process;
issues and the current state of the law and proposals for reform around FOI and, indeed, privacy.
This would provide the government with significant independent input into the final shaping of FOI;
addressing the need to inform the public and provide for a transparent process for debate on key issues.
- The Northern Territory deserves the best and most appropriate FOI legislation formulated with proper understanding
of all issues and taking into account the public interest, the importance to democratic government and balancing
all competing issues into a well structured and effective process for dealing with the right to accessing information
and the right for the public to participate in government.
Mr BURKE: It is very important for members - and I can say now I do not care if you criticise it as being CLP legislation; I don’t care. Just meet your own principles and parameters in what you said you would bring forward into this House. This is the legislation that the CLP were considering. This is the legislation the CLP did not consider was sufficiently worthwhile to bring forward because we believed it would not be acceptable by the public in its current format and that is the fact of it.
The bill falls, as I said, on the degree of exemptions. Without going through all of that, the main issue is this …
Mr Kiely: You have not read it, have you?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr BURKE: You want to have a look? Which clause do you want to go back to?
Mr Kiely: Clause 102, what is it? Tell me straight off. Come on.
Mr BURKE: That deals with the Information Commissioner. What does clause 59 deal with?
Mr Kiely: You haven’t read it. You got caught again, Denis.
Mr BURKE: What does clause 59 deal with?
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Sanderson, you can have your say later.
Mr BURKE: Madam Speaker, the bill falls in these areas in simple terms: for any request for information - the member for Nelson might be interested, at least; the government aren’t - for any request for information, the minister may issue an exemption certificate which he may delegate down to the CEO of his department or the Chief Executive Officer of the Chief Minister’s Department may issue an exemption certificate and, in issuing an exemption certificate, they do not have to declare whether that information exists in a government department or not.
There are good reasons that those things are there, but what I simply say is: I do not believe that those good reasons satisfy the government’s utterances and statements with regards to how they will bring forward legislation.
It is worrying, to my mind, that on the one hand you have the minister and chief executive officers of departments who are all-powerful in what they can exempt from public disclosure, and yet you have an Information Commissioner who is very restrictive in what he can access; and that is the fact of it. He has to report to the minister on the type of information that comes to him, and he can be directed by the responsible minister to report on the information that comes to him, but the Information Commissioner himself, really, under this legislation, is no more than a post office box in terms of what he can access. I believe he has fewer powers than the Ombudsman has today, in terms of accessing information - that may be disputed by some - and he has a very subordinate role to, not only the minister, but also to the powers of …
Mr Bonson: Or she.
Dr Lim: Just watch your words.
Mr BURKE: With respect, Madam Speaker, the member for Millner just made a comment which I believe was…
Dr Lim: That’s right. He said ‘bullshit’. I mean, that’s not on.
Mr BURKE: …he used most unparliamentary language.
Dr Burns: No, he did not. He said ‘or she’.
Mr BURKE: I ask him to stand up, be a man and withdraw it.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Millner, withdraw that remark.
Mr BURKE: He said ‘bullshit’ in the Chamber, Madam Speaker.
Mr BONSON: Madam Speaker, I did not say any such word to that effect. ‘Or she’, I said. I am just correcting the member for Brennan on his use of terms …
A member: [inaudible] the language.
Madam SPEAKER: I will accept your explanation.
Mr BURKE: If that’s the case, I accept it also.
What we have is a bill that gives the Information Commissioner powers that are subordinate to the powers of the Secretary of the Chief Minister’s Department, subordinate to the powers of an individual minister and, worse, subordinate to the powers of a delegated CEO of any department. I think it is just not going to fly out there in the general public; they just will not wear it. The government now has the task of bringing forward legislation that meets those parameters.
From my point of view, as I said, I will confine my comments to the actual bill that comes forward but, if you want an indication of the way I believe it should progress, it is this. The Information Commissioner should be independent and unharnessed in his powers. It is worrying, I know, for public servants; it is worrying for government. You have to trust the person who is given that responsibility but, essentially, that is his job. If you are permeating a culture in the Northern Territory and a culture in government, that the government’s attitude is that information should be made available as a principle rather than restricted, give that man the power to vet the applications that come in, consider the ones that he believes are vexatious, and progress those ones that he believes needs to be answered, and progress it in a way that he is unfettered. He needs to be unfettered by being able to say to a minister, the chief executive officer of the Chief Minister’s department or any delegated CEO: ‘It is not good enough for you to be able to simply ignore my request, say the information is not to be provided and give me no reason as to why it will not be provided’.
That is where the bill falls; that’s where the flaws are; that’s where the bill needs to be amended. I look forward to seeing how the government deals with the comments by the Ombudsman amongst others because, as I said, it is probably the best submission I have ever seen on FOI from anyone. In hindsight, I wish we had employed him rather than all the money we spent on others. We would have done well, and we would have come to a better result because I think he has nailed it in one. He has nailed all the issues that the public are concerned about, and he also points to the solutions to those issues. I believe if the government does not give strong weight to that submission and its direction, it is going to have a lot of problems selling FOI in the Northern Territory.
I have no doubt that the government will say: ‘At least we have something out there. That terrible CLP government, they would not allow information, they were secretive. At least we got something out there’. Okay, you could try that, but the end result of that will be people will try to access information and, in due time, you will be hoisted on that petard. So, take the time now, take more time to come up with good FOI legislation, and I am sure you will get the support of the general public.
Might I add it is with a sense of genuineness that we say it is far past time that good FOI was introduced in the Northern Territory. But don’t do what we said because it will not fly out there, it would appear. Do not bring forward legislation that in fact is freedom from information legislation, rather than freedom of information legislation. If you don’t take my word, take the Ombudsman’s. This is not freedom of information legislation in any shape or form. Don’t fall on your sword on the first time on such an important issue when you have raised community expectations so high.
The other thing that is nowhere apparent is the cost to the community. One of the large issues running all around Australia, both from organisations such as the media and individuals in trying to access information, is that if you cannot get them on the exemptions clause, you can get them on the cost. A person gets run into the ground by the bureaucracy in terms of the burgeoning costs of gaining the information they want. So any legislation that comes forward has to be very clear as to what will be the cost to an individual, to an organisation in their search for information, otherwise the intent of the legislation will be lost on that issue as well.
Madam Speaker, with those few comments, I thank parliament for allowing that to be read into the Hansard. The opposition looks forward to seeing the eventual legislation when it is debated in this Chamber.
__________________________
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: Members, I wish to advise you of the presence in the gallery of Years 5, 6 and 7 from Alawa Primary School accompanied by their teacher Christine Meave. On behalf of all honourable members, we extend a warm welcome to our students.
Members: Hear, hear!
_________________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Request by the Member for Blain – Request Denied
Request by the Member for Blain – Request Denied
Mr MILLS (Blain): I would like the opportunity, Madam Speaker, to make a personal explanation.
Madam SPEAKER: You haven’t informed me of this. You know the rules. Perhaps you can get it to me.
________________________
MOTION
Note Paper - Freedom Of Information Bill - Discussion Draft
Note Paper - Freedom Of Information Bill - Discussion Draft
Continued from the morning session.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, I rise to support the ministerial statement relating to progressing this very important bill. Prior to the luncheon adjournment, the Leader of the Opposition posed the question what brought it on. He seemed a bit inquisitive about why have it now. On 28 February all members in the Chamber were provided with this letter, and I will seek to table it after I read it out. It is from the Attorney-General, 28 February, delivered to all members in the Chamber:
- Dear members,
I attach for your interest the list of submissions on the draft information bill received in the Department of Justice
as of 28 February 2002.
I wish to advise honourable members that I have requested officers from the Department of Justice to lift from the
Parliamentary Record your contributions to the debate on the information bill tabling motion which will take place
next week.
That’s today.
- My department will consider these comments as part of the public consultation process on the draft information bill.
I look forward to your contribution to the debate on this important issue.
I was happy to hear the Leader of the Opposition’s debate and I was happy to see him talk at great length and extol the greatness of the submission that he so thoroughly researched from the Ombudsman. But I was a bit lost because I could see that he was a good researcher, that he got into this information bill and he paid a lot of attention to the Ombudsman to the point that he had incorporated the summary, I think it was, or the executive summary of that submission. But for the life of me, I could not understand why didn’t he go to the Chief Executive Officer of the Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority? Why didn’t he go to the Chief Magistrate of the NT’s submission? Why didn’t he go to the Executive Officer of Victims of Crimes Assistance League? Why didn’t he go to the Acting Director of the NT Archives Services?
Are these submissions deficient in some way, Leader of the Opposition? All in all, there are something like 37 submissions in from organisations from all over the place. I should have thought that with his research skills and the way that he went right to the heart of the Ombudsman’s submission that he would have consulted these and put them in as well. Anyway, they are all on the Table for everyone to have a look at and I am sure the Attorney-General will take these into account when he is having a look. I hope that clears up that matter for the Leader of the Opposition.
Interest in this bill amongst informed electors in the Northern Territory is extremely high. Indeed, as an issue it has rated as high as crime issues and the economy both before and after the August 18 election. In the Sanderson electorate, 85% of respondents to a questionnaire I circulated during my campaign supported the introduction of freedom of information type legislation.
Our Good Government position paper released prior to the last election promised to provide Territorians with access to personal and government information and, if I may, I would like to restate to members that promise made to Territorians - and this is from the position paper Good Government:
- Freedom of Information and Whistleblower Legislation.
The CLP has resisted all attempts made by Labor and the public to introduce meaningful Freedom of Information
legislation. Freedom of Information legislation is one of the building blocks to open and accountable government.
Every other Australian jurisdiction, including the Commonwealth, has Freedom of Information legislation and has
had for years. Its existence is of tangible benefit to the citizens of those jurisdictions, and is taken for granted.
The same benefit should apply here.
Labor will introduce Freedom of Information legislation that will be a force for disclosure. This legislation will
apply to all Territory government agencies and bodies. In contrast to the CLP, Labor’s Freedom of Information
legislation will not just be in respect of the accuracy of personal information held, but it will also enable scrutiny
of the processes of ministers, their offices and government agencies.
Our Freedom of Information legislation will ensure that requests are responded to within time lines. Labor will also
address the issue of ‘commercial confidentiality’ that has been used to conceal government activities in some
jurisdictions to restrict the information provided in response to inquiries of concerned citizens.
We went to the people of the Northern Territory with the pledge that we would introduce freedom of information legislation and, true to our word, here it is, well advanced through the legislative process just six months after the election. Moreover, we have involved the people of the Northern Territory in the process by inviting submissions through a consultative process. We are a government who listens as well as delivering on our promises.
In fact, the proposed information bill which has gone out for public comment represents a framework for the Territory parliament to introduce a bill that not only addresses freedom of information issues, but also includes crucial matters related to privacy protection and promotes best practice for records management by government. In other jurisdictions, freedom of information, records management and privacy acts are the principal statutes relating to information access in the public sector. They are interconnected and in some instances overlap. They all depend on good record keeping practices. The incorporation of these three elements makes practical sense as they are inter-related and interdependent. It also represents a first within Australian jurisdictions, and I am sure that other jurisdictions may well follow our lead. I will return to the draft information bill soon.
Over the years there have been many calls for freedom of information legislation in the Northern Territory. From memory, at several points there has been vague agreement and equally vague promises made by the former CLP government including the current Opposition Leader when he was Chief Minister to introduce such legislation, if only in relation to the accuracy and voracity of personal information held by the government.
The Leader of the Opposition is on the public record as saying he considered there were adequate mechanisms and safeguards to prise information from government when there is a legitimate reason, citing parliament, the Ombudsman and the Auditor-General. For these reasons he previously proposed an access to information law, claiming it would allow Territorians to gain access to personal information held on them by government departments and agencies.
I would suggest that the Leader of the Opposition did not fully understand the difference between open government and freedom of information. Open government means the government publishing information largely for its own purposes; information that the government thinks we need to know or would like to know. Freedom of information requires the government to disclose information that people decide for themselves they want to know.
Perhaps the reason for such a high level of support in the community for an information act is because we have had some incidents that have undermined public trust in the propriety of ministers, hence the support for freedom of information legislation that guarantees minimum standards and reduces the scope for ministerial discretion and introduces independent validation that the public interest has been served.
So we come to the present day with the Labor government working to fulfil its promise to the people of the Northern Territory to implement information legislation. The aims of this information bill are in direct contrast to lack of regard and respect for privacy protection evident in previous CLP governments. The aims of this information bill are to promote openness and democratic principles in the NT; protect the privacy of personal information held by the NT public sector; ensure the Northern Territory is well placed to participate in the information economy; and to promote confidence in the wider community.
Although this bill is still in a developmental stage awaiting change through public consultation - and I might just say that again for the record so that our Leader of the Opposition and his learned colleagues are aware of this - although this bill is still in a developmental stage awaiting changes through public consultation, the main principles that underpin it are as follows: right of access to government and personal information; protection of the privacy of personal information; appointment of an independent statutory officer to oversee freedom of information and privacy; best practice for record keeping and records management and responsibilities.
As with any such legislation there will necessarily be tensions between the need for government to keep some [inaudible] confidential and the rights of citizens to obtain information. This tension is played out in the draft bill in the sections that relate to exemptions. All exemptions within the bill are based on public interest. Some of these exemptions are absolute in the sense that it is automatically recognised that release of information, confidential to government including Cabinet documents, that would prejudice security and defence or prejudice the maintenance of law and order, which is an offence under another law, necessary to preserve the system of justice including legal privilege, is not in the public interest.
No doubt many of the public submissions will highlight and question these issues and make suggestions regarding the processes used to arrive at decisions regarding exemptions. This is a natural and essential debate that needs to occur; one, I might add, which can only benefit by the active engagement of the opposition benches.
I am also fully aware of the Northern Territory public sector as a key stakeholder in the introduction and rollout of the proposed information act. With this in mind, I have gone back to 1984 and had a look at the top 10 agencies receiving freedom of information requests when similar legislation was just introduced into Victoria. The Victorian act applies to all Victorian government ministers and departments. It applies to many statutory authorities and other bodies corporate founded by statute - for example, universities.
By ranking, the agencies which received the highest number of requests in the first year of introduction of the freedom of information legislation were: Police 14.5%; Health Commission 8.2%; Fire Brigade 7.9%; Department of Community and Welfare Services 6.3%; Road Construction Authority 4.6%; Road Traffic Authority 4%; Electricity Commission 3.3%; Education Department 3.1%; State Transport Authority 2.4%; Royal Women’s Hospital 2.1%; other 43.6%.
I will leave members to make the comparisons between our institutions and their Victorian counterparts. The point is if we look at function rather than agency title, I do not think we will see a tidal wave of requests for information, but rather a good, manageable spread of requests by people genuinely seeking answers they perhaps could never previously get.
Madam Speaker, I commend this draft legislation to the House. I urge members opposite to support it. I will be keenly awaiting the suggestions made in public submissions, and I look forward to the passage of the updated draft legislation through this House in the near future.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I rise to make a few brief comments in relation to this. I find it interesting that we are dealing with a freedom of information - it is not even a bill yet - discussion draft. It is interesting how members opposite like to rewrite history, the member for Sanderson rising and saying: ‘Oh well, we’ve got this so far in such a short time’.
The truth is, as the member for Sanderson well knows, as all members in this House know, that this process was already in train long before the last election, and this process was well advanced. Indeed, the discussion draft is legislation which generally I would support, but it was something that was prepared long before the last election. But there you go.
Dr Burns: Rummaging around in the bottom draws of government.
Mr ELFERINK: This is an interesting thing, and I pick up on the interjection from the member for Johnston, because I, too, have the letter from the Attorney-General sitting in front of me where he says that he has attached for my interest a list of submissions on the draft information bill. I wrote to the Minister for Justice in relation to this matter. It was only a one page letter, but nevertheless should have qualified as a submission, yet it is absent from the list of submissions that have been received. More to the point - and much more intriguingly - I am wondering what process I have to go through to get a letter from the minister in reply to the letter I sent him. Even more intriguingly, should the discussion draft paper actually turn into a piece of legislation, what process does the Attorney-General suggest I use to discover exactly what happened to the letter I sent him back on 27 November which he has not dignified with a reply? Interesting.
For the mob opposite to be talking about the principles of democracy and those sorts of things, I would have thought that my letter at least would have been acknowledged if not listed as a submission in relation to this legislation. Now, if the members opposite are so interested in open, honest, accountable, why on earth do we have a situation where the letters from this side of the House are simply ignored? Anyway, I am not going to dwell on that. It’s probably just a clerical error in the minister’s department, or at least I hope it is.
I will go into the letter and, as I said, it was addressed on 27 November 2001. I remind honourable members of what the then Leader of the Opposition had to say on 20 April 1999, one of the occasions when freedom of information was debated in this House. I noticed the member for Sanderson, at quite some length, talked about the exemptions built into the act. I am wondering if the member for Sanderson is aware of comments made on that date by the now Chief Minister, and she said:
Let’s knock out every single exemption and show Australia what the Territory can do. What a challenge! Let’s show Australia. If the Chief Minister’s objection to my freedom of information bill - Labor’s freedom of information bill - is that it has too many exemptions, and would not allow, if we bought it in, the community a decent access to what the government is doing, then let’s knock them all out. And we will have an awesome piece of freedom of information legislation.
So this is a challenge, and I look forward to the Chief Minister’s reply in this debate, about whether you’ll take up
the challenge because I think it is a great one. You’re on the record. The member for Macdonnell is on the record.
You keep talking about exemptions. You can’t keep whingeing and whining. You’re a whingeing and whining government…
She then goes on to say:
…let’s get rid of the exemptions. We’ll be fine.
And finally she says:
We look forward to the next session of parliament when I will reintroduce the piece of legislation without any
exemptions and we will be able to join together and support the legislation.
So that is the promise that the members opposite – indeed, the current Chief Minister - made to the people of the Northern Territory. I am curious to see whether or not she has the courage of her convictions as to stand up and support her position back in April 1999. I ask the …
Dr Burns: Cabinet documents are always exempt.
Mr ELFERINK: I ask the minister for Justice to at least do me the courtesy of responding to my letter, if not adding it to the list of submissions, and I look forward to the time that we can debate this in the House as a bill.
Madam SPEAKER: If I could just clarify to members that I did approach the Attorney-General and ask him if he would supply members with a list of submissions that had been sent in because I wanted to have an idea of what was available for members to approach the Attorney-General for information on it. So the letter you have on your desk, I guess, was prompted by me wanting to make sure that everyone had access to the information and submissions that have been sent in. That was just a point of clarification for you.
Mr ELFERINK: Very well, Madam Speaker, and if that is indeed the case, I am sure that the minister for Justice will advise the House.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, if I might make a comment on what you said just then, the Attorney-General might have a comment about it. I just asked if I could get a copy of a couple of submissions, and I got a note back from your office saying: ‘Sorry but it is not the practice to copy submissions which are provided to government’. So this being the freedom of information bill, I hope perhaps we could make an exemption to that. It would be a good example.
Mr Kiely: There is a touch of irony there.
Mr WOOD: Yes. Obviously I would like to comment on the freedom of information draft. I bring these comments at this stage so that they can be considered along with the public submissions, and I hope I get another chance further along, when the bill is being debated in parliament, to comment. I must admit that I was a little concerned that when the draft was released, it had the price of $11.50 plus GST attached to it which seemed a bit of an anomaly since this was about freedom of information, but I was relieved to find out the document was actually free.
I welcome the introduction of this draft, and I hope that this legislation will remove forever the kind of problems I had in assessing this document which, at the time of the debate on the issue of damming Elizabeth River, was a very important document. This document was about the Elizabeth River lake environmental feasibility assessment. This document has still not been released to the public. It was prepared by the then Department of Transport and Works who investigated these issues: water quality, sulphate and mud; and biting insects in relation to the proposed dam - not exactly issues of national security. If this new legislation allows for the public scrutiny of documents like this, then it will get my support.
I should also preface my comments on the details of the bill by saying that I feel the discussion paper presented by Rick Snell from the University of Tasmania should be a key document in any discussion on amendments to this draft. I was involved to some small extent in enabling Rick Snell to come to the Northern Territory to deliver a couple of lectures when he commented on the new draft legislation. I certainly agree with many of the comments that he has put in there.
The philosophy behind this bill - and I, to some extent, used to try and believe this was the philosophy we should have had in the Litchfield Shire Council - should be that the government should err on the side of openness in relation to allowing public access to government information, and use the rejection of access only on rare and proper occasions. The key to this bill must be in sections 2(a) and 2(b) and those sections say the following:
(a) to encourage the widespread publication of government information; and
(b) to encourage accountability in government by providing the public with the right of
access to government information.
This bill must allow that to happen, and must not put any unnecessary obstacles in the way of these key objectives. The question is: do the general principles as mentioned in Part 2 fit comfortably with these objectives? I think that’s what we have to find out during this debate.
I’m going to ask some specific questions that may not have to be answered at the present time. There are a number of clauses which do concern me, and I had this specific clause raised by a gentleman who came into my office and I think it needs an explanation. Clause 7 deals with the ‘Nature of rights created by this Act’, and I think the Leader of the Opposition raised that matter, too. This says:
(c) nothing in this Act gives rise to a cause of action or creates a legally enforceable right;
and
be prosecuted.
My interpretation of that is that it tends to say that, well, if the government doesn’t do the right thing by this act, there is no penalty. If that’s the case then, to some extent, it could make this act non-workable if there’s no penalty for not doing what the act requires.
Section 13: I just need clarification on 13(a). It says:
13. When does this act apply to government information?
- Part 3…applies in relation to government information (other than personal information) that a public sector
organisation holds at any time after that Part commences, but only if –
- (a) the information was created or received by the organisation not earlier than 5 years before that Part commences;
Perhaps I can’t read legal language but that sounds like anything under five years, you can’t have a look at. So it just doesn’t sound right. I would have thought that that’s the information you want.
Section 4: The words ‘unreasonably interfere’ come up every now and then. ‘Unreasonably interfere’ needs to be defined. It states here that ‘unreasonably interfere with the conduct of its operations’. That needs clarifying. I’m just trying to find the section. I have put down section 4, but I think it’s earlier than that. But I think you get the general thrust of what I was after there.
Section 21 also mentions the phrase ‘public interest’ and the member for Sanderson just raised it before. Some clarification as to what ‘public interest’ means would be worthwhile because if it’s too broad then it could be used as an excuse to stop people getting information.
There are a number of sections here, and I’ll just try and quote one. Section 31 says:
- (1) Within 30 days after receiving an application in accordance with section 30, a public sector organisation must –
- (b) notify the applicant in writing of that decision.
Further down it says:
- (3) If the applicant is not notified in accordance with this section within 30 days after lodging the application,
the public sector organisation is to be taken to have refused to correct the information.
That sort of statement comes up several times in more or less the same words. On one hand, it’s saying that the body referred to must notify the applicant in writing and then further down it says: ‘Well, if they haven’t notified you within 30 days, too bad’. I think there must be some requirement that they must answer in writing before the 30 days are up otherwise that clause just nullifies what you’re trying to do.
Section 29, referred to in 1(b):
disclose information about an Aboriginal sacred site or Aboriginal tradition;
I tried to look up ‘Aboriginal tradition’ and I was told to look at the Northern Territory Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act. I went to the Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act and it told me to go and look up the Aboriginal (Land Rights) Act, so I gave up because I haven’t got the Commonwealth act. I think that possibly should be clarified in the act.
I do have some concerns that genealogy is, perhaps, excluded on the grounds of Aboriginal tradition. My understanding from my family is that genealogy is not a secret matter, although I’m told that in the Aboriginal (Land Rights) Act it is. I think it’s one of those points of contention that needs to be assessed.
Section 38 refers to the conduct of a review. I would like to find out who does that review. It doesn’t seem to be clear on who does the review. It just says it can’t be certain people, but it doesn’t say actually who should do the review.
Another issue further along in section 67, which refers to publicly available information. In subsection 2, it talks about a public register is to be kept in compliance with the IPPs. I must admit I’m not fully across what Information Privacy Principles are. I was just wondering what the public register is meant to be; what’s it for and what does it keep?
The other one is, I suppose, related to a question I asked earlier on - clause 97. Clause 97 is about an annual report and it says the annual report should:
(2)(c) specify the number of exemption certificates issued by the chief executive officer of the Department of the
Chief Minister, including how many of those certificates neither confirmed nor denied the existence of the
information the subject of the certificate.
I would have to ask: why shouldn’t we tell people whether a piece of information exists? Surely that’s working against freedom of information? You mightn’t be allowed to tell them what’s in that piece of information, but I can’t see why you would say the piece of information doesn’t exist. I know there’s a section further back which says that can be used; if the government wishes it can neither confirm nor deny some information exists. I think that shouldn’t be part of the bill.
As I said before, I hope to put more information into this. Compared with the Leader of the Opposition, my submission today is fairly shallow and it certainly needs more work on it. I do hope that, if it’s possible, Minister, I can obtain some of the submissions. I wouldn’t want them all; I’d never get through them all. But, listening to the words of the Leader of the Opposition about the Ombudsman, it sounds like a fairly important document, so it would be nice to have a copy.
I was also given a Freedom of Information Pledge by people who call themselves Friends of FOI. They asked me whether I’d sign it, and I said I would. I said I’d also ask leave to table the document if other members would like to sign it. I’d like to read what the Freedom of Information Pledge says:
- As a representative with the great privilege and responsibility to speak on behalf of my constituents here in
this Assembly, I make the following pledge recognising the vital role that freedom of information has in
promoting a healthy democracy in the Northern Territory.
I firmly pledge that as an elected representative I formally acknowledge and will work to support the
following principles:
freedom of access to information held by government is a democratic right in the
Northern Territory;
freedom of access to government information is an essential element of public
accountability. Restrictions on information will always aim to exempt the
smallest amount of information for the shortest period of time necessary to
serve the public interest;
freedom of information costs to the user must not be allowed to unduly restrict
reasonable requests
freedom of information processes within government must be properly resourced
to ensure they work as effectively as possible; and
a full and serious commitment from all levels of the public service is essential to ensure
that freedom of information delivers on its promise of better governance.
Finally, Madam Speaker, I listened to the Leader of the Opposition give initial speech on the draft and I thought it was quite a good one. I just hope that in this debate - because I think both sides of the House want freedom of information, and we can raise all the ghosts from the past and that might be easy for me to say being a new boy on the block, but I think that we really need to work constructively to produce a Freedom of Information Bill - one is that we can understand because that is not that easy to read; two is that a showpiece to the rest of Australia that up here in the Top End or in the Northern Territory we can do things just as well or perhaps even better than other parts of Australia. We can hold ourselves to conduct this debate, I think, on good civil lines and out of that we will get the best result.
Ms CARTER (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, just a few words on this. I agree with the member for Nelson on his comments. I know that one of the advantages of being in the Northern Territory as a relatively young jurisdiction is that we have been able to use legislation that has come in in other jurisdictions and make changes to it where necessary and actually come up with something that is really good. We have seen that in a number of our legislative things and so I hope that with freedom of information we are able to do that.
Having watched the debate over the last few years and having an ear to it, I notice that there does not appear to be any jurisdiction in the world that is actually happy with their FOI legislation. From that you can gather that it is a very difficult thing to balance things up with it. My expectation is that no matter what comes out of this process, we will continue to have problems with it. I am sure that we will work on the legislation as the years go by to fix any problems that it has and make it a good piece of legislation.
A concern that I have, and it was raised in Queensland a few months ago, is the cost of accessing information under FOI. There was some media coverage that in Queensland they were going to bring in a program of raising the costs to $31 if you applied for it and then charging $20 an hour for the public service to work on the gathering of the information. There certainly was an outcry in Queensland at that time over the costs that would cause.
My real concern with this legislation - and I am hoping that in the process of the debates on it over the next few months that the government will be able to allay my concerns - is that if you are working in the health profession and you are using patient notes and creating patient notes - I will hark back to examples of my experiences in casualty and orthopaedics, picking orthopaedics as an example. If you have a patient in who is a long term patient, you can often have problems with that patient, either with them as an individual or with their family members. My concern would be that if a nurse felt that his or her record could be made public to that patient or their family in the years to come, would that constrain the way that they wrote that record in that they might not put in pertinent pieces of information? For example, a family might be putting pressure on the nurse to do something which he or she doesn’t want to do. I can think of times where I would not have wanted a patient or their family to actually have read what had been written in the patient’s notes. It could come to pass that if those people were to get the notes and, for example, I had written ‘Family very difficult, refusing to take patient home …’ rah, rah, rah, something along those lines, you might be inclined not to put the note in and instead to rely on a verbal communication rather than a written communication, therefore leading yourself into the Chinese whispers sort of thing. Instead of putting accurate notes down as to what objectively happened, you are passing the information from one shift to the other just through a verbal process because you fear that one day you could end up in court having to explain why you used the term ‘difficult’ and you said this. They will then argue, ‘We never said that, we always wanted Dad to come home …’.
I just wonder if it could be explained at some point during the debate over the next couple of months - it doesn’t have to be today - would there be constraints on medical or nursing staff, would they have to be particularly careful about what they wrote and would there ever be a concern that they could end up going through a legal process because a family or a patient took offence to something that was said?
Another classic example, of course, is those with mental health issues. If a medical officer writes ‘I believe this person is schizophrenic because blah, blah or whatever…’, is this going to be grounds for legal cases in the years to come because someone says: ‘I am not schizophrenic and you have written something that is inaccurate? I just have a concern as to whether or not this is going to create a problem in the medical profession for the use of accurate recording of what a professional feels is the situation. I realise that this bill is still in the drafting process and I certainly look forward to seeing how we go in the future with it, and I wish the government all the best with it.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I rise to place on the record my brief comments in relation to the draft FOI legislation which is currently being considered by the Chamber. Before I do that there is just a preliminary matter I wish to draw honourable members’ attention to. Indeed, yesterday all members received a letter from the Attorney-General with a list of submissions which had been made and with an assurance that any comments that were stated in Hansard today or reduced to Hansard today in parliament would be incorporated into those submissions and be considered.
The member for Sanderson went through in detail and referred to some of those submissions and the body of those submissions and what was contained therein. I didn’t think anything of it at that stage, however, the member for Nelson stated to honourable members that he sought to obtain a copy of some of those submissions and was told by the Attorney-General that they were not available and that was the end of that. I am just concerned about how this backbencher got hold of those documents, if he did indeed get hold of them and, if so, on what pretext and it may be a matter which can be dealt with by way of personal explanation in that regard.
The freedom of information debate has gone on for a fairly lengthy period of time and there is some draft legislation in the form of the discussion bill currently before this Chamber and available to members of the public and indeed there are a number of written submissions. We have heard the Leader of the Opposition quite candidly talk about the cost and expense of engaging professionals to prepare this draft legislation. There were some exemptions contained in that legislation and the Leader of the Opposition said that he was in the process of reviewing that first draft to a stage that it would be acceptable to Territorians and would not be the subject of a fairly serious attack by the then opposition.
In the lead up to the election there was a reasonable expectation created in the minds of voters, and certainly those groups who were interested in FOI legislation. There was a reasonable expectation created in some of the barristers and solicitors around town that if there were to be a Labor Party win then quickly FOI would be brought on to the agenda and that some of the words that had come from the then opposition would form the basis of that draft legislation.
The member for Macdonnell has quite properly touched upon some of the comments that were made by the then Leader of the Opposition in creating and furthering this expectation. This is prior to the election. I independently obtained a copy of the Hansard from 22 April 1999 where indeed the then Leader of the Opposition went through and made it fairly clear - I’m not going to read everything that was said; the member for Macdonnell has gone through that - save to say that certainly on three occasions in that one fairly short speech there was absolutely no doubt left in a person’s mind who had heard that speech that introduced into the parliament would be legislation fairly devoid of any exemptions, and the whole couple of paragraphs are summarised in the last line of the submission made by the then Leader of the Opposition:
We look forward to the next session of parliament when I will reintroduce the piece of legislation without any exemptions, and then we’ll be able to join together and support the legislation.
The flip side to making assertions like that, and to avoid being painted as a whingeing, whining then opposition, you would expect the draft legislation to reflect what was said, and, certainly, the expectation which had been created. If the then opposition who are now in government are serious about consulting, then to start with this forum would be an ideal opportunity to retract what the then Leader of the Opposition said and concede that what was said on 22 April 1999 was an untruth or a mistake, or perhaps explain the exact context in which those comments were made.
The current opposition is mindful that this is important legislation and mindful that we have to get this right for the good of all Territorians, but the very tone and the undermining rationale of freedom of information legislation is about honesty, and it would be a good start if we could have a clear and concise statement as to exactly what the policy of this new government is. We have the comments, as I said, in Hansard by the then Leader of the Opposition, quite clearly stating that there would be no exemptions and now we have another, quite different piece of legislation before the House.
Another matter that has received some attention, but certainly needs to receive a lot more from a practical perspective is the enforcement of this legislation. It’s all well and good to have a world’s best practice and perhaps legislation without any exemptions - if we’re to rely upon what the then Leader of the Opposition now Chief Minister said - but at the end of the day it’s about properly resourcing the new government department to enforce and carry out its obligations under the new act.
There has to be a mechanism, and I’m hopeful the government will take this on board, to measure and determine whether the legislation is effective and whether those outcomes, which should be clearly set, have been achieved. The term ‘freedom of information’ is a term which has been bandied about and it’s probably the least understood term that’s fallen to be considered by this parliament. Everyone sort of understands what it’s about, but the huge scope of legislation which could be classified as FOI legislation can be anything from something which is completely useless, and you see that in several jurisdictions down south, to something which the Chief Minister in her time as Leader of the Opposition talked about as containing absolutely no exemptions.
So, there’s an enormous scope. There are some fundamental things that have to be considered, and I’m asking the government to - before we go further down this path - define clearly the parameters of what exactly this government intends to enunciate as a policy and then reduce into the legislation in terms of the exemptions. Are there going to be exemptions? If there are going to be exemptions, then how can that be explained in light of what was said on 22 April?
Second, a real commitment to the enforcement and the implementation of the legislation, also some sort of work on how much its going to cost the Territory taxpayer because ultimately it’s, of course, the Territory taxpayer who will foot the bill.
Madam Speaker, they are all the submissions I wish to make at this stage. Once we’re at a stage where we have a draft and a real solid position from the government, I’ll certainly be making further submissions on the legislation.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, thank you again to members of this House for their contributions. I was quite serious last week when I made the offer to allow you to generate comment on Hansard that will go to the review process that will be continuing on with Sue Oliver over in my department.
We definitely view this as work in progress, and I think one the most important stages in this work, now that we have responsibility for the development of this legislation, is the thorough consultations that we’ve engaged in. We now have almost a sacred responsibility to take the output of many, many groups that have responded to the chance to assess the discussion draft and come back to us with their issues.
I will table an up-to-date list of the submissions. I think there are just on 50 now either in hand or on the way. I’m very pleased with that. I think that when you look at the spread of organisations - Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority, Victims of Crime Assistance League, magistrates, Archives Service, the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment, Procurement Review Board, the Planning Action Network in Darwin here, the Tourist Commission, Pearler Executive Cleaning which is excellent to see that some of the private sector, University of Tasmania, Utilities Commission, private inputs and I won’t elucidate on the individuals. You can have a look at it, but we’re not going call attention to individuals other than to say good on them for putting into the process. I will table that so that it’s available to members if they want to have an up-to-date version.
As I said earlier in this House, 500 hard copies went out. There were a lot of hits on the web site. So even beyond the actual returns that we’ve received, there are a lot of people that have taken the trouble to have a look at this draft bill, and I’m sure that’s doing its part in promoting broader debate in the community as well as the formal submissions that we’ve received.
To clear up a matter that the member for Nelson and other members have commented on, I don’t propose to release the actual submissions to members but - hear me out - and I think it’s probably a good illustration of why this bill is something special. It has privacy in it, it has freedom of information, it has government record keeping. We would actually be compromising two information privacy principles if we gave you the submissions, and they are the two - IPP2 - which is the use and disclosure of documents. That basically says if you call for information from a private individual or an organisation, you can only use it for the purposes for which you called it. If people feel that they have written in to a review process based in the department, there would need to be a separate approval given for it to be disseminated in the public arena through members of parliament. Also IPP10 which is sensitive information. In other words, the comments in those submissions might reveal a political position or a religious position, some of which would be sensitive.
Now how we are going to get over this? How are we going to satisfy the insatiable curiosity of the members of the House, which I think is fantastic? What I will undertake to do is we will get a working summary of all 60 submissions which will be distributed to all members providing information on the issues that have been raised without identifying the source, organisation or individuals. So that is what I will do. That will get everyone across the issues to the extent that we are.
The comments about the earlier bill brought to the House by the member for Fannie Bay, they were comments about the bill that was brought into the House as a Private Member’s Bill. That bill happened to have a particular structure to it which did not have exemption clauses in it. That is not the bill we are talking about now, and I will stand on the right of any organisation, let alone a political one, to evolve their position on issues as they move along. Unless the CLP want to be locked into their 1975 policies, I think that we have to understand that that is how the thing works. A private member - and you will do it yourself - I think the member for Araluen brought forward a bill to this House last week which was dealing with areas of the Criminal Code that - and she realises that - and we have undertaken to supplant it with a bill that we will put there. So the member for Araluen has done exactly the right thing as a member of this House, she has brought to the attention of the House, through the presentation of a draft bill, some issues that she wanted us to consider as a House, and good on her.
I think there were some very valid things there that we are already working on, and I am sure that is a further sign that we should keep working on them. So let’s not get too locked into history about what was said and done in this House several years ago. We are talking about the bill that we have before us as a draft bill; we will be talking about the bill that we will bring in here in the June sittings, depending on how the work goes, and that is the bill that we will be debating, and I hope you will engage in that to the full.
The other one I will mention to the member for Macdonnell, he mentioned that he gave me a written response, I will certainly make sure that is in the hands of Sue Oliver. I will make sure that you get a response from me, too. I am not sure what timeframe you are talking about.
Mr Elferink: I wrote to you in November.
Dr TOYNE: Well, if it was in November, I am not sure. I will have to check why it did not get through to me for signing off.
Mr Elferink: It would be nice to have a response. It would be nice to be acknowledged on the list of submissions.
Dr TOYNE: Okay. I have given you an undertaking. Let’s move along. The key issues to emerge…
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Dr TOYNE: Madam Speaker, I’m finding it fairly hard with the buzzing in the background here.
Madam SPEAKER: I think that’s enough, Member for Macdonnell. You’re interrupting.
Mr ELFERINK: I thank the minister for his efforts.
Dr TOYNE: To reiterate the…
Ms Martin: You could stay in the House and [inaudible].
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, a point of order! The Chief Minister full well knows the rules of this House and I ask she withdraw.
Madam SPEAKER: That’s right. Withdraw, Chief Minister.
Dr TOYNE: I think all that does is swallow up time.
Ms MARTIN: Madam Speaker, I doubt whether it would have been picked up, except for the kind of acute ears of the member for Macdonnell who we appreciate …
Madam SPEAKER: Just withdraw without comment.
Ms MARTIN: I withdraw.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you.
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Macdonnell, no more comments.
Dr TOYNE: Madam Speaker, that’s two minutes less that I have to give members the responses they are after from me.
A general response across all submissions is I do not think anyone has significant problems with either the privacy or the records keeping sections of the bill. That is very encouraging; it indicates that we have two parts of the bill that seem to have met general approval. So let’s concentrate in terms of the issues that have arisen on the freedom of information section which we were not surprised drew the most attention.
The issues that have come through - and I can give some very broad options within the review framework that could be taken to deal with the issues that have been brought forward. The extent of exemptions has been a point. Now, pretty well all freedom of information bills, wherever they exist, seem to include exemptions over internal Cabinet papers and areas to do with security issues and police investigations, those sort of very sensitive areas where I think most people would accept on a common sense argument that you could be doing some very serious damage to either the process of government in those areas, or to the safety of individuals in the case of the security and law investigation areas. So it is really the exemptions around those that we have to look at, and I think that most of the comments that we have had back are to do with: are there too many of them, who in particular has the right to put an exemption over a document; and should there be a review process available?
It is fair to say that we will be very open to suggestions in any of those three areas. I think we have to try and find the line of best fit according to the public comment as to how widely exemptions should be framed. We will look at the balance of the comments that we have, and the weight of the arguments in behind them, and all I can say at the moment is those fencelines are not cemented in; they can be moved to respond to the weight of the comment that we have received.
The lack of review: there are three review possibilities, if there is going to be a review mechanism introduced. One is to have the Information Commissioner - himself or herself, I point out to the Leader of the Opposition; it could well be a woman - the Information Commissioner could have the right to go and review whether an exemption was fairly, or in a justifiable way, put across some information. Equally, we could go to a Supreme Court review of a decision. We could also have the relevant minister being open to come in and review what a public servant has done. Now, they are all open, they could all potentially be adopted for the final shape of the bill.
Retrospectivity: we have had comments, everything from ‘don’t have any’ to ‘let’s go back 27 years’.
A member: No!
Dr TOYNE: You can see already the controversy around this area. But on retrospectivity, we have to find a balance point which will come out of quite a few considerations. When you look across the information keeping of government at the moment and the state of our information records, there may be practical constraints on how far back you can go. We are certainly open to moving that timeline according to the weight of public opinion. We may go longer, to 10 years or something like that, but whichever way we go there is going to be a major job for the agencies in terms of their archiving arrangements and their access arrangements - and that is why, whenever this bill is finally acceded to, we are going to need to give the Northern Territory government agencies sufficient time to review and reform their record keeping so they can effectively respond.
A lot of material that I am sure people around this Chamber and out in the wider community would just dearly love to get their hands on about past events that they might still feel cranky or unsure about, that may or may not exist in the government archives. We do not know down to the nearest piece of paper as to what is likely to be still extant within the archives of our agencies. So we have to come to some common sense balance point in terms of retrospectivity, and we will put forward a final view, with the arguments behind it and, of course, we get to debate that in this House.
I must say, very much in line with the approach I have been taking with all sorts of legislation, that we will make sure that there is a bill out to members in time for you to consider amendments, get them to us in time to have them properly assessed. Now, that’s the way that you can introduce change into whatever comes forward, not by bringing it on the floor of the House during the debate and expecting us to immediately react to it. So, we will give you plenty of time to do that. We will make sure that there is time for a turnaround of you getting suggestions in to us, or amendments; we being able to assess them and either give our reasons for not adopting them or taking them on.
The cost of access: I will give you an undertaking right now we will bring the regulations forward with the bill. That will spell out the entire cost of access. It is pretty clear when you go around all the other jurisdictions that there is a baseline. There is a fairly consistent picture throughout Australia as to how much it costs to get information out of other governments that have FOI. We will have to be somewhere in the game plan there; we won’t be wildly off the scale. We will bring that forward, you can have a look at what its going to cost, and that will be part of the adoption of the bill.
The operational matters: I have mentioned the archiving arrangements that we have. Within our Archives Service, there is actually a very good electronic archiving system, but we have to connect everything to it and there is a huge amount of work to be done on that. So inherent in adopting this legislation is going to be quite a major challenge for our government agencies to get their information in a position where they can actually respond to requests for information.
To clarify why we are using the words ‘state of the art’: what we are meaning by that is that this is the first bill anywhere in the world to our knowledge - certainly in Australia - that brings together privacy principles, freedom of information and government electronic record keeping protocols into the one piece of legislation. We have had a very good example of that with the request for these submissions. That is exactly how it should work. You could get up and say: ‘Yes, under freedom of information I should get my hands on these submissions about freedom of information’, but because the bill is trying to balance the right to privacy of individuals and organisations against the right and the need to have openness regarding the information being kept by government, we can get those balances within the bill. The bill is set up, in its present form, so that privacy principles override FOI. If it’s choice between taking information that, to an individual, might be very sensitive, or to an organisation, like health information on an individual patient, that overrides FOI. People are not going to be given private information about a person’s health or their previous treatment on the basis of an FOI arrangement.
The member for Nelson mentioned the clause that appears to be attacking the right to information. What that clause is saying is that it in no way compromises the access rights that are spelt out in the future act itself. In other words, all the information that this bill is promising to give people are guaranteed under the bill. What that clause is saying is that that doesn’t carry by association a tort, a right under civil law, to take other action to get that information. In other words, the existence of the information bill in no way affects the broad arrangements in the community for right to gain access to information. That’s just simply a legal structure that is stopping this flowing out into the broader body of the law where it will be disturbing current arrangements.
The public interest: I will deal with a number of issues in the last few minutes I have, that were raised by the Ombudsman. I am very uneasy talking about any of the submissions, but the Ombudsman has put his submission into a different domain. He has given it to the opposition; he has given it to us. By doing that, he has indicated that his comments about the discussion draft are for public comment. As the Leader for the Opposition has already raised the issue of the Ombudsman, I want to give some very quick responses to it.
The question about clause 7 is that it’s simply a misunderstanding of the reason for that clause being in the bill. As I said earlier, it in no way compromises the access rights under the act itself, or the future act, of people gaining information they want. He simply misread the purpose of that clause. The similar situation exists in relation to the Anti-Discrimination Act. In the recent Pinecot decision, which members may remember we debated last week in the Anti-Discrimination Act Amendment Bill, the Supreme Court made the following comment of Anti-Discrimination provisions:
In my opinion the act does not create a cause for action in tort. The remedies provided for in the act are not able to be pursued in a court of law and the Commission is not a court.
So, again we see there that - I am wondering if I could get some more time, I would only need a little bit.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move an extension of time for the Attorney-General.
Motion agreed to.
Dr TOYNE: Thank you very much. The Ombudsman also comments on the important issue of exemptions. He comments that the exemptions do not make the public interest test central to the operation of the exemptions. Unfortunately, again, these areas of the submission appear to be based on a misunderstanding of the construction of the act. In fact, all areas of exemptions are linked to an overall clause in the draft bill which says that in all cases where an exemption is being contemplated, the public interest test has to be applied to it.
The member for Nelson raised the issue of what that means. Public interest is a very well-established principle in terms of a lot of legislation. For example, the competition policy would be a good example to look in there; there are public interest tests. There is a common sense and a precedent-related meaning to that word. In other words, if you are putting an exemption certificate over something, you have to prove that it is in the public interest to do that rather than allow that information to go public. All the exemptions contained in the draft bill are based on the public interest test. There are no blanket exemptions, unlike the arguments put forward by the Ombudsman. Because this point has been raised, the first category is absolute exemptions which identify four areas where it would not be in the public interest to disclose information such as security and law enforcement where the disclosure of a matter may endanger the life or physical safety of a person, or interfere with a lawful investigation. These are referred to as absolute exemptions, as there can be no doubt that the release of such information is not in the public interest.
The second category of interest is set up in Part 4, Division 3. All these exemptions are based on the public interest test in section 48, which is the key clause that flows into all the other exemption clauses. The Division works by making clauses 49 and 56 dependent on section 48, Public Interest Test. For example, in relation to deliberative process documents, these will be exempt from access if they contain advice or an opinion as part of a public sector deliberative process, and disclosure would not be in the public interest. There is no doubt that - particularly if there is a review function built into the new version of the bill - that we can test whether the government of the day is actually hiding stuff away to save themselves from embarrassment or because there is genuine public interest involved in that.
It is important that the legislation has not made the categories of information that may be exempt so broad that they defeat the objective of accountability in government. Equally, the public must be confident that the exemptions are effective and protect from disclosure information that legitimately requires protection.
It is very easy to read the exemption area of the current bill and say: ‘Oh, it looks like we are putting exemptions over everything’. It reads very broadly, but we intend, as a result of public comment, to spell out as a preamble to each of the three sections the scope of access that would be intended. In other words, in FOI we would spell out at the front of that FOI section of the new bill the expectation that the vast majority of legitimate information will be made available to the public. Exemptions will be a very small minority put over only a small minority of information that might be available. If we do that up front, then it will make the expectation of the legislation a lot clearer and more strongly spelt out. We certainly would look at doing that as we move into the redrafting of this legislation.
Thank you for your patience in allowing me to give a reasonably long response. In terms of the timeframe, we will try to get to May but I think it will be June. I will let members know as soon as possible as to how we’re going with the re-jig. I am very mindful that we want to give you enough time to assess the revised bill and give us any amendments that you feel might be necessary. We certainly won’t want to rush it through if that time is going to be curtailed. On the other hand, we want to give the agencies enough time to make their preparations if we are going to introduce this next year. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Motion agreed to; paper noted.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
NT Government Delegation to Indonesia
NT Government Delegation to Indonesia
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, all of you would be aware of the long standing relationship between the Territory and Indonesia. This relationship goes back many years but has been of particular significance over the past decade since the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding between the two governments when Marshall Perron, the previous member for Fannie Bay, was Chief Minister.
The signing of the MOU was an historic event. It was the first between an Australian state or territory and the government of another country and firmly established in the minds of many Territorians that our economic future lay not only with our fellow Australians but also with developing closer ties with our close neighbours in Asia.
The document opened up a world of opportunity but, sadly, that opportunity remains largely untapped. While we have developed markets in Indonesia for some Territory products and services, the trade between the two of recovered somewhat from the Asian crisis in the late 1990s but there is so much more we could and should be doing.
As members would know, this government has reinforced its commitment to that special relationship with Indonesia, firstly with the visit by my colleague, Paul Henderson, late last year and then through a delegation I led in late January to meet with President Megawati Soekarnoputri and a number of her senior ministers. The purpose of our visit was simple: it was intended to re-establish our ties by meeting with representatives of the Indonesian government at the highest level and to show that while there had been a change of government in the Territory, our commitment to our trade and business relationship with Indonesia remained as strong as ever.
Huge potential exists for this special relationship to grow to the benefit of both the Territory and Indonesia. The Indonesian government, from President Megawati, down supported this view. But on a number of occasions during our talks with government ministers, they also used a phrase to sum up their concerns about the state of the relationship in recent years. The phrase is NATO – No Action; Talk Only. While the Asian crisis and circumstances in East Timor have had a negative impact on the relationship with the Territory, it is clear that not enough was done to build on the good work of past strong supporters of that relationship such as previous Chief Minister Shane Stone and our previous Asian Relations minister Daryl Manzie. In short, the former government of the now Opposition Leader dropped the ball. It got lazy. It lost its way and with it, the many opportunities that still exist to bolster trade relationships between us.
My government has no intention of following the footsteps of the honourable members opposite. We are about taking action - action that should have been taken over the past three years - for the relationship that exists is indeed a special one. To many Indonesian ministers there is the Northern Territory and then there is the rest of Australia. They like and respect and want to do business with us. This is something we must build on because in today’s world we must take advantage of any special circumstances that exist that will give such a small population and economy has ours a head start on the rest of Australia.
The objectives of my visit were straight forward. First, to introduce the new Northern Territory Labor government and myself as the new Chief Minister to the new President of the Republic of Indonesia. As the new leaders of the governments of the Territory and the Republic of Indonesia, it was absolutely necessary for the growth of the relationship between the Territory and Indonesia that we, as the new Chief Minister and new President, established our personal relationship. This was achieved. President Megawati’s .reception was very warm and hospitable, acknowledging the long term relationship between our governments.
Secondly, the visit was to initiate my government’s proposal to work towards the development of a close and balanced government-to-government relationship with the Indonesian government. As the leader of the new Territory government, this was crucial and this was also achieved.
Thirdly, it was to confirm the Territory government’s commitment to participation in regional development. As the new government, again it was essential to unambiguously display our commitment to participating in developing the region and this, too, was achieved.
Fourth, to showcase developments in the Territory to potential business and trade partners in Jakarta and Indonesia. With the railway project set to connect the Territory to the rest of Australia and the East Arm Wharf ready to connect the Territory to the rest of the world, there are a lot of exciting things underway in the Territory. As the government responsible for bringing these developments to fruition, it was necessary to show that this government is behind these exciting developments all the way.
Finally, the visit was to provide an initial signal that the Territory government supports the development of trade and cultural ties with Indonesia in accordance with the terms set out in the Memorandum of Understanding. This also was achieved.
Madam Speaker, as well as the 1992 Memorandum of Understanding with Indonesia which had as its focus the facilitation of trade development, there are other more regional specific aspects of our relationship with Indonesia and the eastern provinces in particular. In December 1992, a separate document was signed with the province of East Kalimantan bringing it under the auspices of the Indonesian MOU. Later again, in 1996, in recognition of the benefits that could flow from the development of a government-to-government relationship, a memorandum was signed with the province of Bali. These memoranda have not been empty documents. They have seen the implementation of discussions directly aimed at developing trade opportunities and to seek cooperation in various productive ventures. They have also overseen projects in which the Territory has provided technological assistance in areas such as malaria and tuberculosis research, livestock and fisheries projects and water supply and technical training programs.
The memoranda have also fostered the development of a very successful exchange program of teacher and student exchanges that has been the cornerstone in directing the focus of the Territory towards the region. While this educational exchange program predates the memoranda and is now in its 28th year, it certainly has benefited from the support of the memoranda.
But with a new government comes a fresh approach to the way we want to do business, to the way we want to work with our friends and our business partners. It is time for us, as a government, to provide greater leadership and a clear sense of direction. There are great opportunities for Indonesian businesses to sell their goods and invest in the Territory such as the new East Arm port facilities the Alice to Darwin rail link and bringing gas to shore. The availability of gas will stimulate major growth in Darwin, in its industrial base, the number of jobs and business opportunities. With a pipeline from the Bayu Undan field expected to be in Darwin in late 2005, the Territory government wants to work with the major companies involved to develop a range of gas manufacturing and energy opportunities. Increasing the capacity of Darwin and the Territory to service both the gas and oil potential of the region will inevitably have benefits for the eastern Indonesian islands for both petroleum and mining activities.
I believe there are very significant opportunities for Territory and Indonesian businesses to forge business connections as a result. This is where my government can play a particularly strong role because all the MOUs in the world are absolutely nothing if the government of the day does not lead by example and work with business and community to reap the benefits of this special relationship.
I will use this opportunity this afternoon to give members a brief outline of various meetings we had with Indonesian government ministers, to give you an understanding of what was discussed. Minister Henderson and I met with His Excellency Hassan Wirajuda, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, who provided us with a brief of recent developments in Indonesia and on the priorities and the aspirations of his president and her government. We requested the Indonesian government consider appointing a high profile business representative to the joint policy committee which oversees the Memorandum of Understanding, and Minister Wirajuda agreed to this proposal.
Our meeting with His Excellency Jusuf Kalla, who is the Coordinating Minister for People’s Welfare, provided the opportunity to recall that the Territory has a long history in contributing to the progression of the Indonesian people’s welfare. I was particularly delighted to meet with Her Excellency Rini Soewandi who is the Minister for Industry and Trade and whose vision of the relationship between the Territory and Indonesia very much reflects our own.
The trade and business relationship between Indonesia and the Territory is strong and the evidence is clear. At present, Territory trade with Indonesia has seen steady development to the point that the value has grown back to $AUD135.1m in 2000-01 after the problems of the 1998 economic crisis. Indonesia is the Territory’s eighth largest export market with food and live animals making up 50% of the total trade. Other exports to Indonesia include machinery and transport, chemical products and an assortment of manufactured goods. Imports from Indonesia into the Territory have shown steady growth from $AUD6.1m in 1996-97 to $AUD17.6m in 2000-01 and represent our sixth largest source of imports.
There is also significant Indonesian investment in the Territory ranging from property development projects in Darwin to large cattle station ownership and investment in horticultural projects in the Katherine-Daly region. We reminded our Indonesian colleagues of the strong business partnership that has developed in the supply of live cattle. That partnership involves the breeding of cattle in the Territory, shipping them to Indonesian feed lots, and then through the abattoirs to the Indonesian markets. It has been very successful. While the number of live cattle is down from figures prior to the economic crisis, in 2000-01 approximately 130 000 head of cattle were exported to the value of $67m.
Our trade relationship with Indonesian is strong. However through the Economic Development Summit I convened upon being elected, and through the business survey Minister Henderson conducted before our visit to Jakarta, Territory business has told my government our commercial relationship with Indonesian can be and should be stronger. Other prospective sectors for trade and investment growth include horticulture and agricultural produce, environmental services and technologies, construction expertise, marine transport equipment and capabilities, education and training, health services, communications, resource management, professional services, project management and government administration.
During our discussions with Minister Soewandi, Minister Henderson and I emphasised that my government is keen to see that our trade relationship continues to grow and we are taking steps to ensure that it does. I have officially invited Minister Soewandi to visit the Northern Territory.
We also met with representatives of His Excellency Manuel Kaisiepo, State Minister for the Acceleration of Development of Eastern Indonesia, to brief them on the massive resources to which the Territory has access and the opportunities for Territory business to participate in the growth of Eastern Indonesia. We referred, for example, to our knowledge base capacities that are of potential value to the development of the eastern provinces of Indonesia including tropical environmental sciences, aquaculture, science and technology and tropical health sciences.
We mentioned the Territory’s well developed remote area service provision industry. The nature of these services makes the technology and principles behind them very appropriate to the Eastern Indonesian situation. We briefed His Excellency Agum Gumelar, Minister for Transport, on the railway and wharf developments and the exciting opportunities that will develop for expanding regional trade flows to and from the Territory when those projects become operational. Later, we discussed with the Minister for Finance, His Excellency Boediono, the Indonesian Customs Facility project. This is an initiative of the Australian-Indonesian Ministerial Forum, passed on to the Joint Policy Committee of the MOU with Indonesian and is scheduled to start as an implementation trial later in 2002.
This project will see the smoother flow of development related imports into the eastern part of Indonesia. The project involves the placement of Indonesian customs officers in Darwin to pre-inspect consignments to ports in Indonesian outside of Java and Sumatra. It is expected that the trial phase will end and full implementation of the program will commence to coincide with the completion of the Darwin to Alice Springs Railway in 2004.
We also discussed a variety of issues with His Excellency Gde Ardika, the Minister for Tourism, and agreed to develop proposals for joint tourism co-ordination and mutually beneficial cooperative programs. Australians spend more in Indonesia than any other visitors to the country, while the through-flow from Bali to the southern states is a segment we have under-emphasised. The backpacker market is a prime target for both our industries. We want to work with our near neighbours to our north to maximise our returns in this sector.
Finally, I was a keynote speaker at a luncheon for the Indonesian business community in Jakarta hosted by the Indonesia-Australia Business Council. This was a good opportunity to showcase recent developments in the Territory and highlight the potential and capacity we have to do more. It appeared to be well received and we are following up a number of potential trade and investment issues raised by business representatives. During our trip, we also visited the Territory’s representative office in Jakarta. I would like to make special mention of this government’s - and the previous government’s - representative in Indonesian, Dr Frans Seda and his staff. I salute their capacity to help facilitate access to government in Jakarta and their key ongoing role in building the relationship between the Territory and Indonesia.
This government intends to continue the representative offices in Jakarta and Dr Frans Seda will continue to be our representative there. His ability to open doors for the Territory government is simply second to none. I am pleased to give credit to former CLP governments for securing Dr Seda’s appointment. Dr Seda is certainly a friend to the Territory, but more importantly, he is a friend and close confidante to many powerful people in the Indonesian government and, as we very clearly witnessed, to the President herself.
In conclusion, I would like to thank those who organised the visit. It was both educational and successful in that as a new government, we learnt much about Indonesia and at the same time made clear the depth of our commitment to building on our relationship because the potential is enormous. The trade and business relationship between Indonesia and the Territory is already strong, but there is so much more scope for it to grow further. The Territory is Australia’s gateway to Asia - there is no doubt about that - but the Territory is also Asia’s gateway to Australia. We have to work harder and smarter to reach our full potential. My government will stop the talking and get on with the job of developing a clear plan on how the Territory needs to engage with Southeast Asia and Indonesia in particular.
We want to further develop trade and development opportunities; we want to work with Territory businesses to reap the benefits of the relationship with Indonesia. We want to encourage greater Indonesian investment in the Territory. We want to increase two-way trade to the benefit of both our economies and we want to work harder and smarter in the way we do business. Over the next six months we will build on the success of the past 10 years and develop a clear, coherent and realistic strategy to maximise the clear opportunities that exist to increase trade and investment to our mutual benefit.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, we welcome most of the statement; what is essentially a report of a visit over a few days to Indonesia to meet the President of Indonesia, meet a few ministers, and having been at many of those meetings in the past, you don’t have to convince me what is achieved. It is good that you saw each other and I am sure that the introductions were well worthwhile. I am sure that issues were discussed that point for future directions in terms of that relationship. In that regard, the opposition welcomes the statement.
We welcome the fact that the government intends to pursue those initiatives further but, gee whiz, Chief Minister, you really can’t overlook a style that is developing. It really is petty. It is not only illogical in the way you make some of your comments, but can I say to you that it seems to a number of us to be almost childishly jealous now in the way that you can’t help but make the comment which is a crack at the previous administration that, in context, is just totally illogical. More childish than jealous. For example, the references to re-establishing our ties and the line in the Chief Minister’s statement, and I quote:
- It is clear that not enough was done to build on the good work of past strong supporters of the relationship
such as Shane Stone and Daryl Manzie. In short, the former government of the now opposition leader
dropped the ball.
Mr Stirling: Daryl never used to tell us anything.
Ms Martin: And did four trips in one year.
Mr BURKE: As he had been. Throughout the whole period of my administration, Daryl Manzie was the minister for Asian Relations and Trade as he had been under the former Chief Minister, and I am sure her praise will also come as a surprise to Mr Manzie because it was only in October 2000 that she bagged him in a statement in the Hansard for his efforts, although a few months before that she heaped praise on him.
So, if you drift back in the Hansard you will see that she goes from praise on the one hand for his efforts, then to bagging, and now when he is gone and she wants to bag someone else, she will then praise him again which is pretty typical of the developing demeanour of this Chief Minister.
Her attitude is pretty well one of: ‘Don’t worry about anything I have said before because what I am saying today is my position irrespective of how much it contradicts my previous positions and statements’. So I just ask the question: why do you have to carry on in such a childish way, particularly with this sort of statement? Frankly, we on this side of the House are quite happy to hear about your visit. We are pleased that Dr Frans Seda continues to enjoy the support of the Northern Territory government; we are delighted that he was able to get you a similar entre to that to which she was able to provide to previous CLP chief ministers and ministers. We are interested to hear of the issues that were raised with the various Indonesian ministers, and we wish you well in continuing and perhaps strengthening both our relationship with Indonesia and our cultural and economic links, but, Chief Minister, when you carry on in this way like a spoilt and envious child, you must expect some small rebuttal.
It is good that she has finally got to Indonesia and met President Megawati Soekarnoputri, although I wonder how much the President feels about being verballed as much as she has been in this statement. However, I hope you can continue to build on the relationship and, in relation to that relationship, I would like to return to what one of its strong supporters reported to this House just over 12 months ago. It was Daryl Manzie, and it is probably a good example of the difference between the sort of statements you are getting from this new government and the statements that were issued in the past by ministers because this statement that the Chief Minister has delivered today, really at best, is a report of a visit and a pretty cursory one at that. Really, at best, it should have been a ministerial report in this House, and if it is going to come in as a statement, it needs to contain much more content than it does.
The only thing that is worth commenting on in any detail is the rebuttal of the childishness of some of the comments. But when we look at what has been done in terms of the previous government dropping the ball, it is worth recalling some of the factual things happened and were reported on by Minister Manzie in October 2000. He said:
The challenge and responsibility of government through our trade development, investment attraction
and relationship strengthening activities, is to widen the scope and increase the value of our trade and
investment in the region. Our aim has been to build and capitalise on the Territory’s strengths. The
consistent and focused action we have taken as government to engage our international neighbours
and in our regional markets over a long period of time is apparent to astute business people and to
any serious analyst of our role in Asia. At no stage have we disengaged from Asia, even at the height
of the crisis in East Timor. Despite misinformed comments to the contrary our relations with Indonesia
remain as strong as ever
As honourable members may be aware, I was the first minister from Australia to visit Indonesia last year
following the tragic events in East Timor and the United Nations intervention there.
He said:
- I also understand that I was the first and perhaps only Australian minister to visit Kupang in West Timor early
in 2000 at the invitation of the provincial government. The strength of the relationship was reaffirmed when
the Chief Minister and I met with the Indonesian President, Vice President and key ministers in Jakarta in May.
The formal relationship between the Northern Territory and the government of Indonesia was ratified in
1992 and has remained active. I have also since had a meeting with the Indonesian trade minister in
Melbourne while there attending another event.
A joint policy committee under the memorandum of understanding has been meeting in Jakarta this week.
Subjects under discussion include: the strategic direction of the relationship; impacts and opportunities
arising from government reforms and regional autonomy initiatives in Indonesia; the role and functions
of the new ministry for eastern Indonesian development; project developments in eastern Indonesia; and
other mutual trade and investment opportunities.
- One of the initiatives sponsored through the joint policy committee was the customs pre-inspection trial
conducted for six months in 1999. This involved placing two Indonesian customs officials in Darwin to
pre-process exports from Darwin, especially into eastern Indonesia. The trial proved a success and I
understand that a new agreement is ready to be signed pending decisions on final timing and arrangements.
As well as these developments at the national level with Indonesia, the Territory has also been developing, and
in some cases restrengthening, relationships at the provincial level. In July this year, I travelled to East
Kalimantan to meet with the governor and to sign a new Memorandum of Cooperation between that province
and the Territory. The new MOC focusses on areas of Territory infrastructure and service expertise and
complementary needs in East Kalimantan which can be developed by the governments and business chambers
in both jurisdictions.
A previous formal relationship with Bali is also subject to review and redevelopment this time.
The relationship with the eastern province of Nusa Tenggara Timor has seen business, health and education
focus develop over a long period of time. We are looking to develop the relationship further around mutually
advantageous opportunities. The opening and development of the new links with Irian Jaya/West Papua is also
under way at present with a government and industry follow up visit planned for November.
- This is just a quick snapshot of several of the relationship links between the NT and Indonesia occurring now. Other government links have been in place over a long time and are active including those in the education and the primary industry and fisheries arenas. Other formal links are in place with the Philippines province of Mindanau, the Vietnamese province of Khan Hoa, Brunei and the Malaysian federal territory of Labuan.
He went on to talk about the Australian-Indonesian development area initiatives, BIMP-EAGA:
- … activities are re-emerging and our involvement is the subject of active development and renewed participation.
AIDA is also active, with a Territory nominee co-chairing the agricultural, fisheries and animal husbandry sector
group. A study visit to Darwin for more than 40 representatives of provincial governments and business
organisations to explore areas of Territory skills and capabilities, and to look at quarantine and customs
requirements applying to imports and exports is scheduled for later this month. I expect the outcome to this
visit will further strengthen the relationship with the involved provinces and assist with the development of
additional trade opportunities.
- The relationships we have established in Asia provide a solid framework for trade development investment.
As well, they provide a foundation in which to build better cultural understanding and cooperation. Our
experience has been that direct support in particular markets has been pivotal in opening new trade and
investment opportunities, a modest but effective network of hands-on representative offices to assist the
Territory government and Territory business associations and individual businesses has been established.
So I guess that is an example of dropping the ball, according to our Chief Minister. You will notice that Minister Manzie referred to how the strength of the special relationship with Indonesia overcame the problems caused by the East Timor crisis and the incredible role the Territory played in supporting the people of East Timor. Reading this speech of the present Chief Minister, you would think the only hiccup in the relationship with Indonesia was that we dropped the ball. So I will just turn briefly to that.
First, as minister and Chief Minister I met four of the only five presidents ever in Indonesia, including Megawati Soekarnoputri. I also met Suharto, Habibe and Gus Dur. Is that dropping the ball? I point out that when we went we always took business people with us so that they could benefit from the access we received and the endorsement that meant they had with local business. Mind you, when we took local business people, we would probably be cautious who we took, I do not know how Kevin John Ennis figured as the businessmen that the current minister took with him.
Mr Henderson: No, we did not take him. Didn’t take him.
Mr BURKE: Well, in fact, I will forewarn you because I am interested in the story. We have sort of been finding an opportunity, but I would be interested - not as a point of criticism; I am just interested - how a guy who was a deportee from Indonesia according to the reports came to be on a government delegation. It seems strange to me. Someone should have done some checking as to what was his status. It is one thing to have contacts, it is another thing to have some sort of status, and a man who is a current deportee, I would have thought should not have been with your delegation, and you would have to be obtuse not to think that the Indonesians would not be well aware who was part of that delegation, who was walking around accompanying you, whether he was there in a formal capacity or not because they have a very good intelligence system. So in that case I would definitely drop that particular ball if I were you, minister.
Let’s get back to what we did. Is achieving the first visit by an Indonesian President to Darwin dropping the ball? Are concerted discussions directly aimed at developing trade opportunities and seeking cooperation on various productive ventures in Bali examples of dropping the ball? Is providing technological assistance in areas such as malaria, tuberculosis research, livestock, fisheries and water supply projects some examples of dropping the ball? Are successful teacher and student exchange programs dropping the ball? Is achieving the Alice to Darwin rail link to further develop Darwin as the gateway to Asia another example of dropping the ball?
Was His Excellency Jusuf Kalla, Coordinating Minister for People’s Welfare, recalling with pride the Territory’s long history in contributing to the progression of the Indonesian people, or did he complain that we had dropped the ball? Having been in many of those meetings, those ministers would have been far too courteous to even raise anything of that sort and it’s quite unfair to make the suggestions that those sorts of issues would have been raised.
Let’s just look at the statement by the Chief Minister and what she’s actually said. She proudly announced trade and she said in relation to trade:
… has seen a steady development to the point that the value has grown back to $135.1m in 2000-01 after the
problems of the 1998 economic crisis.
Well, I could have sworn that we were in government at that time. It really beggars belief that the Chief Minister would believe that we were so busy dropping the ball that we missed this growth in trade. The Chief Minister continued and talked about imports from Indonesia increasing from $6.1m in 1996-97 to $17.6m in 2000-01. Indeed, the Chief Minister lists a litany of achievements and endeavours, all of which took place under the administration of the CLP.
All of us in this parliament support the strong ties with Indonesia. All of us applaud that the Chief Minister has taken the first opportunity to visit Jakarta and assure the President and her ministers that the attitude and policies of the Territory in regards to that relationship have not changed. All of us are pleased to hear her report back on that successful visit. So, why do you have to carry on in such a childish way?
As has been quite clearly shown in this statement, the Chief Minister and her other ministers, the Minister for Asian Relations and Trade, have big shoes to fill in fostering the relationships that have been built up over many years with our Asian neighbours. It is important that you do fill them. But I would caution you about using Indonesian ministers for your own political ends at the very beginning of your stewardship.
It’s also a bit rich, after outlining over 11 pages all that has been achieved by previous administrations and saying how good it was, and how you intend to follow on, and how you reinforced that in the meeting with President Megawati Soekarnoputri and letting us know all about your other meetings with ministers and addressing the Indonesian business community which, unfortunately, only appeared to be well received.
There were so many meetings and so much talk that, at the end of 11 pages, the Chief Minister then has the temerity to say she does not intend following the lead of her predecessors. Instead, the Chief Minister says they are going to get on with the job, not of developing more contacts, more trade – oh, no! - they’re going to take six months off to talk about developing a clear plan for the road ahead.
I might point out that in the debate on the speech by Minister Manzie that I referred to earlier, the then Opposition Leader, in her contribution did say:
I welcome the minister sharing with this House some of the strategies that he has, this government has, in terms of achieving export success.
If we turn our minds back to the appropriation debate in June last year, when the then Leader of the Opposition was questioning the then Minister for Asian Relations and Trade, she asked him about Territory exporters and the assistance he and his department were giving those businesses. At the end of the minister’s answers, the then Leader of the Opposition replied: ‘I appreciate the minister’s answer. That is terrific’.
But as I said, it seems the Chief Minister’s attitude now is: ‘Forget everything I said in the past; that is today’s story’. Most of her statement today indicates she still really believes that what we did is terrific, but she was unable to restrain herself from politicising the issue with illogical attacks and false claims.
As I said at the outset, we welcome this statement and the commitment of the government to furthering the long-established and special links between the Territory and Indonesia. We look for further statements to show more detail about what actually is being done, rather than more statements of all the things that you are going to achieve. We do hope that soon - I hope very soon - those in government will realise that they are actually in government; that they don’t have to raise pathetic and illogical political points every time they speak because in the case of the Chief Minister, she is looking more and more childish every day.
I welcome the statement, certainly the factual parts of it, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Mr HENDERSON (Asian Relations and Trade): Mr Deputy Speaker, I am very pleased to talk in support of the Chief Minister’s statement tonight and report on our visit to Indonesia back in January. As Minister for Asian Relations and Trade, I can say to this House that I have an absolute passion for furthering our engagement in the Northern Territory with our Asian neighbours, economically, socially and culturally. This is the region of the world where we live. This is our future; our future lies in this region. Our future, in terms of developing our economy, is wedded to the region and there is no more important country in terms of building those ties at all levels than Indonesia.
This, in fact, was my second visit to Indonesia. I did attend a mining conference in Jakarta back in October and I will report back on that further on in my comments. In terms of the symbolism of the visit, the Chief Minister’s first visit into the Asian region to do that, to make that commitment to Indonesia, to formally introduce our credentials to the Indonesian President, Megawati Soekarnoputri, as well as being symbolic, it will lead to further economic outcomes for the Northern Territory, given the strategies that we have put in place to capitalise on this visit.
I pick up on the Opposition Leader’s comments, and I do pay tribute to former CLP administrations who were ahead of their time in terms of developing this relationship with Indonesia. But I have received a great deal of warmth in terms of when I’ve been received in Indonesia as the new Minister for Asian Relations and Trade purely based on the fact that we are the Labor Party. The Labor Party is very highly regarded in Indonesia, given the Labor Party’s historical links with Indonesia and the support that the Labor Party gave Indonesia during its time, in terms of seeking independence from the Dutch colonies. The union movement is well regarded; and the wharfies, in terms of holding up Dutch ships in terms of trade with Indonesia. That history is actually still taught in schools in Indonesia - the importance of Australia, the importance of the Labor Party and the union movement in assisting Indonesia achieve independence from the Dutch. There is an enormous amount of warmth for the Labor Party in that particular country and, I have to say, particularly for Paul Keating. As soon as people realise you’re from the Labor Party, they want to talk about Paul Keating. They have a very high regard for the ex-Prime Minister and his absolute understanding of the need to develop a very secure and close relationship with Indonesia and with Asia, and that embracing of the region, embracing the importance of Indonesia does stand in stark contrast in the minds not only of the Indonesians and the media in Indonesia, but the media in the region, particularly in the run up to the last election. There was, throughout the region, almost universal support. Every newspaper article that I saw of the time in the lead-up to the election was hoping for a Labor victory in terms of re-establishing links with Australia that were based on mutual respect and understanding, and the absolute certainty that Labor has always had, federally, that our future lies in the region. We have to have that mutual respect and understanding.
In terms of making those comments, I also say that previous CLP administrations were certainly ahead of their time in terms of the Commonwealth at particular points, and other states. That relationship is still held in high regard and we went over not only to re-commit to that, but to build on the work of our predecessors and build on the good reputation that the Labor Party does have in Indonesia.
As well as the economic ties, I believe that there are many opportunities to build on the social and cultural ties. In terms of our strategy for engagement in the region, that strategy is going to be worked with and through our various ethnic communities here in Darwin. I strongly believe, as minister - and will be talking if not tomorrow certainly in the next sittings - about a population statement and policy that this government is working on.
But a key to developing those links is through our people. We have a very strong Southeast Asian community in Darwin. All of those people have friends, family, business acquaintances back in the region and in terms of really developing opportunities for the Northern Territory, really cementing those relationships, the best strategy is to work through the people we have here as part of our community. That is very much the way that this government is going to be doing business.
In terms of some of the specific meetings that we had - and I know that the Chief Minister has been through some of these - the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Minister Wirajuda, agreed to revamp the Joint Policy Committee that oversees the Memorandum of Understanding and very much it was a suggestion of this government that a business representative was actually put on that Joint Policy Committee to give more focus to business and trade outcomes. I don’t know whether the Chief Minister mentioned in her statement less focus on NATO, which is the Indonesian No Action; Talking Only acronym. This is underway and it will be good to see a business representative on the Indonesian side of the Joint Policy Committee.
Minister Soewandi, the Trade Minister, is very keen to build on the existing trade between our two countries. As the Chief Minister said, $135m worth of exports last year. A very significant dominance in those figures in the live cattle trade and Indonesia is our eighth largest export market. But there is certainly potential to grow that market and the Indonesian Trade Minister was very interested in what is happening in terms of the development of our port and our rail links and the capacity for that infrastructure to reduce the cost of Indonesian exports in to the southeast Australian market places. Something that we really will be doing is actually getting back through the Trade Minister, the Chamber of Commerce, with those numbers in terms of the potential for those reduced costs which will make Indonesian exports much more competitive internally within the Australian market place, and she was very keen on learning more about those opportunities.
In terms of meeting - over the two visits to Jakarta - many Indonesian business people as well as Australians doing business over there, it is a very difficult market for Territory business people to be in, particularly with the state of the Indonesian economy at the moment with an estimated debt of about $160bn and 50% of the government’s budget servicing that debt. We are not quite in that position, thankfully, but certainly the Indonesian President has a huge job on her hands in terms of managing the economy and managing that debt burden. It is a difficult market to be in. But as well as the big risks in terms of being in that market, the rule and the application of commercial law, there are big returns for people who stick at it, for people who do learn the culture, learn the language, and seek out the appropriate Indonesian partners. There are big returns to be made in that market place, but along with big risks. It is a difficult market to be in and I have every admiration of Territory business people who are actually making a success and a go of what they are doing in that market place.
Opportunities are emerging. With the new government has come an emphasise on decentralization from Jakarta in terms of a policy of autonomy for the regions and regional decision making. Whilst that is commendable in terms of community empowerment and local decision making, it has created, at this point in time, a bit of a climate of uncertainty in terms of regimes in various regions in Indonesia. There are differences between those regional regimes and coming to grips and understanding in which regions you are better off maintaining your effort at the moment given the fact that the country really is in an enormous transitional period not only politically but also economically.
To assist with business in that regard - talking to the Chair of the Indonesian Chamber of Commerce, they had conducted their own assessment in terms of the business profiles or the profiles for business in each of the regions in Indonesia and have basically produced a ranking system of where they thought you would be safer in terms of trying to invest. Certainly, that sparked a lot of dissent amongst some of those regional areas that were towards the bottom of the list. We have a copy of that and we have made it available to the Northern Territory Chamber of Commerce.
In terms of specific areas where I see that there are immediate opportunities, I think the mining service and supply industry is one where I have tasked my department to develop a real strategy around. If we look at Darwin now with the railway on its way and the new port, we really do have the capacity to provide services and supply product into those mining areas. For example, the proposed Tangguh project in Irian Jaya is going to be a huge gas project. Tangguh has been shortlisted by China in terms of one of the preferred suppliers, the North-West Shelf is another and Qatar is the third one in terms of providing huge volumes of LNG into China. Those reserves are enormous, 14-22 trillion cubic feet which makes Sunrise – yes, it is about three times the size of Sunrise. BP is contracted to Pertamina, the Indonesian oil company to develop these gas fields.
As a result of them being shortlisted, we are talking to BP as I speak, to look at the opportunities for Territory business to secure some of those capital projects in terms of building that massive LNG plant and investment, and the capacity for us to be able to service the development once it is up and running. That is a sign of this government being proactive in terms of a project that has not even started yet and getting in there at the design stage and saying: ‘Hey, we really can do this’.
Freeport is the world’s biggest and lowest cost copper producer, again in Irian Jaya. A lot of those service and supply contracts for Freeport are coming from Cairns. Well, I can tell Premier Beattie that we are out to get some of these and we are going to be very aggressive and there will be no holds barred. Even though we have political alliances, we are certainly after some of those contracts that Cairns has in terms of supplying the largest copper mine in the world.
Already we have linkages in training for the health and medical areas and some patients do come down to Darwin Private Hospital. Freeport use Darwin for visa renewals at the consulate here. Work is underway to secure increased fresh food supply to Darwin by the Hero Supermarket Group in Indonesia. Certainly, I commend Northern Gateway and Penny Tastula in terms of establishing an air link to Timika and not only opening up the passenger opportunities, but also the freight opportunities into the mine and it really is great to see a Territory business taking the lead to open up that part of the world to us.
Timika and Freeport are really going to offer us opportunities as well as a number of other large mines the Newmont Batu Hijau Mine on Sumbawa Island is another huge base metal mine and so there are opportunities there. Currently, a lot of the service and supply comes from Singapore and Jakarta and we have a targeted strategy to see what opportunity there is there for Northern Territory business, and talking to the people in the mining industry, they think we have real opportunities. I am excited about developing those opportunities and the department is working on that now.
Tourism is another area where I think we can achieve imminent progress. The Minister for Tourism met us at short notice, Minister Ardika. It was interesting to learn when we were flying to Jakarta, reading the Jakarta Post that the ASEAN Tourism Ministers were meeting, and part of the article was a commitment from Minister Ardika that in terms of responding to September 11 and the downturn in international travel and air links that those Asian countries come together and support each other in terms of tourism within the region. Although Minister Ardika wasn’t originally on our schedule to meet, through the office of the mercurial Frans Seda, I mentioned to him that I would really like to meet the Minister for Tourism because, even though we are not members of ASEAN, I certainly think that we’re part of the region and we should be part of this strategy.
He did meet us at short notice. We had a very good meeting. We have an exchange of officers looking at how we develop a tourism triangle, being Darwin, Dili and Eastern Indonesia, particularly in ecotourism and the backpacker market. Central to opening up that region is to get the Kupang-Darwin service back up and running. I certainly believe that the opportunity is there; the volume is going to be there.
The big problem we have at the moment is the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade have a warning notice out on Kupang for Australian travellers. I have written to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Alexander Downer, based on this government’s assessment and our linkages not only with West Timor but also East Timor, saying that we really don’t think the area is as dangerous as some people make it out to be and that notice should be lifted. I believe once that notice is lifted - and the refugee issue on West Timor is going to be resolved in the not too distant future, I am advised - I see opening up that link between Kupang and Darwin as imminent and that really is going to start developing that tourism triangle concept that we spoke about.
Further, it is important for us because it is not only people exiting Darwin in to Kupang and then on through Asia, but also bringing people back the other way. So that was a very productive meeting and, as I have said, we have exchanges at officer level working on how we develop that concept.
Again, a good contact made over there at the lunch for the Australia-Indonesia Business Council was the Qantas Regional Manager, Geoff Brown, who was very persuasive and very insistent that we actually start spending some money promoting Darwin not only in Indonesia but also in the region, and was saying essentially the Northern Territory is totally absent from any advertising strategy. In Jakarta, even if you just looked at the expat community: 14 000 expats looking for somewhere to go on the weekend. We are only three hours away. Geoff Brown really believed that if we spent some money marketing ourselves in the region, it would develop the demand to allow extra capacity.
I mentioned this to the Federal Tourism Minister, Joe Hockey, when I met him a couple of weeks ago and we are now looking at a partnership between the Australian Tourist Commission, the Northern Territory Tourist Commission and also some individual enterprises here in the Northern Territory to get on with a marketing campaign and see if we can a develop some of that demand. So, again, very beneficial to get that observation from people on the ground in Jakarta.
In wrapping up, the cattle industry, as I’ve said, is basically 50% of our export market. The AustAsia company, who have made a significant investment in Katherine purchasing the dairy and looking to turn that in to a feed lot to precondition cattle prior to their journey to Indonesia, have made a massive investment and we will continue to work with them in partnership to further develop the value of that cattle trade.
In closing comments, Mr Deputy Speaker, a very important country in a part of the world and the region that this government is totally committed to in terms of building on the success of the past and building on those trade, social and cultural opportunities that exist for us.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to add my comments on this statement and I begin by referring to the previous speaker. It is most heartening to see the detail that is contained in your report, Minister. Some key issues that I wanted to be aired have been addressed very well, and it gives me great heart to hear that they have been recognised and are progressing.
The issue of our relationship with Indonesia, our closest neighbour, is one that can only progress through bipartisan support. It is not the place to play politics; it is the place to work constructively because the whole issue of a relationship with a near neighbour is not about point scoring, it’s not about short term gain, it’s about the longer term project. I particularly appreciate the reference in the last speaker’s presentation with regards to those foundations which have already been laid. The Chief Minister’s comments gave scant recognition of that without spending more time, however, on the politics of endeavouring to claim ownership of the relationship with Indonesia and we are going to do it better than the former government. I don’t really think that is necessary because the issue is one of such great complexity that it can only be enhanced with an attitude that is going to see us build on all that which that has gone before. There is so much work to be done. It is not a simple matter to deal with a near neighbour of great complexity and internal tension like we have in Indonesia.
Our near neighbour will not go away. It will be there for our children. It may be there in a different form in years to come than it is today, as is was even for our grandparents a different place. It is changing. It has enough troubles of its own without us being able to simplify the interaction that we, a little place, have with such a complex country as Indonesia.
I would urge a continuation of the attitude of bipartisan support, of recognition for that which has gone before and, please, keep politics out of it because this is the place that is going to stay there and it is a relationship that is ongoing and it cannot be used for immediate and personal glory. I am driven to make comment on that because the reference to the great opportunities you had to speak to different people over there is fantastic, and so there should be and would be. I would fully expect in all my dealings with Indonesia, which have been extensive, that they are a people of tremendous respect and protocol. It was only right and fitting that the new government should present to the hierarchy in Indonesia. I fully applaud and respect that move. It has my complete support. I’m sure it has the support of every member on this side of the House. It is the appropriate thing to do.
I also congratulate the Chief Minister and the minister on being given the opportunity to be the keynote speaker at the Indonesia-Australia Business Council. That is good stuff. I am glad to hear that contact was made and will be continued with Dr Frans Seda and I reiterate the fact that these structures are already in place and can only be enhanced by recognising what we do have and build on that. I am prepared to play my part in ensuring that the equation is equal and together, with creative tension, that we would move forward. On that, I am just growing tired of this constant need to claim a differential ownership of issues, even our relationship with Indonesia, and also the response that would come upon any raising of an issue which is the prerogative of the opposition to be viewed in almost hysterical response as though we are denigrating or degrading such institutions.
I have to say that we are going to have to get used to the idea that the opposition, as far as I am concerned and members who sit on my side of the House…
Mr Stirling: Well, you’re speaking for them at the moment. There’s no one else. You’re it.
Mr MILLS: They are here. The issues that we need to address are ones which need the complete and unified support that may come, at times, in terms of criticism or a question. It does not warrant an hysterical response. Rather I think - in particular issues on Indonesia, using this as a case - it needs to be a proactive and a constructive approach to any criticism or any question that might be raised because we have bigger fish to fry, we have a bigger agenda to drive, particularly in terms of something as important as our near neighbour who will not go away.
I would like to raise a couple of points. It was pleasing to hear the member for Wanguri make specific mention of one of them, which I would raise at this point, and that being Merpati. To me, the air link between Darwin and Kupang is critical in the relevance that Darwin plays as our part in the region. We may get an inflated sense of our own importance up here in the Northern Territory when we wander around the eastern provinces of Indonesia. Truthfully, the Indonesians are extremely polite, exceptionally respectful, and perhaps may be so polite as to not allow us to understand that we actually are very, very small in their scheme of things. The issues between provinces are probably far more dominant in their minds than the relationship of the Northern Territory and Indonesia.
Nonetheless, the way to progress is, of course, making sure we have a personal interaction with the key players in Indonesia at all levels, from the political, the business, the cultural interface. It is absolutely critical that we maintain a constant interface between people. It is relationship that will make this thing go forward - it is not rhetoric. We have this reference to NATO. I’ve heard the phrase before, and I am glad that has been placed on the record, because that is exactly what is needed, and that being ‘no action; talk only’. We must make sure that the action is primarily driven by an interface between different levels of the Northern Territory as it is reflected in Indonesia.
I would urge members to reflect on the records in Hansard of reports that have been placed before this parliament in past times on a similar topic. They cannot be thrown away nor discarded; they must be built upon. The last report, I understand, was in 2000 when then Chief Minister Burke made a presentation. At that time, he was able to report that not only did they meet with the President, Abdul Rachman Wahid, but the Vice-President and six other ministers, and gave a detailed account of the discussions that were held between each of those different ministers. I would like to see more detail in the statement that we have had from the Chief Minister. More grit, in a sense, because it is about the personal interaction, it’s not just a travelogue or a report on the people that we met. In fact, in the tone that it is, I’d have to say, without being deliberately provocative, it fits the category, I think, of a ministerial report that would occur earlier on in the sittings.
So, for that reason, I would like to raise a few points that I would be seeking to see progressed. One is the Merpati link, which has already been referred to, and I appreciate that. The other one is the status of cultural exchanges between the education sector here in the Northern Territory and the different provinces of Indonesia. They cannot be let slip, and if you’ve seen my record in the short time I have been in this Chamber, that is one area that can be easily overlooked because, we have to be honest, many times our interaction with our closest neighbour is driven by economics. When the Rupiah loses its value, it seems that the attention wanders off somewhere else. But as said before, we all acknowledge our neighbour is not going to go away. We will not be fair-weather friends with our neighbours, and the cultural exchanges are absolutely vital in securing and ensuring a future that we can work with. I would urge due and serious attention to the status of the cultural exchanges. The Merpati link is critical in that as well, in regards to the affordability.
The second one is that sister city relationships have a part to play in this - Palmerston and its relationship with Kupang, and Ambon with Darwin. They need to also be brought into the equation and put in their right place in terms of important building blocks in establishing our relationship.
I would like to see a reflection, too, of the current state of play with regards to the East Timorese crisis and how that is reflected on the mind of Jakarta and our relationship with Jakarta. That is still an issue in terms of the way we are viewed here in this place in the world, and our previous engagement and our involvement, just by geographic location, with the conflict in East Timor. That is going to be an issue that we really will have to watch and very delicately acknowledge and proceed forward.
I would like to make sure that we keep the House updated on progress with regard to the Trade Expo, and also - and probably very importantly, I think we’ll find in a later debate - the potential links between the different provinces, different universities in the provinces and the Northern Territory University. That is a critical link and I would like to have seen a little more detail on those sorts of issues being raised.
In going back over Hansard, I was interested to see the report when then Chief Minister Burke made a report to the parliament. He said he had the opportunity to meet Megawati Soekarnoputri and she said, at that stage, that she would be very pleased to visit Darwin. She said that she hadn’t been to Darwin before and would be very open to an invitation. I would be interested to know whether that has been progressed. Also, often we forget just how things have developed over time. It wasn’t that long ago, in fact, that we had the historic visit of President Wahid here to Darwin and had the opportunity to speak to 250 delegates here in Darwin. I mention that, one as a historical reminder of the proactive role that the CLP government has played in maintaining and developing the relationship, to have the visit of a president here in Darwin, but, more importantly, to counter what I find a rather disturbing thread that is woven through the statement of dropping the ball and the like. Accusations can be made like that, and they are rather cheap shots, because we reflect on what actually has occurred at that historic time.
If you look behind the scenes, there may have been a change in emphasis, there may have been, but you would have to acknowledge there has been a dramatic occurrence behind the scenes in Indonesia at that time. For those earlier times, in the earlier stages of our relationship with Indonesia, that was the very beginning. It is easy to start something, the difficulty is maintaining things. As the changing fortunes of the different political structures and regimes within Indonesia, the interaction that the East Timorese situation has placed upon the psychology and the attitude of those in Jakarta - those things are incredibly complex. So I think it is really quite crass to be able to make a judgment such as that and say ‘dropping the ball’. There was a heck of a lot going on at that time when we reflect on the early stages which, you know, is open pastures; you are just beginning something. To maintain it is the challenge.
I conclude with the reference to NATO. I will be watching to make sure, and playing my part as a parliamentarian, that there is a lot of real, sensitive action - and I mean sensitive in the sense that we have to be very culturally mindful of the way that we interact with Indonesia, and that there is a limited amount of talk and rhetoric, but there is real progress made from this point on into the future, without a temptation to look over the shoulder and cast aspersions on that which has gone before. There is no point to be gained in that. The future lies ahead of us, and I will play my part as a parliamentarian to make sure that that is the focus of our attention
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I thank everyone for their contribution to this debate. I’m a little bewildered about the preciousness of the opposition in their response to this debate. When a party has been in place for 27 years and then they move to opposition and there is a change of those in power, we are happy to recognise when things are working. But, I say - and let’s just keep this debate to the relationship between the Territory and Indonesia - we have been strongly supportive over the years of the relationship with Indonesia, and I have stood in this place and commended the good work being done in the past. I also point out to the opposition that for the last two to three years, I have stood in here and asked: what was the strategy that we were following when it came to Indonesia and Asian relations, generally? If you want to check the Hansard, there was no strategy. I grew very concerned that what we were having were ministers travelling in an ad hoc way in to Asia on what seemed to be a whim with no strategy and no real targeting. I raised those questions in here. Only last year, I said to the then minister - who I think in the past did good work, but over the last two to three years, it really had, in the words of the statement I made, dropped the ball. The previous administration had dropped the ball because we had an Asian Relations minister who, over a year, went four times into Asia on business to do with his portfolio. Now, if that is not dropping the ball, when the same minister could not say what the strategy was in terms of either Indonesia or Asia or Southeast Asia generally, then I think that our criticism is valid. It is not a criticism that I make, actually having gone to Indonesia in isolation, but a criticism I was making before I went and from the position of Opposition Leader and opposition spokesperson on Asian relations and trade.
I suppose it didn’t really come as any surprise to me when we met with particularly Indonesian government ministers - and may I say how impressed we were with the quality of those ministers. They knew what they were doing; they are expert in their fields. Certainly, we came away from a whole range of ministers thinking that, despite the overall difficulties facing Indonesia - and you can’t deny you have overall difficulties when 50% of your budget goes towards repaying debt - that those ministers really were employing strategies and moving ahead despite enormous difficulties.
When Indonesian ministers said to us: ‘We treasure the relationship with the Territory. It is a special relationship. Good work has been done but we’re tired of “no action; talking only”.’ It came as a surprise when the first minister leant across and said very firmly to us: ‘This relationship is important, but we’re saying to you enough of NATO’. We said: ‘What’s this NATO?’. It was spelt out very clearly - no action; talking only.
The response we got in Indonesia was yes, a very important relationship, one that has been there for a long time, but one where the ball has been dropped, one where there is no direction coming from government about where the relationship should be heading. We were told this very clearly. I don’t come back lightly into this House and say the words I did. I’m not saying them necessarily to score points from the previous government. I’m saying, this is a fact of life. The strategies are not there in our relationship with Asia; the strategies are not there in our relationship with Indonesia and that was very firmly pointed out to us when we were in Indonesia. It is with a very firm commitment that this new government says in this House and to Territorians generally that we will be having a very strategic approach to our relationship to our neighbours to our north, to Indonesia and the other neighbours that we have good, strong relationships with. But it will be targeted and it will be focussed, and we will not be seeing travel around the countries to our north simply on the whim of ministers. The travel will be happening but we will have a strategy, and that strategy is now being very firmly worked out based on the successes of the past but I would exclude the last two to three years from that past.
I don’t want to hear preciousness from the opposition. We’re not in here setting about to bag you but when you haven’t done the work, and when we’re told overseas that the work is not happening, then it is important for this new government to listen and act - and that’s what we’re doing.
Madam Speaker, I do thank members for their contributions to this debate but I put on the record very firmly that you will see a reinvigorated and much more strategic approach from this new government than we’ve seen over the last two to three years from the previous administration.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
ADJOURNMENT
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to place on record my congratulations to some very important and crucial constituents within my electorate.
On Australia Day, awards were presented to use in the category of citizens of the year. I’m very proud to say that we have an impressive list of young talent, people who, in their generation, are showing the way of leadership, enthusiasm and energy and contributing to our society. I’d like to read into the Parliamentary Record the names of the students in my electorate who have been honoured in receiving NT Citizen of the Year, Youth Awards, and to note that the feedback I have from the electorate is that we are all very proud of them. I’d like to congratulate: Cameron Francis and Joel Sullivan of Holy Family School; Tiffany Crane from Karama Primary; Frances Aaternir from Malak Primary; Daniel Day from Manunda Terrace Primary; Sarah Latham from Mararra Christian School; Mary Chapman from O’Loughlin College; Fallon Hintz from Sanderson High.
A very hearty congratulations to these students. I commend them on their efforts and the recognition they’ve received from these awards. I reiterate that, as a community, we are very proud of them. They are showing the way for the future.
Mr McADAM (Barkly): Madam Speaker, this evening I’d like to bring members’ attention an opportunity that has arisen to establish eye surgery facilities in Tennant Creek. This opportunity has arisen due to the recent arrival in Alice Springs of a dedicated young ophthalmologist surgeon who is committed to providing ongoing quality facilities in Tennant Creek.
After following due process, the doctor’s eligibility for registration has been confirmed by the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Ophthalmologists and he has been recognised as a specialist practitioner in ophthalmology. He is currently seeking continued recognition by the Medical Board of the Northern Territory and he has my total support in respect of this.
After meeting with the doctor, I am satisfied that he is committed to residing in Central Australia, and to providing high quality, ongoing service to Central Australia and the Barkly. The proposal is to equip and utilise available resources of Tennant Creek Hospital to perform eye surgery, such as cataract removal, in the region. Currently there is nowhere in the Barkly where such surgery can be performed and clients requiring treatment have to travel to Alice Springs.
Operations such as cataract removals are classified as elective surgery, and have the longest waiting list for treatment. Clients regularly have to wait more than 12 months with deteriorating eye sight before they can undergo surgery. Having to wait such a length of time when the problem can be solved by a simple operation causes severe hardship. In many cases, the eyesight deteriorates to a point of virtual incapacity. I’m sure that the House agrees that support should be given to any project that will alleviate such a situation.
Based on current figures, it is estimated that, initially, a minimum of 50 to 60 operations can be performed annually if a facility were available in the region - that’s in Tennant Creek. Projected growth in this number can be expected over time.
Such a facility would also attract other services such as ENT and orthopaedics. While some additional set up costs would be incurred, the major cost would be for the purchase of a cataract machine. This would involve a once up capital outlay of approximately $95 000 or an annual lease of around about $26 200 over a period of about four and a half years.
This cost is more than justified for the following reasons: currently an average of 60 clients and 50 escorts travel from Tennant Creek or Elliott to Alice Springs for surgery each year. Each trip requires payment of return travel and between three and seven nights accommodation. The annual savings from these costs alone would be equal to the annual lease costs of the cataract machine. Two other important benefits that would result from this proposal are the reduction in administrative overheads in organising client travel and the expected reduction in waiting time for clients to undergo surgery. A facility such as that proposed could also function as a back-up for Alice Springs. Currently, visits with respect to eye health care are made to the Barkly every two months. If a facility is made available in Tennant Creek, it is proposed to include the performing of ophthalmic surgery during those visits.
I address this issue tonight as it provides members of the House an opportunity to put their support behind a tremendously worthwhile proposal in a professional, committed young man who wishes to address a major incapacitating health issue in the Barkly region. I look forward to all members of this House giving their full support.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to make comment on two issues. First of all, I would draw to your attention comments made by the member for Karama when she spoke about her trip to Melbourne on her way to Tasmania. She examined, with her colleague in Victoria, the issue of public housing. She then went and spoke about the so-called housing ghettos in the Northern Territory saying that it was in fact a bad policy of the CLP government. May I remind the member for Karama that the Kurringal Flats were built by the Commonwealth government back in the late 1950s, early 1960s and it was the CLP government as recently as 1998 that introduced Housing 2003. Through that program we have provided housing for many who require assistance and also part of the program included removing some of the blocks at Kurringal units. As you know, Block 1 has already been demolished and others are on track.
The member for Karama needs to have her facts right when she talks about housing in the Northern Territory; that she really gets to do her research, look at what good value Housing 2003 has brought about in the Northern Territory. I understand that the department of housing, whatever it is now called, is looking at further programs for the next few years. I look forward to the Minister for Housing reporting on further developments based on Housing 2003.
The other matter that I would like to raise was a comment made by the Minister for Justice, member for Stuart, when he spoke about Willowra a couple of nights ago. The member for Stuart gets up in a Holier-than-thou attitude, talks about how badly Willowra has done in recent past. Little did he mention that his fingerprints were all over it.
Dr Toyne: Let it go Richard, for heaven’s sake. You’re getting obsessive.
Dr LIM: Me, obsessive? I take on that interjection. Me, obsessive? He was the one who brought it up in the first place. And let’s talk about it. Let me quote the words that the member for Stuart used a few years ago - and I’m sure he knows where he said those words - when he said, and I quote, and I know it may sound a bit out of context because some of the paragraphs above it relate to Yuendumu and Yulara and CDEP programs. But let me quote:
But to my horror I found that what seemed to be starting off as a rescue arrangement through the Yuendemu
CDEP scheme to provide immediate replacement of CDEP positions at Willowra, suddenly became pushed on
several degrees to a proposal for the administration of Willowra to be re-seated to the Yuendemu Council.
He said:
- I use the word ‘horror’ because I have lived long enough in between those two communities to know that that
would have to be very sensitively handled if there was going to be a collaborative arrangement put in place
between those two communities. The fact that they both speak Warlpiri is fairly superficial to the discussion
of what common interests they have. In fact, the reason that they are in two communities is that there are
very clear distinctions between the Warlpiri people in each place. They are required to live apart from each
other for many aspects of their relationship.
So, he himself recognised that Warlpiri people of Yuendumu and the Warlpiri people of Willowra are two distinct groups of people.
During our investigation of Willowra and the dysfunction that that community has gone into in my time as a Minister for Local Government, we found that the then Town Clerk was not complying with instructions that were provided to him, in fact by yourself, Madam Speaker, when you were the Minister for Local Government. He wrote me a long diatribe which really did not address the instructions that he was given. For the member for Stuart to then have the audacity to get up and say that it was through my unilateral action that Willowra lost its community government status, it was in fact that the Town Clerk could not in any way rescue that community. It was taken away from him.
Prior to the community government rights being taken away from Willowra, that community had been talking with the Anmatjere Council about a rescue package to help bring about some repairs to the homes that were in such a disused state. The member for Stuart himself admitted in his speech that the houses were in a very run down state. People were not living in them, choosing to live in the river bed instead. The houses were so bad that bare electrical wires were exposed where power points or light switches used to be and there were animals living in those houses.
So, in fact Willowra was quite dysfunctional; the community, the houses, the physical property that were in the community were not useable by the people. It was for that reason that we took the rights away. The cause of it - apart from a Town Clerk who syphoned a lot of money from the community - we had a second Town Clerk who did not have the expertise to manage the community. That Town Clerk, Alan Riley, was somebody the member for Stuart assisted to put in place. He has to accept responsibility for what he did. And for him to come to the Chamber to say that we, the CLP government, were the ones who caused the problems is in fact untrue.
In closing, Madam Speaker, I just want to make one last comment. The Chief Minister had a go at me yesterday for saying that she did present herself reasonably well on television. If I was wrong in that case, I withdraw those remarks and say that maybe she is not. I don’t know.
Mr BONSON (Millner): Madam Speaker, I’d like to take this opportunity in adjournment to speak about Nemarluk School. Earlier this year I had the opportunity visit a wonderful school in my electorate of Millner, and I readily admit that prior to my visit this year, I knew very little about this school and the important role it plays in the education system. In fact, I think I could safely say it would have to be one of Darwin’s least known and under-appreciated schools.
To fully appreciate how important Nemarluk School is, I would like to start with a little history lesson. This school first opened in 1968, almost 34 years ago, and was known as the Darwin Special School. The school was set up to cater for the educational needs of disabled children in Darwin. Prior to 1964, there were no educational facilities in existence in Darwin to cater for children with disabilities. Back then, parents had two choices: they could either send their children to institutions interstate which - because of the stress and emotion involved - usually resulted in the entire family moving interstate as well; or they could keep their children at home and provide what care and training they could, usually without any sort of support services.
Back in those days, preschools would not accept mentally or physically disabled children. Similarly, integration into primary schools was not contemplated. Back in the early 1960s, this is what faced parents who had handicapped children. Only 40 or so years ago, in 1964, Harold Garner, as the then Principal of the Adult Education Centre in Darwin and also the parent of a child with a disability, called a public meeting to discuss the needs of disabled children in Darwin. The result of this meeting was the formation of the Slow Learners’ Association with Harold as the president. The Rotary Club also assisted with a donation of 1000. This donation enabled a Saturday morning class for disabled children to start. These classes were run from the Adult Education Centre in Woods Street. Not long after, the number of children attending doubled, and the school increased its hours to five mornings a week. A regular teacher was employed with her salary being paid through the fund raising efforts of the Association.
Two years later, in 1966, the Superintendent of Education called a meeting that was attended by the Superintendent Norm Jolly, the Director of Welfare, Harry Giese, the Assistant Administrator, Allan Atkinson, Harold Garner and another parent from the association. The result of this meeting was formal permission to conduct classes that had been operating for two years, the provision of three classrooms, the provision of a teacher by the South Australian Education Department who at the time was responsible for the education in the Northern Territory, the granting of a full-time status to the class.
In addition, the Slow Learners’ Association was granted nine acres of land in Coconut Grove. Later, they would establish a preschool and residential home for disabled children who lived outside the Darwin area. The Education Department acquired this land after Cyclone Tracy and developed it as the Coconut Grove Development School for Senior Students.
In 1982, this school moved into new buildings and became known as the Henbury Avenue Special School, but the most significant outcome from the meeting was an undertaking by the Northern Territory Administrator to build a special school for disabled primary school students at Ludmilla, the Darwin Special School. This school was finally completed in 1968 and comprised four square, brick buildings. Miss Kirkpatrick, who was originally recruited in 1966 to teach the class at the Adult Education Centre was the first principal of this new school and was assisted by Mrs Dorothy Jones. Approximately two years later, Rick Venning came from South Australia to replace Miss Kirkpatrick as principal; Rick Venning would retain this position until 1974.
Interestingly, prior to the opening of this school, the term ‘special education’ referred to Aboriginal education. The main person responsible for changing this perception was the Principal Education Officer, Ted Robertson. Though most of the students came from Darwin; there were some from as far as Larrimah, Tennant Creek and what was then known as Hooker Creek. These children lived in the Coconut Grove residence. Teaching and managing the children in the early days was no easy task with very little in the way of advisory and support services from the Education Department.
When Pat Potter, a specialist education teacher, joined the school in 1972, she introduced a number of changes. Pat Potter encouraged the use of individual observations so that specific programs could be developed for each child: a sensory motor program; early language and number concepts were also introduced. When the Darwin Special School closed in 1974 for the Christmas holidays, it had an enrolment of 22 and a staff of four. After Cyclone Tracy, the school became the temporary home for the Fire Brigade until 1975. From 1975 until late 1977, it was the temporary home for the Maranga Preschool which had its building destroyed in Winnellie.
Mark Smith, who took over from Ted Robertson as PEO and his advisory staff were responsible for introducing a number of programs that would be beneficial to the staff and students of the Darwin Special School. 1975 to 1978 saw the introduction of a diagnostic service and the development of improved methods of identification of children with special needs, and an early intervention program for children from birth to preschool were established. From 1975 to 1978, Mrs Kit Holtham was responsible for providing sport and supervising development of programs for teaching assistants who worked with these children in their homes and in regular preschools and primary schools on an individual basis.
As a result, special units were created in primary schools that catered for children who were mildly disabled and meant that the Darwin Special School could concentrate on those children with moderate or severe disabilities. When the Darwin Special School reopened in 1978, it had five students, but by the end of the year, this had grown to 14. Mrs Kit Holtham was now the Principal with Bob Walker and Michelle Levy as the teachers, and Andrea Pownall as an assistant. Funds for operating the school were extremely low due to the factors of funding on a per capita basis and with so few students, it was always a battle to meet the running costs. Staff and parents were left with the responsibility of having to fund raise in order to keep the school alive.
By 1979 the school was at 100% capacity with the staff room also being the principal’s office and the sensory motor program being held outdoors. 1980 saw the welcome addition of three demountables; two were used as classrooms with the third being used as the sensory motor program room. 1980 also saw the name of the school change to Ludmilla Development Unit and the Ludmilla Primary School assumed responsibility for its operation. The 1980s saw a shift in how children with disabilities should be educated. This was a result of input from parents and a change in attitude by professionals in this area, and generally an expectation that all children had a right to be educated.
In 1986, the school regained its autonomy from the Ludmilla Primary School and was renamed Ludmilla Special School. Over a number of years, it had become increasingly evident that the school had grown to such an extent that a major expansion was required if it was to cope with an increasing demand on its services. In 1987, a major expansion of the school was completed with the addition of an administrative area, staff room, physiotherapy room, three classrooms and an ablution block.
In 1994, the Education Department launched a special education policy for students with disabilities. The policy recognised a range of delivery service models including special schools. 1994 also saw the school change its name to Nemarluk School. This was done to remove the label ‘special’ and to alleviate any confusion with the Ludmilla Primary School. On 14 April 1998, the Nemarluk Preschool was opened. Nemarluk Preschool caters for children between the ages of four to five years. Today, Nemarluk has a total of five preschool students and 53 primary school students.
It has a staff of 29 incredibly dedicated people with Pam Young heading the team up as Principal, and I say ‘team’ because this is what they are: Lorraine Hodgson as Assistant Principal; Henni Lovell as Executive Teacher; and teachers Kieren Minogue, Catherine Hickey, Debbie Reichelt, Noor Wright, Allison Lingo, Sofia Dodds, Helen List, Helen Tate, Ruth Grovsner, Fayn Brook-Jones, Tanya Babic and Judith Durnford. Assistant teachers: Joan Angeles, Prue Birdling, Rosemary Bock, Kim Crick, Elaine Gould, Karen Simpson, Glenys Zanker, Wendy Whannell, Wendy Johnson and Joanne Feick. Nemarluk also has the services of an Aboriginal Indigenous Education Worker, Sharon Wills. Finally, on the paperwork front, to keep everyone in line, there is Mignon Lush and Alayne Amamatidis - and I’ll supply that later for the Hansard.
Throughout the entire history of this wonderful school there has been a strong involvement by parents towards providing the best possible education for their children attending the school. The current school committee of Megan Williams as Chairperson, Felicity Benson as Secretary, Mignon Lush from the school as Treasurer, Tim Timotheo, Rhonda Gilchrist, Alex Sheppard, Sue Glasgow and Craig Morrison as committee members face the same problems as those faced by their predecessors: funding and recognition.
In relation to the funding we can see that throughout the history of this school, there has always been a battle for funding so that their special education needs can be met. Fortunately, these days there is a lot more in the way of specialised equipment available to children with disabilities than ever before. Specially designed computer software, motor and sensory development equipment are some of the things that have become a little more readily available. Unfortunately, this specialist equipment comes with a price tag to match.
Another issue that came up in the meeting with Pam Young was the importance of continuing staff development. This is an important issue because in this specialised area of education, it is vitally important for teachers to be able to access courses to ensure that any new developments in this area of specialised teaching are incorporated in the curriculum. It is also important to allow this to happen as it is recognised the specialised role these teachers play and the importance we place on them and their role in society. I plan to be helping Nemarluk School by fundraising and lifting their profile.
Finally, Madam Speaker, I would like to thank Pam Young and staff at the Nemarluk School for allowing me to visit and for answering what must have seemed like a never ending series of questions.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to raise an issue that was raised in this House about a week ago during a ministerial statement, and I just want to re-visit it because I think it is a very important issue and it goes to the Alice Springs Hospital and how it is functioning.
The week prior to sittings I had the privilege of going to the Alice Springs Hospital and receiving a briefing along my colleagues, the member for Greatorex and the member for Araluen. During that briefing, a staff member from the Chief Minister’s office was present and a couple of staff members from the hospital itself including the Hospital Superintendent. The reason that I rise tonight - and it was an issue that I raised in the debate last week - I was astonished during that briefing process to hear the Hospital Superintendent say during that briefing that he considered, because of some of the staffing issues at the hospital, that the Intensive Care Unit had become – and to quote him - ‘unsafe’. He then went on to say that the hospital was in a state of continual crisis. I found that an extraordinary thing for a Hospital Superintendent to say because this was a man who was obviously in a position where he had reached the stage where he wasn’t getting the satisfaction he wanted out of the environment in which he has to operate, and so he is clearly saying things which are extraordinary. It seems to be a fairly desperate act that a Hospital Superintendent would make these sorts of comments. So much so, that I wanted to make sure that he was quite clear about the adjectives that he chose to use to describe the situation in the hospital.
So I revisited it, and I asked him again - predicating my question with the comments that this seems like an extraordinary thing for a hospital administrator to be saying - what would you tell me? What are you telling me in relation to some of the problems this hospital faces. He revisited those very same comments. He said, again - fully aware that I was concentrating on the words he was using - he said again that the ICU was unsafe and that he felt that the hospital was in a state of continual crisis. I raised these issues with the Health minister in debate last week, along with another issue which deals with up to $24 000 worth of funding being taken away from the doctor’s position based in Hermannsburg.
I was hoping that some time in the next few days the minister for Health would take it upon herself to brief this House as to what she is doing. Now, I listened carefully to her response in that debate and in her response in that debate she said she’d been back to Alice Springs three times and during that time she had - or the situation was turning around and it was now under control. If she is going to take the Vene, vidi, vici - I came, I saw, I conquered - approach to the problems at the Alice Springs Hospital and tell us that everything is fine when the Hospital Superintendent two weeks ago was saying that the ICU was unsafe and that the hospital was in a state of continual crisis, I think that the Health minister has to understand that there is now a vast gap between what she thinks the condition of the hospital is and what the Medical Superintendent’s opinion of the hospital is.
I find that astonishing that we have heard no more from the Health minister in relation to these issues, and I strongly urge the Health minister - in fact, I strongly urge the Chief Minister to get across this and find out what’s happening at the Alice Springs Hospital and act to rectify it because if the Medical Superintendent is prepared to sit there and make these sorts of comments about the operation of the hospital, it is my opinion that he is getting to the point where he is fairly desperate. This is a very straightforward issue. The minister, I think, as a matter of importance should be briefing the House in relation to this situation as it exists in Alice Springs. I think that she should be honest to all members of the House as well as to the people of Alice Springs as to what the true condition of the Alice Springs hospital currently is and what programs she is going to put in place to fix it because if the hospital ICU is unsafe, and because of some sort of environmental problem or because the hospital is in a state of continual crisis and people, as a result of that situation, suffer some sort of illness or worse, then I am very concerned that this government is exposing itself to a liability.
The minister for Health, as do all government ministers, has a duty of care to the people of the Northern Territory to maintain certain standards. I think that the hospital administrator has clearly signalled on this occasion that he believes that those certain standards are not being met. The duty of care that we always hear about is also underpinned by another concept at law called the ‘standard of care’. I am concerned, that based on the comments by the hospital administrator that that standard of care is not being met. I urge the Health minister to come into this House and tell all Territorians what the situation with the Alice Springs Hospital is, and I urge her to tell all Territorians exactly what she is going to do about it. I urge her to inform this House whether she agrees with the administrator of the Alice Springs Hospital that it is in a state of continual crisis and, more importantly, that its ICU is unsafe.
Mr STIRLING (Nhulunbuy): Mr Deputy Speaker, my office received some distressing news this afternoon. Mrs Joyce Williamson, a long term Territorian, former public servant and a full time volunteer for Neighbourhood Watch, has received concerning news about her health and is currently in Perth Hospital battling a serious illness. She is a remarkable woman. She walked through the doors of Neighbourhood Watch at Berrimah in 1997 volunteering to help. She works four days a week for Neighbourhood Watch, the other days she works for other voluntary organisations. She is the one person who holds together the membership records, constantly updating and keeping them clean. She attends Neighbourhood Watch meetings and is involved in their many functions.
Joyce is such a keen member, she used to seek leave so she could take time off from the job. She is much loved by all Neighbourhood Watch members. Her illness is a blow to them and to us. On behalf of the Chief Minister, myself and government, I wish Joyce God speed. On behalf of Commissioner White and the Police and the Neighbourhood Watch Board, I pass on their thoughts and best wishes.
On December 8 last year, I had the pleasure of officiating at the opening of the renovations to the Captain Cook Shopping Centre in Nhulunbuy. They included a complete upgrade of the shop front and a cover for a modern, outdoor eating area. The business proprietors are excited about the finished product as they believe it will attract many customers to take a break in pleasant surroundings. They have also provided a large bus and taxi shelter with good access. The renovations included air conditioning the Mitre 10 store. Mitre 10 and IGA supermarket have also merged as one large shop sharing resources, and IGA is planning further internal renovations to provide 100m of retail space. Tenants at the Captain Cook Shopping Centre now employ 56 staff, a significant improvement from its first year of operation in 1987 when 30 were employed. The company has demonstrated a continuing commitment to Gove through its building and renovating program. They have spent $750 000 over the last three years and that is a substantial commitment in a small community.
On 10 and 11 February, Cabinet held its meeting in Nhulunbuy for the first time, the first of many regional Cabinet meetings that will be held by this government. We see the perception of the Berrimah Line as a real issue for Territorians and regional centres and we expect that these regional meetings of Cabinet will help to break down those perceptions. Ministers held over 20 meetings with community groups and individuals. There were further opportunities for Nhulunbuy citizens to meet Cabinet members informally during their stay. There was no shortage of residents willing to take the opportunity of Cabinet’s visit. It was a popular move and well received by the people of my home town.
Ms Martin: And the skate park announcement.
Mr STIRLING: The Chief Minister announced Nhulunbuy was to get its long-awaited skate park during the historic Nhulunbuy Cabinet meeting. This is a culmination of a campaign conducted by a large number of our citizens, not least many of the young skaters who have great plans for the facility. The government’s contribution to the cost is $70 000; Nhulunbuy Corporation and Nabalco are joining with government in this venture. Nabalco has committed to provide the land and site works during construction, and some of its construction costs. Nhulunbuy Corporation is also making a financial contribution. The project would not have reached this point without the tenacity demonstrated by a number of people in the community: Dion and Hayden Forbes and their skating friends, Klaus Helms from Nabalco, Norm Jarvis, Dave Mitchell, Rotary and St Johns Volunteers, Rene Baker and Eva Cantrell, most notably, and many others. So congratulations to all those involved and I look forward to it opening some time, probably in August or September, although I don’t see myself as being a participant.
The William Gove Award for 2001: Kristopher McConnell was announced as the winner of the William Gove Memorial Award for Youth Achievement for last year, 2001. His employer, Ray Carter of what was then called the NT Department of Transport and Works, nominated Chris. He was nominated for outstanding achievement since commencing as a Building Technician apprentice. Besides receiving consistently high results in his external studies program with NTU, he has demonstrated that he is much valued as an integral part of the day-to-day operations of the local office. Nabalco’s General Manager of Community Affairs, Klaus Helms, presented Kris with his award and a cheque for $1000. Kris is to be congratulated for his achievement.
For the first time, a second prize of $500 was presented to another young achiever. Mark Keogh, a Year 7 student at Nhulunbuy Primary, has one his award for achievements in BMX riding. He has been riding since he was two. Mark has risen to be ranked fourth in Australia for his age group. He is competing at an international level. He is an active member of both the school and town bands. He was presented with his award at a school Assembly.
The William Gove Award was established by Nabalco in 1993 to commemorate the death of Flight Navigator William Gove, who was killed in a mid-air collision in 1943. The award recognises achievements of a young person from the Gove region who has demonstrated excellence in their field of endeavour.
Rene Baker was Nhulunbuy region’s recipient of the Citizen of the Year Award for 2002. The award was announced as part of Australia Day celebrations for this year. Rene was raised and educated in Nhulunbuy and now has her own young family. Raising a family has not prevented Rene from her commitment to community organisations which include: Brownie leader with the Nhulunbuy Guides Group; volunteer and President of Nhulunbuy BMX Club; trainer for the Sprocket Rockets BMX Club; organiser with events Across the Top Challenge and Territory Championships in BMX. She is an active member of St John Ambulance and attending events such as Speedway, Rugby League, BMX, Active Australia Day and wherever first aid treatment is required.
Rene is highly regarded by the community as someone who goes the extra yard for her friends and neighbours, and is an outstanding example of the Australian spirit in action. Rene is a lady with strong family values. She extends those values into the community and whatever she does, she does well and without reservation. Rene is to be congratulated on her award that we believe she so richly deserves.
Long-term resident, Rob Gelok, was appointed a Member of the Order of Australia on Australia Day. He was recognised for his community service to the community of Nhulunbuy through the local volunteer unit of the Northern Territory Emergency Service. Mr Gelok served as Cyclone Warden for Nhulunbuy from 1973 to 1977. This was before radio and television service came to Nhulunbuy and he played a critical role in warning the community of impending cyclones. In the 1980s, he became Unit Officer for Northern Territory Emergency Services and has continued in that role to this day. He has been responsible for the maintenance of the unit to a high standard of preparedness and readiness to respond to community needs. These needs include: counter-disaster measures; road accident rescue; supporting police during searches and crime scenes; and aviation search and rescue. He has also overseen the manning and maintenance of the Northern Territory Emergency Service search and rescue vessel.
Rob has played an active role in the training of volunteers and other members of the community, particularly maritime skills. These include marine radio operator, shipboard safety and coxswain courses. Rob Gelok is a worthy recipient of this award and I congratulate him on receiving the Order of Australia in recognition of his efforts.
I want to comment on Warwick Otley’s retirement. Warwick Otley began teaching in Dongara, Western Australia, in 1963 after completing Teacher’s College in 1962. He was headmaster of three small schools in Western Australia from 1965 to 1970. He started his career in the Territory at Jingili Primary School in 1971. After Assistant Principal positions at Moil and Millner Primary Schools, and as a maths and science consultant up until Cyclone Tracy, Warwick worked in the staffing section while schools were rebuilt and refurbished. Reluctant to leave the northern suburbs, Warwick was then Principal at Jingili from 1976 to 1980; Alawa from 1980 to 1984; Nightcliff from 1985 to 1999. It was at Nightcliff Primary where Warwick particularly left his mark as a caring and committed educational leader. At a very sensitive time for education - and I certainly remember how sensitive it was - Warwick was required to successfully amalgamate the former Rapid Creek Primary School with Nightcliff Primary School in 1991.
Warwick managed an extensive and impressive building program to cope with the increased school population. His tremendous commitment to school maintenance and beautifying the school grounds was, and still is, greatly appreciated by the school and community. More recently, Warwick worked at the Human Resource Branch and as Principal at Manunda Terrace Primary School. Warwick commenced his long service leave in October 2001, officially retiring on 19 February 2002. A talented golfer, skilled craftsman, a renewed fisherman, he will have plenty to keep him occupied in the Territory in his retirement. He continues to keep an interest in education, moreso with his wife Janelle, who is still teaching at Nightcliff Primary.
Warwick’s attributes are best summed up in the attached Peoplescape excerpt. Peoplescape is a national centenary project, and Warwick’s life-sized figure has recently adorned the slopes of Parliament House in Canberra. Under the heading: What contribution has this person made?
- As principal of Nightcliff Primary School from 1984 to 1999, Warwick Otley embodied all that is great about
a caring and committed educational leader. His dedication to his staff and students was exemplary. During
his 15 years as principal, he experienced many highlights. Among his greatest accomplishments was
successfully amalgamating another primary school into the existing Nightcliff Primary during a highly
emotional and tumultuous time in 1991, and consequently lobbying for and overseeing an extensive and
impressive building program to cope with the increased school population.
His tremendous commitment to school maintenance and beautifying the school grounds was and still is greatly
appreciated by Nightcliff School and the local community. Our school would be honoured to publicly
acknowledge our gratitude to Warwick Otley through a Peoplescape figure. Thank you.
The Nightcliff Primary School staff voted overwhelmingly for Warwick Otley to be their nomination for a
Peoplescape figure: Warwick is important to us because we highly value the impact he had on our own
professional lives and on the school’s physical and educational environments. He cared greatly for us all,
and it was a privilege to work under his strong and dedicated leadership as evidenced by the unusually low
staff turnover during these 15 years. Nightcliff Primary has a history and a reputation of excellence, and our
school grounds and buildings are considered to be of exemplary standard. These accolades can be directly
attributed to Warwick’s energy and commitment towards the enhancement of Nightcliff Primary School.
As Minister for Education, I’d certainly like to thank Warwick Otley for all his efforts in the Territory, particularly in those fields and his time at Nightcliff Primary, and I, and on behalf on all members - I would have thought - of this Assembly, wish him all the best for his retirement.
Ms MARTIN (Fannie Bay): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to Valmai Scott. Valmai retired as Director of Counselling Services with Crisis Line at the end of January this year. As Director, she has made a substantial contribution to the Territory over a significant period of time. Her previous working history is: from 1975 to 1987; she was Hostel Manager for Aboriginal Hostels; in 1992, she worked as a Domestic Violence Counsellor for Danila Dilba Medical Service; and she started at Crisis Line in 1993 where she worked for the final eight years of her employment.
She has made an enormous contribution in a variety of areas and, certainly, the position of Director of Counselling Services with Crisis Line is a very challenging one. I think we should thank her very much for her contribution to the Territory. She intends to remain here and will be active in community life, and I certainly thank her for her work over her years and wish her a very active and healthy retirement.
On a specific electorate issue, I would like to say that one of the true delights of coming into government on 27 August last year was to be able to finally sort out a rather controversial site in the electorate of Fannie Bay. The history - in my time which is never seven years now in this House, or six and a half years - of what has become known as the Dundas House Site in Weddell Street in Fannie Bay has been one that’s been argued through those years, both with residents, with the previous administration and one that has been argued in this House many a time.
Dundas House used to be the rehabilitation centre for Darwin where a lot of the rehab went on. That changed and once it was closed, which was around about the time of 1995, the previous government made the decision about a year later to install the Christian Outreach Service there. Now, between that time, when the rehab closed and Christian Outreach was installed there, there was a lot of resident discussion about what should happen with this old building and whether the building should be utilised or whether they were past their use by date and what should happen to that site.
It’s a large site. It’s about five ordinary house blocks and it’s Lot 4131 in Weddell Street. There was a lot of community attachment to this site, and I take someone like Jean Vickory. Jean has lived since 1948 - I don’t think I’m wrong there - opposite that site in Weddell Street, opposite that particular block. Jean was there before it was built and she still remembers that when she first built her house in Weddell Street, you could actually see out to Fannie Bay - times have changed since then. There has been a fair amount of construction. She can’t see that any more, but she certainly has a long association with that block and was very involved in the community discussions that went on.
We were all disappointed – the community, people like Jean, the Parap Residents Association - when the previous administration decided against all the arguments that had been put that this would become a site for crisis accommodation, a totally inappropriate site in a suburban area like that. Totally inappropriate. It was a very uncomfortable period both for the residents and the Residents Association because when you suddenly put a crisis accommodation facility in an area like that, it’s not going to work. It was never going to work. I was very suspicious of the previous government’s motives for doing so.
The Christian Outreach, which provides a good service, have moved on. Since then, there was backwards and forwards between Council and government and residents and the local member about what would happen to this block. Lots of discussion went on, but nothing came to fruition. So it was with much pleasure on coming to government that we were able to say that what the residents wanted, what the Darwin City Council wanted, would be put into place. Lot 4131 Weddell Street has now been rezoned as park land. It is a real recognition of what the community wanted, what Darwin City Council was able to say quite clearly they wanted but which the previous government simply wasn’t listening to.
It’s an area of quite high density. That block in Weddell Street goes from Weddell Street through to Charlotte Street in Fannie Bay and that area of Fannie Bay is reasonably high-medium density. There weren’t any green spaces. There’s quite a lot of green space in Fannie Bay along the foreshore, but within Fannie Bay itself and into Parap, there aren’t many open spaces. This one was to be treasured. That’s what the arguments were; it was treasured by the local community, even when it was a kind of unkempt block. Now it is with great delight that I as Chief Minister and member for Fannie Bay with the Planning and Infrastructure Minister have been able to say that now that land is parkland.
So it has been a good outcome. It has been a long time in coming. It has been six and a half years of arguments and fights with the previous administration, but I think that the residents and Residents Association and women like Jean Vickory, who have made such an enormous contribution to the area, are now able to say that there is a final outcome and that that land will now be park land. And that’s great.
I would also like to pay tribute to Carmen Que Noy who is a Darwin High School Year 12 student who was chosen to go to the National Youth Science Forum in January. Carmen is a terrific young woman and she really deserved to win that place at the National Youth Science Forum. She went with other students and reported back to me that they were taken around Canberra and given a kind of scientific introduction to Canberra where there are many kind of major institutes of scientific research. Carmen said that the trip has been a life changing experience for her and she is now looking forward to doing a Bachelor of Science when she’s completed Year 12. Carmen was also one of three students in the Fannie Bay electorate who received Australia Day Council Student Citizenship Awards and that, again, well deserved from Carmen.
Another was Jessica Chin, a delightful young woman from Parap Primary School, and Amy Southwood at Stuart Park received a Citizenship Award. Knowing all three young women quite well myself, I couldn’t think that they were better deserved. Jessica is a great contributor to Parap Primary and, as a member of the Chung Wah Society, is involved in all their activities and was one of the dancers at the recent cultural evening celebrating the Year of the Horse and did it beautifully.
Amy Southwood at Stuart Park Primary is very active in all aspects of school life and is a great sporting participant, is one of their academic achievers and is also someone who has made an enormous contribution to Stuart Park.
I think both with Jessica and Amy, both their schools, respectively Parap and Stuart Park, were very sad when those girls finished Year 7 and now have gone on to Darwin High. But they made an enormous contribution. They should both feel very proud of themselves. I’m sure they will make a great contribution in all aspects - in academic life, in sporting life and in the general activities of Darwin High and I think that they will, over their years there, be two young women who will be remembered. It’s great when young women you know who deserve those awards receive them.
Talking about young women who have made great contributions and deserve recognition, there are two former Parap Primary School students - Geraldine Chin and Ingrid Barnsley who came through the Gifted and Talented Program in the late 1980s in Parap - have recently been awarded scholarships of very high regard. Geraldine was awarded a Fulbright Scholarship to Harvard to do a Masters in Law and Ingrid has a Rhodes Scholarship to Oxford, a real tribute to young women who were educated in the Territory and now have gone on respectively to Harvard and Oxford. It shows that you might have been educated in the Top End of the Territory at a smallish school like Parap, but the talent has been nurtured there and both Geraldine and Ingrid have gone on to do quite remarkable things academically. I wish them the best of luck.
Late last year I was delighted to attend the Young Australian of the Year Awards. The night was a showcase of the talents and the abilities of our young Territorians, something that we should also be very proud of. I presented the Minister for Young Territorians Excellence in Youth Leadership Award and this award is presented to a young person who has led the way in the field of youth leadership whether it’s in their career, academic life, community service, or through their recreational pursuits. This year’s winner was Garth Forrester. Garth has made a direct contribution to the natural and cultural heritage of Central Australia through activities such as land and fauna management. As a Ranger with Parks and Wildlife, Garth’s commitment to caring for the natural and cultural environment of Central Australia stems from his Arrente-Luritja heritage and desire to combine country methods with a solid western scientific approach to environmental protection. Garth is currently working in Nitmuluk National Park. Having met Garth, what an impressive young man.
The winners for the NT Young Australian of the Year Awards categories were the NT University Arts Awards - and that wasn’t any surprise there, a young woman with an amazing voice - Bernadine Crute. I wish her luck. She has won a scholarship at the School of Arts in Sydney. She is in Year 11 this year; I hope it works out for her. I know it is pretty competitive when you go into the bigger pool, but I think with her talent, Bernadine will go very well this year.
The TIO Sports Award was won by cricketer, Kenneth Skewes; The Power and Water Authority Science and Technology Award by Yin Paradies; The Federal Government’s Regional Initiative Award, Rosie Dwyer; The Pacific Access Community Service Award, Liam Campbell; The Unilever Environment Award, Belinda Ainley; The Commonwealth Minister for Youth Affairs Career Achievement Award was Daniel Leesong; The Channel 8 Young Achiever of the Year for the Territory was the winner of the Power and Water Authority Science and Technology Award, Yin Paradies. Yin is well on his way to becoming one the leaders of indigenous health research in Australia. He is passionate about advocating and representing health related issues and wellbeing on behalf of the indigenous community. Yin has completed a Bachelor of Science in Maths and Computer Science and is currently completing a Master of Medical Statistics with a view to commencing a PhD in Social Epidemiology in 2002 - this year.
The leadership and hard work of these young Territorians is inspirational, and I congratulate them all.
Finally, I want to talk about the Women’s Advisory Council Media Awards. The awards were presented by my colleague the Minister for Central Australia in Alice Springs in November last year. There was a really impressive number of women who attended the forum and that indicates that women have a lively interest in forging links with the media so that stories can reflect the realities of their lives. This new award, the Women’s Advisory Council Media Award, has been established to form a dynamic partnership between women and the media.
Entrants in this award have been judged on their capacity to reflect women’s lives as we know them to be: diverse, busy, involved and rich in experience. Entrants were judged on work that had been published or broadcast between 1 January and 30 September last year. The judges of the award were Carole Miller, Barbara James, Jane Munday, and the Convenor of the Women’s Advisory Council, and they decided to confer two Highly Commended awards. They were to Lesley Branagan of 8CCC who entered three tapes. The judges were impressed with her intelligent questioning of interviewees, and especially liked her story on the Desert Mob art exhibition. The other highly commended was Megg Kelham and Maria, who also entered three tapes in a documentary style which were thought provoking and original. Their story of home birth in Alice Springs was especially commended.
The winner of the inaugural Women’s Advisory Council Media Award for Excellence in Reporting Women’s Issues was Kieran Finnane. Kieran is a reporter, although to describe her as a reporter on the Alice Springs News doesn’t do her justice. Kieran entered three articles, and the article which won was called Blue Eyes, Fair Skin and Still a Warlpiri. The judges unanimously agreed that this article was brave, thought provoking and engaging. It dealt with sensitive cross-cultural issues with integrity and sensitivity, and even a touch of humour.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I’m sure all honourable members will join me in congratulating Kieran, Lesley, Megg, Maria, the Women’s Advisory Council, the Alice Springs News and all those involved in the inaugural Women’s Advisory Council Media Award.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to speak tonight about a number of exciting projects – well, some exciting and some not so exciting - but certainly worthy of mention.
I’d like to say a few words about the involvement of the Tiwi Health Board in getting up its pharmacy, an achievement by its management to get this area implemented. The Tiwi Health Board realised at the outset, as have most similar organisations, that existing methods of delivery were inefficient, if not downright dangerous. But with all other changes the Board required, improvements to pharmacy arrangements took a back seat. Midway through 2001, the board engaged a consultant by the name of Rollo Manning. He undertook basic research as to what improvements could be effected within the resources that they had available. Mr Manning has vast experience in pharmacy, both within government and within the private sector and this experience together with his contacts proved invaluable.
Rollo was quite staggered that after a month in one of the largest clinics on the Tiwi Islands, particularly Nguiu, it was possibly the first time that a pharmacist had spent such a period in the community clinic and that was, in his opinion, the only reason there had not been far greater misadventure arising from dispensing errors because of non-compliance. Before we get too excited about non-compliance, we should be putting far greater emphasis on assuring ourselves that the correct drugs, quantities and instructions are being handed out in the first place.
The board have now operated the pharmacy for six months with substantial improvements to pharmacy access within the communities they service. It didn’t take the board long to realise that ultimate improvements in the manner in which pharmaceuticals are dispensed in community clinics depended on being able to completely change the traditional means of accessing drugs and the distribution to patients. Not only would this involve breaking away from accessing prescriptions through Darwin pharmacies or Royal Darwin Hospital where filling prescriptions can take up to two weeks, but the board needed a more foolproof method of distribution designed to reduce human error to the minimum.
What this represents is a huge step forward in overcoming some of the dangers that are inherent in the current system. They are now able to track the dispensing of pharmaceuticals as never before through the use of dedicated software, touch screens, scanners and label printers to know exactly what has been dispensed, by whom and to whom and what instructions have been provided. Inventory control is integral in the system, and all this has been accomplished while maintaining total simplicity of operation. Inventory control is, of course, the greatest bug bear of the current system that applies in community clinics. Traditionally, thousands of dollars worth of out-of-date drugs are regularly destroyed because of over-ordering, bad shelf control and non-existent stock taking.
On the other hand, when the drugs are under-ordered, lives can be put at risk through inability to fill prescriptions. Given reasonable attention to the requirements of the system, the board’s ability to provide a first class service to community residents will be improved. A recent demonstration was provided by looking at the clamshell packing system that should greatly reduce the wastage that currently occurs with the many patients whose level of chronic disease requires them to undertake multiple drug therapy.
This advance could save clinics thousands of dollars by reducing the need to replace drugs that have deteriorated through the inadequacy of existing packing methods. Also, a remarkable new robotics system designed to fill the new packaging for multi-drug reservoirs and thus dramatically reduced the scope for human error. Such risk is incumbent in current methods that require hours to be spent every week undertaking repetitive tasks universally regarded as sheer drudgery.
The board is currently discussing with MediTrax means by which these innovations may be made more widely available to other community health organisations and the possibility of the software being integrated with the primary care information system currently undertaking final testing prior to implementation for the Department of Health and Community Services.
At a time when there has been a lot of hype about drive-through drug houses and the proposed changes to drug laws to allow police powers to raid nightclubs, an equally sinister activity is taking place - quietly, well out of reach of the media glare. On Tuesday 26 February, a man was caught allegedly trying to smuggle into Maningrida about $38 000 - which equates to about 700 grams - of cannabis from Darwin. The stuff was stashed in the back of a television set.
Whilst it doesn’t sound much, it is also alleged that about $50 000 worth of drugs is being brought into Maningrida fortnightly. Many other communities are being similarly targeted. Imagine for a moment the impact that this is having on those communities. Quite apart from the financial burden that this is imposing on families, anecdotal evidence suggests that almost all attempted and completed suicides are drug related. The cost of our drug problem is escalating on communities like Maningrida and changing the whole fabric of community life.
There has been, in the past, a lack of funding for innovative men’s programs in communities, and my colleague, the member for Johnston, mentioned a male Aboriginal health worker the other night whose work and commitment to health is often overlooked. I am pleased to say that many men in the various communities are certainly working towards getting a men’s social and emotional wellbeing centre, and their issues addressed. There are a couple of programs that have recently commenced and I take this moment to highlight them.
For at least the last two years, the men living at Pirlangimpi have been meeting to discuss ways to improve their health. Recognising they needed to take responsibility for their own health, they set about looking for a separate men’s place which they could call their own. After a lot of work and numerous meetings, I am proud to be able to say that they have achieved their aim and the men’s place is now completed.
Congratulations in particular should go to the men at Pirlangimpi: Lawrence Coster, the CDEP Coordinator, officers of the Male Health Policy and Health Promotions Unit in the Department of Health and Community Services, the Tiwi Health Board and others. This initiative, which was started by Terrence Guyula and the Gapuwiyak community, is spreading around the Territory and is a very exciting and innovative idea which has come from the men themselves.
Recently, the men from Yarralin community, although not in my electorate but a community that I had a lot to do with in my previous life, opened a new men’s health clinic and centre. This separate facility has been a long time coming, and with the support of the Katherine West Health Board, ATSIC, through the Aboriginal Community Assistance program, in partnership with the Army and the community of Yarralin, has seen the completion of this building.
I offer my congratulations to all the members of the Yarralin Council, especially young men like Brian Pedwell whose vision, commitment and enthusiasm is to be admired and respected. Development of these discreet and separate centres will allow these men to feel comfortable in knowing that their issues and concerns will be addressed sensitively and confidentially.
It is early days yet, but it is hoped that these men’s centres will address the many issues facing our communities such as domestic violence and the crisis situations that are facing our young men in terms of the increasing rates of youth suicide.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016