2005-05-03
Madam Speaker Braham took the Chair at 10 am.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, we have received message No 29 from the Administrator notifying assent to bills passed in the February 2005 sittings.
Honourable members, I also lay on the table message No 30 recommending to the Legislative Assembly a bill for an act authorising the issue and expenditure of public monies of the Territory in respect of the year ending June 2006.
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the routine of business of the Assembly be rearranged or suspended if a question or debate is before the Chair so as to permit the Treasurer to deliver Budget 2005-06 at 11 am this day.
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise I have given permission to various media to broadcast live, or re-broadcast with sound and vision, the presentation of Budget 2005-06 and the Treasurer’s speech; 8TOP FM radio to broadcast live the presentation of the budget and the Treasurer’s speech; and the Northern Territory News to take photographs.
The Assembly, of course, will resume for lunch at 2.30 pm as is usual on budget day.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the Speaker’s gallery of a Royal Thai Embassy delegation visiting Darwin. Members of the delegation include the Deputy Chief of Mission, Mr Udomphol Ninnad, and the First Secretary, Ms Kundhinee Aksornwong. On behalf of all honourable members, I extend a warm welcome to you.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, it is with deep regret that I advise of the death of His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, on 2 April 2005. I will ask honourable members on completion of the condolence motion to stand in silence for one minute as a mark of respect.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that this Assembly express its deep regret at the death on 2 April 2005 of His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, and place on record the Assembly’s appreciation for the contribution he made towards reconciliation between people and, particularly, his ties to the Northern Territory, and extend its deep sympathy to all members of the Catholic community on the loss of their spiritual leader.
Much has been written in the world’s media over the last few weeks about the man who was born Karol Jzef Wojtyla in Poland on 18 May 1920. After being ordained in 1946, Father Karol became Cardinal Wojtyla in 1967. On 16 October 1978, at the age of 58, Cardinal Wojtyla was elected to succeed Pope John Paul I. He was the first Polish Pope, and the first non-Italian Pope since Pope Adrian VI in 1522.
In his 27 year papacy, His Holiness made 96 trips abroad. It is estimated that he was seen by more than anyone else in history. In his general audiences held each Wednesday at the Vatican, some 16 million people came to see him. During his travels around the world, the Pope visited Australia on two occasions, in addition to a visit in 1973 while Archbishop of Cracow, including the Northern Territory in November 1986.
In my remarks today, I intend to focus on Pope John Paul II’s connection with the Territory. Travelling from Melbourne to Darwin on a morning flight on 29 November 1986, Pope John Paul II broadcast an address by radio to the Royal Flying Doctor Service. His Holiness also answered questions from children from Katherine’s School of the Air about making their first Holy Communion and the hardest thing about being Pope. In Darwin, Pope John Paul II celebrated Mass with 7000 Territorians at the showgrounds at Winnellie. His Holiness was welcomed to Darwin at the beginning of the Mass by the Most Reverend EJP (Ted) Collins, whom he had appointed Bishop of Darwin earlier in 1986. The homily preached at this Mass by His Holiness had as its theme ‘The Church is Missionary’. He paid tribute to the missionaries who had served the Gospel in Australia and to others who had become missionaries to other lands. He spoke of the need for a second evangelisation, a theme which would become a major focus later in his pontificate.
That Pope John Paul II should travel as far as Darwin, which has the smallest population of any Australian capital city, was greatly appreciated by the Top End Catholic community. However, this leg of his pilgrimage also took him to the heart of Australia to the only city he visited that was not a capital.
In Alice Springs, His Holiness was welcomed in the Arrernte language by a traditional owner of the land south of Heavitree Gap, and invited to walk a meeting path prepared by indigenous Territorians before addressing people gathered at Blatherskite Park. This address is widely regarded as the most significant of more than 30 homilies and addresses given by His Holiness during his week-long pilgrimage throughout Australia. He is, perhaps, best remembered for his statement, and I quote:
The Pope went on to strongly plead for the rights of Aboriginal inhabitants to keep the traditional lands on which their whole society depended. Again, to quote from His Holiness’ speech:
This was more than five years before the Mabo judgment of the High Court of Australia in June 1992, which ruled that the land title of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, most often referred to as ‘native title’, pre-dated European settlement in Australia.
The address by Pope John Paul II to Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders has had lasting significance. Within the Catholic Church and amongst other Christian churches, the words of His Holiness about indigenous Australians making their contribution to the church are frequently quoted. The lasting significance of this address by Pope John Paul II has been taken up by the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Ecumenical Commission of the National Council of Churches in Australia. NATSIEC is the peak ecumenical body representing indigenous Australians in the various Christian churches. This year, NATSIEC is hosting ‘Light of Australia’, a nationwide series of public talks aimed at bringing back to the centre of attention in Australia the very issues raised by His Holiness at Alice Springs in 1986. These talks are one of a number of initiatives planned to mark the 20th anniversary of Pope John Paul II’s visit to Alice Springs and his address given there, which will occur on 29 November next year.
Bishop Ted Collins met with Pope John Paul II on a number of occasions over the past 19 years and he appreciated that His Holiness referred to him as the ‘Bishop of the Aborigines’. Pope John Paul II’s strong and lasting impression, surely based upon his visit to Darwin and Alice Springs, was that the Territory is home to so many Aborigines that the forefront of the church’s ministry to them is to be found here. As well, the meeting of His Holiness with indigenous Australians in Alice Springs remained one of his lasting memories of his first Australian visit as Pope and, as noted, has proved to be of lasting value in the quest for justice and reconciliation.
Finally, it should be acknowledged that the legacy of Pope John Paul II for the Northern Territory, or at least for the Catholic community here, included the example of his own faith, his strong and certain leadership, his clear and consistent teaching, and his witness to the value and dignity of human life in all its stages, as was evidenced throughout the world.
The length of his papacy made Pope John Paul II a familiar figure. Because the population of the Territory is so relatively young, for many Territorians, he is the only Pope they have known.
Madam Speaker, as Chief Minister, and on behalf of this Assembly, Territorians, and particularly Territorians of the Catholic faith, I move this motion of condolence.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, Pope John Paul II, known as Karol Wojtyla until his election to the papacy, was born in Poland in 1920. Involved in the church from birth, he made his first Holy Communion at the age of nine, and was confirmed at the age of 18. In 1938, he began studying literature and philosophy at a university in Cracow; however, Nazi occupation forces closed the university and Karol Wojtyla was forced to work in a quarry and a chemical factory to avoid being deported. By 1942, he was aware of his call to the priesthood and began studying secretly in the evenings because the Nazis had closed all the seminaries.
In 1946, at the age of 26, he was ordained as a priest and moved to Rome to continue his studies. He returned home to Poland in 1948 where, in 1958, he became the youngest Bishop in Poland. In 1964, Pope Paul VI nominated him Archbishop of Cracow and made him a Cardinal in 1967.
In 1978, he became Pope and adopted the name John Paul II. He was the Catholic Church’s first non-Italian pontiff in over 450 years, and history’s first Slavic Pope. Travelling widely since his pontificate, Pope John Paul II gave general audiences to more than 16 million pilgrims. His pontificate was the third-longest in the history of the church, and he visited many countries, travelling over 600 000 km or 30 times the circumference of the earth. In total, he made 104 foreign trips as Pope and was also happy to receive visitors in Rome. John Paul II held 11 161 general audiences at the Vatican.
Pope John Paul II was shot on 13 May 1981 at St Peter’s Square by a Turkish extremist, Mehmet Ali Agca.
He visited Australia twice as head of the Catholic Church, the second time in 1995 to be beatify Mary MacKillop. His first visit to Australia as Pope was in 1986. His messages, regardless of where he was in the world, focussed on human rights, particularly the rights of children. He also chastised western nations and communist countries, viewing communism and capitalism as flip sides of a coin, neither of which would lead to happiness. Since his accession to the pontificate, he restored conservative stances on abortion, contraception and biotechnology. In 1994, Time magazine named him Man of the Year.
In later years, Pope John Paul II developed Parkinson’s disease and increasingly began to rely on his Cardinals to carry out some of his ceremonial duties. At Easter in 2002, he was unable to carry out the washing of the feet ceremony, which is symbolic of the Last Supper. It was the first time the role had been performed by Cardinals.
In an unprecedented gesture, the Pope publicly apologised for the past misdeeds of the Catholic Church. He also called on the clergy to work for greater dialogue with other faiths in the wake of the 11 September 2001 attacks in the United States.
The Pope’s schedule was relentless. In 2003, he travelled to Pompeii, Slovakia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and Spain. As his health continued to deteriorate, he visited Switzerland in June 2004, his first foreign trip for nine months. In August 2004, he visited Lourdes on a two-day pilgrimage to one of the Roman Catholic world’s most revered shrines. It was his second pilgrimage to the shrine in southern France.
In early 2005, his health deteriorated further and the Pontiff spent 28 days in hospital over two periods in February and March. During the second hospital stay, he underwent a tracheotomy to ease respiratory problems. The surgery rendered the man once known as the great communicator unable to speak. The Vatican announced that the Pontiff died at 9.37 pm on Saturday, 2 April 2005.
That is a fairly clinical snapshot of the role and duties of Pope John Paul II. For many Catholics and non-Catholics all over the world he was the only Pope they had known in their lifetime. He was, as I noted, widely known not only because he travelled and was most accessible to any and everyone through general and individual audiences, but he changed the way peoples of the world viewed the papacy until that time: he was The People’s Pope. Most importantly, he restored and reinforced traditional Catholic values, which drew great criticism from many quarters because of his strong, conservative stance and a return to traditional Catholic values, particularly as they relate to the sanctity of life, and his views on abortion and contraception. Whilst he drew enormous criticism, he commanded deep respect for his unqualified stance on those issues, which reinforced not only his position, but forced many Catholics all over the world to question where their beliefs lay by comparison with Catholic values and the contemporary society in which they live.
He also demonstrated to people, particularly in his closing years, the reality of life. More and more, he was seen as a suffering Pope, a Pope who was enduring enormous pain as he maintained his duties. I, like many others, often asked why he did not step aside from his position; he was obviously having more difficulty fulfilling his duties. I believe - and some of the commentary bears this out - that he viewed the suffering that was bestowed on him as, essentially, God’s will which strengthened his own faith. Through that suffering, he demonstrated to many people the reality of life; that is, life involves many things, including suffering. He bore that without comment and demonstrated an unquestioning acceptance of God’s will.
The other example he gave to the world was forgiveness. If we go back to the basic principles of the teachings of Jesus Christ, it was one of forgiveness, and no better example was the fact that, in 1983, he met the Turkish assassin in a Rome prison and forgave his would-be assassin for what he had done. In that single act, he demonstrated to many people that forgiveness was an essential part of his belief, and was a fine example to set to everyone in the world.
He is now gone. He was Pope for 27 years. We wish his successor, Pope Benedict, all the very best for the future. The opposition strongly supports this condolence motion.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I, too, would like to talk about the life of Pope John Paul II. I should note at the outset that I have used some of an obituary by Robert D McFadden of the New York Times on 4 April 2005 to help me to cover the very expansive life that this Pope led.
The pontificate of John Paul II, or The People’s Pope, started on 16 October 1978, when I was a lot younger, and finished on 2 April 2005. As a Catholic, I was saddened by the news of his passing because he had been such a strong influence and leader in a world where secularism is so strong. He was a man of God in a world of godlessness. Looking from the outside, the Pope was a man who spread the word of peace, who travelled far and wide - in fact, to 129 countries - and helped bring down the walls of communism.
For some, both inside and outside the Catholic Church, he was a promoter of old ideals that were out of touch with the modern world. For me, he was a holy man, a wise man, a good man. Yes, a Polish man who, perhaps, did not have a great understanding of Aussie Catholicism, but a man of strength who, through his life, was steadfast about the protection of human life from the moment of conception to the moment of death.
In one of his 14 encyclicals, Evangelium Vitae, the Gospel of Life, he denounced abortion and euthanasia as crimes which no human law can legitimise. In Evangelium Vitae, the Pope urged Catholics to oppose secular laws that violate what he called the fundamental right to life, and he reaffirmed the church’s condemnation of contraception, experiments with human embryos and the death penalty.
People outside the Catholic Church, and inside, may not accept his words, but does that necessarily make them wrong? Divorce, gay marriages, cloning, condoms, women priests and celibacy were all matters that he spoke strongly about; matters that certainly would raise a debate in this House. When it comes to Catholic teaching, is it a case of my ways are not always your ways?
The Pope also wrote an encyclical entitled Veritatis Splendor, the Splendour of Truth, which was a moral theory intended to encourage reflection and discussion. He did not list rights or wrongs, but discussed conscience, reason and freedom, and argued that morality rested on basic truths about human nature and the world, not on individual choice or consensus. Young people today do not seem to be taught subjects such as philosophy where matters such as conscience, reason and freedom are discussed, and that is a pity.
Pope John Paul II preached and practised forgiveness; he forgave the Turk who tried to kill him. He was opposed to the war in Iraq, instead arguing for peaceful means as the solution to problems in that country. He apologised to the Jews about the failure of individual Catholics to act against the holocaust, for the paedophile scandals that rocked the church, the Crusades, the Inquisition, the burning of heretics, and the forced conversion of American Indians and Africans. He conceded that after 350 years, Galileo had been wrongly persecuted for saying the Earth circles the Sun, and not the other way around. He opposed liberation theology and tried to draw out the delicate boundary between religious and political involvement.
He worked to improve relationships and understanding between other Christian faiths and other religions, and was the first Pope to enter a mosque or a synagogue. The Pope also spoke about the worker when dedicating a new church near the industrial town of Cracow in 1997 which, in fact, took 10 years to build because of opposition from the then communist government. Pope John Paul II said that men had a right to more than a job and a living wage. He said:
He visited Australia and our own Northern Territory and made his famous speech in Blatherskite Park, Alice Springs, on 29 November 1986. He told of how Aboriginal culture had lasted for thousands of years, about land rights, and how families were broken up and lived away from their lands. He spoke about the establishment of a new society for Aboriginal people based on agreements that had respect for the dignity and growth of the human person.
He came to Darwin in the sweltering heat of the build-up. Many people from all over the Top End stood for what seemed ages in the heat and humidity so that they could see the Pope. Although I cannot remember what was said on the day, I still have some souvenirs. I was asked to supply fence pickets to mark out areas on the showgrounds for the crowds to stand. When I got the fence pickets back they were all painted white. If I look around my block today, I can still find some.
Pope John Paul II came from a humble background, was a poet, a playwright, the author of many books and hundreds of articles, a philosopher, a formidable debater, an actor, an athlete with a passion for skiing, swimming and mountain climbing, a Professor of Social Ethics, and a linguist fluent in seven languages and skilled in a dozen. He became a priest, a Bishop, a Cardinal and, eventually, the Pope, and reigned over the Catholic Church for 26 years; the second longest reign of a Pope.
For me, his greatest legacy is his unfailing belief in the sanctity of human life because it was his great belief that violence - whether it is reflected in human suffering as in war, domestic violence, abortion, euthanasia, sexual abuse - is not the way to peace. The Pope promoted a non-violent solution to today’s problems. He was a man of peace and a man of God. Undoubtedly, there are those who do not agree with all that this man has said and done, but there is no doubt that he left a large and profound footprint throughout the time he lived on this earth.
In a world of modernism, relativism, populism, commercialism and all the other ‘isms’ on which the world becomes stuck, he was a Pope who was not afraid to challenge these concepts and show us a way of living - maybe not popular with our media manipulators and thought processes of today, but certainly far more profound and eternal. May he rest in peace.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, honourable members. I call upon you to observe one minute’s silence as a mark of respect.
Members rose and observed one minute’s silence.
Motion agreed to.
Dr BURNS (Essential Services): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to keep the House informed of progress with the undergrounding of powerlines project, a commitment of this government to keep the Territory moving ahead.
The Martin Labor government is committed to progressively extending this project through those Darwin suburbs that are currently serviced by overhead power. In contrast, the CLP opposition have pledged to scrap this exciting project. CLP members have repeatedly gone on the record saying that the CLP opposition does not support the undergrounding of power project and would stop it.
The Leader of the Opposition told ABC radio on 5 July 2002, and I quote:
Just to confirm it, in a second and subsequent interview he said:
There you have it, on the public record: they are opposed to the underground power project. The Leader of the Opposition has been publicly supported by a succession of CLP spokespeople, including the shadow minister, the member for Drysdale.
Undergrounding the powerlines improves reliability of supply, particularly in the Wet Season, enhances the attractiveness of the city, and it will greatly improve the ability to quickly recover from cyclone damage. Civil works to the underground power supplies in Nightcliff are now well advanced. The Chief Minister, the member for Nightcliff and I recently attended the removal of power poles in Pandanus Street, Nightcliff. I will also be there to witness the removal of some of the next section of power poles, which is planned to be in Nightcliff Road in a few weeks time.
Madam Speaker, the laying of underground power also requires the construction of new footpaths. In order to assist the Darwin City Council to plan its future footpath upgrade programs, I wrote to the Lord Mayor in November last year to advise council of the government’s long-term plans to underground power supplies for a better Darwin. I advised the Lord Mayor that the future work program will extend progressively from Nightcliff to Rapid Creek, then part of Ludmilla, Fannie Bay, Stuart Park, followed by the balance of Ludmilla, Millner and Coconut Grove.
The program will continue to expand into those suburbs that are currently serviced by overhead power. These include Alawa, Jingili, Parap, Casuarina, Nakara, Moil, Wagaman, Marrara, Larrakeyah, The Narrows and Salonika Street. Some residents will be included in the program with adjoining suburbs, depending on from which high voltage feeder their supply comes.
Civil works on the Nightcliff project are well under way and civil works have been completed to the 329 properties that comprised Stage 1, and 7 km of footpath has been laid. The installation of distribution cables, pillars, substations, street light bases and house services is well advanced. To date, contracts to the value of more than $6.2m have been awarded to local Territory businesses for labour and materials associated with the project for the undergrounding of power to the first 686 homes.
This project will result in almost 9000 properties and 16 000 customers in suburban Darwin having their overhead powerlines replaced with reliable and safe underground lines. Power and Water has formally provided Telstra and Austar with notice to remove their cable from the power poles. This has been carried out in conjunction with Power and Water’s program to remove the poles.
Madam Speaker, I take this opportunity to congratulate all those who are progressing this exciting initiative, and I look forward to participating in the demolition of the next sections of power poles.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, it is important to put this matter on the record and it is a pity we only have a couple of minutes. Power and Water have a number of problems and we have conveniently forgotten about live power poles - including in the CBD of Darwin, all the outages - particularly in Adelaide River where they are going to have a public meeting, the shortage of generation capacity, and a number of other problems.
What we are doing is waving one flag: undergrounding power in Nightcliff, which was estimated at about $80m. We understand it will come in at about $120 to $150m. I would like the minister to confirm that in his little rejoinder - that he knows exactly what the costs are and he divulges them to this House. With the budget, we have a difficulty with rhetoric not turning into numbers. When he stands up, tell us what it will cost. Tell us what taxpayers will pay for this. If he does not know, there is another good reason why we should go to estimates and find out. It is something that should be at the forefront of his mind.
While the minister is boasting proudly about what Labor might do if they achieve government, I would like to make a short announcement. We, too, will be undergrounding power. We have made a commitment to continue …
Members interjecting.
Mr DUNHAM: We have made a commitment to continue, so that was actually a falsehood from the minister - but that is all right; we have grown used to that. We have actually made that commitment. It is some years old, so I will not go back there. Here is the new commitment to underground power …
Ms Martin: In the east side of Alice Springs!
Mr DUNHAM: In the east side of Alice Springs.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr DUNHAM: Do you know why we are making that commitment? We are making it because we think the green credentials, the necessity for this power, the outages, is a paramount case.
If all you want to do is grimly hold on to power in the northern suburbs of Darwin, and you make promises like this that do not affect all Territorians, that is the typical Berrimah Line we have come to expect from her.
We will be out there making sure we underground power appropriately, making sure that those big, beautiful trees in the East Side of Alice Springs are preserved, and that taxpayers’ money such as this is not only well spent, but we tell people how much it is.
Dr BURNS (Essential Services): Madam Speaker, the member for Drysdale has raised a few issues; I will try to deal with them briefly.
Regarding the live power poles, there has been a safety audit conducted at speed and that situation has been rectified. Yes, there have been outages in Adelaide River and there was a meeting. Power and Water are working with residents there and developing a plan to address that issue.
In terms of power augmentation from Darwin, the Board of Power and Water has considered this and there will be announcements made in the very near future, I believe.
Regarding the cost of undergrounding power in Nightcliff, yes, the cost has escalated as it has with all sorts of civil construction. If the member for Drysdale wants to ask me a question during Question Time, I will most certainly answer …
Mr Dunham: How much? You do not know, do you?
Dr BURNS: I know how much.
Members interjecting.
Dr BURNS: I know how much. In terms of the East Side, Power and Water are working with the residents. They have given some commitment to the progressive undergrounding of power in the East Side.
Mr HENDERSON (Business and Industry): Madam Speaker, this morning I update the House on recent activities to attract more skilled workers to live and work in the Territory.
Building our population and boosting the Territory’s skill base is a priority for the Martin government. Without a doubt, the skill shortage is the key issue for Territory business at the moment. The government is driving initiatives to train Territorians, including the Territory’s first ever Jobs Plan, and start-up support for new apprentices.
Budget 2005 contains significant new measures in this field. In support of these measures to train locals, the government is backing Territory business to address the skills shortage in the short term, committing over $1m over the next two years to attract more business and skilled migrants to the Territory.
In March, the Territory government participated in an Australian Migration Information Day at the Australian High Commission in London. Almost 2000 people attended the information day, and the Northern Territory’s representative handed out more than 200 packs of information on opportunities and services on offer in the NT. Inquiries about the Territory were received from people with a range of skills and backgrounds including chefs, hotel and business managers, physiotherapists, psychiatrists, nurses, electricians and motor and diesel mechanics.
The migration information day also attracted a number of Asian students in their final year of study in the United Kingdom who were very interested in the opportunities for skilled workers in the Territory. With our strong cultural and historical ties, the UK continues to be a source of skilled migrants to Australia. In fact, UK migrants make up about 33% of Australia’s and 38% of the Northern Territory’s business and skilled migration intake of the Northern Territory.
A great deal of work is now under way to follow up on inquiries received at the High Commission in London, including responding to specific questions, referring curricula vitae to potential employers, and providing additional information to influence the selection of migration destinations.
I am pleased that the government’s boost in resources to business and skilled migration is already delivering results for Territory business. So far in this financial year, to the end of April, the government has helped Territory business sponsor 315 skilled workers from overseas to meet their skills need compared with 159 in 2003-04. Breaking that down into types of visas: there were 88 nominations under the Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme covering 203 visas compared with 118 in 2003-04; there were 72 temporary resident sponsorships covering 96 visas compared with 41 in 2003-04; and 13 independent regional sponsorships with a total of 16 visas, and there were none in this category during 2003-04. These skilled workers have come from a range of backgrounds and, in April alone, included health workers, mechanics, chefs and education workers. In addition to the skilled workers, there have been five business skills sponsorships and the department is working with another 10 business people from overseas seeking support for their applications.
The Department of Business, Industry and Resource Development is also actively involved in a range of programs to assist Territory business to meet their skills needs through business and skilled migration, and has played a key role in the increase in successful applications, particularly those that bring temporary overseas workers to the Territory to fill skills shortages.
The figures speak for themselves in highlighting the benefits for Territory business and the Territory skills base: this year, 24% of skilled migrants are from across the trade areas compared with only 4% in 2003-04; and in the area of temporary residents, 67% of those coming to the Territory are in the skills areas, up from 13%.
Madam Speaker, these results show business and skilled migration is delivering real results for Territory business in meeting the skills shortages, and the government will continue to back Territory business in this important area.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, any initiative to increase the skilled worker base in the Northern Territory is to be applauded, and that is the business of government. What is disappointing is that the government talks a lot of percentages and figures and what they are doing but, when I talk to business operators, the issue of the shortage of skilled workers in the Northern Territory is paramount in every businessman’s mind. There is no doubt about that.
It is one thing to talk about the fact that, yes, the Northern Territory is here and, yes, you should come and work here, but what I want to hear from the government is: what exactly is the government offering to workers who come to the Northern Territory? What has the government said of its own strategy? How can we attract not only skilled workers to the Northern Territory, but ensure that our businesses are supported in a way that they can afford to get skilled workers in, and they can certainly achieve the skilled workers that they need?
I know that there is a lot of work being done by business operators on their own. The business operators I have spoken to recently have not been to the UK; they have been to South Africa. The biggest attraction of leaving South Africa is one of security. The attraction of the Northern Territory is less an issue of wages but of security, because Johannesburg and places like it are fairly unsavoury places to live and work. Those are the sorts of initiatives that I know businesses in the Northern Territory are undertaking on their own. That is good and I applaud it.
When it comes to creating the environment in the Northern Territory, what exactly is this government doing? I know that the government was asked to reduce business taxes, a fairly easy thing to do I would have thought considering the amount of GST that has come into the Northern Territory. When asked to reduce business taxes so that businesses themselves have more capacity to expand, recruit and attract, what does the government say? ‘No, it is all too hard. We will not do it and, if we do, it will take us five years before we can reduce any of those taxes’. If you want to attract skilled workers to the Northern Territory, let us do something in real terms to show what this government is actually doing, rather than sprouting what others are doing for you …
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, your time has expired.
Mr HENDERSON (Business and Industry): Madam Speaker, I welcome the qualified support from the Leader of the Opposition because people in my department are doing a great job working with migration agents and businesses.
Some 315 people who were not here last year are now working in the Northern Territory as a result of this program and these initiatives across all range of trades. That number is going to increase next year with the allocation of additional funding.
What are we doing? We have the most affordable housing in Australia, a fantastic HomeNorth scheme to allow people to get into their houses for the first time, a great lifestyle, good schools, a fabulous health system, education system and also, as of 1 July, other measures which will be announced by the Treasurer at 11 am: the lowest taxing jurisdiction in Australia for businesses with 100 employees or fewer. That is what this government is doing. The Territory is a great place to come to, and I am pleased to welcome 315 people to the Northern Territory as a result of these initiatives.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to report on the historic Overarching Agreement on Indigenous Affairs Between the Commonwealth and Northern Territory of Australia and the announcement of over $5.5m for Our Lady of the Sacred Heart Thamarrurr Catholic College at Wadeye as part of Budget 2005.
I signed the overarching agreement with the Prime Minister on 6 April. It is the first new bilateral agreement to come from the June 2004 Council of Australian Governments’ commitment to improve services to indigenous Australians. This is a major achievement for the Territory; we are leading the nation.
The overarching agreement recognises that the Territory’s indigenous population as a whole suffers the highest comparative levels of disadvantage when compared with other states and territories, and we have a lot of catch-up work to do.
The agreement lays the foundation for more effective funding of indigenous affairs. Both governments are addressing jurisdictional overlap and administrative costs so that more dollars allocated to indigenous communities will actually flow to them. There is also a commitment to ensure that funding under mainstream government programs reaches indigenous communities and is responsive to their needs.
The agreement sets out priority areas for government action: improving outcomes for young indigenous Territorians; building safer communities; strengthening governance in indigenous communities; building wealth, employment and entrepreneurial culture; and improving service delivery and infrastructure.
The first three schedules developed under this agreement are on sustainable housing, strengthening the indigenous arts sector, and establishing strong local government structures. More schedules will be negotiated under the agreement as we move forward and strengthen the collaboration between the Australian and Territory government agencies.
The housing schedule brings together existing Commonwealth and Territory indigenous housing programs into one program to be delivered by the Territory. This will reduce administration costs and free up money to build homes.
The arts schedule commits the governments to taking a coordinated approach to building a strong indigenous visual arts sector with sustainable indigenous arts centres. The agreement also focusses on partnering with indigenous communities to strengthen local government structures as already outlined in the government’s Building Stronger Regions, Stronger Futures strategy. The regional authorities schedule indicates that the government wants to work with communities interested in pursuing voluntary amalgamations of councils to build stronger, more effective and culturally legitimate regional authorities under the Local Government Act.
Local government bodies will not be the only mechanism for indigenous representation and consultation in the Territory; the land councils and indigenous organisations will continue to be sources of information and advice for government. The agreement sets out the fundamental principle that the two levels of government need to work in partnership with indigenous communities to determine arrangements for consultation and participation in setting priorities and developing solutions at the regional and local level.
I would also like to report that the government has announced that it will invest over $5.5m in a major upgrade of Our Lady of the Sacred Heart, Thamarrurr Catholic College at Wadeye as part of this budget. The Wadeye community has made a significant effort to improve student attendance at the school at the start of this year. We have seen 582 students enrolled compared with 467 at the same time last year. This enrolment growth, while very welcome, has placed considerable extra demand on the school in teaching resources and facilities, as well as the teaching staff’s ability to cater for the differing needs of the many students at the school.
We are serious about education and this investment shows we are serious about backing communities that are committed to their young people’s education. The funds will be used for additional teachers and support staff, the provision of extra specialist secondary facilities at the school, a vocational education and training program, six additional houses for teachers, and ongoing funding to meet essential services, including power, water, cleaning, and repairs and maintenance of the new buildings.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I point out to this government and the Chief Minister that the issue here is one of integrity of service delivery.
If we look at the failures of ATSIC in the last few years in service delivery, where we had people like Geoff Clark travelling to Ireland, questions being raised about people like Sugar Ray Robinson and, more importantly in the Northern Territory, an ATSIC commissioner presiding over what appears to be the misspending of millions of dollars of funding in the Papunya community. Service delivery is something that has to be done with integrity.
It is also worth looking at the integrity of this government and how they deliver their own funding into some of these communities. It appears the best way to get funding for anything from this government in Aboriginal spending is to meet with the minister in a pub, then have the minister go back to his officers and say: ‘Let us sidestep all the of the systems that we have in place so that we can make sure that this car gets gifted off to a certain community’, which did not ask for it and did not want it and, in fact, ended up giving it away.
This government spent thousands of Territory taxpayers’ dollars just last week pursuing a victim of crime through to the Supreme Court because of a clerical error. That person had been flogged senseless and, because of a clerical error, ended up in the Supreme Court after this government pursued her for $3000. That is an outrage. If the government is so keen to start pursuing a victim of crime for $3000, what is this government going to do to recover the $35 000 that was given away illegally and contrary to law …
Mr Henderson: Who says?
Mr ELFERINK: Says the Ombudsman!
Mr Henderson: No, he does not.
Members interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: Says the Ombudsman! Contrary to law! The denial by the Leader of Government Business demonstrates quite clearly the arrogance of this government in dealing with taxpayers’ funds.
Who is going to pay the $35 000? Here is another question: how many more Toyotas and other vehicles have been given away under special purpose grants?
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I presented a report to this parliament on a great initiative for the Territory, working with the federal government …
Members interjecting.
Ms MARTIN: … on an overarching agreement that will see the dollars …
Members interjecting.
Ms MARTIN: It is interesting that the opposition is not interested. It will see the dollars that are allocated to our indigenous communities more effectively used, working in partnership. In response, I think it is the Indigenous Affairs spokesperson for the opposition, just goes on with a tissue of lies …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: Withdraw the word ‘lies’.
Ms MARTIN: Well …
Mr Dunham: Withdraw it!
Madam SPEAKER: Withdraw it.
Ms MARTIN: … innuendo, lack of fact …
Madam SPEAKER: Just withdraw.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Ms MARTIN: I withdraw, sorry, Madam Speaker. He comes in here with a tissue of made-up things, innuendo and the lines that he declared in Alice Springs that he is going to run regardless of the truth. It is very sad.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, thank you.
Mr VATSKALIS (Mines and Energy): Madam Speaker, I provide the House with an update of the Mining Road Show 2005, which was developed to promote our government’s Building the Territory’s Resource Base Investment Attraction program. This four-year $15.2m program commenced in July 2003, and aims to maximise mining and petroleum exploration, investment and activity in the Territory.
The road show’s main objective is to engage with senior executives from Australia’s exploration sector to highlight the Northern Territory’s mineral potential and business opportunities, including projects requiring finance and companies requiring joint venture partners, and the support services available through government.
The road show has now covered three cities - Brisbane, Sydney and Perth - with Adelaide and Melbourne still to be scheduled, and has produced impressive results, including eight events organised through strategic partnerships with KPMG, Clayton Utz, the Sydney Mining Club, the Association of Mining Exploration Companies, Minter Ellison and Louthean Media; coverage of around 700 exploration, mining and investment executives; individual meetings with five companies in three cities, and I have had useful discussions with several other companies during the course of the various events.
The innovative theme, Top End Secret, provided us with a powerful means to highlight the many exploration and investment opportunities in the Territory. Top End Secret was promoted by a multimedia campaign. Our ultimate message for the road show was that exploration business in the Territory is ‘Mission Possible’. The Top End Secret campaign materials were effective because our team listed 30 undeveloped mineral opportunities in the Top End Secret kit, an exercise for investment attraction that is a first amongst Australia’s geological surveys. We worked in collaboration with industry to develop a promotional CD to profile 17 exploration companies in the Northern Territory. The kit provided an important link to understand and access our services.
I led the team response for delivering the key messages of the Top End Secret presentation and for conducting extensive networking for business development. The team consisted of Trevor Tennant, Managing Director of Bootu Creek Resources; Rod Elvish, Technical Director of Compass Resources; Neville Henwood from the Northern Territory Minerals Council, who attended in Sydney and Brisbane; and Richard Brescianini and Jerry Whitfield from the department.
One of the most successful events in showcasing the Northern Territory was the AMEC Investing in Resources Forum in Perth on 8 April. The day was dedicated to the Northern Territory and was supported by presentations from Bootu Creek Resources, Compass Resources, Arafura Resources, Tanami Gold and Tennant Creek Gold. The response from participants was excellent with the following key messages being well received:
The road show has proven to be an effective strategy in promoting the Territory’s exploration potential. We are committed to taking the following actions:
By working together with our clients and arming them with the tools to sell the Territory in their presentations and annual reports, we develop an excellent group of ambassadors and achieve significant coverage of the global exploration arena.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his report on the road show. It has been four years and, finally, the Labor government has realised how important mining is to the Northern Territory. It is not something new because the Country Liberal Party has always travelled throughout Australia promoting the mining and exploration industry and the importance of it. As a matter of fact, what we have now, minister, is even less promotion than we have ever had before, so it is about time the Northern Territory government looked at it.
While the minister was in Perth, I hope he took the opportunity to talk to Terra Gold which has acquired Maud Creek mine. I hope he ensured that when they do start digging again, they do not put any production into that area because the importance of the water system to Katherine is paramount and it certainly is not in the best interests of the Katherine region to have the water contaminated. I congratulate him on the road show. It is a bit late, but better late than never.
Mr VATSKALIS (Mines and Energy): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her contribution and support. Let me have a look at the CLP record. In the last four years of the CLP government, they approved 230 exploration licences. In the first three years of this government, we approved 800 exploration licences.
Also, it was during the CLP era that mining in the Territory declined. I will not attribute that directly to the CLP, but to the international situation. If we look at another record, it was the CLP that approved a mine that we are now required to rehabilitate – Mt Todd. That is located in the member for Katherine’s electorate. It was a small mine that is going to cost about $20m to rehabilitate, and has cost so much money because decisions were not made based on scientific evidence, but in political offices. We were left with $900 000 and we are required to find $20m to rehabilitate that mine.
I assure the member for Katherine that the Maud Creek Mine will not be another Mt Todd. It is going to happen, and it is going to happen properly in order to safeguard the environment and the health of the Katherine people.
Reports noted pursuant to Sessional Order.
Continued from 23 March 2005.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I will be brief, but I will not deliberately stretch it until 11 o’clock.
Attorney-General, we support this bill. It contains a number of sensible amendments; it is important. I was pleased to see that in the second reading speech, you referred to evening up the classifications on computer games to make those classifications more recognisable and align them more with film and television classifications. That is important for families in the Northern Territory so that mums and dads who are watching, often from a distance, their kids playing computer games have an understanding of the classifications and they are familiar to them.
I commend you on this bill. It is fair to say that, in the event that the Country Liberal Party were in office, we would have proposed a bill such as this. I note in closing that the bill was amended in a number of respects, including getting the penalty units up to speed. As a lawyer, I well understand why it is that, in legislation, we have penalty units and why it is that dollars are expressed in penalty units. I note in passing that I do not think the rest of the world has any understanding of penalty units and I rather wish that we had dollars in legislation for penalties as opposed to penalty units so that normal people have some sort of appreciation of the penalties they will incur should they breach various statutory requirements.
On that basis and for those reasons, Madam Speaker, we support the bill.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): I will also try to brief, Madam Speaker. I, too, welcome the bill, but I have a few issues I wish to raise. Whilst it is important that we make uniform classification between films and computer games, there needs to be a review of these issues.
For instance, when we are looking at penalties - and I know we have upgraded the penalties - how many people have actually been prosecuted under these provisions? It is all very well to upgrade the penalties, but do we find many cases of people being charged under this act, or do we just increase the penalties because they need to go up? I would be interested to know what sort of effect the penalties have had. Does the government police such matters and how well are they policed?
I also ask whether it is time for a review of the way some publications are out and about in our community. I recently spoke to our local newsagent. They have concerns with some of the publications that they have to sell, that are quite available to anyone who walks into that shop and turns the pages over. We have written material that is in plastic covers and we know is for people over 18, but there is quite a lot of material that parents would regard as not suitable for younger people, but is easily accessed. It would be interesting to know whether the government intends to restrict that type of publication by requiring it to be at least covered.
Perhaps part of a review could be to look at the effects of some of our violent computer games and sexually explicit material that is available in light of the fact that we have high cases of sexual abuse and domestic violence. We have also had, as has been seen throughout Australia, a number of arrests relating to child pornography.
Whilst it is good that the minister has produced this bill, I wonder, considering that this government has undertaken many reviews in the life of this parliament, whether it should have expanded on not just looking at making uniform guidelines to match Commonwealth guidelines, but seen this as an opportunity to look at a total review on the affects of some publications, films and computer games that we have in our society. That is an important area that needs to be canvassed. As parents, we believe that we should be protecting our children and, if this sort of material is also out there in the open for people to access, what effect will that have on the future of our children?
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I thank the opposition for their support for the bill. In regard to the member for Nelson’s comments, the whole point of classification is that you give the general public the tools they need to assess what is available in our shops.
Everyone understands that there is a range of materials, right through from quite explicit material that is unsuitable for young kids to things that anyone in the community can look at. That is the whole point of the classification system. This is a Commonwealth process. The Commonwealth has a standing structure that continually responds to and monitors things coming onto the market, hence these latest reforms dealing with computer games. We meet regularly, as classification ministers, so these matters are being reviewed continuously. With those few remarks, I suggest we move the debate on.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General) (by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move the bill be now read a second time. I table the 2005-06 Appropriation Bill and related Budget Papers.
Budget 2005 is about backing Territorians. It delivers less tax, local jobs and better skills. Budget 2005 outlines cuts in taxes of $40m, including record payroll tax and record stamp duty cuts. The Martin government is the most tax reforming government in the Territory’s history; we have cut more taxes than any other government. Budget 2005 makes the Territory the lowest taxing jurisdiction in Australia for a business with up to 100 staff.
Budget 2005 also provides a significant boost to the task of skilling Territorians. This budget delivers Jobs Plan 2, with the centrepiece being a commitment to training 10 000 Territorians over the next four years, up 25% since 2000.
The Martin government continues record infrastructure spending with $476m in Budget 2005. This budget also fulfils the Martin government’s commitments to a healthier Territory, better education outcomes and a safer community by providing record health, education and police budgets.
This year, the budget also includes the Territory’s financial commitment to the redevelopment of the Darwin waterfront and convention centre. This development, delivered through a public/private partnership, is one of the most significant investments for long-term economic gain that the Territory has ever made. Work will commence shortly on the community infrastructure, which will be substantially complete in 2007, while the Darwin convention and exhibition centre is expected to open in 2008.
The tax reforms outlined in this budget lead the rest of the nation in their support for business. They make the Martin Labor government the most tax reforming government in the Territory’s history. They provide local business with a strong, competitive edge against the rest of Australia. On 1 July 2005, the payroll tax threshold will rise to $1m. Some 79 businesses, including 61 locally-based Territory businesses, will no longer pay payroll tax. The government announces today that, from 1 July 2006, the payroll tax threshold will again rise; this time to $1.25m, the equal best in Australia. From 1 July 2006, a business or group of businesses with wages of less than $1.25m will not pay any payroll tax. That means 53 more locally-based Territory businesses will no longer pay payroll tax. These announcements continue the government’s record payroll tax reform. Since 1 July 2004, we will have doubled the payroll tax threshold, meaning 215 businesses will no longer pay payroll tax. Those businesses still paying payroll tax will save an average of $31 900 per year.
The government will continue its strong efforts to support Territorians achieving their dream of home ownership. Today, the government announces that we will increase the stamp duty concession for first home buyers. In 2002, we lifted this threshold from $80 000 to $125 000, as we promised. From today, the threshold will be increased to $200 000. This nearly doubles the value of the stamp duty concession from a maximum of $3640 to $6800, putting about $2.7m back into Territorians’ pockets. No stamp duty will be payable by a first home buyer on a property up to $200 000. Some 1400 Territorians will benefit each year from this threshold increase. The Martin government’s commitment to get more Territorians into their own homes is now supported by three strong planks: the $200 000 threshold for stamp duty for first home buyers, the successful HomeNorth scheme and a $1500 stamp duty rebate for people buying a home to live in. No other government has made such a concerted effort to make home ownership a reality for Territorians.
As already announced, the Martin government will remove electronic debit duty from 1 July 2005. This duty is applied to all electronic withdrawals from accounts held with financial institutions in the Territory. Combined with our decision to remove debits tax, this is an $8.9m ongoing reduction in tax to Territorians and will save small business with 20 staff around $1430 per year.
Skilling Territorians is a centrepiece of Budget 2005. The Martin government acted quickly to focus funds on training, implemented the first ever Jobs Plan, and fulfilled our election commitment to deliver major improvements in the Territory’s skill levels. In Budget 2005, we take that effort another step. We will train 10 000 Territorians over the next four years. Since the year 2000, that is a 25% increase in the number of Territorians in training.
In Budget 2005 we introduce four new training initiatives. These are:
Through Jobs Plan 2, Budget 2005 will increase our commitment to training by an additional $3.6m.
The budget also continues the Martin government’s record infrastructure effort. Budget 2005 boosts infrastructure spending by $476m. We have increased the minor new works budget by 40% to $28.6m. We have also significantly increased the amount of money being spent on repairs and maintenance of roads and schools. This expenditure will provide additional work for smaller local contractors across the Territory. The minor new works threshold has been increased from $150 000 to $300 000, a reform which will see work issued more rapidly. This $476m brings the total of cash injected into infrastructure to $2.23bn since 2001, an effort unparalleled in the Territory. These funds have lifted the construction industry and sustained thousands of local jobs. The Martin government’s cash commitment contrasts with the low levels of cash put in by the previous government.
I turn now to the Territory economy. Economic recovery: over the past two to three years, the Territory economy has recovered from a period of flat growth returning to solid growth in recent times. The onshore economy strengthened in 2004-05, boosted by activity for the construction of the LNG plant at Wickham Point and initial work for the Alcan G3 alumina expansion at Gove.
The tourism sector continued to recover over the year, supported by increased marketing activity. Importantly, business confidence strengthened as the outlook for the onshore economy continued to improve. In 2004-05, Territory gross state product is estimated to increase by 7.3% and state final demand by 1.2%. Solid income growth has supported consumer sentiment reflected in high motor vehicle sales and retail turnover growth, and strengthening residential construction and property markets.
Consumption is estimated to increase by 5.1% in 2004-05 with private consumption growth of 6.1%. Business investment, which will be above $2bn for the third consecutive year, continues to be heavily influenced by major infrastructure works and resource projects. Improved nett interstate migration sees population growth strengthening to 1.1% in 2005.
The Territory labour market was characterised by labour and skill shortages in 2004-05, with stronger activity in key employing industries. However, based on official statistics, employment is estimated to decline by 1.3% in 2004-05. These differences underlie the volatility in the Territory’s official employment data and the government’s caution with these figures. Treasury forecasts gross state product growth in 2005-06 at 6.2%. Continued strong growth reflects the improving employment outlook, population growth, and ongoing recovery across a range of industries. Territory final demand is forecast to increase by 4.7% in 2005-06. Consumption growth is forecast to moderate to 4.2%, and investment is set to increase by 6% supported by increased public sector expenditure.
Output will be boosted by the commencement of LNG production, and manganese production from Bootu Creek. Offshore, Bayu-Undan’s Stage 1 output is forecast to double as production reaches its design capacity.
Employment associated with major projects will continue through 2005-06, though the focus of activity will shift to the Alcan G3 alumina expansion. The strengthening tourism sector and residential construction will also contribute to forecast employment growth of 2%. Population is forecast to increase by 1% in 2006. Year-on-year inflation in Darwin is forecast to increase to 2.3% in 2005-06. It is clear that 2005-06 will see continuing economic prosperity throughout the Territory.
I now move to the fiscal projections in the budget. In 2001, the government set a target of achieving a balanced budget by 2004-05. The expected outcome for 2004-05 is a surplus of $46m, which will be used as the Territory’s partial contribution to the Darwin waterfront and convention centre project. During 2004-05, receipts increased by $143m, and payments by $97m. The higher receipts were largely the result of continuing economic improvement. Specific purpose payments were $19m higher through the year, but come with additional expenditure commitments. Adjustments to timing of taxes paid by government businesses resulted in a one-off improvement of $15m.
Higher population growth of 1.2% and higher GST collections resulted in a revenue increase of $46m and assists the Territory to pay for the additional services a higher population requires. It is a good signal of the success of the government’s continued efforts to boost the Territory’s population. Earlier this year, we were very proud to announce we passed 200 000 Territorians, a significant milestone.
The improved property market and the stronger economy mean greater levels of activity, with conveyancing duty up by $16m and payroll tax by $8m. Operating payments have increased in the government’s key service delivery areas of health - $16m, education - $31m, and police - $7m, meaning improved services, extra teachers, nurses and police.
Capital spending increased by $19m. In 2005-06, operating receipts are expected to be $2.75bn, $62m higher than 2004-05. This increase is the result of the usual anticipated growth in GST revenue of around $90m to pay for service delivery offset by lower specific purpose payments and a return to the usual level of tax equivalents paid by government businesses.
Operating payments are expected to increase by $93m to $2.56bn. The government will continue to improve services in health, education and police, the government’s key priority areas.
Our fiscal strategy targets were re-set in 2004 and included deficits from 2005-06, with the budget returning to balance in 2008-09. The underlying targets remain unchanged: the inclusion of payments for the Darwin waterfront and convention centre increases the deficit for three years as the community infrastructure and the Darwin convention centre are constructed. The budget will return to balance as planned in 2008-09.
I turn now to the detail of budget initiatives. Budget 2005 delivers less tax, local jobs and better skills; it backs Territorians.
Tax reform, skills and business support: as a result of tax changes to business from 1 July 2006, Territory businesses employing up to 100 staff will pay the lowest tax in Australia. In New South Wales, a business with 50 staff will pay $72 024 more than its Territory counterpart. In Western Australia, they will pay $28 479 more. Businesses of 100 staff in New South Wales will pay $73 597 more than in the Territory, and in Western Australia they will pay $15 443 more.
Budget 2005 includes the Territory’s tax reform initiatives in line with the intergovernmental agreement. In addition to the removal of debits tax and electronic debits duty, the Territory will remove stamp duty on: leases, franchises and unquoted marketable securities on 1 July 2006 at a saving to business of $2m; hiring arrangements on 1 July 2007, at a saving to business of $5.3m; and non-real business conveyances on 1 July 2009 at a saving of $5.5m.
Budget 2005 delivers a major boost to training and skilling Territorians. In this budget, incentive grants to small business for trainees increased from $2200 to $3000. There will be 250 grants available. Employers putting on traditional trade apprentices will be eligible for a $7000 grant. The number of these grants will be 150, almost 400% up from the original 40.
The Martin government is also delivering a new Build Skills NT program, backing Territorians already in work by upgrading their skills through training. Some $500 000 will be spent targeting workers in the automotive, building, construction, hospitality and mining industries. These funds will be injected directly to industry and will give them the flexibility to move existing workers through new skill levels.
To improve the transition from school to work, the government will also invest in a new Work Ready NT initiative, and $200 000 will fund the Work Ready Pathways program. Some $4.4m is included this year for the VET in Schools program. This program is expected to prepare 1100 students for the Territory work force.
In Budget 2005, the government has lifted funding for vocational education and training at Charles Darwin University by $1.5m, taking annual VET funding for Charles Darwin University to $35.2m. To provide further support for local business, the Martin government will allocate:
Better schools: education has been a priority of the Martin government since coming to office. The education budget this year is $582m, up by 22% from 2001-02. This year, the record education budget continues the $42m improvements in secondary education. Specific support includes:
Overall, the education budget provides $266m for early childhood and primary education in government schools; $139m for government secondary schools; and $81m for assistance for non-government schools. The budget supports the ongoing employment of the additional 100 teachers in our system.
This year, around $74m is programmed for new and ongoing capital works, minor new works and repairs and maintenance, including:
Community safety: the Martin government is backing Territorians by providing a safer community. We have focussed on preventing crime, responding hard when it does occur, and tackling antisocial behaviour. Budget 2005 delivers a record Police, Fire and Emergency Services budget of $189m. This budget has increased 38% since 2001. The Martin government is tackling antisocial behaviour and violence through record growth in police numbers. We have put an extra 120 police on the beat since 2001.
Funding of $200 000 in 2005-06 has been provided for mobile police stations in Darwin and Alice Springs. These stations will provide police with the flexibility to respond immediately to crime hot spots and community needs. Personal and domestic violence protection units are being established across all major centres. An ongoing program has been approved to deliver 25 additional police vehicles for use by Aboriginal community police officers. These vehicles will strengthen the capacity to address violence and antisocial behaviour across the Territory.
Budget 2005 commits $750 000 to community grants, a substantial increase on the $400 000 provided in Budget 2004: $400 000 will be allocated to crime prevention grants, and $350 000 for approved community safety plans.
Funding to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions to prosecute sexual assault matters will increase by $200 000. Additional funding of $330 000 will be provided for the formal establishment of the Community Justice Centre.
The government will build a fire station at Marrara at a cost of $3.6m.
Health and Community Services: Budget 2005 provides another record health budget. The budget of $687m is an increase of 43% since 2001-02. It includes: $392m for hospitals; $110m for community health services; $87m for aged, disability and mental health services; $48m for family and children’s services; and $50m for public health services and health research.
Additional recurrent funding of $1.94m has been allocated for Alice Springs Hospital to provide improved medical staffing levels for the Intensive Care Unit. Additional funding of $395 000 will be provided for home birth care services and the provision of outreach antenatal services to remote communities. $203 000 will be provided to support Territory nurses to study locally as midwives.
An additional $1.5m will be allocated for the provision of essential mental health services. This includes $200 000 to strengthen 24-hour emergency response and consultation across the Territory, and $350 000 to provide four additional psychiatrists for children and adolescents in rural centres. $1.2m will be spent on mental health facilities to provide community-based residential care in Darwin and Alice Springs.
The government will provide $500 000 per year to assist Territorians requiring travel interstate for life-saving cancer treatment. In addition, my colleague, the Minister for Health, has announced that the government will call for expressions of interest from established oncology radiation services in setting up a unit at the Royal Darwin Hospital.
Alice Springs Hospital will undergo an upgrade to Ward 4 at a cost of $1m to provide eight renal stations for patients. Other capital investment to support health services includes: a $1m upgrade to Flynn Drive renal facilities; $650 000 for a staff accommodation upgrade at Alice Springs Hospital; and continuation of the program to improve renal facilities in remote communities with Stage 3 costing $400 000.
The government will improve the indexation of grant payments to health and community services non-government organisations. These organisations provide an important service to our community and are recognised for this service by the Martin government. This will increase funding by $1.13m.
Supporting families: Budget 2005 backs Territory families with funding designed to support family needs and to keep downward pressure on the cost of living. This year, the budget includes: $8.13m to support Territory seniors and the Pensioner Concession Scheme; $3.7m to subsidise child care, making child care cheaper; $395 000 for additional maternity services; $500 000 for an intensive family support service; and $300 000 to support seven new remote youth services. Budget 2005 supports families and sees no increases in charges.
Lifestyle and environment: Territorians enjoy a great lifestyle. Budget 2005 continues the Martin government’s strong backing of that lifestyle. A capital grant of $5m will be provided in 2005-06 for Stage 1 of the Palmerston Recreation Centre.
Additional funding of $750 000 per annum will be provided from 2005-06 to the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory for ongoing development.
Continued additional funding of $500 000 will be provided to support sporting events in the Territory. The Martin government has an outstanding record of bringing world-class sport to Territorians, and we will continue that in 2005-06. Funding of $300 000 will be provided to assist elite Territory athletes to compete at national and international levels.
Funding of $140 000 will provide additional bus services for public housing seniors villages in Darwin and Palmerston.
$500 000 is provided for a program of multicultural development, and $700 000 for the Multicultural Affairs Sponsorship and Grants program.
Increased funding of $1.2m has been provided for recurrent Territory park management operations, and management of the new Channel Point Recreation Reserve.
Other capital investments include: $5.8m for the Darwin Soccer Stadium; $3.8m for the Hidden Valley Raceway upgrade, which includes eight additional pit garages for the V8 Supercar event; $800 000 for the Alice Springs Drag Strip; and $500 000 for improved recreational fishing infrastructure.
Regional initiatives: the government is committed to continue strong support for Territorians living in our regions. The government provides power, water, sewerage services, aerodromes and barge landings in remote indigenous communities through the Indigenous Essential Services program. The payment to the Power and Water Corporation for providing these services will increase by $1.2m to $47m. The government will employ a Regional Government Coordinator for the West Arnhem region based in Jabiru, and a coordinator at Nhulunbuy to assist with development opportunities and obligations in regard to the Alcan expansion. The government has committed to significant capital expenditure in the regions. Some of the projects include:
Budget 2005 backs Territorians. It delivers less tax, local jobs, and better skills. It is pro-business, pro-jobs, and pro-growth. This budget outlines tax cuts totalling $40m. It takes on the task of training another 10 000 Territorians, and it provides more local jobs through $476m of infrastructure spending. The budget delivers a healthier Territory, better educational outcomes, and a safer community. It tackles violence and antisocial behaviour. Budget 2005 strengthens our great Territory lifestyle. It backs Territorians on a continued path of growth and development. This budget builds on four years of strong economic management and hard work by the Martin government. Much has been achieved; there is much more to do.
Madam Speaker, I commend this budget to the House and to all Territorians.
Debate adjourned.
Continued from 23 March 2005.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I will be brief. We support this bill. When the Attorney-General first introduced it in Alice Springs, I was very excited because I thought it might have contained a number of things that lawyers believe should be amended when it comes to statute law reform. However, this was not it.
Having gone through not only the second reading speech but the particular parts of the 11 or 12 items of legislation to which it refers along with the very helpful explanatory statement, it was clear to me and, in turn, my colleagues, that the right thing to do would be to support this bill. There is no reason for us not to support it. I do not think I have missed anything. This statute law reform involves, for someone considering it, really joining the dots. There were 11 items of legislation involved and I needed to track each one. To the best of my ability, I cannot see that there is any sensible reason to oppose it.
I ask that the Attorney-General take my comments as they are intended and, with those remarks, I conclude my comments.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I only have a short comment to make regarding a section which might need clarification. Under clause 19, which is the amendment of section 177 of the Consumer Affairs and Fair Trading Act, ‘Disqualifications resulting from revocation, cancellation or suspension of licence’, you have said that the original penalties are $5000 and $25 000. The amended penalties are 500 and 2500 penalty units. That is, they are actually reduced. Yet, in your explanatory statement, you say that the penalties have been increased. Is that an error or was that intended to be a reduction in the penalty?
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I am sorry for my tardiness. I had to seek advice. First, I thank the opposition for their support for the bill and I counsel the shadow to not get overexcited about legislation. It can be very threatening to health.
To take the member for Nelson’s position, the amendment regarding section 177, ‘Disqualifications resulting from revocation, cancellation or suspension of licence’, as you quite rightly pointed out, it is adjusting the penalties from dollars to penalty units. This amendment actually corrects an error. The penalties should always have been 500 penalty units and 2500 penalty units for a body corporate.
The drafting error occurred when the National Competition Policy amendments were passed in 2002, so if the explanatory notes are saying it is an increase, it is actually increasing to what was the intended penalty. We are not raising or lowering them; we are putting it back to what the intended penalty was when it was not drafted correctly into the bill when we introduced it under the National Competition Policy process.
Having dealt with that member’s issue, we can move on, and I can foreshadow we will be doing a quick amendment in committee.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Mr CHAIRMAN: The committee has before it the Justice Portfolio (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill (Serial 283) together with a Schedule of Amendment No 99 circulated by the Minister for Justice, Dr Toyne.
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole.
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 99.1, which amends clause 56. Proposed section 102A of the Sentencing Act will provide that on making an order under sections 11 or 13, which is release on bond provisions; section 34, which is regarding community work orders; section 40, suspended sentence; or section 44, home detention order, the offender must not leave the precincts of the court without signing the order and a police officer may, without warrant, arrest an offender who the member suspects on reasonable grounds has failed to sign the order.
This amendment will add section 78K to the list of orders to which the proposed section 102A will apply. Section 78K provides that:
Section 78K will be included for the sake of consistency with the other provisions dealing with the making of conditional orders.
Amendment agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Continued from 23 March 2005.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, the opposition supports this legislation. I thank the Chief Minister for providing explanatory notes and Woodside for the briefing.
The trans-Territory pipeline, TTP, is a proposed 940 km underground pipeline development designed to transport natural gas from the Blacktip gas field in the Joseph Bonaparte Gulf 250 km south of Darwin to the Gove Peninsula in north-east Arnhem Land.
TTP has the potential to provide economic and social advantage to the Northern Territory and will also provide environmental improvements as a result of the transfer from fuel oil to natural gas at the Alcan Gove alumina refinery.
TTP provides the vital gas transportation link between the Blacktip gas facility and the Alcan Gove refinery. The gas will be sourced from the Blacktip gas field and will be treated onshore at a proposed gas plant near Wadeye as part of the Blacktip project. The TTP will commence at the eastern boundary of the proposed Blacktip gas plant and will terminate north of the Alcan Gove refinery on the Gove Peninsula. Alcan is currently expanding the Gove alumina refinery and is seeking to convert the plant’s primary fuel source and operations from fuel oil to natural gas.
A conditional sales agreement was signed on 5 November 2004 with the Blacktip project for the supply of natural gas to Alcan’s Gove alumina refinery, for the supply of 800 petajoules of natural gas from the Blacktip gas field over a 20-year period starting in 2007. The GSA is conditional upon a number of milestones, all of which are expected to be reached by the end of May 2005.
In March 2004, the Commonwealth government granted major project facilitation status to the TTP project and the Blacktip project. In regards to that, the purpose of this legislation is to make special provision in connection with the trans-Territory pipeline and Blacktip projects. The legislation creates new statutory rights to cross roads and waterways with ministerial approval; provides a mechanism to enable future persons responsible for construction and operation of the facilities comprising the projects to rely on the authority certificates issued in connection with the projects under the Northern Territory Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act; and the regulation of the Blacktip onshore gas plant by the Waste Management and Pollution Control Act.
It is necessary legislation and builds on the legislation that was put in place to facilitate the AustralAsia Railway project. The opposition supports the legislation.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I was not expecting any controversy over this legislation and am pleased that the opposition is supporting it. This kind of legislation for a major project such as the trans-Territory pipeline, the details of which were so well outlined by the Leader of the Opposition, mirrors legislation for other major projects. I suppose the last legislation of its kind was for the AustralAsia Railway, the same statutory rights were part of that legislation, and the Merlin diamond and Granites gold mines. All those major projects have had special legislation to facilitate them.
The important thing to remember is that while this legislation will give the trans-Territory pipeline operators rights to cross roads and waterways, they are subject to Territory legislation and to ministerial approval. There are two items of critical legislation here: the Control of Roads Act and the Water Act. They will remain in place. There were some issues raised about them, but they will be in place and, importantly, environmental controls and ministerial consent will be required.
Another act referred to in this legislation is the Northern Territory Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act and an important component of the legislation is that certificates issued under that legislation will be able to be relied on by future owners - not just the present joint venturers, but future owners of the pipeline. That is an important security to have for such a major investment for the Territory.
Also, it is important to note here - and issues were raised about this legislation by the Territory’s Environment Centre - that the Territory’s Waste Management and Pollution Control Act will apply to the Blacktip onshore gas plant, which is to be built near Wadeye, and this project is subject to the strictest environmental impact statements. It is not as though there is an environmental free-for-all. There are strict guidelines. Ministerial consent is needed for the 940 km of the pipeline. Any kind of waterway or road crossing will be made according to our legislation.
This legislation reminds us how important these major projects are to the Territory. We have been talking about the growth in jobs numbers associated with projects like the G3 expansion at Alcan and the LNG plant. This project has hundreds of workers involved, and represents major expenditure into the Territory’s economy of $1bn in building offshore and onshore. It is a very exciting project. I look forward to final investment decisions. At this stage, it looks as though that will be happening within the month. I thank the House for the support for this important piece of legislation and, yes, I hope it happens quickly.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Continued from 2 December 2004.
Ms CARTER (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, not one member of this House would not hold serious concerns about the harm being caused to people from drug abuse.
Those sitting opposite like to carry on as though they hold the moral high ground on this issue, but we all know their claim is tenuous and that, over many years, the previous CLP government strove to tackle drug issues and had world-renowned success, particularly in the area of alcohol abuse.
When the minister rose to introduce this bill and launched straight into slinging off at the CLP’s position of making the sniffing of volatile substances illegal by calling the idea ‘stupid’, there goes the often hoped-for bipartisan approach to this issue. That is a shame because, as I said from the beginning, we all care greatly about this problem.
I am a member of this parliament’s substance abuse committee. Over the past three years, we have travelled to many places in the Territory and, in a number of those places, the issue of petrol sniffing was very real and traumatic to that community. After one meeting out bush, we left the meeting room only to be met by a happy young boy, leaning on our car sniffing from a can. He was about eight years old. I hate to think what his future holds.
Late last year, half the committee - the members for Nightcliff, Katherine and I - travelled to Brisbane for briefings from experienced service providers on the issue of urban drug use problems. Chroming and volatile substance use were key topics during our study. What we learnt was that, although alcohol abuse is still the biggest problem, the number of people sniffing volatile substances continues to grow. The substances sniffed include paint thinners, dry cleaning fluids, degreasers, petrol, glues, felt-tip markers, spray paint - and the term ‘chroming’ refers to paint being inhaled after being sprayed into a plastic bag - deodorant, hair spray, insect spray, halothane, nitrous oxide and amyl nitrate. The key factors that increase the chance that substances like these are used include their easy accessibility and comparative low cost.
The major concern is that, although sniffing in Brisbane was not as prevalent amongst young people as alcohol misuse, the harm caused by the high toxicity of the substances used was the key problem. A person who is intoxicated with one of these drugs, such as petrol, often displays antisocial and high-risk behaviour.
A publication provided to the committee in Brisbane was entitled Sniffing Around the Valley, which was reported by the Brisbane Youth Service. It was published in 2003. On page 9 of this report, we were advised that:
Several months ago, the substance abuse committee met with Dr Cheree Cairney who presented her recent findings which indicated that, in many cases, once a person ceases to sniff petrol, their cognitive function can improve to a degree over time.
The toxic nature of the substances which are inhaled -and in the Territory petrol is the key problem - the damage caused and the fact that the damage may not be permanent must spur us on to do all we can to prevent sniffing and the problems it causes.
Harmful levels of drug use are often a symptom of other problems facing a person. As we know, harmful drugs - be it legal, such as alcohol, or illegal, such as heroin - are used to help people escape their reality. In the case of volatile substances, research - and I am referring to the document I have already mentioned - indicates that those personal problems tend to include lower socioeconomic status and social disadvantage, family dysfunction and less family support, mental health problems, having suffered child abuse, concurrent polydrug use and general antisocial behaviour.
The key, therefore, to addressing sniffing is, in the long term, to prevent it from happening by improving the socioeconomic circumstances of the community, by strengthening families so they are able to support their young people, by providing comprehensive mental health services, and preventing child abuse. In the short term, we need to work to provide sniffers with the opportunity to quit sniffing …
Excuse me, Madam Speaker, may I ask that the clock be turned on?
Madam SPEAKER: Certainly.
Ms CARTER: Thank you. That brings me to this legislation, the Volatile Substances Abuse Prevention Bill. We, on this side of the House, will not be opposing it, but my prediction is that any positive outcomes from its passage will be minimal, if any, and that, generally speaking, it will create a lot of headaches. I hope the government will agree to review its effect in 12 months, and change it as needed. I can assure members that this is what the CLP will do if elected to government later this year.
I will raise a number of points now and pursue them later when we examine this bill in committee. The Volatile Substance Abuse Prevention Bill sets up holes which sniffers will quickly discover, and immediately drive trucks through. The classic is clause 8 which outlines where police or so-called ‘authorised others’ can exercise their power. According to this section, the police or the authorised others can only take action such as tipping out petrol if the sniffer is in a public place, is trespassing on private property or on a private premise if consent to enter the premises is given to the police by the occupier or owner of the premises.
This raises the question: what if a 13-year-old sniffer is at home with his young mates? Mum has gone for a few weeks, and grandma is meant to be in charge. Grandma is scared stiff of the sniffer and his mates. When police turn up, the sniffer tells them to clear off, nicely, and grandma concurs. What can the police do? Nothing, according to this bill. How representative do you think that scenario is of the reality in many parts of the Territory? Pretty representative, I say, and this is why I predict this legislation will have little effect. It is a Clayton’s attempt to address petrol sniffing.
We have to ask ourselves why it is, looking at the Orders of the Day, that this legislation has been scheduled for today of all days: the day the budget has been brought down. This government has lauded this legislation for many months. There have been many opportunities to address this legislation in previous sittings; there are opportunities tomorrow and on Thursday to do it. But, no, it sneaks in here today when the public is far more interested, I would argue, in the budget and what is going on there. If the media and public took notice of this legislation and this debate, they would be sorely disappointed at what is being proposed. This is why I believe it is going to be ineffective, and it is a disappointment to me that our scrutiny is probably going to have very little impact on the public. People living in remote communities think the government said they were going to fix the petrol sniffing problem, and the police are going to have some input now, but you will find in 12 months time that very little has changed.
The minister went on about how Labor is banning petrol sniffing with this legislation, but I ask: how? Only if you are out doing it on the footy field, not if you are at grandma’s because she is not going to let the police have anything to do with what young Johnny is doing in the back room.
Similarly, have a look at clause 19. This deals with when a sniffer can be apprehended by police. Needless to say, if the sniffer is inside private premises and the police are not given permission to enter, that will be the end of it. This need to get permission is a great escape clause, and this is what you end up with when you do not make the sniffing of a substance such as petrol illegal, as is the case with cannabis, smoking of which is illegal. If that certain aroma is wafting out of a window, the police wandering by on a foot patrol can just walk in and say: ‘Well, what do we have here?’ But not with petrol, not if grandma stands at the front door and says: ‘Clear off’. That is the end of it.
When I had my briefing from the minister’s staff on this matter, I raised my concerns about clause 8 and the need for the police to have permission to enter private premises. I was advised that the reason they cannot do it without permission is to protect people on the premises from the police. There is the loophole for sniffers. I question the fact that so-called ‘banning’ petrol sniffing is not going to have any effect. We know the damage caused by petrol sniffing. If you compare it with the damage caused by the smoking of marijuana, you would be hard pushed to find anyone who would argue that petrol sniffing is safer than the use of marijuana, yet marijuana smoking is illegal. It appears to me that the government has no problem with that situation, yet they are prepared to let the situation stand: marijuana smoking is illegal, petrol sniffing is not and we are going to hope for the best in the years to come.
It would be interesting to know whether or not houses on Aboriginal communities are classified as private premises. I do not know the answer to that. As most petrol sniffing currently happens on Aboriginal communities, the status of their houses would impact on this problem. Perhaps the minister, when she responds to what members say today, could enlighten us. Are houses on Aboriginal communities designated as private premises? Is it a fact that, if the person who has control of the house stands at the front door and denies entrance to the police, is that the end of it? Is that what this legislation means?
This legislation will put a great deal of responsibility onto our valued police force. There is significant emphasis placed on, for example, protective custody and the need for the sniffer only to be held until it reasonably appears they will not pose a risk. Given that many sniffers could be quite young and/or in a highly agitated state, I hope that the police are supported and resourced adequately to cope with this demand. We are all very aware of the findings of the Aboriginal Deaths In Custody report and the need for significant vigilance by the police with regards to alcohol and adults. Now we have legislated roles for police dealing primarily with children and volatile substance use. The role of the police in implementing this action is significant and they will face difficulties with all the grey areas this so-called ‘banning’ will create.
Under this legislation, a sniffer, if caught sniffing but not on private premises, can be apprehended by the police or a so-called ‘authorised other’ and taken to a safe place such as to the care of a responsible adult or taken into protective custody. If the police think that the person is at risk of severe harm, an application can be made to the minister for the sniffer to have their physical, neurological and/or mental condition assessed by a health practitioner. The assessor can recommend treatment. The recommendation then has to go back to the minister for approval before treatment can begin.
The Department of Health and Community Services can have problems dealing with uncooperative patients. I am aware of one young girl who was living in Palmerston last year - her mum was in the paper talking about this - who, it was believed, had schizophrenia. When her mother took her to the Tamarind Centre in Darwin to be assessed, the girl would just walk out. The staff could not do anything about it so the girl was, apparently, left undiagnosed. I know that this legislation provides for the issuing of warrants by the court to enable the police to escort reluctant sniffers to places for assessment and treatment. It will be interesting to see how that works.
In her second reading speech, the minister commented on the need for protocols and guidelines to be developed between all the different agencies to make this legislation work. I wonder how many months, and possibly years, they will take to develop, and what will happen in the interim. It will be interesting to see how the two key agencies, health and police, work these things out and how well they will work in realty.
Given that, under Labor, the sniffing of petrol will not be illegal, it will be interesting to see how assessments are done and how well sniffers take to attending and participating in treatment action. I hope the minister reviews the success or otherwise of this legislation once it has been in place for 12 months. It will be interesting to hear what remote communities currently suffering from a petrol sniffing problem think of this legislation, police and health action after a year or so. My prediction is that they will not think much of it at all.
When I think back to the visit the substance abuse committee made to one remote community in Central Australia, I recall the request made by the Aboriginal people that petrol sniffing be made illegal so that the police could force the sniffers to attend an outstation for treatment. That outstation, Mt Theo, is well known and has a good success rate. The people said they wanted sniffing made illegal so that the sniffers would not blame them, their families, for sending them to the outstation. We can all understand that motive, and I agree with it. What the community people were suggesting was reasonable and seemed straightforward.
However, because sniffing cannot be made illegal - no doubt much to the dismay of the member for Sanderson who was initially quite keen on this idea until someone over there told him to pull his head in and toe the party line - we end up with a very complex, convoluted system set out in this legislation supposedly aimed at reducing the harm caused by sniffing. My prediction is that it will all prove too hard to implement. There will be too many hoops for those who care about a sniffer to struggle through, and the sniffer will find plenty of loopholes to escape through. Due to the hoops, the loops and the uncooperative nature of the sniffer, in the end, little will change. It will all be too hard and the whole thing will fall over.
The CLP’s position on this matter remains unchanged. Our plan is to make sniffing illegal, so that sniffers can be taken to appropriate treatment centres such as outstations, to empower the police to be able to dispose of the volatile substance, even if the sniffing is occurring inside a private premises, and to develop state-of-the-art treatment programs, which may include residential rehabilitation facilities. Not so many hoops, not so many loopholes. I look forward to the minister’s response to these issues, and I sincerely hope that this legislation does make a real impact on the appalling situation faced by too many in the Northern Territory. However, I do not hold out much hope.
I will pursue these issues and other matters during the committee stage, and I ask the minister in her response to outline what has been done in the last 12 months with regards to petrol sniffing. Last year, the minister heralded that, over the next five years, $10m was to be allocated to this problem. That means that during this five years, on average, $2m a year should have been spent on the problem of petrol sniffing. We are now eight weeks short of the end of the financial year. I would like the minister to outline how much money has been spent on the issue of petrol sniffing this financial year, and what that money has achieved.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, seeing that this is one of the great planks of the government’s crusade to save children from themselves and save Territorians from their own behaviour, I am nothing shy of astonished to find myself on my feet without seeing any member of the government ranks jumping on this issue, because this has gone from a central plank of their policy and advancement for Aboriginal health particularly to something that has been slid in under the radar today. The number of members opposite who are not on their feet talking about it concerns me because it deals with people in their electorates as well as people in my own.
I am going to make some observations about this bill and the mechanics of how it works. The first thing I would point out to the minister - and I would like some comment from the minister on it - is that I notice there is a requirement that people taken into custody as per section 128 of the Police Administration Act cannot have certain things done to them; that is, being charged with an offence, questioned in relation to an offence, or having photographs or fingerprints taken. I assume we well see an amendment during committee stages that will also include DNA in that list, or are we going to allow DNA to be taken during that period? That is something for you to think about between now and the committee stage. I draw the minister’s attention to clause 17(3)(c) of the bill.
I would like to talk about how this bill will work, the mechanics of it. If you create an offence called\ volatile substance abuse, what happens is that the police officer goes out and says: ‘Hello, hello, hello, what is going on here, then?’, reaches over and says: ‘You are nicked, mate. Come with me; I will take you right now before a court’, or ‘I will place you in custody until such time as you are ready to go before a court’. There is another exception to the rule of what police officers do. When someone is so intoxicated, apparently by alcohol or drug, under section 128 of the Police Administration Act, a police officer may say: ‘Hello, hello, hello, what is going on here, then? You look drunk, you are with me, mate, and I will let you go in six hours’. No charge, no investigation into an offence; you are simply locked up. Then, when you have sobered up, you are sent out the door with: ‘Have a nice day’.
This falls somewhere in between those two situations. The reason is because this government wants to do all of those things that an offence will allow you to do without actually creating an offence. We are now creating a limbo between protective custody for being intoxicated and having someone charged with an offence.
What are the mechanics of taking someone into custody when they are merely drunk? Well, the Police Administration Act says to police officers: ‘You may use reasonable force to take that person into custody’. So the police officer walks up to the drunk and says: ‘Hello, hello, hello, you are very drunk, you are coming with me, Sunshine’, and the drunk says: ‘Get nicked’. ‘Well, I am not having any of that, so I will grab you and physically throw you into the back of the cage, maybe put handcuffs on you if you require it, lock the back of the cage, and you are now in custody’. Six hours later, you are released having realised the error of your ways. In fact, it is possible to even commit an offence whilst you are intoxicated by alcohol or other drug, which means that the police officer comes up and says: ‘Hello, hello, hello, you are with me, mate’. If the bloke smacks the police officer in the face, he can be charged with an offence: assault police.
That then takes us to the other side of the way that this system works. Let us say we create an offence. The police officer goes up to the petrol sniffer who is committing an offence and he says: ‘Hello, hello, hello, you are sniffing petrol, you are with me mate’, goes back to the cells and you are immediately charged with an offence. If you are swearing in the street, you are charged with an offence under the Summary Offences Act. If you have broken someone’s window, you are charged with criminal damage under the Criminal Code. If you have murdered someone, you are charged with murder under the Criminal Code. The next thing that happens is that there is a period allowed for investigation and, bang, you are in front of the court. Then the court decides what to do with you; whether to remand you in custody or to release you on bail. There are options open to the court. If it is a minor offence, the court will deal with you at the Magistrates Court level.
What happens is that the accused or defendant ends up in front of the lower courts and the defendant says: ‘Guilty, Your Worship’, at which point His Worship can do all sorts of things, depending on what the legislation allows. Under the Sentencing Act, there is a whole bunch of things a court can do. They can throw you in gaol for having committed a crime, fine you, record a conviction, not record a conviction, or make orders as to your behaviour and conduct.
Now let us have a look at what this process will put in place. The police officer goes up to the petrol sniffer and says: ‘Hello, hello, hello, I have you for petrol sniffing. You are with me, mate, you are in custody. I then take you back to the police station but I am not allowed to throw you into the cells according to this legislation, so I have to put you somewhere else. So I will stick you in the lounge room for the moment, but wherever it has to be …’, and that is being flippant, but ‘… I will stick you in the lounge room at the moment because I cannot take you to a place of care or a hospital because I happen to be in Kintore’.
I have you sitting there in the lounge room and I am thinking: ‘What am I going to do with this person? I can hold him in protective custody for a while, or I can go and seek an order which means that I go and put them in front of the court’. Okay, so I take him to a court to seek an order. Hang on! I actually send a messenger - that is prcising the system; the message goes up the line first and an application has to be made. So I am taking the petrol sniffer, with reasonable force, if necessary, into custody, thus in one way or another depriving them of their liberty, and now I am seeking a court order as to their future behaviour. What exactly is the difference? The difference is, frankly, one little thing: the recording of the conviction against that person’s name.
Let us be a little serious about what we are talking about here. We are talking about petrol sniffers. We are talking about taking them into custody, with reasonable force, if required, which means handcuffs, locking them up. That is what is contemplated by this legislation – the use of reasonable force – and if you do not empower the police to do that, what will happen is the police officer will go up to the petrol sniffer and say: ‘Hello, hello, hello, I am taking you into custody’. The petrol sniffer says: ‘No, get knotted, I am not going’ and the police officer says: ‘Oh, all right’, and walks off. That is an absolutely ludicrous situation even so the police have been provided with reasonable force. The reasonable force provision allows the police officer to use just that – reasonable force. So this petrol sniffer is now in custody of the police officer and they can be either held over or an order can be sought for their treatment.
Why would you create a parallel bureaucracy to the existing bureaucracies and a parallel system where you are going to achieve the same outcome through the same methods with nothing other than not having a conviction recorded at the end of the day? If we are talking about kids shoving petrol up their nose, from their perspective whether the police officer charges them with an offence or not - and it is a moot point to the petrol sniffer as to whether they are in court because there is a treatment order being sought or a sentencing being handed out - is really not going to be at the forefront of the petrol sniffer’s mind.
The government justifies this non-criminal approach based on the single premise that we do not want to see these poor children end up with criminal records. I have to say, that is probably the least of their concerns if they are shoving petrol up their nose - the least of their concerns. That is the point of difference between this side and that side of the House: we understand that the system already is in place.
I would be concerned that the minister for community health, Health Minister Mark II, has other legislation within the minister’s control, and that is the Community Welfare Act. The Community Welfare Act is a pretty strange animal but, basically, it says that the legal system that we have says that you are either a victim or a villain. If you are villain, there is a criminal justice process. If you are a victim, as a child, then there is another process; that which is used to take people into care. It has been a while since I have read the act, so I will have to do it by memory but, basically, it identifies that any person under the age of 18 years is a child and that child may, from time to time, be determined to be in need of care. Then there is a whole range of definitions as to what ‘in need of care’ is, and then you have maltreatment, which is expanded upon at some length in the legislation. Surely, that legislation, when we have petrol sniffers around, is capable of being used for determining whether or not a child is in need of care. That legislation empowers the police, and any other authorised officer, roughly to do exactly what this legislation is suggesting should be done.
We then go to the next part of the approach this government is taking. They create power for treatment orders to be made and, if you do not comply with your treatment order, a warrant is issued for your arrest. What happens next is that the legislation is used to have a warrant because the person who is the subject of this court order - not a conviction, but the determination by a court that you are going to undergo this treatment program - decides to scarper, as is the want of petrol sniffers and other people from treatment programs from time to time. A warrant may be issued for that person’s apprehension and return to the treatment program. The police officer goes and gets a warrant from the court – this, by the way, is what happens when you breach a parole or another sentence of the court, even if you do not pay a fine a warrant is issued for your arrest – and grabs the little petrol sniffer again and drags him in to custody. Guess what? The police officer may use ‘reasonable force’. The police officer drags the petrol sniffer back to the treatment program and says: ‘You are staying there’, and the petrol sniffer says: ‘Na! I am going to bolt the moment you go, and get myself some petrol and stick it up my nose’. The police officer says: ‘No, you are not’ and he uses his power of reasonable force.
What does that mean? ‘Reasonable force’ means exactly that. It means handcuffs, cells – no, you cannot put them in cells according to this legislation - but it means other forms of forced deprivation of liberty, albeit lawful. We are talking about depriving people of their liberty. The legislation as we see it here …
Ms CARTER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I draw your attention to the state of the House.
Madam SPEAKER: Do we have a quorum? We have a quorum, counting me.
Ms CARTER: I withdraw that, Madam Speaker.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: The rules are that I am supposed to throw you out for calling a quorum when it is not so, member for Port Darwin. Continue, member for Macdonnell.
Mr ELFERINK: I have quite forgotten where I was, but basically we were using the …
Ms Carney interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, I think the member for Macdonnell would like to keep going.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, where were we? We were using force to keep Aboriginal and other children in custody, and we were going to use that force as reasonably required to prevent that child from escaping from custody. I wonder, from a petrol sniffer’s perspective, whether they are handcuffed under this or any other legislation, it makes one jot of difference to their attitude. The minister may say: ‘We are not going to use handcuffs’, but you are because your bill allows it.
There is one other concern I have about this legislation and I look forward to the minister explaining it to us. It is the management plan material whereby the legislation allows for the creation of a management plan, which is a little zone marked out in the Northern Territory. Someone carefully squiggles out a line on a map and says that, in that area they are going to have a special management plan and it is going to relate to how you produce or supply volatile substances in those communities. Everyone sits together and has a chat about the management plan that is going to be created, and that management plan will then operate in the area drawn out on the map and will apply to everyone in that area. It is curious that it carries a penalty for contravention of the management plan, and I will quote the clause. It is a very long and difficult clause, which is why I have to quote it at length:
Having come to terms with this long and difficult clause, we are being asked by this minister to accept that a management plan becomes pseudo legislation inasmuch as a person can go to gaol for six months for breaching one of these management plans. This is what the minister is asking us to do. She is saying: ‘We do not have any management plans in place, we do not even have the bones of one, we have a rough idea of what might happen and we want you, as legislators, to pass legislation that makes it an offence to contravene a management plan we have not seen yet, and really do not know what it looks like’. That is a big ask.
I will take it on faith on this occasion that the minister will remain fully in control of this process. However, considering that it is legislation whereby we are, effectively, creating subordinate legislation with these management plans - whether or not they will be tabled in this House come the time that the management plans go into force so at least we have some way of knowing how those management plans will operate. We do that already with Police General Orders, council by-laws, those sorts of things. I would like to hear that the minister will place those management plans before the House so that we, and future parliaments, will be able to examine them so we know exactly what people will be contravening.
Something else I would like to know is whether or not the minister can explain to this House contravention of a management plan will be a regulatory offence. It is a very important question, so I expect a response from the minister. A regulatory offence is one of those absolute offences. We commit them from time to time. As motorists we have all sorts of regulatory offences such as wearing a seat belt, and it is an absolute offence. It is one that you either commit or you do not. Breaking the speed limit is a regulatory offence. The very flavour and nature of a regulatory offence is that the offence must be of a fairly minor nature and does not carry a major social impact on you as a person if you are convicted of it. Those are the sorts of yardsticks that a court will use in relation to regulatory offences.
This offence will allow a magistrate to put someone in gaol for up to six months for contravening a management plan. There is a big social hoo-do around someone who has gone to gaol; it affects their future. I hope that the minister can tell the House whether a regulatory offence applies in this case; in which case I have grave reservations about the operation of this legislation or whether, in fact, they will be dealt with as simple offences, summary offences or crimes. This is a very important distinction because, if you have a summary offence determination, then a whole bunch of excuse provisions under the Criminal Code open up to you. If you are at risk of going to gaol, there needs to be the ability for a person charged with an offence under this act to be able to rely on the excuse, justification or authorisation provisions provided by the Criminal Code. If those provisions do not apply, which most of them do not in terms of regulatory offences, then I have reservations about the use of imprisonment for a person who breaches a management plan.
Madam Speaker, as indicated, we will not be opposing this bill, but it is those areas that require explanation by the minister. I look forward to debate from other members opposite so that we can flesh out some more of these issues and we may examine some of them in the committee stage of the bill.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, at the outset, I agree with the comments made by the members for Port Darwin and Macdonnell.
I find it astounding that the members for Sanderson and Millner are not making a contribution, because the member for Sanderson, it seemed to me at least, considered himself something of an expert when it came to sniffing. In fact, it was he who said only months ago that it should be made illegal. It was only weeks ago that the member for Millner issued a pamphlet around his electorate saying that, indeed, petrol sniffing was illegal. Alas, someone needed to grab him. He has this habit of going off by himself and mucking up. We are close to an election. I suggest that his polling and, indeed, the poll for the member for Sanderson, would not be good. Perhaps that is why they are not participating today because their illustrious leader has said to them: ‘No, every time you open your mouth you get it wrong, so do not do anything, just come out the back and leave it for others’.
It is important that I remind people that the member for Sanderson said: ‘We want to make petrol sniffing illegal’ - his words, not mine. In April last year, the Attorney-General was quoted in the Northern Territory News as ‘ruling out a ban on petrol sniffing’. He said it would be counterproductive. In October last year, when we debated a preceding bill - that is, the one we introduced - the Minister for Family and Community Services said that she would be banning petrol sniffing. Then, in December 2004, she said: ‘We are effectively banning petrol sniffing’. It is all over the place, Madam Speaker.
I said when we last talked about petrol sniffing in this Chamber that I could not find the word ‘ban’ in my legal dictionary because it is not a concept generally known to the law; either something is legal or it is not. This is gammon language; this is gammon about banning sniffing.
Members of the Australian Labor Party would have been delighted with a headline in the Centralian Advocate some time ago which said that the government would make sniffing illegal. I have done my darnedest, along with my colleagues, to tell the people of Central Australia that that is not what this government intends. That is the major difference between the ALP and the CLP. Both parties were at one in almost every respect; that is, everyone in this Chamber had a genuine commitment, a very sincere commitment, as I read it - I know I did and my colleagues did - to get stuck into petrol sniffing and, as a parliament, see what we could do.
We issued a position paper. It was only a few weeks later that Labor made their announcement. We play politics all the time about the timing of things. However, on balance, I was not upset that Labor pinched our policy because it reflected our collective commitment to try to do something to assist petrol sniffers and, in essence, make them live longer and lead better and healthier lives. The only difference between the two parties was this business about making it illegal.
Members will remember that, when I introduced a bill some time ago on this very issue, I argued at length why it should be made illegal …
Mr Dunham: Persuasively and passionately.
Ms CARNEY: Persuasively and passionately, thank you, member for Drysdale. I said it should be made illegal for a number of reasons. One was that we needed to send a strong message to people who sniff. I asked why it was not reasonable to send such a message. We say to young people - and let us face it, most sniffers, certainly in Central Australia where I come from, are young people - as a society: ‘Do not take drugs, do not do this, do not do that. Do not take drugs because they will fry you brains’. Yet, we say: ‘Feel free to sniff as much petrol as you like’. What is wrong with sending a message, I asked.
It was also the case that we know that some communities have called for the right to make sniffing illegal, so this is an issue that affects all of us. We have indigenous and non-indigenous Territorians sharing a view. Not everyone shares that view, but we have black and white people saying together that sniffing should be made illegal. I said at the time that it is illegal to sell and supply products for the purposes of sniffing, yet it is ironic that the act of sniffing itself is not made illegal. I said that action needs to be taken not only for the protection of sniffers, but also for those who are the victims of the crimes they are committing. Let us face it: sniffers are on a collision course with the criminal justice system.
I outlined at length aspects of the Territory’s juvenile diversion program. I quoted from police documents that outlined the purpose of diversion programs for juveniles. This was not about sending kids to gaol; it was about getting them before a court and having them diverted. The fact that there are so few juveniles in custody at the moment shows that courts in the Territory are reluctant to send juveniles to gaol; they would prefer and, indeed have an obligation, to divert them.
When we came out and said let us make it illegal, we did it for the purpose of protecting sniffers, to ensure that there was a formal mechanism by which they could be dealt with. Now, under this government’s gammon proposal, there is not really a formal mechanism, although I will come to the bill shortly. It is important that I say that all of us were at one, and are at one, in our commitment to do what we can for petrol sniffers. Why it is that the Australian Labor Party has such an aversion to making it illegal, I do not know. I suspect it stems from a philosophical objection to having the carrot and the stick approach; the stick being the ultimate sanction of gaol for recalcitrant offenders.
In any event, had it been the case that government, in these bills, came up with a thoughtful, considered bill that was not, in my view at least, flawed in some respects, I would not have been all that unhappy. I would have lived with the fact that they are the government and we are the opposition. We want to make petrol sniffing illegal, they do not. However, if we were three-quarters of the way there, I would have been sleeping reasonably well at night. So I was fairly excited when I saw the Volatile Substance Abuse Prevention Bill.
Alas, it falls well short for some of the reasons that I will outline shortly, and I note that the members for Port Darwin and Macdonnell have gone through some areas, so I will deal with the substance - no pun intended - of the bill shortly. Before doing so, however, it is appropriate that I remind members of the Minister for Family and Community Services’ scrambley media release dated 1 October 2004. This was the one issued, it seemed to us at least, at the 11th hour, not long after our discussion paper was released. She said petrol sniffing will be banned in the Northern Territory. She sought to outline a number of ways that the Volatile Substance Abuse Prevention Bill - and it was not introduced then; remember, this was before the parliamentary committee released its findings, so, the minister pre-empted the findings of the committee – and, in attachments to her media release, waxed lyrical about how it might work.
There are a number of things I could take issue with and I have referred to this in the past in this Chamber; however I will do it again because it is instructive. In the attachment to her media release of 1 October 2004, the minister answered the question that she posed. The question was: what if a sniffer refuses treatment? She answered along these lines: the government will work with families and communities to encourage voluntary treatment for chronic users. She went on to say:
Mr Dunham: We could have awards, encouragement awards.
It is very concerning that the minister pre-empted her own committee’s findings, that she issued a media release and attached documents to it that rambled on about what this bill would have in it, having no regard to the difficulties, and some would say the illogical substance, of the documents themselves. I have some problems with some parts of the bill. We will be going into committee and I relish, as I know the member for Port Darwin does, that opportunity.
Referring to some of the things that the minister said in her second reading speech when she introduced this bill so many months ago. I have forgotten when it was, but it seems …
Ms Carter: December.
Ms CARNEY: December! It seems like an eternity. Again, it is interesting, is it not, that arguably on the eve of an election this bill comes up, but odd that it should come up on budget day. If members of the government really believe that this bill is going to save the world as they know it in the context of petrol sniffing, I would have thought they would give their bill the respect that they would think it deserves by giving it some clear air space. However, that is not the case.
The minister said in her second reading speech in December, and I quote:
And I will come back to that:
I ask: if government were serious and if this was well thought-out legislation, would government have provided those procedures or details or examples of them by way of an explanatory memorandum, for instance, when the bill was introduced? Might the minister have considered the practical implementation and the mechanics of the bill prior to introducing it? It does not appear as though she has. The minister also said in her second reading speech:
We ask: why have these things not been worked out now? How does the minister envisage the act will work, and when? I suggest that it is quite pointless for an act of parliament to become law when the mechanics of that legislation are not worked out in advance. It is difficult for lawyers and everyone administering the act. I would have thought that any government worth its salt that is fair dinkum about legislative reform of any type would have given consideration to these sorts of things, not just popped it in a second reading speech that, in essence, says: ‘Trust us’. To that, I simply say: ‘Not good enough’.
In relation to the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill, I note that the definition of ‘volatile substances’ is removed. It does not change the existing definition in any substantial way, but it does move the definition from the Misuse of Drugs Act to the Volatile Substance Abuse Prevention Bill, and I have no difficulty with that per se.
It repeals all of section 18 of the Misuse of Drugs Act, which is the section that prescribes a $2000 penalty or two years gaol for anyone who sells or supplies a volatile substance when they know that someone else is going to administer it. That section has basically been moved to become clause 52 in the Volatile Substance Prevention Bill, not of itself something with which we could quibble.
Clause 3 of the Volatile Substance Abuse Prevention Bill lists the objects, which you could say are self-serving. In any event, the objects are all listed and be it on government’s head because, if this legislation does not achieve the objectives set out therein, I would have thought even this government, members of which appear not to ever be embarrassed about much of what they do, might ultimately be embarrassed. We will need to come back in due course and see whether the aims and objectives of this bill have been met. I do not think that they will. I wish they would because that is an outcome that all 25 of us want to see. I do sincerely wish the government well, but I do have some difficulties. I do not think this bill will achieve what government wants it to achieve.
From now on, I will be referring solely to the Volatile Substance Abuse Prevention Bill. I note that in clause 4, the standard definition clause, the word ‘minister’ is not defined. Ordinarily, you would not have thought that the word ‘minister’ does need to be defined, but I raise this issue: which minister? Is it the Minister for Health, or is it the Minister for Family and Community Services? Is this a problem? I do not know. Could it be? Perhaps. Perhaps the minister could answer that in the course of her reply. If she does not, I will certainly ask her about that in committee.
‘Authorised person’ is contained in clause 60. I have some difficulties with the authorised person provisions. The minister will know, as will her colleagues, that this has come in for some criticism from some people who work in this area. The problem is that the minister can appoint a person to be an authorised person who can exercise a range of powers in the same way police officers can.
Under clause 62, it says that the minister may issue guidelines in relation to the exercise of powers, and they may include a code of conduct. I would like the minister, if she would, perhaps in her reply although we can do it in committee, to go deeper and explain what is meant by that. When it says the minister ‘may issue guidelines’, I wonder whether the minister has given any thought to issuing those guidelines now, yesterday, tomorrow, whether they will be issued. I would have thought it is good practice to have those guidelines in place at a relatively early time, and I ask why they are not in place or why criteria for an authorised person or for the powers they exercise is not in the act.
Given what the retiring member for Arnhem has said about dysfunctional Aboriginal communities, it seems to me that it could be argued that, unless guidelines exist and are very specific, they will not serve any purpose, and it is possible that a conflict may arise within communities as to who does have the appropriate level of respect and authority to be called an ‘authorised person’. If the minister is minded to provide guidelines, can she indicate when they will be provided and when they will be made public?
The powers for an authorised person exist under Part 2, Division 2 of the bill. Police officers, as we know, have powers to search and seize and, under this proposal, so do other authorised people appointed by the minister. They will have power to do the same thing. Is this reasonable? Given the dysfunction in some Aboriginal communities, there will be a conflict. Who is the right person? Is it simply a person who the minister may know? Is that appropriate? Maybe; maybe not. Is it a staffer or someone from the department who contacts the minister and says: ‘I reckon this bloke or this woman would be really good to be an authorised person in community X’? Government is leaving itself wide open to the wrong people being authorised people when the door is so open. I wonder whether the minister did consider or, in the alternative, would consider, closing it a bit by providing the guidelines now, or even contemplating an amendment to the legislation.
What training, if any, will an authorised person receive? What qualifications, if any, might an authorised person be required to hold? I say again: might it not lead to abuse and, perhaps, corruption inside Aboriginal communities? I do not know. It might. As a member of this House, I have said it before and I will say it again: my life is too short not to come in here and say what I think in relation to various legislation. It is what I am paid to do.
In relation to Part 2, Division 3, which are the provisions that deal with apprehension, a police officer or, under this bill an authorised person, can apprehend sniffers, detain them and take them to a place of safety. I note that ‘a place of safety’ - unless I have missed something, but I do not think I have - is not defined. It is to be gazetted by the minister under clause 63. I wonder why the minister has not seen fit to define ‘a place of safety’.
Clause 23 is the clause dealing with protective custody. I assume that clause is similar to the procedures for protective custody for drunks. I ask the minister to reply to that. If she does not in her reply, I am happy to ask her in the committee stage. In other words, under this bill is the procedure for dealing with people who are in protective custody similar or identical to that in place for dealing with drunks? If it is a different, why is it different?
Clause 27(1) provides that a sniffer is to be released:
Subsection (2) is interesting. As I read it, a person does not have to be released into the care of someone else if the apprehended person is an adult and objects to being released into someone else’s care, or if the apprehended person is a child who objects to being released into the care of another person and if the police officer shares the child’s view. I simply ask: how is that intended to work? Is this logical? It just seems quite unusually worded. I believe I know what the intention of the clause is, but there are so many fall-back positions, a lot of people might be left scratching their head trying to work out how a person is to be released after being apprehended by one of these authorised persons. It just seems cumbersome, to say the least.
In clause 31 there are some definitions of a few things. Those definitions are light-on. One is an authorised officer. This person can exercise powers under this part. It says that it is a person appointed under clause 66, but clause 66 gives no details as to what experience or qualifications such a person should have. I say again: there are no guidelines provided; we do not know who an authorised officer can and will be, and we do not know who an authorised person can and will be.
These authorised persons or authorised officers have what can only be described as very significant powers under this bill. They can apprehend, apply to courts for warrants, enter a person’s residence for the purposes of apprehension and so on. They are outlined in clause 33. If the minister does not tell us that these people need to be qualified or trained in particular areas, then we would counter and say if it is good enough to have untrained, unqualified people doing this sort of stuff, why is it not the case that the government does not decide to legislate for a whole lot of authorised persons to go down to the courts, apply for warrants and take people into custody for a whole lot of other things? Why is it that authorised persons and authorised officers seem to have a whole lot of powers here that are not really defined at any length and could, I believe, lead to some abuse?
‘Treatment program’ is defined, but the definition is arguably vague. It simply says that it is a program for the treatment of a person at risk. It does not list where or what those programs are or what they might be. It does not say who will run them. It does not say whether a program has to meet any standards. Could it be a program that a few people in the bush run together? I do not know. In the absence of a definition, minister, these are legitimate questions to ask. They may not have occurred to you but, by God, they occurred to me. I look forward to your response.
I noticed that there is a reference on page 31 of Budget Paper No 2 which refers to funding to implement a service network for people with volatile substance misuse problems in conjunction with the new Volatile Substance Abuse Prevention Act. What is a ‘service network’? I do not know.
It is not just the bill. If you want to use all sorts of terms, go ahead, but can you please afford us and the people of the Northern Territory and, in particular, those charged with ruling on this legislation and those given the responsibility to work under it, the courtesy of explaining or defining what you mean by some very key terms?
The minister is smiling; good on her. It is a happy day for her, the best of British luck. Maybe she thinks this is all just rubbish; I should not ask the questions. I do not know, but these are legitimate questions and, if she does not answer them, people will make a judgment in this area. I do not think the issue of petrol sniffing, for what it is worth, is an election issue. However, I do know it is an issue for lots of parents of mainly Aboriginal young men in bush communities around the Northern Territory. If you are not going to be courteous to us, will you at least be courteous to them by providing them with fair dinkum legislation that defines and outlines what it is you are intending to do? I am sure they would be very grateful.
I am running out of time so need to speed up. Clauses 33 and 34 provide the process leading up to the obtaining of a treatment order, that requires medical assessments to be undertaken based on advice received from one of the people referred to in clause 33. Clause 33(2) states that a request:
Clause 64 is strangely vague because, instead of providing details, it merely states that the minister:
With respect, this hardly make sense and clarification will be sought in the committee stage. The questions I will ask, and courteously I am happy to put you on notice of them now, include: is it an actual form; is it a verbal request; who makes it; who is it made to; what information is provided to the minister when he or she receives a request; and I ask again: which minister?
Clause 35, the process for an authorised officer to obtain a warrant: it appears that a person can be forced into undertaking an assessment under clause 35, although how that is done is not, in my view at least, very clear. I would appreciate clarification on that point.
Clause 36, ‘Application for a treatment order’, says the minister may apply to a court for an order. I will make the point: the minister may, the minister may appoint. What is it that is trying to be achieved?
Ms CARTER: Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that my colleague be granted an extension of 10 minutes to allow her to complete her remarks.
Motion agreed to.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. Clause 41 provides for a warrant to be issued if the treatment order has been made but not complied with. The warrant will enable an authorised officer to enter a residence, etcetera, and apprehend a person. I make the point, and I think the member for Macdonnell either made it or at least alluded to it in his contribution: to issue a warrant for someone who has not committed an offence is probably unprecedented in the Northern Territory. We have people appearing before courts in the Territory every day, Monday to Friday, and it is because they have broken the law. It is because they have offended a provision in one of our many items of legislation. However, here, in this legislation, people are required to go to court or have a warrant issued against them when they have not broken any law. Who would have thought such a thing would be done by a Labor government?
Under clause 41(c), it says that a warrant:
This raises some potentially curly questions, such as: will the authorised officers be paid by government; will they have travel allowance; will they have vehicles; what department will pay for them; what happens, for example, if an authorised officer decides to stay at the community for a month waiting to find someone? It is referred to in clause 41(c), which says that an authorised officer:
Could that not lead to abuse and rorting? It may not. If the minister can assure me that it will not, then I will be happy, but I am obliged to raise these concerns.
In relation to clause 41(d), I note that it provides that if a person at risk is found, the authorised officer must apprehend them and take the person to a place specified in the treatment order to participate in the treatment program. However, the bill, as I understand it, is silent on how that is done. It is a bundle of words, but it does not provide the mechanics, in my view at least, as to how the intention of that clause or, indeed, the bill is to be carried out.
In relation to clause 41(6), it says that a person assisting the authorised officer to execute the warrant may also use reasonable force in doing so. This is potentially very dangerous for both sides; for the authorised person and for the sniffer and, indeed, you would have thought, for the friends and family of the sniffer. Police officers are able to use reasonable force in particular circumstances. These are police officers who are well trained and work in a hierarchal organisation. They know all about reasonable force; it is drummed into them. Occasionally in jurisdictions throughout this country, newspapers have as their front page news stories of instances of officers having, on occasion, used more than reasonable force. Civil libertarians scream blue bloody murder whenever this happens. Yet, we have in this bill the ability for an authorised officer - and the bill is silent as to their training, their qualifications, anything about them, how they are appointed, except that the minister may appoint them - to use reasonable force in executing a warrant. That is very dangerous, and I will sleep well tonight now that I have put my concern on the Parliamentary Record.
Other questions to ask are: is it envisaged that the authorised officer can delegate his or her powers? I note that is not referred to in the bill. If an authorised person can delegate their power, to whom and on what basis? If not, who can such an authorised officer ask to assist them? Is it possible that they cannot ask anyone to assist them? There are certainly no guidelines in place, so it is looking more and more murky.
I note that the authorised officer is issued with an identity card under clause 66 but, if anyone is able to assist the authorised officer, what processes are in place? Are they issued with an identity card so that people around know that is a person in authority - yes, there is the card, they are able to perform a number of functions, they are able to act in a particular way and they have delegated it to someone else who also has an identity card? It is just not good enough. It is very, very vague.
In summary, in relation to treatment orders, I am concerned about the definition of a treatment program in clause 31. I am concerned that it is so vague. It is hard to see how an order will actually be enforced. Even though the minister can apply for an order that the sniffer must participate in a treatment program pursuant to clause 35, I am troubled about how it is actually going to work. Prior to that, if a sniffer refuses to submit to an assessment, it is up to an authorised officer to make an application to a court for a warrant - again in pursuance of clause 35 - and that will force the sniffer to undergo the assessment. Then, if a sniffer has to undergo treatment but refuses, the authorised officer has to go to court to get a warrant - this is under clause 41 - and then they take the sniffer to the program wherever and whatever it may be. It is so dreadfully unclear. I am really looking forward to the minister’s reply.
I also ask, perhaps more in passing than anything else: can the authorised officer appear in court themselves? If so, is that a good thing? If not, surely it follows as a matter of logic that the person would need to appoint a lawyer. Which lawyer? Will it be a law firm that will need to tender for government work? Those of you familiar with the tendering process will know it is a cab rank system, so that a bundle of law firms get government work and they take it in turns of appearing at court. Will it work like that? Will an authorised officer simply be able to rock up to CAALAS or NAALAS and say: ‘Can I have a lawyer to represent me?’ If they do, who pays? This is all terribly unclear. I am hopeful that the minister, who I think I can hear groaning in the background, will fill us in. If she fills us in and answers all of the questions, I will be a happy camper.
I say again: there are 25 people in this Assembly who are all very serious about this issue. I know the 24 of you pretty well and, despite our political differences, there is a sameness about us; we are united in doing what we can. However, for as long as I am standing, I must ensure that I raise legitimate issues about legislation. I have done it before and I will continue to do so.
In conclusion, my main objections involve not making sniffing an offence, and we have a fundamental difference about that issue. In addition, we have difficulty with ‘authorised person’ and ‘authorised officer’, and those positions are, I believe, potentially open to abuse. Government should do better. The other main difficulty is that there are no sanctions if a person refuses to undergo a treatment order. They are the same arguments we used when we debated our sniffing bill some months ago.
Finally, despite all the government’s spin and propaganda, the word ‘ban’ is not here, unless I have missed something that is not contained in the bill. The bill makes it clear that sniffing is not an offence. It seems to me, therefore, that all this bill does is to provide a wishful framework for treatment that has no sanctions at all.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I wish the minister well. I look forward to the committee stage. She might not think my questions are reasonable. If so, please do me the courtesy of telling me why they are unreasonable. I hope that this legislation is all you want it to be because if this saves lives, this is great. Please note my comments in the spirit in which they are intended.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, it is a tricky subject to talk about because it is easy to make an allegation that, when people like the ALP bring matters like this on, it is really to drive a wedge between blackfellas and whitefellas in this country. That is an allegation that was made in Alice Springs only recently when I talked about petrol sniffing.
Such was the discussion that I am quite happy to read it into the Parliamentary Record. I am sure you will remember it because you were in the Chair at the time. However, it still leaves me a little perplexed, so it is probably worth reading back in. This is from the Wednesday in Alice Springs. I am quoting the member for Barkly who is talking about me:
A which stage I stood up and said to you, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker:
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, I will caution you not to reflect on any decisions of the Chair.
Mr DUNHAM: I am quoting form Hansard. I am not; I am reading from Hansard verbatim.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, I caution you not to reflect on any decisions of the Chair.
Mr DUNHAM: Okay.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: You are on a warning, member for Drysdale.
Mr DUNHAM: I shall continue to read verbatim from Hansard, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, I will not state it again.
Mr DUNHAM: Would you like me to read directly from Hansard, or is that forbidden? I seek your judgment. May I read directly from Hansard?
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Are you reflecting on …
Mr DUNHAM: Thank you!
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, are you reflecting on a decision of the Chair?
Mr DUNHAM: I am reading directly from …
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, I am asking you: are you reflecting on a decision of the Chair?
Mr DUNHAM: No, I am not. I am reading verbatim from Hansard.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Then you may proceed.
Mr DUNHAM: I am not a bit embarrassed about it. You said:
To which I said:
You said:
To which you responded:
To which I said:
You said:
So I am very pleased to stand here and speak about petrol sniffing because I have been wanting to do this for some time. It is good that the debate has been brought on. I read, earlier this year, the current minister claim in a media release that she was attempting to obtain $10m from the Commonwealth to match her $10m, for a $20m program for petrol sniffing. It is in that context I talked about other remedies for this problem because some of this grappling for legislative solutions, some of the things that are being done, are poor remedies. They will not achieve what we want to do. If you have $20m at your disposal, you can do much better. This is not good enough! It is not good enough, and there is no good running a racial campaign, for instance on me, who stands up and says: ‘This is a dumb way to spend money’. I will say it again: $20m to address petrol sniffing problems is a dumb way to spend money if your remedies are as regulatory and legislative as this.
The remedies are there; they are difficult, but they are achievable in many circumstances. I want to talk about some of them later. For instance, if you look at fuel, there has been a lot of applause for this brand new fangled fuel that can power the internal combustion motor and, at the same time, does not provide a high for petrol sniffers. It comes at a great cost; a lot of scientists have developed this fuel. We all stand back with bated breath and clamour that it be put into communities and that the high cost of this fuel be subsidised. I have news for you: it exists; it is called diesel. It has been around for a long time, diesel fuel. Many, many communities over a long time have converted their vehicle fleet to diesel. Some of them, particularly coastal communities where they need fuel for outboard motors and lawn mowers have used Avgas, which is a particularly difficult fuel to sniff because it acts as an emetic and does not give a high.
I can tell you that many communities have looked at the fuel problem. The idea that Australians have to power their vehicles with a different fuel because some people choose to inappropriately use it to their own detriment and the detriment of their communities is crazy thinking. Many sniffers are quite aware of their self-defeating behaviours and the harm that it causes yet they choose not to desist nonetheless. So, whether it is legal or illegal, whether it is readily available or not, whether it is available at Yuendumu and not available in Alice Springs, you will have this problem. You will definitely have this problem. The business of this brand new wonder fuel ceasing petrol sniffing - good on the people having a go, but I tell you, I doubt it will make one iota of difference.
The solutions: the member for Stuart believed that the answer was to go and procure all these cans of paint. So he went to a hardware shop in Alice Springs and he said: ‘Look, I have it worked out. If we can buy the paint in Alice Springs, kids will not be able to sniff it’, and what a mighty feat that was. Unfortunately, you can still buy paint in Alice Springs, and 98% of people who buy paint do it for a legal, non-illicit, non-nefarious purpose. If we are going to chase this prohibition down where you do not have volatile fuels, paint, solvents or glue, it does not take much to work out that there are going to be ways around that. You do not have to be Einstein to work out that what the member for Stuart did was no more than a stunt.
I talked to a bloke who went to visit the member for Stuart, and it was about this issue actually. He had a vehicle stolen, and he pointed out to the staff at the front counter that some young people sitting right at the front window to the member of Stuart’s office were inhaling volatile substances. They quickly found distractions looking at the other side of the room, or the fan going around or something, because it is pretty hard to intervene; it is pretty hard to do something about it. When you talk about drugs all the time, which you do on the other side, remember that the problematic drugs for Health ministers will remain nicotine, alcohol, kava and inhalant solvent abuse, substance abuse. They are legal substances that are being abused. So it tells you something.
Remedies through acts of parliament are going to be limited. Education may well be the answer, but that, too, is limited. Let us keeping looking for solutions.
When I lived in Alice Springs in 1986, at Yuendumu, which is well known and loved by the member for Stuart, the Night Patrol started. Yuendumu was the birth place of it. They used to do some of the things you have here; they used to go out and flog young sniffers - flog them with sticks. They were probably appropriately designated, under your bill, as ‘authorised officers’ or whatever. The punishment they dispensed was probably appropriate, but it is a very difficult thing for us to grapple with in this parliament and say: ‘Yes, let us have the older women going out with sticks and flogging these kids’. It was probably a great program. At the time, it was lauded. The people who talk about Night Patrol now talk about its great beginnings. Well, that is what it was. There were people going around flogging young sniffers with sticks; that is what started it. The Night Patrol now is well and truly ensconced and does not do that, but let us look at its humble origins.
Another thing we can look at - and here is a thought about your $20m - is jobs. Jobs! If I was the Health minister and I had $20m, I would be putting it into programs to give jobs to kids on communities. That has to be the answer. If you think that $20m on this hand-wringing approach of people issuing warrants and sitting at the community until they catch these people - it is crazy stuff. The remedies have to be to convince people who are into self-destructive, self-harming behaviour - and this is not an Aboriginal problem, this happens in societies everywhere around the world, this is a human condition - the answers are still in employment and in teaching children fundamental self-worth. We have to look at job initiatives in that budget, and we have to see them as initiatives to address an enormous array of social problems, including petrol sniffing.
Interestingly, it is reported that petrol sniffing started with the Americans in the 1940s when they were here in the northern part of Australia. It is interesting that some of the people who worked with them were actually employed. Ironically, that goes against my theory because those who were employed were the very ones that took up early petrol sniffing behaviour. Most people who have worked with this, though, will tell you that it waxes and wanes. They will tell you that if there are only a couple of kids, sometimes who can get on top of it. Sometimes, they will tell you that when it gets to a critical mass, you can do something. Once it gets to lots and lots of them and it is behaviour that is accepted by the community or in some way condoned, it is almost impossible to do, other than wait for the wave to start coming back down.
Minister, you need a comprehensive suite of solutions. I do not think this act is one of them, but I wish you well with it. If you need the legislative remedies that this act provides, good on you. I do not think it will make a jot of difference. If you want to spend $20m, there are a lot better ways of spending it. I go back to my quote from Hansard. I talked about the $3m that could be put into beef roads, into the remote, rural and cattle producing areas of Australia. I still believe that is a much more appropriate remedy to addressing petrol sniffing and a lot of other social malaises than this knee-jerk legislative solution.
Ms Scrymgour: Why can’t money be given to these Aboriginal kids?
Mr DUNHAM: Pardon?
Ms Scrymgour: $10m over five years to these kids and you do not want it?
Mr DUNHAM: $20m?
Ms Scrymgour: $10m! Get it right! You are misleading the House and you have been doing it for a long time. It is $10m. Get it right.
Mr DUNHAM: Well, I am not even sure if it is because, in the budget papers, minister, you will find that your numbers are a bit short, but that is true of lots of programs. I am not leaving that with you; that is the Treasurer’s little trick.
Your $20m that you sought in January or February of this year is money masquerading as a solution to a problem that is not the solution. It is not the solution. It is not $20m. Pull your media releases out and have a look at it. I heard you on the radio. Anyway, that is not the point.
The point is you can put all sorts of things in acts of parliament and tell people they are not allowed to do it, but if they continue to do it, you have to look at some sort of sanction. The sanctions in this act, you have to realise, are mainly aimed at young people, lots of children. The legislative solutions you have given yourself are to arrest - for want of a better word – incarcerate - for want of a better word - take them out of society and compel them on a different course of action from what they want. These legal remedies for children who are exercising this abhorrent behaviour, I would suggest to you, minister, will not work - they will not work.
I applaud the fact that you are doing something. I applaud that you have been able to argue for that amount of money, but please let us debate this. Let us bring it on. The fact that someone says that you are wrong and it is dumb does not mean necessarily, particularly in my case, that I am driving a wedge between blackfellas and whitefellas ...
Ms Scrymgour: Who said that? No one has accused you of that.
Mr DUNHAM: Pardon? I am sorry. I thought I read it out. Elliot McAdam, the member for Barkly, accused me of driving ‘the wedge between blackfellas and whitefellas’ in this country.
This has to be a level-headed debate. I understand if we go into an election, people will talk about various racial elements that are inherent with various policies, but this is not one of them. This is not one of them; this should be barleys. Apart from the fact that it is probably a silly way to spend the money, the law is stupid and we can debate with you on that, but that does not mean that it is a racist debate; it means you have to get back to addressing this problem.
I will leave it there, but, minister, there are a number of questions you must answer in the committee stage. To ask parliament to sign a blank cheque such as this without the development of regulations and guidelines, without the descriptors of those people who are going to be empowered to do so much to young people in our society, beggars belief. You did not do it in your second reading speech and, unless you can tell this parliament in the committee stage very definitely how you will do it, my suggestion is the only remedy available to you is to hold this entire matter in abeyance until you can come back to parliament and tell us; because regarding the blank cheque you are urging us to sign, we are saying: ‘Maybe it will work and maybe it will not’. I suggest that you have a very strong responsibility on your shoulders, minister, and you have to come back to this parliament and tell us how you will be doing that.
There is one other quick issue I will touch on, and that is the matter of confidentiality. I note that it is in here in big letters and there is a great deal of work to be done on secrecy and we do not want people out blabbing about this stuff. You would be aware, minister, that I have written to you about breaches of confidentiality under the Community Welfare Act and I hope that you are treating the matter seriously. I hope that, if you want to introduce legislation like this and talk about the sanctions against people who should not be divulging information they do divulge, look at the correspondence I have sent you because your candidate for Goyder seems to be in possession of information that could only have come from either a case worker or an intermediary between a case worker and himself. That is a serious matter - an extremely serious matter.
If you want to put those sorts of sanctions in this bill, I would like to see, as a legislator, that you treat them seriously and your bona fides can be demonstrated, minister. It is a fairly simple matter for you to stand up and say: ‘So seriously do I treat confidentiality, secrecy, and matters such as this, not only in this bill, which does not exist yet, but in the Community Welfare Act, I will be working on that quickly. I will be remedying that situation, I will be finding out who divulged that information in breach of the Community Welfare Act and I will be making sure the appropriate sanctions and punishments are in place’. I can tell you that if I were the minister responsible for the Community Welfare Act - which I once was - it is at least a sacking offence for people to be divulging circumstances of a child in want of need.
We look forward to the committee stage, and I look forward to full explanations of the queries in the bill before us.
Mrs AAGAARD (Nightcliff): Mr Deputy Speaker, I speak in favour of the Volatile Substance Abuse Prevention Bill 2004 and Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill 2004.
Inhalant substance abuse is not new. It is a human tragedy which has been recognised for at least three decades in Australia. It was certainly happening well before we came to government in the Northern Territory. It has been the subject of four parliamentary reports over a 20-year period, including this parliament’s report from the Select Committee on Substance Abuse in the Community last October entitled Petrol Sniffing in Remote Northern Territory Communities, a committee which I chair.
This is legislation which has long been needed in the Northern Territory. The legislation will provide for users of volatile substances having their inhalants destroyed by police or other persons authorised by the Minister for Family and Community Services to stop inhalation. It gives police and authorised persons the power to take users who have become a danger to themselves or others as a result of volatile substance abuse to a place of safety. It also encourages communities to develop community plans to deal with the problem of substance abuse. This might include measures to control or prohibit the supply of volatile substances, and the identification of safe places where inhalers may be cared for. The legislation also allows for the minister or the minister’s delegate to apply to a court for an order requiring a volatile substance abuser to attend treatment in an appropriate facility.
The legislation also means that people found guilty of being involved in the sale or supply of a volatile substance to users will face convictions and hard gaol terms. It allows protection for persons supplying information about the supply of volatile substances to police as well.
Significantly, the bill does not make the abuse of volatile substances a criminal offence, and no criminal record will result from volatile substance abuse. Only the sale or supply of volatile substances to users will result in criminal prosecution. There has been a lot of conversation about this matter today, so I thought it worthwhile to go back and look at what the parliamentary inquiries into petrol sniffing inhalant abuse have said. The most notable past inquiry in relation to the Northern Territory was the 1985 Senate Inquiry Into Volatile Substance Abuse. This is of particular relevance because the initiative for the terms of reference was largely taken by the two Northern Territory Senators at that time, Senators Ted Robertson and Bern Kilgariff, who were, respectively, Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the committee.
The committee had a significant Northern Territory focus in its gathering of evidence, findings and recommendations. The committee, in its recommendations, concluded that the act of sniffing petrol should not be made a criminal offence and recommended that no legislative action be taken to create such an offence. The committee recommended that, where communities desire external control to be effected over chronic sniffers, they be alerted to the care and custody provisions of state child welfare legislation. The committee recommended to state governments that increased use of care and custody provisions would be an appropriate response to the requests by Aboriginal communities for assistance in the treatment of chronic sniffers. The committee concluded, however, that there is a need for legal mechanisms to control the supply of petrol to minors in the knowledge that they intend to use it for intoxication, and for a legal mechanism to criminalise the actions of non-minors of inciting minors to sniff petrol, and recommended to state governments that they proceed with the implementation of enabling legislation.
The second report of relevance is the Victorian Drugs and Crime Prevention Committee’s Inquiry Into the Inhalation of Volatile Substances of September 2002. Of particular interest are the findings relating to strategic interventions required to address inhalant abuse in indigenous society, both urban and rural. Of interest is the report’s coverage of the contentious issue of legal sanction or regulation of inhalant abuse. The report details the frustration felt by police in not being able to respond adequately to stop sniffing, particularly when help is requested by members of the community. The report says that it is sometimes interpreted as police disinterest in taking any action. A need was also detailed for adequate training for police to enable them to recognise when someone was high and to act appropriately. The report concluded that the police have a crucial role in dealing with sniffing for which they need to be adequately resourced and trained and, more importantly, their ability to act should be underpinned by appropriate legislation. However, criminalisation of the act of sniffing is not seen as the answer. Instead, legislation aiming to protect the sniffer is needed in tandem with preventative and treatment services for those at risk.
In the year 2000, the House of Representative Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs was also asked to look at this issue. They looked at the social and economic costs of substance abuse with particular regard to family relationships, crime, violence including domestic violence and law enforcement, road trauma, workplace safety and productivity and health care costs. In the year 2001, it released a discussion paper Where to next? and its report Road to Recovery in August 2003. In all, the report contains 128 recommendations. Not one of them suggests that criminalising of petrol sniffing is the way to go.
Last year, this parliament’s Select Committee on Substance Abuse in the Community reported on petrol sniffing. It recommended in the majority report that legislation similar to that which provides for apprehension without arrest of intoxicated persons under the Police Administration Act be introduced to allow for persons under the influence of petrol to be taken into protective custody. It was very disappointing then, as it is now, that the CLP have chosen not to concur with the position of the majority, particularly given the large body of evidence showing that criminalisation of inhalant abuse would be counterproductive. It is also disappointing that the opposition is continuing down this line in opposing this legislation, at least in spirit; instead, wanting the criminalisation of inhalant substance abuse. We do not want more kids in our gaols; we want kids not using inhalant substances and to have a future, not a criminal record.
Speakers on the other side appear to be somewhat confused about what the money is that the government has put towards petrol sniffing. The Northern Territory government has provided $2m in the current financial year, 2004-05, for programs to deal with petrol sniffing, and for the next five years, a recurrent figure of $2.4m. So we are looking at $10m, not $20m, as the member for Drysdale was suggesting. So that members realise that what we are looking at here is a package of services for people who are looking at issues in relation to petrol sniffing, I will go through the areas where the money will be used.
First, we are looking at youth service coordinators in Alice Springs and the Top End who will work with existing youth agencies to assist them to identify, case manage and refer young volatile substance abusers. We are looking at additional staff of Family and Children’s Services to identify and work with young volatile substance abusers and their families, and additional staff in the Department of Justice who will provide assessment and case management services for volatile substance abusers who become involved with the criminal justice system as a result of criminal acts performed in association with their volatile substance abuse. We are looking at pre-court and court diversion programs to enable volatile substance abusers to engage in treatment where they are already involved in the criminal justice system, something in which the member for Araluen was very interested. We are looking at training for staff currently working at existing sobering-up shelters, withdrawal units, and rehabilitation services across the Territory, to familiarise them with best practice methods for assisting and caring for volatile substance abusers. We have additional outreach nursing staff in Alcohol and Other Drugs program services in Central Australia and the Top End to enable the proper treatment of volatile substance abusers in urban and bush communities. We are also looking at the establishment of a safe house in Alice Springs to care for intoxicated volatile substance abusers when no family or other safe places are available.
There is also going to be the establishment of suitable facilities in the Top End to create equivalent safe environments as the location and nature of these facilities result from the community planning process. There will be support of four existing outstation treatment facilities in Central Australia associated with communities with a high incidence of volatile substance abuse. There will be the establishment of four new outstation facilities in communities of high need elsewhere in the Northern Territory, and there will be the provision of project officers within the Alcohol and Other Drugs program to assist communities in the development of community plans and to identify and develop outstation treatment programs. There will also be the provision of training and financial support for families identified by community plans to provide safe environments for volatile substance abusers.
This is a very comprehensive package that we are looking at. We are not simply looking at legislation; we are looking at a very comprehensive package that looks at a whole series of things, where we can be helping young people – mainly young people we are talking about here – to have some kind of future. It is extraordinarily disappointing that members of the opposition seem to be just looking at this one issue: that if we criminalise what is a very serious social issue, somehow we will be finding a better solution to this. The package that we are presenting is an excellent one, one our community will be well behind.
The evidence also suggests that there are around 360 sniffers throughout the Northern Territory, mainly aged 12 to 17 years but, sadly, with children as young as eight sometimes involved and occasionally, people as old as 25. I would be very shocked to think that we might have 8-year-olds looking at a criminal record. Petrol sniffing is a very distressing form of substance abuse. There is little doubt that the major contributing factors that could be considered as indicating a propensity for petrol sniffing are socioeconomic: poverty, boredom, oppression, lack of services and facilities, parental drinking and gambling leading to hunger and neglect, poor education levels and lack of employment and aspirational opportunities. The boredom issue is a common cry from remote communities where any sort of meaningful activity is too often missing.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, as part of the meetings of the Select Committee on Substance Abuse in the Community at communities, parents pleaded for government intervention to prevent sniffing. Too often, people feel unable to deal with the situation and are looking for support through intervention by the authorities. This legislation, and the package that surrounds it, provides that intervention and offers a hope for many young people and their families throughout the Northern Territory.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I have listened to a fair bit of the debate today and the reason that I wanted to speak last was to hear the different points of view.
A member interjecting.
Mr WOOD: I have not said it is finished. Do you think I was going to leave you to close debate? Far from it. I know the members for Braitling and Katherine will have plenty of good points to make.
I was interested in the debate. I believe this is an important legislation. I do not say that it will necessarily work, but we will not know till we try it. That is what we have to be brave enough to do. There has been a certain amount of politics in it because, when it was announced by the CLP that they would prefer petrol sniffers to be arrested rather than apprehended, I felt it was like someone jumping the gun to say ‘our law is tougher than your law’. That is always a danger. I have heard debates in other areas when politics overtakes common sense. We are in politics and one side is trying to get into power and the other side is trying to stay there. That does not always mean that we come up with good legislation.
I understand where the opposition is coming from, but I would like to put my case as to why I do not believe we should arrest petrol sniffers. First, alcohol is a legal substance that is abused and we do not arrest people for abusing it. We may arrest them for smashing a car window afterwards, we may arrest the bar keeper for providing them with too much alcohol, but drunkenness in the Territory is not an offence. Marijuana is an illegal substance. It is not a legal substance, and the law says that you cannot use that drug in any shape or form. Petrol is a legal substance. The problem is that people abuse its use. Fingernail polish, glue and paint are all legal substances, and people abuse them, just as people abuse alcohol. Why should this substance be treated differently from alcohol?
My other concern is that many young people, as we have found, abuse petrol. I certainly do not want to see children of a very young age being apprehended, or even slightly older people being arrested, and having a criminal record for petrol sniffing. People should be arrested for the provision of petrol to minors and others, but I do not believe that arresting young people serves any purpose; it only puts more people into our prison system.
I would like to read from the transcript of meeting No 59 on Friday, 2 April 2004 of Dr Peter d’Abbs, because, even though I have just expressed my personal opinions, I am no expert on this matter. Even though I have been to substance abuse committee meetings for quite a while, I still do not regard myself as an expert. Dr d’Abbs, who was appearing as a staff member and the Associate Professor at the School for Public Heath and Tropical Medicine at James Cook University in Cairns when this issue was first raised, was asked by me:
Dr d’Abbs went on to say:
I am basing my views on whether we should apprehend or arrest on what is partly consistency with the way we deal with certain substances in society already. That is one reason. I was interested to hear similar views from the member for Nightcliff, a person who has dealt with this issue, and who is certainly far more expert on these matters than I, when she quoted a Senate select committee with Senators Ted Robertson and Bernie Kilgariff, when they also recommended against the arrest of people for petrol sniffing.
That is not to say that I do not believe something should happen, it is just that I believe that is not the way we should go about it. Maybe at the end of the review, after 12 months, let us see if it was effective. Is it better to err on the side of caution rather than go in boots and all? We should go in with caution. We are dealing with a very difficult problem. I have concerns about how these people will be apprehended. Whether they are arrested or apprehended, if you can use a certain amount of physical force, I am concerned. I think it was Dr d’Abbs who mentioned that to go after a petrol sniffer can, in fact, cause that petrol sniffer to have heart failure because they are full of this substance and they can go into, I presume, a state of shock of some sort which can cause a heart attack. I am interested to know what sort of training will occur for these authorised officers or police officers in the apprehension of these people. We do not want the reverse to happen when we are trying to bring them into protective custody and they have a heart attack in the process.
The member for Port Darwin raised some interesting issues about whether you can apprehend a person on private land. That needs to be clarified. Is Aboriginal land private land or is it not? If there are no owners around, what do they do? If it is in someone’s house and the owner is not there, can they override simply because it is an emergency? It would be interesting to hear the minister’s answer on that one.
Whilst I understand what you are trying to do, the management plans remind me of the same plans for alcohol, but you end up having this line around a place where everyone sits outside to sniff, and if they move inside that they are arrested. Therefore, all the sniffers hang out at the front gate and, when they have finished sniffing, they all come in. I do not know whether you are creating the same problem we have to some extent with dry areas, where people all sit out on the cattle grid, drink their beer and then move into town and cause a nuisance. I am interested in what you have to say about that.
I support some of what the member for Drysdale said. In this transcript of Dr d’Abbs, the issue of employment came up. It came up about more holistic approaches. I will say again and again that I know the CDEP program is being reviewed through the Commonwealth government at the present time, but we have to create full employment. We need sport and full employment and with that, we need good housing and education. However, if we do not have full employment, we are wasting our time with a lot of these issues; it will not solve everything. I have worked on communities where alcohol was a problem but there was full employment, and we still had alcohol problems, but it can at least lessen some of those problems. We need to have a multifaceted approach to this problem.
I have a couple of other areas of concern that the minister might look at when she is summing up. One was about treatment programs: should they be registered and formalised as to their suitability for providing treatment? I am, like the member for Drysdale, not sure you want them over-formalised because we know Mt Theo, for instance, was working. It does not have a big mission statement stuck on the door, and above that, a vision, neither does not have certificates and all that sort of stuff hanging off it. It is something the people know works in that community. Whilst we should at least be registering these, we do not want the formalisation of them tied up in bureaucratic requirements. If we know they will work, let us go down that path.
When a person is apprehended but not in police custody, I am interested to know whether there should be guidelines of responsibility if something adverse happens to that person during that period of time. That partly relates to what I was saying about whether a person has a heart attack or whether other medical emergencies occur at the time.
Another issue is that we know that authorised officers will have similar powers to police. We need to detail the qualifications and expertise of those people. Perhaps they will require some training. The member for Araluen noted that they will have the ability to use a certain amount of force. You would not want that to go unfettered. There would be some guidelines required before you gave people that power, otherwise you could end up with some very interesting situations.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I support the legislation, but only if there is a guarantee that the government will bring this back in 12 months and give us the results of it. We should be able to say in 12 months whether there been a reduction, what treatment programs we have established, whether there have been any problems - for instance, the issue of using authorised officers - whether the management plans work and whether there are problems with them. The member for Macdonnell spoke about how severe the law is if you contravene a management plan. Perhaps they could come back and say: ‘Has that worked? Is it good or bad? Is it a bit of overkill?’
I note the issue raised by the member for Port Darwin about private land. Whether that is going to be a problem, I do not know, but I would be interested to hear whether the government has an answer on that and if there are some practical solutions.
This is important legislation. We need to at least try. Let us see how it goes, but bring it back to this House and let us know how it has gone in 12 months.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a few comments on the Volatile Substance Abuse Prevention Bill.
Of course, it goes without saying, listening to the members today, that this legislation is creating a lot of interest. There are a lot of very good and pertinent points that people have made. I have only been involved in the substance abuse select committee for a short time and, unfortunately, was not a member when the committee met or visited any of these communities to listen to the concerns of community members and to witness first-hand people actually sniffing. I am, however, very much aware of the seriousness of volatile substance abuse and of the long-term effects on the people who practice this.
One of the most interesting experiences I have had on the substance abuse select committee was when the member for Nightcliff, Pat Hancock, and I visited representatives of the petroleum industry in Canberra last year to have discussions in relation to their responsibilities towards substance abuse and, especially, petrol sniffing. It was a result of that meeting that we were very pleased to learn that BP Australia had taken steps to address petrol sniffing by removing the inhalant that gives the sniffer the lift they are looking for, and has introduced Comgas.
The comments that I wanted to make, having read this legislation - and we definitely need legislation in place – is that I found a lot of this very evasive, not actually detailed enough for my liking. I want to see legislation in place. I know that because it is such a contentious issue and people have such strong opinions about it, that we will never please everyone. I did notice in the minister’s second reading speech, and I quote:
I listened to Dr d’Abbs when he came to the substance abuse committee and with his recommendations. Whilst he said that he did not support petrol sniffing being made illegal, I find it very difficult to understand how we can address it without making it illegal. I am still trying to come to terms with how you can ban something without making it illegal.
I look forward to 12 months’ time. Obviously, government has the mandate to be able to pass this legislation as is, but I look forward and encourage the minister to ensure that this is reviewed in 12 months. In the meantime, I look forward to going in to committee so we can get some answers on some points about this legislation. I support the legislation. We have to have it in place, but I would like to have many issues clarified.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, it is rather ironic that this bill is being passed today, having had a rather torrid few weeks in Alice Springs with petrol sniffers running rampant in the Braitling electorate.
Unfortunately, we have a town camp, Hoppy’s Camp, which seems to have a number of sniffers from out of town. I have had a number of complaints from residents about their cars being broken into - one even had his lawn mower fuel taken; finding pieces of hose in their driveway; and cans that obviously have held petrol. We tend to think of petrol sniffing as being a community problem, but it is becoming a town problem. It is my understanding there would be over 100 petrol sniffers in Alice Springs at the moment.
At the weekend, we had an incidence of rock throwing again. It is true that when the young sniff petrol before they get to the brain-damaged state, they are very cheeky and, when they are older, they get very aggressive and violent. Unfortunately, at Hoppy’s Camp, parents give young children petrol, as you all know, because that is one way of keeping them quiet. However, of course, it does irreparable damage.
As I said last week in my media release, we have to give it a go; we have to try. Until now, there has been a lot of rhetoric about petrol sniffing, but we have not had much action. There are community groups trying very hard to address the problem, but I believe they feel as though they are facing an oncoming tide of problems. We need to get behind them and ensure that they are well resourced and ready to deal with it. We have talked a lot about the bill and, yes, there are questions I would like to ask about it. However, something we have not talked about is why young adults and children sniff petrol. Why is it becoming a pastime that is causing so much damage to them and their health? Let us face it: it causes health problems, antisocial behaviour, criminal activity and individual family breakdown. It has huge consequences for our system in health, police, education and right across the board. It is not just people sniffing petrol who are the problem; it is the consequences of their actions right across the board that we need to address.
This bill is the first step in addressing many of the problems within our communities and towns. Many of the problems that cause petrol sniffing are boredom, lack of discipline, lack of supervision, lack of going to school, lack of employment - all those things. They wander into town. At the moment, it is community football time in Alice Springs. It is great to come and watch the football; it is not so great to go home. We need to look at the whole picture of not just petrol sniffing, but some of the other problems.
Minister, I am sure when you reply, you will give us some details of what you intend to do because that is the important part of this bill. Where are these places of safety? Where will you put these young sniffers when they are apprehended? Will you send them home to a dysfunctional family? Will you take them to a camp? You are obviously not going to put them in gaol, but where are these places of safety? We need to identify them. Programs we have, such as the one at Tangentyere, have a certain capacity, but they need more staff, more resources, more training. They need support and, most of all, there needs to be new services to the communities most in need. I am thinking about places like Kintore and Papunya, and all those places out bush.
You are taking on a huge problem; it is not just isolated to any one area. The difficulty is that because it is so big, it is doubtful whether this bill will cover everything and if you will be able to use it as a trigger to ensure programs are there. Who are the authorised people? Do you include school attendance officers? Do you include Night Patrol? Will you include people who work for community organisations and, if you are going to have these authorised people, will they have some sort of training? Will they have some form of identity? Can I walk up to a sniffer and say: ‘Come with me. I am apprehending you to take you away’? There have to be the mechanics of how this will work, and we are looking for some of the devil in the detail.
It was interesting when the member for Nelson compared substance abuse with the consumption of alcohol. It is not a criminal offence to get drunk. It is a criminal offence to do things when you are drunk that cause antisocial behaviour. That is what is happening to the police at the moment: it is not illegal to sniff petrol, but they then have to pick up the pieces when these petrol sniffers cause problems. The police in Alice Springs will very pleased when this bill goes through because it will give them more teeth; they will welcome the fact that they will be able seize and dispose of the substances. They can do it with alcohol under the 2 km law; why can’t they do it with other substances? I guess this bill is going to do that.
Although the members for Macdonnell and Araluen talked about the technical aspects of the bill, there are people like me who are not lawyers and do not really understand those things. I want to know how this bill is going to be implemented, what programs you will have, who are the authorised people and what places you will go to.
I wrote to the South Australian government because, as you are well aware, the Pitjantjatjara Lands, or Pit Lands, have a huge problem of alcohol abuse. I received this letter recently from Hon Jay Weatherill, who is the Acting Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation. His letter ran to four pages on the ways they are addressing petrol sniffing in the Pit Lands. He talked about the government presence, health and wellbeing. Under health and wellbeing, he has a range of community-based programs developed to tackle substance misuse, including sport and recreation pursuits, renovation of community facilities into youth centres, nutrition programs, musical instrument programs, homelands horse breaking and horsemanship programs, camel and horse mustering programs, establishment of school holiday programs, and development of homelands absent programs. He lists a range of issues under justice and the way they are addressing it, in addition to infrastructure, environment, education, employment and training, community enhancement and governance.
I would like to pass this letter to the minister so she can see how South Australia is tackling this problem in the Pit Lands which has, in many cases, caused their communities to suffer enormously and most of all, of course, their children. You have to remember that many of the petrol sniffers in Alice Springs come from South Australia; they come from the Pit Lands. You only have to look at the car registration plates to know that we are receiving a lot of people from the Pit Lands, and we have organisations in Alice Springs which service the Pit Lands as well as Alice Springs. I am thinking of the MPY program, which does that. When you read this letter, you will see that South Australia has resolved that legislation is not enough; you must have all these other things as well. They do have legislation, of course. It is an interesting letter that spells out a lot of detail, and that is why I keep saying, minister, that we need the detail.
I asked whether one group of authorised people will be truancy officers. Interestingly, part of the problem is that these children are not going to school. No one is making them go to school. We have one truancy officer in Alice Springs, none in the bush, one in Tennant Creek, one in Katherine, and one in Palmerston. What can one attendance officer do when the problem is so great and you see children of school age wandering around the community? This was brought to my office the other day from Western Australia. It reads:
How simple is that? I might have mentioned in this House the story of a principal of a bush school who went into the store and said: ‘Why are you serving my students during school hours?’. All they got was a shrug of the shoulders. We could have a sign that says:
Or whoever is the authorised person. At least you have the whole community backing this non-attendance at school so you are saying: ‘Look, you have to get behind us. There is no good allowing these kids to wander, stay out of school, because we know what they will do. They will only get into mischief’.
That is also a suggestion I will pass on to the minister that she might like to take on board because it is one way that the Western Australian government is looking to curb this non-attendance at school, which means wandering around looking for trouble. That is all the petrol sniffers are doing. They are bored, they have no direction in life, they have no supervision, no discipline. We need to put all those social things in place to help the communities that really want to tackle it.
Let us not just have the bill. We can have legislation, but we need to look at the big picture, the big screen, because that is where people will be judging whether what you have done is a success or not.
In my electorate, we have people who are concerned because they see some of these sniffers in their front yards, and they ring the police but, by the time the police get there, the kids have shot through. There is growing concern that private individuals on private property are having their lifestyle affected. They have to have big, high fences. They are locking the gates, locking away their garden equipment. They do all sorts of things that, once upon a time in Alice Springs, we had never had to worry about. We could enjoy an open front gate. We could enjoy knowing that possessions outside in the driveway would be safe. I am pleased that this bill does say the powers can be exercised not just in a public place, but upon trespassers on private property, and on private property with the consent of the occupier and owner. I worry about that last bit, where it says with the consent of the occupier and owner. If the occupier says no, will the police not be able to intervene? Or will it mean that the police will have to walk away and wait for them to come out of that property? We know how dangerous petrol sniffers can be, we know the dangers they can cause to adults, and we have to make sure that we have this right.
We raised the question of what would happen if you, in fact, apprehended a small child and placed him in the care of someone, and that young child became ill. Is there going to be protection for people who have those children in their care to make sure that nothing comes back at them if something happens?
We have talked about the programs you are going to have. We all know Mt Theo has been successful. We could easily set up a program in Owen Springs out of Alice Springs; the government owns that station. Why not put one of these programs with horse breaking and cattle raising so that people can have some skills in this? What about Hamilton Downs? It is a great place. Get them out of town is what I am saying, but do not put them back in their communities; treat them. The communities do not want them; put them in an outstation or in a homeland. There are places around Alice Springs that could be utilised. If you are looking for a holding bay, if I can call it that, open up Aranda House. It is sitting there empty. It was the detention centre for our young people and it is not being used, so why not use that as a place to hold the young people while we are getting them on to a program?
We have heard a lot about authorised officers, but I hope that any program offers a person training so that they have expertise. I do not think they necessarily need a great certificate, as the member for Nelson mentioned. Certificates are fine, but let us make sure they know how to communicate, manage what they are doing, and they have the right training and skills to apprehend people …
Mr Wood: Certificate of practicality.
Mrs BRAHAM: That is right. Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I do not think we should make it a criminal offence, but we have to make petrol sniffing illegal and we have to take steps to make sure that when police are called to someone’s place, they can apprehend them, put them in a program, and make sure that the right things happen.
I noticed you talked about someone who supplies to a third person can be fined or sentenced to two years gaol. We know it happens. We have had used car dealers in Alice Springs leave petrol beside the cars in a can. They do that so that the used cars are not broken into. That sounds a pretty terrible thing when you have to resort to that, but people are seeking solutions. They want, somehow or another, to stop these petrol sniffers from entering their premises and causing damage.
When you are looking at this bill, do not just think in a narrow way about the legislation alone; think about the big picture. Think about how you are going to do it. It is not going to happen in a couple of months or six months. This sort of thing has been going on for years and it is going to take years to address it and get it right. I believe that at least we are kick starting it and we should at least give this a go.
As the member for Nelson said, any legislation that comes into this House should be reviewed because if it is not working, what is the point of it? Most of all, you must make a commitment to resource the programs for this bill, and that is big dollars. You are talking about a vast area of the Territory. I am only talking about Central Australia, and I can imagine the dollars required to set up programs and the right infrastructure to assist sniffers in Central Australia. However, when you are talking about all of the Territory, you are talking about big dollars.
I hope the commitment from the government is right and it does work. We would all appreciate knowing that we can live in harmony in our community; that we do not get humbugged by these petrol sniffers and do not feel frightened by what they are doing and that, somehow or other, we can save them before they, in fact, do themselves irreparable damage.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Family and Community Services): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank all members for their contributions to this important debate.
This is land mark legislation despite some of the negativity by members on the other side. This legislation, for the first time, introduces a comprehensive strategy to tackle petrol sniffing and the harm that it causes in our community. It is legislation and a $10m package - I am not ashamed and neither is any member on this side of parliament for putting $10m over five years to a scourge that has been in our communities for a long time. Lo and behold! The CLP comes up with the policy and is concerned when that scourge suddenly comes from the remote communities into their urban centres so they are absolutely horrified and they want to do something about it.
I am immensely proud of what we, as a government, are working towards in trying to deal with this scourge. For too long, legislators in this House have watched these kids blowing their brains out in those communities and they have done nothing. Do not look shocked across the Chamber at me; there has not been any fundamental strategy that has happened in our communities to deal with this scourge for many years. I am proud of this and so are members on this side.
However, rather than going through all of the issues that members raised, given that we are going to go through the committee stage, and given that members opposite have highlighted that rather than the one amendment proposed, they will be seeking further clarification and comment as we go through the legislation, I thought we will go to committee and work through each of the clauses members are seeking clarification on. We can go through that and I will answer those areas of concern, in particular ‘authorised person’. That has been raised by most members in the debate. Similarly with the issue of private property. If members understand the Aboriginal Land Rights Act, they would understand that this act will apply in the same way as everywhere else. Aboriginal land is not treated any differently.
I want to thank my colleague, the member for Nightcliff, and the members for Nelson, Braitling and Port Darwin for their contributions to the debate. I will endeavour to answer your questions as we go through the committee stage.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Mr CHAIRMAN: The committee has before it the Volatile Substance Abuse Prevention Bill 2004 (Serial 270) and Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill 2004 (Serial 271) together with the Schedule of Amendment No 100 circulated by the Minister for Family and Community Services, Ms Scrymgour, to the Volatile Substance Abuse Prevention Bill 2004 (Serial 270).
Volatile Substance Abuse Prevention Bill (Serial 270):
Clauses 1 to 3, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 4:
Ms CARNEY: Mr Chairman, on one hand, my question relates to clause 5, but it does have a relationship to clause 4, which I raised earlier, and that is the definition of ‘minister’. The minister will note in clause 5 that it includes a reference to ‘the minister’. Earlier, I asked could there be some difficulties with which minister, noting that perhaps the minister could be defined in clause 4. My question is: could there be a conflict in the absence of a definition as to which minister has carriage of this act?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: No. As the member for Araluen knows, or certainly should know, the relevant minister will be the one designated under the Administrative Arrangement Orders, and that is me as Minister for Family and Community Services.
Ms CARNEY: Good.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clauses 5 to 7, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 8:
Ms CARTER: Mr Chairman, my question is with regards to clause 8(c) deals with how the police cannot exercise power unless they receive consent to enter the premises if it is private premises. I understand that the minister has just said that on Aboriginal communities, houses would be seen as private property. Clause 8(c) says police can enter:
I am concerned that people could use that as a loophole to be able to go to someone’s house to intimidate them to prevent the police entering.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I thought you asked about houses on Aboriginal land and Aboriginal communities, and I said that the simple answer was that the act will apply the same way as existing legislation such as the Trespass Act, which already applies.
What should also be remembered is that these powers of searching, seizing and apprehending are being exercised without warrant. Police can use them on the spot without recourse to the courts.
The legislation also increases penalties for the supply of volatile substances and allows for community management plans to limit the sale and supply of volatile substances in designated areas. This approach will enable decisive action to be taken against trafficking petrol, and other inhalants and also make it possible for community wishes about restrictions on the availability of substances such as petrol to be respected and enforceable under Territory law.
Ms CARTER: What I am saying is that according to this legislation, it appears to be that if a police officer were to go to a house, unless the owner of the house or the senior person in the house gives permission, even though he or she may be concerned that petrol sniffing is occurring inside that house, the police officer, unless they are given permission to enter the house, can take no further action. Is that the case and, if so, why is that the case?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: As I understand, even if the police suspect an activity happening in, say, any house – just put petrol sniffers to one side. If there is an activity that police have a suspicion that something is going on, or evidence or intelligence on a certain activity happening in that house, people have to get warrants to go in to anyone’s property. People cannot come on to my house, on private land, which I own. You have to get permission to enter onto my land. Why should it not be any different for Aboriginal people in Aboriginal communities or anywhere, whether it is in Alice Springs or Katherine? Let us bear in mind that there is not just a petrol sniffing problem in Alice Springs. We also have a problem in the Top End. Anyone entering anyone’s land must seek permission. Police get a warrant if they suspect something and they want to search and seize.
Ms CARTER: Would it be the case that a police officer can get a warrant to go in and look to see if people are sniffing petrol on a private premises and take action?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: As I said, if they believe and they have, on good authority, that there is reason to suspect that something is happening there and they have evidence, they can exercise their authority under existing law. They can get a warrant and go in and search that premise.
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I will make a couple of comments on this. While you can take a very narrow view around the legalities of an individual site and an individual decision by a community member, you have to keep the context of how this is going to work in terms of previous experiences we have had in combating petrol sniffing.
The first point I make is that petrol sniffers very often head for unoccupied or out-of-sight areas around a community. Therefore, the type of issues being raised at the moment are probably not dealing with one of the major contexts where intervention needs to occur.
The second point is that in any experience I have had with combating petrol sniffing in locations, particularly in families, you have to work beyond the individual household anyway, and that is where the community management plans are critical to this. It is not for an individual householder, necessarily, to make a solo decision about whether police should intervene or not. It will be negotiated or put in place at the communal level, not only in a remote community. A lot of the work that is being done in Alice Springs at the moment is based on looking at the extended families of sniffers, looking at the community as a whole, as to what action can be mandated by the community and supported by it. It is not going to be a case of an individual policeman trying to convince an individual householder. In the majority of cases, it is going to be what the community as a whole has decided should occur under the management plan.
Mr ELFERINK: That is entirely wrong, Attorney-General, entirely wrong, and I will tell you why.
Dr TOYNE: Well, I am sorry.
Mr ELFERINK: This does not apply to Alice Springs and just to Aboriginal communities; it applies right across the Northern Territory, including the northern suburbs. This is clearly one of the areas of concern on this side of the House. This bill goes to great pains not to create an offence of petrol sniffing. The only reason you can secure a warrant from a court under the operations of the Police Administration Act - the act that provides the powers to obtain warrants and to give warrants for magistrates and Justices of the Peace - is specifically the detection of offences and reasonable grounds to believe people have breached the law.
As this does not create an offence, there is no opportunity at all for a warrant to be obtained because it is beyond the power of the Police Administration Act and a Justice of the Peace to issue a warrant where there is no offence being committed. The consequence of that is, quite simply, that once the police officer reaches the front door, they then becomes powerless unless he or she has the consent of the householder to enter into those premises. That is, the householder says: ‘Come in and do something about my substance abusing son, daughter, child, person’.
If that is the case, then this bill will only operate in public places and where people are trespassing on property. Often, petrol sniffers and people inhaling volatile substances are trespassing or are in public places. However, as a result of the operation of this act, they may not be. There is no way around this problem. Warrants are only issued because offences have been committed or reasonably caused to have been committed, or people are the subject of warrants. However - I will pick up on that.
The Trespass Act is a reflection on the common law of trespass, and trespass notices are not exclusively issued by the police; they are issued by the person who owns the property as well. That being the case, if the person gives consent to the petrol sniffer being on their property, the Trespass Act is meaningless because it deals specifically with those people who are unwelcome on property. If a petrol sniffer is on a property and the person who owns or runs that property is saying to the authorities: ‘No, you cannot come in here’, and no offence has been committed, the police officer must turn around and walk away. This is only a public place offence as far as this government is concerned, or a trespass on private property.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: In relation to what the member for Macdonnell was saying, where he was completely wrong …
Mr Elferink: No, I am not wrong.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: … when children are involved - and let us bear in mind a lot of these sniffers are children - police have existing powers under existing legislation …
Mr Elferink: Where?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: … such as the Community Welfare Act ..
Mr Elferink: Okay, then why are you not using it?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: In this way, this bill complements other laws such as child protection legislation and care and protection laws. Children will continue to be dealt with – all right? If you had bothered coming up and getting a briefing, member for Macdonnell, maybe you would understand this a bit more …
Mr Elferink: I understand it perfectly well.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: … care and protection under the Community Welfare Act. It is not as if it is setting precedents; there are other acts that generally require police or other people to have permission of the owner or occupier before they enter. The Dangerous Goods Act is an example. If a police officer believes an offence has been committed, he can get a warrant. However, as I said, where a child is involved, police can exercise their powers under the Community Welfare Act.
Mr ELFERINK: This is exactly the point that I was making during the second reading debate: legislation already exists. This legislation does not have to come in the form that it comes now. A simple policy directive saying that the Community Welfare Act applies to petrol sniffers would have solved this problem in the first place. That would have then dealt with the issue of petrol sniffers being seen as victims needing to be taken into care. This falls into that nexus between the two.
I agree that there is no shortage of legislation that says consent is required. The common law requires consent. Otherwise, a police officer on someone else’s property is trespassing themselves and must leave, especially when that directive is given. What I am saying is that, because of the way this is worded, volatile substances becomes a public place or trespass oriented offence only and if it is happening inside the property and the householder turns a blind eye to it. There is nothing the police can do unless that child is then the subject of an action under the Community Welfare Act. The Community Welfare Act does not exclusively operate in private properties; it can operate in public as well. What I said in the second reading debate and I reiterate now is that the Community Welfare Act is the organ by which this issue could have been dealt with by this minister easily, rather than having to go through this process.
Ms CARTER: Mr Chairman, I want to bring to the minister’s attention that we have expressed a great deal of concern with regards to children and the sniffing of petrol, and it may well be that under the Community Welfare Act, action can be taken by police entering premises. It is interesting to wonder why it is not happening now. I bring the minister’s attention to coronial findings from South Australia that we received some time ago with regard to the deaths of three people who died in 1999, 2001 and 2001. There was a joint coronial inquest, and the ages of the people were 27, 25 and 29. That illustrates the issue of adult sniffing and the fact that adults are dying from this situation as well.
In respect of sniffers, be they children or adults, it is my understanding that on communities many people are frightened of them. It is my concern that they will use their aggressive and violent behaviour to intimidate people who normally control houses - for example, grandparents - and use this loophole in this legislation to move from behind the school or the sports ground or down at the river, and take whatever they are sniffing now and their sniffing behaviour into houses where they intimidate and dominate people, and it becomes something very serious for communities. That is what I believe is going to happen.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clauses 9 agreed to.
Clause 10:
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chairman, I ask the minister what her understanding of the term ‘force that is reasonably necessary’ is.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Mr Chairman, reasonable force is a concept commonly used in Australian law. It means force - and I will see if I have this right, member for Macdonnell because you are the law person, I take it, and the one with all the intelligence on this area – that is fair, proper and reasonably necessary in the circumstances. The term ‘reasonable force’ provides protection for people who might be apprehended under this bill, and guidance to those people who are apprehending them. The term imposes an objective test of the levels of force that might be used to apprehend a person.
The term ‘reasonable force’ is commonly used in Northern Territory legislation. Under the Mental Health and Related Services Act, police have the power to apprehend a person using reasonable force so that the person can be assessed. The act also allows the use of reasonable force to restrain a person being treated where it is necessary to prevent them from harming themselves or another. The Community Welfare Act permits a police officer or authorised person to use reasonable force to take a child in need of care into custody.
Being able to use reasonable force will not be a problem. It is essential if we are to reduce the harm of sniffing to individual sniffers, their peers and families, and the broader community. I know that this was an issue raised by some people in the community. There were some sector members in Alice Springs, I have met with them, I have had many discussions in relation to the use of reasonable force. I believe that is a pretty good explanation of reasonable force.
Mr ELFERINK: No, it is an excellent explanation and it is the one I expected to be given. Minister, as a result of that, do you foresee police officers, where reasonable force is required, using handcuffs and other forms of restraints on children?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Do not think for a minute we have not consulted with members of the Northern Territory Police force over this. They would find it quite insulting that you are alluding to the fact that they would use handcuffs in the apprehension or as part of reasonable force to apprehend a sniffer, member for Macdonnell. That is what you just stood up and said.
Mr ELFERINK: Exactly. That is exactly what I asked you. Do you expect it to be happening?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Am I expected to be happy that the police would use - we have had a lot of consultation with the NT Police over this. As I have said, they would be quite offended that you would be alluding to that.
Members interjecting.
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I feel absolutely bound to point out the extremely confusing position that is being put from the other side. Your colleagues are arguing that you should make the activity illegal. What are you proposing? Are you proposing that you are going to make petrol sniffing illegal, but then you do not want to see police use any reasonable force to …
Mr Elferink: No, I did not say that.
Dr TOYNE: Well, what is your proposal? What is your proposal: you are going to have an illegal act and you are not going to allow the police to use reasonable force to enforce that position? I would really like to know where you are coming from.
You have the member for Drysdale over here saying: ‘Fix the beef roads and that is going to fix up petrol sniffing’. You have the member for Araluen saying: ‘We want to make it illegal’. You are saying that you do not want to see police use reasonable force. Boy! That is some policy coming from over there.
I will tell you one thing, member for Macdonnell: I have been out at Kintore, Mt Liebig, and Haasts Bluff, and they cannot wait to see some intervention with some force behind it - reasonable force - to allow them to intervene in the petrol sniffing that you have done nothing about for the whole time you have been the member for Macdonnell.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chairman, this is quite extraordinary. I fully expect the police and any other authorised officer to use reasonable force, including handcuffs …
Dr Toyne: Well, let us move on, then.
Mr ELFERINK: … if it was necessary. However, all I wanted to hear from the minister is whether she understands that the term ‘reasonable force’ will include the use of handcuffs and other sorts of restraints, including cells, where those cases may occur.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I have answered it.
Mr ELFERINK: No, you haven’t.
Ms CARNEY: Minister, we all know we are dealing with predominantly young Aboriginal men, some of whom are big blokes. If a police officer is talking to a sniffer and they are creating some problems, and the police officer thinks: ‘I am about to use some reasonable force’, would it not include handcuffs or other restraints? Yes or no? Are you happy with the bill if it means that police officers would use such restraints?
Mr HENDERSON: Mr Chairman, as Police minister, I must respond to this nonsense. Police have an absolute inherent responsibility in carrying out their duties across the Northern Territory to use their best judgment for protecting life, property and enforcing the law. It is a judgment call for the police officer in the line of duty of protecting life, protecting property and enforcing the law. If reasonable force is required, as is required in any aspect of policing - whether it is petrol sniffing, domestic violence, a break and enter, shoplifting, crowd control at a sporting event - to protect life, limb and property to uphold and enforce the law, they will do so. They are accountable for their actions under the Police Administration Act. They are accountable to the Professional Responsibility Command within the police to the Commissioner. They are accountable to the Ombudsman for their discretion and their judgment, and I am absolutely confident that our police force will use this legislation in an appropriate manner.
It is not an issue about whether we are happy or not happy. I am not happy, as a parent, to think that any child may be placed in handcuffs, but if it is appropriate for police to do so to protect life, injury, property, to uphold the law, then that is a judgment for the police day-to-day around the Territory. There is nothing different in this legislation from what police already do on a day-to-day basis. It is an absolute nonsense that the opposition is running here, and it is an insult to the police who have been consulted widely about this legislation.
It is not about whether ministers are happy or not happy that people may be handcuffed or otherwise restrained. It is the responsibility of the police under their standing orders to use their judgment on a day-to-day basis. I urge the opposition to move on to something more substantial.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chairman, I appreciate everything the minister is saying. He is not wrong. I want to make sure that the minister understands the term ‘reasonable force’. The reason I raise that issue is because she cannot bring herself to say it here.
Members interjecting.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
Mr ELFERINK: She cannot bring herself to say it here. The fact is that this minister cannot squib out from under this issue. Reasonable force, in certain circumstances in the general common law that surrounds reasonable force, can include fatal force. It depends on the circumstances of the case.
Mr Henderson: What is your point?
Mr ELFERINK: The point is that I want this minister to be able to tell this House that she appreciates that, despite the fact there is no offence, the police may still use things like handcuffs and other forms of restraints on people. If the minister is not capable of standing up in this House and saying that, then I am not quite sure why she is the minister. When you take control of this sort of legislation, you have to understand the full consequences of what you are promoting.
Mr AH KIT: Mr Chairman, I have sat back and listened to the rantings and ravings of the members for Araluen and Macdonnell. I believe the Police minister has given an ample clarification of a police officer’s role. It will be a judgment call at the relevant time if they were to move into a household, private or public, and decide that there are petrol sniffers creating trouble for residents or tenants. They could reserve the right - the petrol sniffers, that is - to silence, so that would be interesting.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clauses 11 and 12, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 13:
Ms CARNEY: Minister, you are aware of the questions I asked earlier so I am fully expecting you to read your response. In relation to clause 13, you would concede, I guess, that an ‘authorised person’ has a considerable amount of power; namely the power to search the person.
Civil libertarians get twitchy when people - whether they are police officers or not - have a capacity to search the person. I am not sure that there is a more intimate contact, if you like, between a police officer and another human being. In light of the potential sensitivity of an authorised person having this power to search a person, can you let us know what sort of person might an authorised person be? What training might they receive? What, if any, qualifications would they be required to have? How would the minister go about appointing such an authorised person who has a significant power pursuant to clause 13?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: There are a number of questions that the member for Araluen asked. Let me go through for the first one, which is power given to an authorised person, communities and police. Under this clause, communities and police have requested the power to intervene quickly to protect people who are abusing volatile substances. The bill provides such power. The Volatile Substance Abuse Prevention Act will give police and authorised persons authority to effectively intervene when people are, and have been, inhaling. They can search and remove the volatile substances and, if necessary, take the sniffer to a place of safety.
In most regions, authorised persons will be selected from Night Patrol teams or from warden schemes - people who know their communities. For example, in the member for Macdonnell’s electorate, there is a very good group of people at …
Dr Toyne: Ntaria.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Ntaria, that is right, who have in place a fantastic program. They could certainly become authorised people to deal with that. This is giving them the legislative backing to be able to do what they are already doing.
In some communities, other people may become authorised persons. Again, they will need to have a detailed understanding of their community, to be supported by community leaders. It is very important. We ask for ACPOs or Aboriginal Community Police Officers to be nominated by communities. One of the criteria is for them to be supported by the community. The community puts in a letter, and we could follow the same process with that. They have particular skills, knowledge and attitude that will enable them to work successfully with people who abuse volatile substances.
This bill provides some new tools. One of the things - and we are not blind to it - that needs to be done is a lot of training. There is certainly money in the budget to be able to get that training in place for those who are authorised persons to be able to use force to intervene with sniffers. There is a lot of work in the regulations and guidelines that will need to be developed to ensure that these powers achieve the best outcomes for all, particularly the community, the family and the sniffer as well.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, minister. I have a couple of questions arising from your answer. First, I notice that you said there was an amount allocated in the budget for training. Could you outline what sort of training you envisage? You have said training. I am interested in what sort of training you would expect such authorised people to undergo.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I do not have the specifics on that, member for Araluen. The department will be implementing a lot of this and, at an operational level, will identify with communities and authorised peoples, with police, with FACS, and a number of agencies because this goes across a number of agencies.
The staff in Alcohol and Other Drugs will be looking at what sort of training is involved. We could get the specifics and the details of that training to you, if you like, as to what we will be looking at in the training of those authorised persons, and what they will be doing in their activities out in the community.
Ms CARNEY: Yes, thank you. I am not wanting to verbal you, but may I ask for an undertaking that you will provide us with details of the training that you envisage? I will let you answer that because it is important for Hansard, before I go on.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: As I said, we could get that information and provide it to you. Whether this is an undertaking, I will get the department to send that through to you.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you. Can you indicate what sort of time frame you are looking at for implementing the training? You have, basically, said that you do not know what sort of training it will be. Do you have a date in your mind as to when the training will commence? If so, can you let us know how long the training will be? Might it be for a week, a month, six months, whatever? So there are two questions in that.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I know there are two questions in there. As I said, I do not have that detail, but we will get those details to you, member for Araluen. There are probably some communities and people who are dealing with this who would probably give us some training because they have certainly been dealing with this long before any of us and before this legislation. Those details can be forwarded to you at some stage when we write to you about the first bit.
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I want to again point out the fundamental nature of this initiative is to help to mobilise communities and extended families to help with the intervention on kids who are at risk because they are sniffing. Whilst you can talk about training, we are not talking about creating a whole force of police auxiliaries or some sort of formalised force, if you like, of strangers who are going to intervene on these kids’ lives. It is going to be people like the aunties or the uncles or strong family members within the community and from within the extended family who are going to be taking on these sort of roles. What training do you need to be a strong uncle of a nephew who is at risk, and you see the need to intervene?
The essence of this is that you will look for the authority within the family and use that authority alongside and in conjunction with the statutory powers that are created in this legislation to intervene. That, in my overwhelming experience of working on these issues in communities, is what makes the difference. That point should not be lost in a formal, legalese exploration of these statutory arrangements.
Yes, we need training, and you need people who are working on Night Patrols simply because we are putting a statutory framework in place. They need to know about how the statute is going to work, but the essence of their ability to intervene is because they are a family member, they are a community member who these young people know and respect. I would hope, if we found the right people, and that is why the intervention is going to be effective, not because of becoming a pseudo police auxiliary.
Ms CARNEY: I thank the Minister for Health for his comments. He is the Territory’s first law officer at the same time, which makes his comments alarming. Certainly, this is about getting the right people - as the other minister said before, people who have been involved with sniffers, that sort of thing - but this is not just some stuff that has something to do with petrol sniffing. This is about giving authorised people the power to search another human being. These people ...
Dr Toyne: Go out and try it. If you get involved in one of these programs, you will understand them.
Ms CARNEY: Hang on, Peter. This is about giving these people powers that police officers in Australia have. I am astounded, frankly, that the Territory’s first law officer is seeking to say as long as we have people who are trained and know something about sniffing, he seems to be suggesting that that is all we need. No, it is not. This is a very serious and significant power that Labor is giving to authorised people.
The question I asked in relation to training is not unreasonable at all. The government could find itself very easily on the end of legal proceedings where a person will issue proceedings against the Northern Territory government because someone has not searched a person properly; they have done things that perhaps if they had adequate training, they might not have done. I am astounded by the Attorney-General’s and the Minister for Health’s response.
I am concerned that the Minister for Family and Community Services does not know what sort or training might occur, and does not seem to even know when it might occur. Whilst I am grateful that she is going to provide me with the information, this is a significant power. This is unprecedented, I would have thought.
Having dealt with the comments of the Attorney-General, getting back to the training, minister, are you able to advise, for instance, how many authorised people may exist in the regions from individual communities? Would you be aiming for an even distribution between men and women? I would like those questions answered and I ask the question about men and women because we are dealing, essentially, with Aboriginal people. I would not have thought that any woman, regardless of her colour, would not necessarily appreciate being searched by a bloke who may not have any training. If we are talking about doing the right thing, I ask the minister to allay my concerns about this. I appreciate she is not answering any questions about training. Do you have any idea, minister, about how many authorised people from each region might exist? Is there a cap on it? Do you have any idea as to distribution between men and women? Finally, are you concerned or have you turned your mind to what might occur if an Aboriginal man seeks to search an Aboriginal woman?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I think we have gone through this clause enough. I have said to the member for Araluen that I undertake to get some of those details to her. In terms of the training, a bit of common sense here. There have to be some competencies that people have to prove. Authorised persons are not going to be just anyone who comes along. There will be a very strict screening process. It will not just be anyone with criminal records or of suspicious character. That is where we will work very closely with the communities and do the consultation that is needed to ensure that issues such as you have raised where an Aboriginal man is potentially searching an Aboriginal woman which is inappropriate - there are also many cultural issues that have to be taken into consideration. There are certainly a number of things in the training, competencies and criteria that authorised persons will have to undergo.
Screening is certainly a big part in terms of that person’s standing in the community. You are not going to grab just anyone who may have a criminal background or a criminal record or be of suspicious character. That is all part of the screening process and working with the communities to identify people who will then go through and meet certain competencies. First aid is probably one that people will need to have. Anyone having worked in the health sector or who has seen these sniffers would know that having basic first aid is a competency that people will need to prove or have as part of becoming an authorised person. I do not know if that has answered your question, but I feel that that is as far as I can answer it. I think we should move on.
Ms CARNEY: I can assure you, minister, I will not be spending much more time on this. I am troubled, however, because when I first started to ask you some questions about training, you said you had no specifics on the type of training that would be involved. Then, in your answer to the question I just asked, you did say that there would be some competencies that might have to be proved. You also referred to training as being culturally appropriate and you referred to first aid.
If, 10 or 15 minutes ago, you did not have any specifics on the type of training and yet you have rattled some off, is it reasonable for me to assume that you have not given any thought to this training until we raised these concerns? If that is not the case, why did you say 10 minutes ago that you did not know any specifics on the training?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I have answered it.
Ms CARNEY: Sorry, was that no answer? Thank you.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14:
Ms CARTER: Mr Chairman, one point with regards to clause 14(3): I have trouble grasping the logic of this section where it says that the police officer or the authorised person must inform the person - that is the sniffer - that although it is not an offence to possess a volatile substance or to use it for inhalation purposes, they are able to search them for the substance and seize the substance.
The first thing happening is the police officer saying: ‘What is happening here is not an offence, but I have the right now to search you and seize that substance’. Can the minister explain how this is logical?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: What that is, basically, saying is that the act is giving them the power of search and seize, and you are right, at the same time it is saying that it is not a criminal offence.
Ms CARTER: Minister, does it seem to you to be logical?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: This is something where we are going to have to agree to disagree. I know there have been calls for criminalisation on this issue. I am fundamentally opposed to criminalisation, but it does not mean that we stop doing what we are doing because we both have differing views on this. I do not think you and I are very different in terms of our views on a lot of this, member for Port Darwin. It does give police the power to seize and search, but it does not make it a criminal offence.
Ms CARNEY: Mr Chairman, I refer to clause 14(4), which is about procedures for searching for a volatile substance or inhalant. Subclause (4) says that a police officer or an authorised person must then request the person to give the police officer or authorised person any volatile substance or item used to inhale a volatile substance that is in the person’s possession. My question is: what if the person refuses to do so? What happens if the person refuses to do so?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: We have just had this debate on the use of reasonable force.
Ms CARNEY: Do I take it from your answer that if a person refuses to provide the volatile substance, an authorised person can then, if necessary, produce the handcuffs?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: We have already had this discussion when we talked about reasonable force. We have certainly gone through it, and any answer that I give you now is only going to go over what we have talked about in clause 10, where reasonable force may be used.
Ms CARNEY: With respect, minister, that was an appalling answer. Did you give any thought to providing a sanction other than allowing an authorised person, who may be untrained - because we do not know the details of the training they are going to receive, or at least you do not know - but it is possible that an untrained or badly trained authorised person, if a sniffer fails to provide the substance to use reasonable force. Did you think it might be reasonable to provide some sort of sanction other than simply allowing an authorised person to use reasonable force?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I have already answered this. Move on, Mr Chairman.
Ms CARNEY: No, you have not. I would like an answer. The minister has declined to answer that. I will ask another question, and we have plenty of time.
Minister, might it not have been a good idea to impose something in the order of a financial penalty, as we see with so much legislation in the Northern Territory, so that if a sniffer refuses to provide the substance, a fine might ensue as opposed to a possibly untrained person using reasonable force?
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, a couple of comments. The first thing is that, clearly, clause 14 is dealing with ability of the authorised person or police to locate and seize volatile substances or inhalants that they have reason to believe the child or adult has been using. The basis on which they act in that situation is set out in the objects of the act at clause 3:
That is the object of this whole structure, and when a police officer or authorised person is in the situation where they want to confirm that there is a harmful substance present, and to subsequently seize and dispose of it, they are the principles under which they are operating. I just do not see where the opposition member is trying to go with this.
Ms CARNEY: Well, thank you for those illuminating comments. Minister, in the Northern Territory, we have a number of laws. One of them, to use a simple example, is that if you are driving on the road and you are pulled over by a police officer and asked to show your licence and you refuse to do so, that police officer can take action. It is an offence.
If I follow your logic, you might say that you do not want to make that an offence; you reckon that the copper should just use a bit of reasonable force to encourage the person to show their driver’s licence. It is completely illogical that for so much legislation we have various sanctions - there are offences and fines - and yet in this legislation, if someone fails to do something, it is a bit of reasonable force. I certainly would not suggest that an authorised person might then get into a bit of the old hip and shoulder. However, I would be a bit worried if I was on my own, a woman in an Aboriginal community, and an authorised person whose training no one knows about, asked me to provide a volatile substance. There are no sanctions, so that person gets a bit of reasonable force. Minister, this is bizarre. Are you comfortable with this clause? Might you give any consideration to amending it?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: No. What exaggeration and patronisation, member for Araluen. Let us look at clause 14(4):
Go to clause 13, ‘Search for and seizure of volatile substance or inhalant’, subclause (4) reads:
I do not know what you are alluding to in this and why you think that it has not been answered, member for Araluen.
Ms CARNEY: It has not been answered; you are playing ducks and drakes. It is because you do not have much of an idea about the very bill you are introducing, despite the fact that it has been on the books for quite some time and despite a very flowery media release with attachments that was issued in October 2004.
It is patently clear that you, minister, have not given any consideration to training, and we have established that. Then you got sick and tired of it being hammered, so you thought: ‘No, I am not going to answer that one’. Now it is abundantly clear that you sanction the situation …
Mr Henderson: She thinks we sit in the office and write up the training package.
Ms Scrymgour: She would do it; she would sit on the whole bloody thing.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Order!
Ms Scrymgour: Could you hurry up, Mr Chairman? I have asked for it to be hurried up and you do not do it.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Order!
Ms CARNEY: … where if someone fails to do something, up comes the hip and shoulder. You should be ashamed of yourself, minister. Clearly you do not know. It is good that your male colleagues are here to support you. You have the Attorney-General who offers his advice his advice every so often…
Mr CHAIRMAN: Member for Araluen, have you a question, please? We will move on …
Ms CARNEY: My question, Mr Chairman, is - I will ask it again because the minister did not answer it.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I have answered the question.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Member for Araluen, it cannot be the same question. We will be starting to get into repetition.
Ms CARNEY: Minister, are you comfortable with a situation where the safety of sniffers might be compromised by authorised people who may not have been trained and who may overstep reasonable force when exercising their powers under this clause?
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clauses 15 to 16, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 17:
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chairman, I draw the minister’s attention to clause 17(2). I raised in my second reading debate about subclause (c):
What about DNA?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: As you know, Mr Chairman, the Police Administration Act allows the collection of intimate samples where a person is in lawful custody on a charge of an offence. The Police Administration Act is very clear. The act also provides that a person may provide their fingerprints or have their photos taken voluntarily where the police are investigating an offence.
The Volatile Substance Abuse Bill does not allow this to occur simply because the person, (1) is intoxicated and, (2) is not being arrested. If the police think that the person has committed a crime, they will arrest them under existing law.
Mr ELFERINK: That is my point. There is no right for the police to take fingerprints or photographs, but when a person comes into custody for an offence, fingerprints, photographs, DNA are taken. Under the Police Administration Act - and it has been a while since I read section 128 - it is quite specific about fingerprints, photographs and DNA not being taken when people have been apprehended for protective custody. This is an effort to protect a person from having their DNA taken. It is a very straightforward suggestion. There is no power to take fingerprints, no power to take photographs, and there should be no power to take DNA. I am actually agreeing with the intent of this legislation.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I have just checked section 130 of the Police Administration Act, ‘Protection of apprehended persons’, (1)(c):
The same is reflected in this bill.
Mr ELFERINK: Then I was incorrect because it was my understanding that DNA had been added to that list, but that is by the by. Whatever is wrong with the Police Administration Act is not under debate here. What I am concerned about is that on my reading of this, if a person is in protective custody under this legislation, they shall not be photographed. Good. They shall not be fingerprinted. Good. It would be an added protection that no DNA samples are taken, either. What do you think?
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, my understanding under the DNA legislation is that you cannot have DNA samples taken unless you are going to be charged. No one is going to be charged in this situation unless they committed some other offence related to the Criminal Code.
Mr ELFERINK: That is not how it works, mate, you ought to go and read it up. I am not going to dwell on it, Mr Chairman. It is something that should tidy up in this legislation. I was hoping to make a quick amendment here and now, but they are digging their heels in and there is no point in going on about it.
The fact is, by the way, Attorney-General, DNA is taken whether you are charged or not. Once you are arrested, the DNA is taken, and that is whether you are released 10 minutes later because they suddenly realise that they have you for the wrong offence. DNA is still taken and kept.
The other question that I would like to put to the minister in relation to this clause is that an apprehended person must not be charged with an offence, must not be questioned by a police officer in relation to an offence and must not be photographed or have his fingerprints taken. Bearing that in mind, if a person is in custody under this bill and a police officer suddenly becomes aware that the person may have committed a crime, what does the police officer do then? What are the mechanics of it?
A member interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: No, it is not. It happens all the time under 128.
Mr HENDERSON: Members can speculate and hypothesise. Again, the police, under operational orders under the Police Administration Act, make those calls all the time. If someone is in protective custody and information comes to police that the person has a warrant against them for a particular offence or other information comes to the police, the police respond accordingly with their powers to question and, ultimately, charge any suspect that they may or may not have in protective custody or who might be out walking the streets. All of those issues are covered under police operational orders and procedures and there is nothing in this legislation that is any different from what already exists.
Mr ELFERINK: I am fully aware of the procedures, minister for Police. What I am trying to demonstrate to the public of the Northern Territory is that this minister has brought legislation before the House and does not understand the consequences of the legislation. I know the procedure for the hypothetical I just put; this minister does not. The problem is that the minister who has carriage of this legislation must be able to explain to this House how these processes work. The minister struggles to even bring herself to talk about the consequences of reasonable force as a concept. The consequences are quite simple.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I answered reasonable force quite well.
Mr ELFERINK: The consequences are that people end up in handcuffs, restrained, in straight jackets, and in padded cells.
Mr Henderson: They may do.
Mr ELFERINK: They may do. They are the consequences of reasonable force. The consequences of the operation of this legislation are that people’s lives are affected. People who have committed no offence can be arrested, taken into custody - all for their protection, I accept that – and certain powers may be exercised.
Whether the minister likes it or not, when you bring legislation into the public arena, you do so with the expectation that the legislation is followed. In circumstances such as in this sort of legislation, the subjects, petrol sniffers or users of volatile substances, may be forced to do things. The issue that I raise is that this minister must be able to demonstrate that she understands that force has to be used, and she has not once in this debate been able to bring herself to say that people might end up in handcuffs.
Mr Henderson: In your mind.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Have you finished?
Mr ELFERINK: No, I have not and I have another eight minutes if I need it.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Well, you asked me to respond to you.
Mr ELFERINK: Well, the fact is that you have failed to respond on numerous occasions …
Ms SCRYMGOUR: You are a patronising …
Mr CHAIRMAN: Order! Order! Member for Macdonnell, I want to query the relevance to the clause, which is clause 17.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chairman, I have 10 minutes on every clause and I am quite happy to go back to this clause.
Mr CHAIRMAN: No, no. I have no problem with people questioning the minister because, in a unicameral system, this is the only time you can look through the bill properly. However, we are dealing with clause 17 and that is where we must stay …
Mr ELFERINK: I return to clause 17. This minister must understand the mechanics of how this stuff operates and clearly has failed to demonstrate that she understands even the most basic elements of this.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: You never let me answer them!
Members interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, I know the answer. You don’t! This is your legislation.
Members interjecting.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: You are a smarty!
Mr ELFERINK: You have to convince this parliament that you know what is going on, minister! The fact is that you clearly are struggling with this.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: No, I am not. Sit down and I will answer it for you. Sit down! You like listening to the sound of your own voice, that is the problem!
Mr CHAIRMAN: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: The fact is that you thought this might be a good idea, but the effect of all of this is that you are going to end up having to do all of those things that would occur in any instance if petrol sniffing was an offence. What you are doing is window dressing, and that is a real concern to this side of the House.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: What drivel! I have never heard such uninformed and patronising drivel in my life. The member for Macdonnell - now he walks out and does not want to hear …
Members interjecting.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Minister, please withdraw that.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I withdraw.
He asked whether I knew what would happen under the Police Administration Act if a person has been taken into protective custody and it comes to the notice of the police that a crime may have been committed. The answer is that person would be released out of custody and then taken back into custody under existing legislation.
Ms CARNEY: I have a different question, minister, in relation to clause 17 …
Dr Toyne: Oh, goodie! Another question.
Ms CARNEY: Sorry?
Dr Toyne: Oh, goodie! Another question.
Ms CARNEY: Try to stay contained, Peter.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Order!
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Member for Araluen, please use the correct title.
Ms CARNEY: Minister, place of safety: I note in clause 1 that the apprehension of a person is the detention of a person in order to take the person to a place of safety or to a responsible adult, and a ‘place of safety’ is defined under clause 63. That simply says:
Etcetera. Minister, can you tell us what you envisage will be a place of safety, both in urban and remote communities?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Under that clause, you have asked about a place of safety. It is an issue that will need to be agreed on a community-by-community basis. It is not a one-size-fits-all solution. In many instances, a place of safety will be returning someone to their home or to the care of a responsible adult.
In other instances, a place of safety may be a local facility which the community has identified as being appropriate; for example, a youth centre or maybe a women’s centre. In some cases, it might be a nearby outstation. In terms of Central Australia, that is certainly what they have worked towards: rather than trying to keep those children in the main community, but rather develop outstations and put the infrastructure out there and have that, so that could become a place a safety or deemed as a place of safety operating under the supervision of the community or family members.
In urban areas - for example, Alice Springs and Darwin - they will become the two new residential treatment facilities that we have earmarked and that will go to tender in the next couple of weeks.
Ms CARNEY: The two facilities that you just mentioned in Alice Springs and Darwin, are they what you describe as the bricks and mortar component to your package in the document that you attached to your media release on 1 October? It is just a point of clarification. I assume it is, but can you just confirm that it is?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Yes.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19:
Ms CARTER: Clause 19(1) states that ‘a police officer or authorised person may apprehend a person’ if they believe that they have been inhaling. I take it with the use of the word ‘may’ that there is discretion?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Yes.
Ms CARTER: Thank you, minister. With regards to clause 19, and the apprehending which may or may not occur, I take it that it will be as we previously discussed with regards to clause 8, that a police officer or authorised person will not be able to apprehend a person if they are sniffing in a private residence. Is that right?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Sorry, could you repeat that last bit?
Ms CARTER: I take it that the apprehension may not occur in a private residence unless the person who controls that residence gives permission for the police to enter.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Right.
Ms CARTER: Given that situation, I assume that the police could seek a warrant to be able to do that, as you have already mentioned previously in clause 8.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: No, because the sniffing is not an offence. I said this before, although I am not sure which clause. If police have reasonable suspicion that there are activities which constitute an offence, they could certainly get a search warrant and go into that place. However, because it is not an offence, they …
Ms CARTER: Minister, can you explain why a police officer or other person can seek a warrant to take a person for assessment as outlined in clause 35, but you cannot get a warrant to apprehend a person to take any further action at that very early step?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Clause 35, which is what you are talking about, is where they need a warrant to take them for an assessment and that is in line with the compulsory treatment; that is to apply to a magistrate to get a treatment order.
Ms CARTER: You see, minister, once again, I have problems with the logic behind this legislation in that, obviously, you can get warrants to take people for assessment, and a bit further on you can get warrants to take people for treatment. However, here it also says that because sniffing is not illegal you cannot get a warrant to make that very first contact with a sniffer who might be in the back bedroom. It just does not seem to follow logic.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: We can stand up and have the debate all day about this. I know what you are trying to hint at here. This is something, as I said to the member for Araluen, on which we are just going to have to agree to disagree about the issue of the illegality and whether the substance is illegal or an offence. It is set out very clearly. That is our approach. We are proud of the fact that we are not making it a criminal activity. I do not know how much more you want to go into this, member for Port Darwin.
Ms CARTER: To conclude on the comment, then, it seems to me that, in taking someone for assessment if they are not prepared to go for assessment, the inference is that there is some level of illegality because you can get a warrant to drag them off for assessment or for treatment. On the other hand, at the very start when they are actually sniffing, if it is in a private residence without permission to enter, there is nothing you can do. It just does not seem to be logical and I will leave it there.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Do not think that this is something new. Under the Mental Health Act and, clearly under this bill, if a person is harming themselves and clearly shows that, this is in the best interest of not just the community or the family but also the sniffer. I know where you are coming from, but we are just not going to be able to avoid the issue that we do not think it should be a criminal activity or should be illegal. However, if a person is presenting as harming themselves in a severe way, this is a point of intervention and we will intervene, either the police or the authorised person.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clauses 20 to 23, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 24:
Ms CARTER: Mr Chairman, clause 24, which says a child is not to be kept in a police station cell, also says things must be done in accordance with the regulations. Minister, could you advise the current status on development of the regulations, which are obviously going to be linked to this legislation?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: The regulations have not been drafted as yet, member for Port Darwin, but there is discussion between the police and the Department of Family and Children’s Services in relation to the various regulations and, in particular, to this issue of children in cells. The issue of children going in to cells is only as a last resort. The regulations are still being developed through those discussions with the police and FACS.
Ms CARTER: Would you be able to give the House any indication as to when those regulations may be finalised?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Obviously, the regulations will have to be in place before the bill takes effect. The regulations are still subject to discussions between police and FACS, member for Port Darwin. Certainly, as we get closer to it, I undertake to let you know.
Clause 24 agreed to.
Clauses 25 and 26, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 27:
Ms CARNEY: Minister, I referred to this in the second reading debate. I am looking at clause 27(2)(a):
I would like to know what happens if the apprehended person objects to being released to any other person. Does an apprehended person simply, for want of a better description, hang out with the authorised officer for an indefinite period of time?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: In subsection (2), if the (a) and (b) scenario occurs, they will be kept in protective custody and released. If they object to being released into the care of other persons, the other provisions will apply. I will just check that.
They are released in accordance with the general release provisions in clause 26(1). Clause 27 only refers to the earlier release set out in clause 26.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, yes, that does answer the question. It is not every community, or perhaps it is the case, where there will be a place of safety. I am assuming that protective custody would occur at a place of safety, is that correct? Yes?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Yes.
Ms CARNEY: Yes, okay. So what if somewhere there is not a place of safety, where is someone kept in custody - in the back of a car?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: In the back of a police car? I thought I already answered that in terms of a place of safety, member for Araluen. We have gone through that. I said that this will vary from community to community. I also said that one size does not fit all; we are going to see a different approach community by community. The back of a car? It is a bit wild to be saying that.
Ms CARNEY: Well, I am sure you do, but if that is the best answer you can come up with, fair enough.
Clause 27 agreed to.
Clauses 28 to 30, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 31:
Ms CARTER: Mr Chairman, with regards to the definitions detailed in clause 31, I draw members’ attention to ‘authorised officer’. The definition reads:
If you go to clause 66(1), it reads:
I ask: which minister?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I responded to that, member for Port Darwin, when I responded to the member for Araluen who asked that same question. I said that under the Administrative Arrangements, and because I have carriage of this legislation, I will be the minister.
Ms CARTER: That being the case, and continuing on with regards to 66(1):
Does that mean the employee has to be working within the area of Family and Children’s Services or Mental Health or one of the areas that come under your portfolio?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: If I could, member for Port Darwin, there was a minor amendment we were going to move, and I am not sure whether this is the clause, Mr Chairman.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Yes.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: This is the clause in which I was going to propose an amendment to add in ‘health practitioner’. Do you want to …
Mr CHAIRMAN: We can deal with that clause now.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: That goes to the heart of the workability of this, particularly in some of the remote communities.
Ms CARTER: All right, we will do that and see whether it fixes this problem.
Mr CHAIRMAN: The question is that clause 31 stand as printed. Minister.
Ms CARTER: Excuse me, I still want to discuss that issue with regards to ‘authorised officer’. I thought you just wanted to talk about ‘assessor’, which was that amendment.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Do you want to finish what you were asking about ‘authorised officer’ and then we will deal with the amendment?
Ms CARTER: Yes, if I could just pursue that. Clause 66(1) says the minister, yourself, may appoint in writing an employee as an authorised officer.
I might be misconstruing things because we are talking now about treatment orders, not authorised persons; we are talking authorised officers. Is the authorised officer the same as an assessor? My concern is that Family and Children’s Services and Mental Health and Alcohol and Other Drugs are one part of the Health Department and, if you, as minister for those areas, are the only person who can appoint somebody as an authorised officer, does that mean you cannot have, for example, health professionals like nurses appointed as authorised officers because they fall under the Minister for Health’s area and he is not the minister.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: The definition means an employee within the meaning of the Public Sector Employment and Management Act, so that covers …
Ms CARTER: Are you comfortable that will work?
Mr CHAIRMAN: I refer back to the amendment, and ask the minister to speak on that amendment.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 100.1. This amendment is to change the definition of ‘assessor’ in clause 31. The definition will be amended to:
Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 32 agreed to.
Clause 33:
Ms CARTER: With regards to clause 33(2), a request for treatment must be made on a form. Is there such a form, and what sort of information would go on a form like that?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Clause 64 allows me, as the responsible minister, to approve a form of request for a treatment order and the information required. I will make two comments on that: (1) it is not unusual, as the member for Araluen is aware, for legislation to allow forms to be prescribed; and, (2) when determining what form and what information, I will be taking advice from the department, program providers and communities. Most important to me will be ensuring that families and communities are not prevented from using these mechanisms because of overly bureaucratic administrative procedures.
Ms CARTER: With regards to the regulations and now this form - things that are required to be developed in the future - can you give any indication as to when you would expect this bill to be fully operational?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: There is a whole lot of work being done in terms of the regulations and we are trying to get all of that work that needs to be done finalised before this bill is enacted, and the department has been working on that for some time now.
There has been a lot of discussion between the police and FACS to get those things happening. No, I cannot give you a time frame at the moment.
Ms CARNEY: I note in your answer to the member for Port Darwin you said that the department, or you, were consulting with communities in relation to the question she asked. Has that consultation been occurring since you introduced the bill in December last year?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Yes.
Ms CARNEY: Minister, when you introduced the bill you said and I quote:
Ms SCRYMGOUR: A whole lot of work has been done. Member for Araluen, with all of the consultation and discussions happening between FACS and the police, we are now in the process of developing the regulations. With the regulations come guidelines, and part of that is synchronising it all with service providers. That takes some time. We are not giving time frames, whether it is three months’ time or whenever. However, it is taking some time because, whilst we have the bill, the regulations are going to become very important because they are where a lot of the detail is going to be.
Ms CARNEY: Could I ask whether you have a hunch that it might be completed this year? Is that reasonable?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I think all of us can assume that it would be before the end of the year, member for Araluen.
Clause 33 agreed to.
Clause 34:
Mr CHAIRMAN: There is an amendment to clause 34. I ask the member for Port Darwin if that is what she is going to talk about or is it something else?
Ms CARTER: I have not seen that amendment.
Mr CHAIRMAN: The amendment should have been circulated. It relates to subclause 1(b).
Ms CARTER: Right, yes.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: It was circulated to everyone.
Mr CHAIRMAN: I am just checking to see whether …
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Do you want me to move it, member for Port Darwin, and then we can …
Mr CHAIRMAN: I just wanted to make sure that was the same amendment that the member for Port Darwin was looking at.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 100.2. This relates to an assessor who may perform these assessments. Clause 34(1)(b) will become:
Who can be this assessor pursuant to the act? While the categories of professionals who can perform assessments must continue to include medical practitioners and psychologists, limiting assessment to these two categories of health practitioner would significantly impact on the effectiveness of the assessment processes. Other categories of health professionals such as some nurses also have the competence to conduct assessment and excluding them would impact on the assessment process.
The person to be assessed may need to travel to the assessor or wait for the assessor to visit. These delays would be felt most acutely in smaller communities and more remote areas, the very areas most likely to need to be able to access assessment. The amendment rectifies the undesirable situation where family members or others request the minister to assess a person believed to be at risk of severe harm, and this assessment is unduly delayed because of the lack of approved assessors. This minor amendment will help ensure that people can be assessed, referred to courts and rehabilitation programs in a timely fashion.
Ms CARTER: I am quite happy with that amendment. I gather I may now speak with regards to the whole clause.
Mr CHAIRMAN: I will check. We can pass that and then still come back. We are just passing that one amendment. Yes, so if you are happy with it, I will put the amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Ms CARTER: Mr Chairman, with regards to clause 34, which is about the assessment of someone, subclause (1) deals with the minister being satisfied with the information provided under clause 33 that a person may be at risk of severe harm, the minister may, in writing, approve the assessment of a person’s physical, neurological and mental condition.
Minister, can you advise approximately how long you think it would take from you being advised that person might be at risk to you being able to provide, in writing, approval?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Not at the moment, member for Port Darwin. There could be a time frame specified in the regulations. One of the things that we do not want to do is to have a system that is going to be overly bureaucratic and work against what we are trying to achieve here; that is, to get someone into treatment. We can have a time specification in the regulations once they are done.
Ms CARTER: Minister, would it actually be you in your position as minister, or would you be able to delegate that to someone else within the department?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: As with the Community Welfare Act, where even though the act says ‘the minister’, the minister may delegate. That is where we are going to have to look at the proper workability of this act, that it is delegated to officers who are quite capable of doing this work.
Ms CARTER: I am quite comfortable with that. That brings me to another question. With regards to assessments, let us say, for example, that a young person has been sprung sniffing out at the back of a school, which means that the police were actually able to have a role to play with regards to tipping out the petrol. Noting that the young person was intoxicated, say, on a Tuesday, then on Tuesday evening they take that person into the care of, perhaps, the child’s grandparents and the next day, the police take steps to have the child assessed, it would possibly be reasonable that the assessment would not occur due to the need for permission to be provided, until Thursday. By then, the sniffer has sobered up.
How does the situation of assessment work when you have a young person who is sober, who may have been sniffing quite frequently, but they are not interested in answering any questions. How do you see this process working? They are no longer intoxicated.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: It is not an assessment of their intoxication, member for Port Darwin. Clause 34(1)(a) says an assessment of the person’s physical, neurological or mental condition. Even if they have sniffed and may not be sniffing in two days’ time, it does not mean that they are not going to return to sniffing.
We know the reality is that a lot of our sniffers who are out there are hard core sniffers, even if they have one or two day intervals where they are not sniffing, they are going to return to sniff the substance because of the addiction process and why they are doing it in the first place.
Ms CARTER: Minister, you may have already touched on this issue earlier, but clause 34(4) deals with making recommendations to appropriate treatment programs. How long before those programs are up and running?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: There are some service providers providing treatment for these sniffers. I know that CAAPU was a facility where they were sending some sniffers from some of the remote communities; however, I know that has changed. We certainly need to look at this and build on it with those service providers.
A lot of the providers have said they have not been able to provide that service or treatment because of resource issues and funding. This package - not just the legislation, but also the $10m that we have allocated over five years - is part of what we will be putting towards these services and working with them to get the treatment programs in place.
There is no point in having a process where you have compulsory treatment if you do not have any facility or treatment services for these people. At Mt Theo and Ntaria, they run a successful treatment program, as we saw when we went out there. There are services that are already doing it. We need to pull all that together and get it happening a bit more effectively.
Clause 34, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 35:
Ms CARNEY: Minister, I have a couple of questions in relation to clause 35. First, in relation, generally, to the fact that an authorised officer is able to apply to a magistrate for a warrant, I come back to training. Earlier, we were talking about an authorised person; now we are talking about an authorised officer. Can you outline what sort of training an authorised officer may need, given that they will be making applications to magistrates?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Can you repeat that last bit, member for Araluen? I am sorry; I was distracted.
Ms CARNEY: Can you indicate what sort of training authorised officers might need, given that they will be making applications to magistrates for warrants?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I thought I answered that before, even though you felt that I had not adequately answered your question in relation to authorised officers and doing these assessments, member for Araluen.
Ms CARNEY: No, I am sorry, minister. We were talking about authorised person. There are two classifications in this: one is an authorised person; one is an authorised officer.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Okay. With authorised officers, this person is a police officer or a public sector employee and it is entirely appropriate for a police officer to be exercising a warrant.
Authorised officers who already exist in a number of Territory acts: the Kava Management Act; the Dangerous Goods Act.
The Kava Management Act allows the authorised officer to request and use assistance. The act does not define or limit the person who can provide assistance.
The authorised officer has no power to delegate their authority.
Ms CARNEY: I may have misunderstood you, but are you aware, minister, that an authorised officer can be someone other than a police officer? It was not clear from your answer.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Yes.
Ms CARNEY: An authorised officer, of course, given the responsibility of obtaining warrants from magistrates, I ask again, given that we are now talking about an authorised officer as opposed to an authorised person. What you said earlier in relation to an authorised person really does not apply because we are talking about something different. Can you please advise what sort of training an authorised officer will be required to undertake or may need?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: As I said at the start, if we are talking about an authorised officer being a police officer, well, obviously that person has gone through their training.
Ms CARNEY: And if we are talking about an authorised officer who is not a police officer, what sort of training will they be required to have?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: You insist on going through it again, but I have spoken in terms of the training. Again, the member for Araluen is not satisfied that it was answered.
As I said, there would be, in the training, a number of competencies that would need to be satisfied. No, we have not developed it, but it is being developed at the moment regarding the training. Competencies such as, say, first aid, a lot of people will need, particularly working at the coalface in a situation such as this.
Ms CARNEY: With respect, you really do seem quite confused between an authorised person. I refer you to clause 60 of the bill that very specifically lists the things an authorised person can do, compared with clause 66, which is an authorised officer.
Do I take it that you are relying on the answer you gave regarding questions I put in relation to an authorised person? Is it the same answer for an authorised officer under clause 66, noting that there is a difference?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: With respect to the training, there will need to be some training for both. As part of discussions with the police and FACS staff, there will be training across these agencies. Both will require training and both will receive it, whether it is the officer or the person.
Ms CARNEY: Given that an authorised officer is the person who can apply to a magistrate for a warrant, can you tell us whether you envisage that authorised officer instructing lawyers to make application for warrants in the event, for instance, of an authorised officer not feeling able to make an application him or herself?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: To answer your question, the authorised officer will need to have appropriate skills to appear in court, as you have just said. There are FACS employees who have these skills.
Ms CARNEY: You would be aware that, even say, under the Community Welfare Act, whilst there are people at FACS who do have the ability to appear at court in most matters or in matters that are of a different or complex nature, they instruct solicitors to act for them - indeed, lawyers sign up for Health Department tenders for that very purpose; I was one of them in a previous life. Do you envisage that an authorised officer will instruct lawyers to appear on occasion for applications for warrants?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Yes, depending on what the situation is.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you. That being the case, does it then follow that law firms in the Northern Territory will have an opportunity to tender for work under this bill to cover the situations where an authorised officer might not feel comfortable appearing themselves? Does that follow as a matter of logic? I think it does.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I suppose if the situation arises, that that is how it would be. I mean …
Ms CARNEY: Have you given any consideration, minister, to how many applications for warrants might be made in a calendar year and, if so, what the costs of engaging or paying solicitors for that purpose might be?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: No, member for Araluen. It is a bit far-fetched for you to stand there and ask me if I know the cost of engaging lawyers. That is a hypothetical …
Ms CARNEY: Forgive me, minister, but I …
Members interjecting.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I cannot answer that for you and, because I do not answer it, you are going to say: ‘You are not across the bill. You do not know what you are talking about’.
Members interjecting.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Order! Because we are in the committee stage, we need to try and keep it to the clause and that question was slightly hypothetical. The clause relates to a warrant to take a person for assessment, so we need to hone in on that.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Sorry, Mr Chairman, what clause is the member for Araluen up to?
Ms CARNEY: 35.
Mr CHAIRMAN: We should be on clause 35, so we need to keep focussed because we are in the committee stage.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Yes, we are on clause 35 and it is all about warrants and authorised officers making applications for warrants and, when they are unable to do so, instructing lawyers.
The reason I asked the question is that I had an expectation that the minister was across the issue. I thought that, as the minister responsible for this bill, consideration may have been given to the ramifications of people who are not able to appear in court. It was only after my third question to that effect that she eventually said: ‘Oh yes, they will need training. We will need to make sure that they are able to appear in court’.
This is not a minister who is across the issue, and I do not think it is unreasonable to ask whether there is any consideration to other costs arising from it. It demonstrates to me this has not been thought through.
In any case, noting her answers, I now change tack a little. In relation to clause 35(6), it says:
Did I hear you correctly? Mr Chairman, the member for Wanguri is obviously having a lovely time. I am happy that he is, but it is a little disconcerting. Can you giggle outside? Thank you. Minister …
Mr Kiely: Oh, dear!
Ms CARNEY: Well, I am happy to be here all night, Mr Chairman.
Members interjecting.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Order! The member for Araluen is speaking.
Ms CARNEY: I will start again. Clause 35(6):
Minister, who can assist an authorised officer?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Member for Araluen, could you repeat the question?
Mr CHAIRMAN: Could you repeat that question please, member for Araluen?
Ms CARNEY: Who can assist an authorised officer?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: The bill allows the authorised officer to request and use assistance. It does not define or limit the person who can provide assistance.
Mr Elferink: The tea lady.
Ms CARNEY: Sorry, minister, I had …
Ms SCRYMGOUR: The tea lady! Use common sense, for goodness sake!
Mr Elferink: Well, it can be. Under this legislation, it can be. That is the problem: it can be the tea lady.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The member for Araluen is on her feet.
Ms CARNEY: Minister, would you be good enough to repeat that answer? I did not hear all of it. Whatever! Can you repeat it?
Mr CHAIRMAN: Order! We will have a break at the end of this clause.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: The authorised officer can certainly get anyone to assist, and I answered this before. If we look at the Kava Management Act, it also allows the authorised officer to request and use assistance. The act does not define or limit the person who can provide assistance.
Ms CARNEY: You quoted there from the Kava Management Act. Is that correct?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: The Kava Management Act.
Ms CARNEY: The Kava Management Act, yes, okay. I am not, with respect, interested in the Kava Management Act. I am interested in this act.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: No, but a lot of this is already in existing acts.
Ms CARNEY: So, do I take it, minister, that in this bill you are happy for anyone to assist an authorised officer execute a warrant and that person, namely anyone, is able to use reasonable force in so doing?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Mr Chairman, we could go backwards and forwards on this. Member for Araluen, a bit of common sense should prevail here. Surely to goodness you are not just going to get the tea lady, as the member for Macdonnell suggested. He might become a tea lady in his next life. For goodness sake! Common sense should prevail here. The person may request assistance, say, from a health worker who would be an authorised person, a nurse, or a member of the Night Patrol.
Ms CARNEY: So it can be a health worker, a nurse or a member of the Night Patrol …
Ms Lawrie: For example.
Dr Toyne: For example.
Ms CARNEY: For example. But it might be anyone else. My concern, and it is obvious why I am troubled about this: in this bill, you are giving quite significant and specific powers to authorised people. I have asked a number of questions in relation to their training. You have said that you did not have the specifics.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Yes, look at your bill! What did you have?
Ms CARNEY: Hang on, hang on. Do me the courtesy. You have said that you did not have the specifics about their training. Only after more questions did you give a couple of examples as to the training. One was first aid.
Did you give any consideration or would you give any consideration to changing that section, even in six or 12 months, so that you can better regulate a type of person who will be assisting an authorised officer using reasonable force, and do you concede that the clause, the way it is worded, may be open to abuse in some of our remote communities?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I do not think it will be open to abuse in our remote communities. That is something that we are going to have to work with. Mr Chairman, I believe I have answered this. Can we move on?
Ms CARTER: With regards to clause 35 and the warrant to take a person in for assessment, we have already established the minister and I are never going to agree on this. The fact is clause 35(1)(a) is another illustration of how the sniffing of a substance which is not illegal, and the sniffing as an act is not illegal, but a person can, however, be forced to be assessed. We will settle on that yet again, that the minister and I are not going to agree on that particular issue.
Going to clause 35(2), the magistrate may issue a warrant to the authorised officer if the magistrate is satisfied that things have been done that are approved and all other grounds for the application are established. Could the minister give any detail as to what sort of other grounds, which would not be the mental health, the physiology, etcetera, would exist that need to be established in order for a warrant to be granted?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Well, the risk of harm.
Ms CARTER: Okay. On the same issue, with regards to the granting of warrants, is there any method for a person to appeal in an effort to try and prevent this action happening to them? Is there anywhere they can go to appeal?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: The magistrate may issue the warrant and they can appeal after that.
Ms CARTER: Who would they appeal to?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: To the court.
Ms CARTER: Continuing on clause 35, what if the police were to take a sniffer to a clinic for assessment and the sniffer refuses to stay and keeps walking out? Can the person be forced to stay there while the assessment is being done?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: As the clause says, they are to remain there. If you look at clause 35(4), the warrant stays in place for 30 days, and clause 35(5), in executing the warrant, the authorised officer may use reasonable force or assistance, and must produce the warrant to a person at the place where the warrant is executed.
Ms CARTER: You were referring then to clause 35(3)(d)?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Yes.
Ms CARTER: No, you were at clause 35(4). My point, Mr Chairman, is that it appears from the legislation we are dealing with a warrant to take the person for assessment, so it is the ‘taking’. Does that allow for the person then to be held for the assessment, which might take an hour or so to do, or does it not?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Yes.
Clause 35 agreed to.
Mr CHAIRMAN: We will resume the committee stage of the Volatile Substance Abuse Protection Bill 2004.
Clauses 36 to 38, by leave, taken together:
Mr ELFERINK: In relation to clause 36(1), what is the time between a person being taken into custody and such an application being made? In relation to clause 36 …
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I am applying to the court for an order that the person at risk named in the application must participate in a treatment program. One would want to think that once that has come to my notice and I have been asked to apply for this, I would try to do it ASAP without any delay.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chairman, can the minister advise how long she would expect between a person being taken into custody by her department and her being advised would be? What the sort of time delay would she expect?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: May I say to the member for Macdonnell that being in custody is not a requisite for treatment. They are two separate things.
Mr ELFERINK: I am a little confused by that response. A person is taken into custody and an application is made for a treatment order, they may occur separately, but they may also occur together. I would like to know how much time a person may potentially spend in custody before an application is made.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: On applying for an order?
Mr ELFERINK: An application for a treatment order; that is the application. I am a little confused by the minister’s response. A warrant to take a person in for assessment is how clause 35 works, so the person is going to be assessed and the assessment is done by the department, I take it.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Because you keep talking about custody, I am not sure where you are coming from. Custody is covered by the protective custody provisions, and they have specific time frames that are not relevant here. What are you trying to say?
Mr ELFERINK: I am trying to figure out how this assessment - you are introducing a whole new …
Ms SCRYMGOUR: You are talking about custody as if someone is in custody, and that is what I said. Being in custody and being assessed are two different things.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes. You just talked about a warrant to take a person for assessment. That is custody. You arrest that person and take them into custody so that they can be assessed. Is that how a warrant works?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: We did this in clause 35, which is about warrants. We are on Division 3 and talking about treatment orders. It does not mean that you are talking two of the same. We are now Division 3, treatment orders, so stick to those clauses. You are saying that someone in custody would automatically get treatment. That is not the case.
Mr ELFERINK: All right, fine. So you are saying that a person under clause 35, which we have already discussed, can be taken into custody for the purpose of an assessment. You are saying that the operation of the treatment order is entirely different so that at any time, the minister, on the advice of the department, can make an application for a treatment order. Yes?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Once the person is assessed, okay? We do the assessment and the person has been assessed. I can then apply to the court for a treatment order for that person on whom we have just done the assessment. The person is held - only held - under the warrant for the purpose of the assessment and not until the matter goes to court.
Mr ELFERINK: Okay, so the way I understand your legislation working now is that you get a warrant to take a person in for an assessment, the assessment is complete, you then let that person go, and then you make an application for a treatment order. Is that correct?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Yes.
Mr ELFERINK: Okay. Minister, how does that protect a petrol sniffer?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: It provides a lot of protection for petrol sniffers, member for Macdonnell. What did you do in all the time that you were on this side of the House in government? No, no! Do not sit there and frown. What did you do?
We are not going to have a perfect system here, and we are not pretending that we have a perfect system, but what we have is a framework that we are going to build on. At least we, on this side, have put together the legislative framework that needs to be now implemented. We have put the $10m in the services and treatment that this issue needs to have, so there are things that have been happening.
You get up there, all holier than thou, as though what you had in place was a perfect system, and that you had the commitment to deal with this scourge. I am not saying that we have all the answers and that what we have is going to be right the first time. It may not be right, but we need to have these things implemented and then we will have a look. We may need to finetune in six to 12 months, and look at the workability of this legislation.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chairman, just a closing comment. This is the minister’s legislation; it is not my legislation. What has happened is that the minister has said: ‘We have a system we are going to put into place’. That involves taking people into custody. It then involves releasing the person back into the community whilst the minister goes and seeks an order. That means the relevant person will then be at liberty to continue engaging in self-harm or, if that is that person is not at liberty, that person must be in custody of some sort. That may not necessarily be locked up in a cell, but it is a deprivation of their liberty in one fashion or another, which is other than a normal liberty that people enjoy. Consequently, the minister is suggesting that we apprehend, then release, and then, I imagine with a treatment order, re-apprehend.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Like all these things, inevitably there is going to be some delay between the assessment and the decision-making regarding treatment and access to that treatment. We want, at all costs, to make sure that that time frame is as short as practicable. It is in everyone’s interest to make sure that we cut out as much bureaucratic delay as we can, and that these time frames are met.
Mr ELFERINK: In relation to the operation of clause 38, I notice that any of the following persons may attend a hearing for the application: the person at risk, any other person given notice of the application, any member of the family of the person at risk. Then it says:
Is there any provision here for legal representation?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: In a court hearing, the person at risk may want legal representation. If you go to court, you go and get a legal representative.
Mr ELFERINK: This is interesting because the function of the system that applies here is that there is a section that says that the application may be heard in the absence of the applicant if the applicant is represented at the hearing. Therefore, it is either the person themselves who has to be there, or some sort of representative. Why have we not put into (2) a legal representative, just to be sure?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: That is one of the reasons for the notification in clause 37(1).
Ms CARTER: With regard to clause 36, it says:
And I assume that is the Magistrates Court:
How do you make a person participate in a treatment program? Does it mean, for example, that an authorised officer has to accompany them throughout the treatment if they do not want to participate? It says ‘must participate’, not ‘attend’ but actually participate in it.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: In terms of compulsory treatment and where we cannot order people to go into court-mandated treatments; if it is a court-mandated treatment, of course you can get them to go into treatment.
The CLP, with the Liquor Act, had a provision under that act and you called it prohibition orders, but it became too hard because the one thing that needs to happen is the enforcement. When the CLP was in government, that was one of the things that they did not want to do: put the resources towards enforcing and making sure that those things happened. This is not anything new. This was taken from what I believe is quite a good clause, which was legislation developed under the CLP government.
Ms CARTER: With regard to participation, do you believe that this legislation can really force someone to participate in a program? How do you actually do that? For example, say you are in a focus group or some sort of group work, how do you make a person participate as opposed to just sit there?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I will just answer this, and then that is it; I am going to move on. The Volatile Substance Abuse Bill is not about turning sniffers into criminals. We have already had that determined and said that we will always agree to disagree about that. It is also not about locking kids up; it is about banning petrol sniffing, and giving police and the community the power to stop sniffing when it is occurring.
It provides a legal framework for current community and family practice. It builds on community sanctions against use and allows communities to use the legislation to stop the harm that sniffing causes. This is the type of support that communities want, not laws that punish or lock people up; most often young people.
The emphasis of this bill is on prevention and early intervention, and police will have the power to remove petrol or paint containers and take the young person to a place of safety. This type of immediate intervention will have far greater and longer term benefits than criminal sanctions.
The legislation allows for courts, at the request of families and communities, to require that people who are serious or chronic users to be compelled to participate in a treatment program. It is this coercion from family and community leaders and the evolution of formal court processes that will ensure compliance.
Clauses 36 to 38 agreed to.
Clause 39:
Ms CARTER: Clause 39 is about the jurisdiction and procedure of the court. Where is this court? Is it located in one of our main centres, or is it a travelling court that goes out to communities? If it is, could it be some months before a person actually appears before that court?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Whether it is a court in any of our centres, member for Port Darwin, we have a very good bush court circuit that goes quite regularly through a lot of our bush communities. We are building on what is already in place and making sure that happens.
Ms CARTER: Minister, given your answer there, could you envisage a situation where it might be, for example, three or four weeks between the concept of a treatment plan being developed, having a client who is reluctant to participate, and the need to get a court order? Could it be, for example, three weeks between the need for a treatment being identified and obtaining a court order?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: It could probably take three weeks, member for Port Darwin. A lot of this is about case management, getting the individual and sitting down to develop a proper case management plan for that individual.
Ms CARTER: Clause 39(3) says that the court is not bound by the rules of the court or the rules of evidence. Why is that?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: As I understand it, it is to allow the court to act more informally. Where you have the bush circuit and those issues had to go before that bush court, it would allow flexibility.
Mr ELFERINK: Just very quickly: clause 37 again, which is the …
Mr CHAIRMAN: We have moved on. We are on clause 39.
Clause 39 agreed to.
Clause 40 agreed to
Clause 41:
Ms CARNEY: Minister, you will be aware that during the second reading debate, I raised a number of issues so these questions certainly will not come as a surprise to you. In relation to clause 41(3)(c), it says that a warrant must authorise the authorised officer:
Could you answer these questions? I assume that under clause 66, the authorised officer will be employed by the Department of Health. Do I take it then that the person has the ability to stay at a place for an indefinite period of time? If so, do you have any ideas as to limiting the period of time they might stay at a particular place whilst they are trying to find a person at risk?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: As I said before, member for Araluen, when we were getting down into the semantics of this, a bit of common sense should prevail here. Unless you are willing to allow your common sense to look at some of this and see what the intent is, I have answered it before.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, minister. When dealing with bills that affect the people of the Northern Territory, it is prudent for us all to get down to semantics. It is all about statutory drafting and interpretation, so I note your comments, but I disagree with them.
Would you be supportive of, say, an authorised officer staying at a community for a month? Is that reasonable? Would you envisage issuing any directives or protocols for the employees?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I am not even going to answer that.
Ms CARNEY: Is that a refusal to answer that question, minister? Yes, it is.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I have answered it.
Ms Martin: You are not in court.
Dr Toyne: It is so silly it does not deserve an answer.
Ms CARNEY: You can all join in, everyone. You can murmur away, but if you have something to constructive to put, why don’t you get to your feet, you cowards?
Mr CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
Members interjecting.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
Ms CARNEY: Minister, in relation to the authorised officer, them being an employee, their role is determined by clause 66 and, obviously, we will come to that later. Will you be advertising those positions for authorised officers or do you envisage just appointing them?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: They will be appointed, member for Araluen. Can I just pick up on what you were saying before with regards to the person remaining in place for as long as the officer considers necessary to find the person. You asked whether this person could just stay there for months collecting travel allowance. Basically, what I believe you are trying to ask me is whether I think public servants abuse the system, and my answer is no. I think that public servants will carry out their duties ethically and appropriately, as they do now.
Ms CARNEY: Hear, hear, minister! Minister, in relation to clause 41(6), it says:
We talked about this earlier and you said that really anyone could assist the authorised person to use reasonable force. Do you envisage an authorised officer, for the purposes of clause 41, delegating his or her powers?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: No, and I answered this before.
Ms CARNEY: Minister, you will be aware that an authorised person under clause 66 is issued with an identity card and so on. In relation to anyone who assists an authorised officer, might it be prudent for them to be issued with an identity card and comply with the same requirements as an authorised officer needs to comply with so that a person who is on the other end - that is a sniffer - can be assured that any person assisting an authorised officer carrying out the functions under clause 41 is a person of authority with some sort of imprimatur from you as minister to act in that role?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Again, your common sense went out the window when you went out, member for Araluen. When I answered before, I said that the authorised officer, being a police officer, and the person assisting would be a health worker or a nurse. That has already been discussed and we should move on.
Ms CARTER: Mr Chairman, with regards to clause 41(6), we are talking about a person assisting the authorised officer and it deals with the use of reasonable force. We have not established a definition of the person assisting. It may well be, for example, someone’s husband, so it might be that a registered nurse becomes the authorised officer and she or he gets called out late at night to deal with an issue and his or her spouse, then assists as the person assisting. If you turn to clause 68, it deals with protection from liability and lists the people who are protected. It does not mention a person assisting. I wonder what sort of problems with regards to liability someone who is assisting but who is not a member of the public service could encounter.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Under clause 68, member for Port Darwin, they are protected. If you are going to have a husband and wife team in a community dealing with this issue, both, I assume, would be authorised persons and they would be covered under this legislation. Clauses 68(2) and (3) certainly cover the person assisting the authorised officer to carry out that work.
Ms CARTER: With all due respect, minister, clause 68(1), on my reading of it, applies to a person who is or has been an employee, an authorised officer or an authorised person. It does not deal with anyone else. Subsection (2) deals with ‘the person’ detailed in (1). Someone who becomes an assisting person, a person assisting as mentioned in clause 41(6), unless they are a public servant or have been duly authorised in those areas may find themselves in legal trouble.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I have checked it, but I will seek more advice on that, member for Port Darwin. We will move on and I will get back to you.
Clause 41 agreed to.
Clause 42 agreed to.
Clause 43:
Ms CARTER: Minister, I am asking this question solely because I do not understand clause 43. For Hansard and clarity of legislation, because I suspect I would not be the only person in the Territory in this position, clause 43 is headed:
Could the minister provide any detail as to what that actually means?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I will have that checked, member for Port Darwin.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Minister, would you like us to wait or do you want to move on?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: No, we have it. In relation to clause 43, that would be like the CBD of Darwin, for instance.
Clause 43 agreed to.
Clause 44 agreed to.
Clause 45:
Ms CARTER: Clause 45 deals with the meeting that must be held about a proposed management area, and clause45(1)(a) stipulates that the minister must:
How would you do that, given that, in many instance, we are talking about a remote Aboriginal community?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: We would have a meeting with them.
Ms CARTER: For the record, I assume, with regard to clause 45(2), it may well be that the role of the minister has actually been delegated to a member of the department.
Clause 45 agreed to.
Clauses 46 to 48, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 49:
Ms CARTER: For the record, would you be able to provide any detail as to when the regulations would be able to provide the detail outlined in clause 49(3) with regards to the form of management plans that are detailed there?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: We have talked a lot about regulations and time frames. When the other regulations are done, these will be done as part of them.
Clause 49 agreed to.
Clauses 50 to 65:
Mr ELFERINK: Hang on! Sorry, was that 51 and 52? There is an issue I wanted to raise.
Mr CHAIRMAN: It has been and gone.
Mr ELFERINK: There is an issue I wanted to raise. I apologise for that. May I raise it or not? It was 52 and 53, specifically two very short, simple questions.
Mr CHAIRMAN: If you keep it short.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes. Clause 52.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: No, we have passed that.
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Mr Chairman! The committee stage of debate follows an established precedent of moving through clause by clause. If the member for Macdonnell cannot follow the course of the debate, that is his issue. I am sure that if he seeks further clarification, if he contacts the minister’s office, that clarification will be provided. However, we are now on clause 66 and I urge you, as committee Chair, to continue with the passage of the bill.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chairman, I am guilty of an evil crime; I missed the jump when I misunderstood what clauses we were up to. They are very straightforward questions and I understand the minister is anxious to get this through, but they will take a couple of seconds to answer.
Mr CHAIRMAN: I will allow it, but I will not allow any further deviation. Is it 52 and 53?
Mr ELFERINK: Clauses 52 and 53. Can you advise whether clauses 52 and 53 are regulatory offences or simple offences?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: They are part of the bill so they …
Mr ELFERINK: No, no, no. That is not how it works. As I said in my second reading debate in which I signalled I was going to bring this issue up, all I need to know is whether they are going to be dealt with by the courts as regulatory offences or as simple offences or crimes?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: No.
Mr ELFERINK: You have not got a …
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I did; I said no.
Mr CHAIRMAN: We will move on.
Clauses 50 to 65 agreed to.
Clause 66:
Ms CARNEY: Minister, I appreciate that we have traversed issues regarding an authorised officer and, indeed, an authorised person, in the last couple of hours. However, I would like to ask another couple of questions in relation to it based on the concerns that have emerged as a result of your answers.
I note that clause 66(2) provides for you to issue to each authorised officer an identity card, which is a good idea. On that identity card will include a photograph and signature of the officer, a statement of the powers the officer is authorised to exercise and any other information prescribed by the regulations.
Minister, given that you intend to be quite particular in providing the authorised officer with the statement of the powers he or she is authorised to exercise, why is it that you have been so relaxed, for want of a better description, in relation to anyone else who may assist an authorised officer?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: It is the person assisting, member for Araluen. It is not being relaxed about the whole thing; we take this quite seriously. It is someone assisting in a one-off situation.
Ms CARNEY: You would concede, minister, that a one-off situation actually can be a situation where the person assists in using reasonable force. Are you not concerned at all about someone other than an authorised officer perhaps overstepping the mark or, in the alternative, a person not having had the sort of training that may be envisaged for an authorised officer?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: There has been a lot of consultation in relation to this bill and, particularly, in relation to that. As I said, I am aware of the issues that have been raised by sections of the community in Alice Springs. Alice Springs is about the only place where this issue has come up. There has been a lot of consultation with those people and those services. We hope with the regulations, guidelines and other things that are put in place that we will avoid scenarios and hypotheticals to which you are alluding. Sometimes there are situations that you cannot avoid; certain things will happen. Authorised officers will be police officers, nurses or others, so a bit of common sense will tell these people who they will go and get to assist them if they have to use reasonable force to apprehend a sniffer.
Ms CARNEY: Minister, you have said on a couple of occasions now that an authorised officer can be a police officer, which is clearly the case; and the other example you have given is that it could be a nurse. You would concede, would you not, that an authorised officer could be anyone who is appointed pursuant to clause 66? Are you not troubled by the fact that no guidelines are yet in place that would assist even an authorised officer - putting to one side anyone who could assist the authorised officer? Are you not concerned about not having guidelines in place? I ask that because it would be no doubt of assistance to an authorised officer and it would also assist people that the authorised officer is dealing with.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I am not troubled because we are developing those guidelines and regulations.
Ms CARNEY: Minister, you referred to people in Alice Springs raising concerns. You would be aware of the concerns expressed by Blair McFarland. I will quote from an interview he did on 17 December last year on ABC in Alice Springs. He said this:
You spoke to Blair McFarland, I gather, since that interview? What advice did you give him to reassure him about his concerns? It is not just me raising these concerns, obviously. What advice did you give him in relation to his concerns?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I have not spoken to him since that interview, but I have talked to him in relation to the intent of this bill. He has been quite supportive of this bill and its intentions. We have gone through enough; I have provided the explanation for authorised officers. You are not happy with that. We can keep going backwards and forwards on this …
Ms CARNEY: I have two more questions in relation to clause 66. I asked earlier whether you would advertise the positions of authorised officers, given that they are going to be employees …
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I have answered that; I said that they would be appointed.
Ms CARNEY: Sorry, you have misunderstood. I asked whether you were going to advertise; you said that you would appoint them. Why do you prefer them to be appointed, and why will you not advertise those positions, given that they are going to be people employed by the Health department?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: They could be currently employed. If we are looking at remote Aboriginal communities, once we consult with those communities, they are going to be in a better position to be able to tell us. Once we have gone through those people and they meet the criteria, then they will be appointed into those positions.
Ms CARNEY: That is the criteria that does not exist yet, I take it, minister?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I am finished.
Ms CARNEY: I note that you decline to answer. In relation to clause 66(3), it says as soon as reasonably practicable after a person ceases to be an authorised officer, the person must return the identity card to the minister. How does a person cease to be an authorised officer?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: They could find another job, or they could die, or they could move away, and if they move away and relocate somewhere else, they cease to be an officer.
Ms CARNEY: So, minister, do I take it from your answer that the only way someone does cease to be an authorised officer is if they die, relocate, move away …
Members interjecting.
Ms CARNEY: Members of this Chamber obviously do not take scrutiny of legislation seriously, as we do.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Order!
Members interjecting.
Ms CARNEY: Given that there is no criteria, given that these jobs will not be advertised, people will receive money for them, which I assume probably will include motor vehicles - the word Toyota rings in my ear - travel allowance, a salary. Given that you, minister, are going to appoint these people, I ask: is there any other circumstance in which a person could cease to be an authorised officer? Yes or no.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: They are already employed. If new positions are created, of course we will advertise. Power to appoint also includes power to repeal this appointment. Also, appointment may be time-limited or dependent on them being an employee.
Ms CARNEY: Sorry, could you repeat the first part of your answer, the reference to advertising? I could not quite hear it.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I spoke loud enough, member for Araluen. You are being pedantic with a lot of this. I said, and if you can open your ears and listen …
Ms CARNEY: Well, you can open your bloody mouth, woman! Speak louder!
Members interjecting.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Order!
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I refuse to answer it. Move on, Mr Chairman. I am finished.
Clause 66 agreed to.
Clause 67 agreed to.
Remainder of bill taken together:
Ms CARNEY: I have a question in relation to clause 68. You obviously have an aversion to answering questions. However, we will proceed, it being our right when scrutinising your legislation that you so obviously know so little about.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Order, member for Araluen!
Ms CARNEY: In relation to clause 68, minister, can you tell us why it is that you afforded protection from liability for the people of the positions outlined in clause 68(1)?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: In a previous question that the member for Port Darwin put to me in relation to this, I said that I would provide the information on this and forward it to her, and I will do so.
Ms CARNEY: Minister, this is your bill. You introduced it in December. You now seek to pass it, and yet by your answer, you are saying you do not know why it is that you afforded protection from liability for the people described in clause 68(1). Minister, would you like to reconsider your answer?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: This is a standard provision in all legislation where appropriate.
Ms CARNEY: The minister said it is a standard provision so, whilst she said to the member for Port Darwin when she raised it that she would get back to her, when I asked her, she said she would get back to us.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Yes.
Ms CARNEY: After receiving advice, she has finally realised why it is that in her bill she has included a clause like clause 68. Minister, since you have now apparently been advised why it is that you did include this clause, why is it that you afford protection from liability for the people described therein, yet there is no protection from liability for anyone else assisting an authorised officer?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I did answer it before when I said that this was a standard provision. In relation to what I said to the member for Port Darwin, because there is more detail that is involved with the person assisting, I undertook to get that that detail to the member for Port Darwin, which she agreed to.
Ms CARNEY: Minister, can you tell us why it is that you have not provided any protection from liability for other people who may go to the assistance of authorised officers? Can you explain the logic for that decision?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: In terms of someone assisting, we cannot identify those people. We do not know who those people are. That is about all I am answering, Mr Chairman.
Remainder of bill agreed to.
Bill to be reported with amendments.
Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (Serial 271):
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill to be reported without amendment.
Bills reported; report adopted.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Family and Community Services): Madam Speaker, I move that the bills be now read a third time.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, we said at the outset that we would not oppose this legislation, and we will not. However, what has emerged from the minister’s very ordinary answers is that she really does not know very much about this. We have seen it in the parliament before. I thought the minister might know more about this than she revealed. In the relatively short time I have left, I am happy to go through about how little she knew. I am disappointed about how little she knew.
Members interjecting.
Ms CARNEY: Well, they can scream abuse all they like - whatever. This is a minister who issued a media release in October saying ‘We are going to do this and we are going to do that’. Then in December, they introduced a bill. This minister indicated to Territorians that: (a) she knew what the bill was about; and (b) that it was actually going to achieve some outcomes in relation to petrol sniffing and sniffing of other substances. What she has so clearly and embarrassingly demonstrated tonight is that either she never understood it or she looked at it some months ago and has not looked at it since.
Let us look at some of the things the minister had no idea about. She had no idea about when the act would commence - pretty incredible. She thinks it will be some time this year, so it will be some time, she thinks, between now and the next seven months. Given the speed with which she issued the media release in October 2004, I would have thought that she would be well versed on when this bill would become law, and yet it seems to be falling into an abyss. She does not know. She could not even give us an indication, except that it would come in at some point this year.
Despite what she said in her second reading speech in December - and I will remind people what it was she said:
I had an expectation, and I am sure I am not the only one, that the minister might have given those matters consideration before pressing the bill to be passed today. It is clear from her answers that she has not given them any consideration.
Let us go on to see what else she did not know about. She had no idea about the type of training that an authorised person might undertake. She said she did not have the specifics on the type of training, that the department would identify it and they would be working with the police and so on. The minister who sponsors this bill said: ‘I have no idea of the specifics of the type of training’.
Then, to make matters worse, after she was pushed on several occasions, she ultimately said there would need to be some level of competencies that would need to be proved. She did not seem to know what they were. She said something about some people knowing something about first aid which, whilst it may assist some, demonstrates that she really does not understand what an authorised person will be charged with doing under this legislation.
To make matters worse, she was clearly confused about the difference between an authorised person and an authorised officer. The former has their responsibilities outlined in clause 60 and the latter’s responsibility are outlined in clause 66, a fairly fundamental difference; different definitions and slightly different roles. The minister threw them both together and assumed that the answers she provided in relation to an authorised person were the same as those that could be applied for an authorised officer. No, minister, that is not the case.
The minister had no idea whether an authorised officer may need to be trained, in the sense that the person would make an application to magistrates for warrants. Again, when pushed, she said: ‘Oh, yes, they might need some sort of training to assist in making applications’. Further, she did not know whether such people might need to engage lawyers to appear for them in court. Again, after being pushed, she conceded that might be the case. She had no idea as to the costs that might be incurred by the retention of lawyers for that purpose, a fairly extraordinary lack of knowledge, I would have thought, given that, no doubt, the media release is all lined up for tomorrow that will be sent around the Northern Territory saying how wonderful the minister was and what a great job she did. Well, she did not.
Dr Toyne: Something’s finally being done about a problem after a quarter of a century.
Ms CARNEY: She knew embarrassingly little about her own legislation.
Mr Henderson: A minister. Show some respect.
Ms CARNEY: Then, of course, we saw the members for Wanguri and Stuart trying their bit to protect and help her, but the minister is fairly exposed in this case, and I believe we showed the extent of her lack of knowledge. I expected more.
Ms Lawrie: You are in fantasy land.
Ms Martin: What is the word for picking on women? Misogyny?
Ms CARNEY: I know that she has a personal commitment to this issue and, yet, as a minister of the Crown - and that is what she is, Madam Speaker, a minister of the Crown - who sponsors legislation, she comes in here and just wants us to say: ‘Yes, no problem, we will concede to every point you raise …
Ms Scrymgour: I did not expect you to. Not you! Not you, poison drop!
Ms CARNEY: Well, Madam Speaker, members of the Northern Territory Branch of the Australian Labor Party may not take legislation or the scrutiny of it very seriously, but I do. We are parliamentarians; we make law. It is a solemn duty that we have. I am sure it would have been pleasing to members on the other side if we on this side had just stood back and said: ‘Yes, we agree’, but we do not agree.
Every question was reasonable, and the way in which you and the boys came in and tried to huddle together and tried to protect her clearly demonstrated that even they knew how deficient she was in her knowledge of her own legislation. Tonight we have seen one of the worst performances of a minister of the Crown that I have seen since I was elected in 2001.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Members interjecting.
Ms CARNEY: It was absolutely abysmal. In fact, when I raised the point of Aboriginal men undertaking searches of the person against Aboriginal women, she seemed even shocked that that might be an issue. An indigenous woman herself, proud to be – good on her! – but she is a minister of the Crown first and foremost and it is abundantly obvious that she did not even consider what consequences may occur from an authorised person undertaking a search of another person. A more intimate exchange between – well, there are more intimate exchanges between two people, but to search another is pretty darn intimate. Yet the minister seemed unconcerned by the concerns that we raised in relation to it, particularly in having regard to Aboriginal people and the difference between Aboriginal men and women.
So that is just one example. There are others. She seemed apparently unconcerned that anyone would be able to assist an authorised officer to use reasonable force, a rather cavalier approach to that, I would have thought. In the words of Arnie Schwarzenegger: ‘We’ll be back’. We will be back because they will need to amend this. It will be implemented and it will go on for a while and eventually even the people on the other side will say: ‘Oops! We will need to change some things’. When the Northern Territory is on the end of legal proceedings, people accusing others of using unreasonable force, people assisting authorised officers and not being afforded the same protection from liability as those outlined in clause 68, the government will be on the receiving end of some statements of claim, I would have thought. Perhaps then this government will realise, if it is in at that stage, that parts of this are deficient.
The minister gave an incredible response to: ‘What happens to an authorised officer, how do they cease to be an authorised officer?’. ‘They die or move away’. I would have thought perhaps an answer might be if someone uses an unreasonable amount of force, that might create a situation where their role is taken away or they are no longer authorised officers. It did not even occur to the minister.
Madam Speaker, it is a sad ending to the petrol sniffing debate. I know the minister has been crook, but I really wish she had done better. She will be judged on this legislation and be it on her head. I say again: we will be back.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Just cease, thank you. Member for Macdonnell, before we go on, would you please stick to the motion, which is the third reading of the bill.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Yes, Madam Speaker, I appreciate that. I am going to deal with it fairly briefly. I realise that it is painful for members of government to be held accountable in a place like this, but that is the process here.
Bearing in mind that the government has made the call several times about ‘What have you guys done?’, we introduced a bill about 12 months ago to make it an offence to sniff petrol. That would have meant that a person would have been arrested and brought before the court and the court would determine, through the normal sentencing processes which included the ability to make court orders, as to that person’s behaviour and how that person conducted themselves.
Under the kinder, softer, non-charging legislation, a person may be arrested three times for the same thing through the process that has been outlined here. That person may be arrested with reasonable force on each occasion. On two of those occasions for the purposes of executing a warrant, reasonable force may be used, which may mean breaking open doors and those sorts of things. That is what happens when you execute warrants; doors are broken into and jimmied open and those sorts of the things. Reasonable force is then applied three times on this person so that they may be brought into custody and then into custody again for the purpose of an assessment, and then into custody again for the purpose of treatment. So, the kinder and softer process that has been outlined by this legislation is quite straightforward and quite simple. The kinder and softer process is: we will arrest you three times and take you into custody using such force as necessary to obtain the same result.
Whilst we play politics with this issue and the House defeated the opposition’s bill some 12 months ago, if memory serves me correctly, we have allowed petrol sniffing to go on. Now we have a kinder and softer process which involves multiple arrests and apprehensions and, consequently, from the petrol sniffer’s point of view, I do not think it makes one jot of difference whether the court gives them a criminal conviction or not. I can tell you: if you are sticking inhalants up your nose, the least of your worries is whether you have been convicted of a minor summary offence. What you are going to know is that the man in the khaki uniform or the person with the little badge is the person who takes you into custody and puts you in front of the court and takes your liberty away. That is all you know or care about from that perspective.
Therefore, the liberty of these people will be taken away on a multitude of occasions under this kinder and softer bill. I agree with the shadow minister that because of some of the shortcomings in this bill, (1) the courts will be critical of it, and (2), we will be back in here before too long trying to iron out some of the problems.
Motion agreed to; bills read a third time.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
It is with great sadness that I draw the attention of the House to the death of Sara Henderson. Sara was a Territorian of remarkable strength of character who, from the depths of despair, rose to enjoy high public esteem. She was the Territory’s most prominent female pastoralist and author, writing six best-selling books.
Sara died of breast cancer last Friday in a palliative care ward at Caloundra on Queensland’s Sunshine Coast. She was only 68.
Sara was born Sara Grew in Sydney and, when she was 19, was involved in a terrible car crash that nearly cost the use of a leg, ending a prospective tennis career. At 23, she met the man who was to be her husband, an American, Charles English Henderson III. They were married in Hong Kong where he operated a shipping business. They later had three daughters: Marlee, Bonnie and Danielle.
After a few years, the shipping business collapsed so, in 1965, the Henderson family moved to the Northern Territory where Charlie had purchased a cattle station some years earlier. Bullo River Station was a wild, remote area station covering an area the size of Sydney, and 800 km from Darwin by an appallingly rough road.
The family’s first years there were trying. Sara spent much of her time in the saddle, regularly droving cattle 80 km to where they could be loaded onto road trains. After years of toil at Bullo River, in 1986, her husband Charlie died of lung disease, leaving Sara with a virtual mountain of debt, amounting to over $0.75m.
Rather than sell up and leave Bullo River, Sara’s response was to fight back, playing the stock market to keep the station solvent. In the next 12 months, Bullo River made $114 000 through trading shares, and nearly as much the second year. It was a remarkable run of luck. Even luckier was her decision to sell her shares just a month before the stock market crashed in 1987.
In 1991, Sara Henderson was named the Qantas Bulletin Business Woman of the Year and chronicled her life up to that point in her autobiography, From Strength to Strength. She was seen as the quintessential Aussie battler who refused to quit, even under the most adverse conditions. The book became a best seller and propelled Sara into the public limelight, placing her in great demand as a celebrity speaker. I remember I was one of those journalists who interviewed Sara Henderson about that amazing book, From Strength to Strength.
That book led Sara to write five others, all of which became best sellers. They detailed life at Bullo River and the continuing dramas inside the Henderson family. Her creditability was recognised by the Cancer Council of Australia when they asked Sara to be the face of the National Breast Cancer Awareness campaign. As a result of the ensuing advertising campaign, the number of women over 50 having mammograms tripled.
Sara summed up the Henderson credo in her book The Strength in Us All. She wrote:
We have a number of excellent retailers in the Fannie Bay electorate, and tonight I want to talk about one highly regarded business, which this year is celebrating its 50th anniversary.
Jackson’s Art Supplies was founded on 1 January 1955 by the late Harry Jackson. With outlets in Perth and Subiaco in Western Australia as well as the Northern Territory, it remains a solely family-owned business that is now run by Harry’s son, Kevin.
Jackson’s was initially situated in the industrial area of Winnellie, until the shop moved to Parap Village 15 years ago. Manager, Ingrid Gersmanis and her staff Sue Denton, Bryan Bulley, Kate Fernyhough and Cecily Wills, provide a terrific service to a wide range of clients. The clientele of Jackson’s include well-known artists such as Jeff Todd, Rob Brown and Noel Foley. Other important customers include art students from local schools and from Charles Darwin University, and other local artists and craftspeople such as quilters and calligraphers.
I congratulate Jackson’s on their 50 years and wish them our very best for the next 50.
It is always a pleasure to be involved with the opening and launch of a quality product. Direct Air certainly qualifies as a class act, and it can only be good for Darwin and the Northern Territory to be attracting businesses that maintain the highest levels of service, comfort and safety to the Territory.
Direct Air’s entry into the Darwin and Alice Springs air charter business displays a strong conviction that the Territory economy is expanding. I had the pleasure of opening the company’s Darwin facility on 31 March. This facility complements Direct Air’s Alice Springs office, which has been operating successfully since November 2003. Congratulations to Vas Nikolovski, who is the Managing Director, and Gray Smithe, Marketing Manager, and their team. I wish them every success. It was great to see many people from local business and the community on hand to welcome Direct Air to Darwin.
Some of those attending were Shellie Morris, local musician, Alana Young and Nikki Smith from Tourism Top End, Maree Tetlow and Brent Campbell from the Tourist Commission, Graham Poon and Clalia Mar from the Chamber of Commerce, Grant Cracker from Regional and Northern Maintenances, Stephanie Hawkins from ANKAAA, Mildy Raveane from Darwin Airport Resort, Dr Joe Wright from Remote Health, Dave Sampson from DIPE, Jason Stack and Leah Farinola from Seven Spirit Bay Lodge, Julia Guinta and Samantha Eckles from Specialist Outreach Services, Cynthia Thompson from Harvey World Travel, Cindy Clarke from Davidsons Arnhemland Safaris, Joel Couturaud from Darwin Prisons, and Brett Reiss, Bob Calaby, Jon Knight and Viv Rees from Northern Territory Airports.
On 16 March this year, an old friend of mine died after fighting a gallant battle with illness. I am speaking of Ray Shepherd, who many of my colleagues will know because he was always in the Northern Territory Library here in Parliament House. Ray was a tireless researcher into all things aviation. He loved the library, writing and working on his histories of aviation in the Territory and elsewhere.
As the member for Fannie Bay, the electorate with arguably the oldest aviation history in the Territory - in fact, probably nearly the oldest in Australia - I have had a fair bit to do with Ray over the years. I could name a host of projects Ray was involved in, and that is only those in my electorate. For example, Ray provided most of the research material that became the basis of the Conservation and Management Plan for the Old Qantas Hangar: pictures, plans, details; Ray had them all.
Ray was the man behind the move to celebrate the landing of Ross and Keith Smith each December at the memorial at the end of Ross Smith Avenue. This event has grown bigger and bigger and now includes the local schools and community celebrating our history. I missed Ray last year as we all stood together to celebrate this event; he was too sick to be there.
Ray was an amazing man, warm, friendly and the best aviation historian in the Territory. I was away in Alice Springs at the sittings at the time of Ray’s funeral. I wish I could have been there to say goodbye, but it is good to have this opportunity now to remember a terrific bloke. My sincere condolences to Lynn and their children Lisa, Glen and Tracy. Ray was a family man and so proud of his family. It is such a terrible loss that he is gone, but he will always be remembered through his work and collections of aviation history which, fittingly, he left to his beloved Northern Territory Library. Goodbye, Ray; we will certainly miss you.
Next tonight, I want to speak about a terrific exhibition that I opened on 15 April at Gallery Philip Neville in Harriet Place called Purnu. Purnu, the traditional word for coolamon, meaning something to carry people, is also, I believe, a name of one of the locomotives on the Darwin to Alice Springs rail line. It is also the local word used for the train.
Gallery Philip Neville is an initiative and partnership of two long time Territorians: Philip Grice and Neville Pantazis. Purnu features the work of two excellent Tennant Creek artists, Flora Holt and Lindy Brodie. The artists, together with Alan Murn from Julalikari Arts and other members of the community, were in for the exhibition opening.
The exhibition, assembled under the guidance of Manager, Meg Eupene, features acrylic paintings, mainly on the theme of the Alice-Darwin railway. Both Flora and Lindy paid tribute to the excellent work of Ruth Dawson who did some of the first train paintings, while at the same time bringing a fresh point of view to the railway. I recommend those art works to everyone here; they really are terrific, a wonderful celebration of the rail and a lot of detail in those trains that have been painted to celebrate the first time that Tennant Creek had a railway line. It was an occasion of great moment for them. It is a wonderful exhibition and I encourage people and all members to visit it down in Harriet Place.
I know that some of my colleagues went to the terrific production of Guys and Dolls whose season ran over the first couple of weeks of April in Darwin. What a great show it was! Wasn’t the member for Nelson fantastic as Harry the Horse? If you did not see the member for Nelson as Harry the Horse, you missed out on quite a dramatic feat.
Superstar Productions comprises participants from Cavenagh Theatre, the Darwin Chorale, Darwin Entertainment Centre and Darwin Theatre Company in a separate company dedicated to presenting Darwinians with classic musicals. This production was especially wonderful because we saw the return of one of our own, Kris Stewart, the New York-based artistic director whose family has strong ties to Darwin and musical comedy, who returned to direct the staging of Guys and Dolls.
It was a wonderful opportunity for locals to work with a top-class director with international experience, and great for Kris to be able to come back to Darwin where his family has such a strong legacy of theatre.
The performers were enormously talented and I would like to table the names of everyone - cast, crew, sponsors and volunteers - who contributed to making this such a glittering and exciting theatrical experience. In all, over 180 people were involved in Guys and Dolls, a great effort. It was an excellent show, a fantastic night, and I am sure all my colleagues who saw it had a terrific time. Well done, Superstar Productions.
One of the most impressive things about the productions that we have seen coming from Superstar Productions is how the direction has given what our local actors do a much more professional look on stage. The set designs have increased enormously since that first one, which was Jesus Christ Superstar, and it is amazing what getting that kind of professional component into a local show does. Each and every one of those on stage was enormously professional and did things that they probably thought they never could do.
Someone recently was trying to describe to me about the male chorus line, and the fact that they had to sing and dance at the same time. They said when they first started they thought: ‘This is an impossible task. These guys will never do it’. When I saw them on stage, they were terrific. Local people learning and acting beyond the ability they thought they had, and what we had, as a Darwin community, was a fantastic production. Congratulations to everyone.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to have the names of all those involved incorporated in the Parliamentary Record.
Leave granted.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
MESSAGES FROM ADMINISTRATOR
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, we have received message No 29 from the Administrator notifying assent to bills passed in the February 2005 sittings.
Honourable members, I also lay on the table message No 30 recommending to the Legislative Assembly a bill for an act authorising the issue and expenditure of public monies of the Territory in respect of the year ending June 2006.
MOTION
Routine of Business
Routine of Business
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the routine of business of the Assembly be rearranged or suspended if a question or debate is before the Chair so as to permit the Treasurer to deliver Budget 2005-06 at 11 am this day.
Motion agreed to.
STATEMENT BY SPEAKER
Media Arrangements
Media Arrangements
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise I have given permission to various media to broadcast live, or re-broadcast with sound and vision, the presentation of Budget 2005-06 and the Treasurer’s speech; 8TOP FM radio to broadcast live the presentation of the budget and the Treasurer’s speech; and the Northern Territory News to take photographs.
The Assembly, of course, will resume for lunch at 2.30 pm as is usual on budget day.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
Royal Thai Embassy Delegation
Royal Thai Embassy Delegation
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the Speaker’s gallery of a Royal Thai Embassy delegation visiting Darwin. Members of the delegation include the Deputy Chief of Mission, Mr Udomphol Ninnad, and the First Secretary, Ms Kundhinee Aksornwong. On behalf of all honourable members, I extend a warm welcome to you.
Members: Hear, hear!
STATEMENT BY SPEAKER
Death of His Holiness, Pope John Paul II
Death of His Holiness, Pope John Paul II
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, it is with deep regret that I advise of the death of His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, on 2 April 2005. I will ask honourable members on completion of the condolence motion to stand in silence for one minute as a mark of respect.
CONDOLENCE MOTION
His Holiness, Pope John Paul II
His Holiness, Pope John Paul II
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that this Assembly express its deep regret at the death on 2 April 2005 of His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, and place on record the Assembly’s appreciation for the contribution he made towards reconciliation between people and, particularly, his ties to the Northern Territory, and extend its deep sympathy to all members of the Catholic community on the loss of their spiritual leader.
Much has been written in the world’s media over the last few weeks about the man who was born Karol Jzef Wojtyla in Poland on 18 May 1920. After being ordained in 1946, Father Karol became Cardinal Wojtyla in 1967. On 16 October 1978, at the age of 58, Cardinal Wojtyla was elected to succeed Pope John Paul I. He was the first Polish Pope, and the first non-Italian Pope since Pope Adrian VI in 1522.
In his 27 year papacy, His Holiness made 96 trips abroad. It is estimated that he was seen by more than anyone else in history. In his general audiences held each Wednesday at the Vatican, some 16 million people came to see him. During his travels around the world, the Pope visited Australia on two occasions, in addition to a visit in 1973 while Archbishop of Cracow, including the Northern Territory in November 1986.
In my remarks today, I intend to focus on Pope John Paul II’s connection with the Territory. Travelling from Melbourne to Darwin on a morning flight on 29 November 1986, Pope John Paul II broadcast an address by radio to the Royal Flying Doctor Service. His Holiness also answered questions from children from Katherine’s School of the Air about making their first Holy Communion and the hardest thing about being Pope. In Darwin, Pope John Paul II celebrated Mass with 7000 Territorians at the showgrounds at Winnellie. His Holiness was welcomed to Darwin at the beginning of the Mass by the Most Reverend EJP (Ted) Collins, whom he had appointed Bishop of Darwin earlier in 1986. The homily preached at this Mass by His Holiness had as its theme ‘The Church is Missionary’. He paid tribute to the missionaries who had served the Gospel in Australia and to others who had become missionaries to other lands. He spoke of the need for a second evangelisation, a theme which would become a major focus later in his pontificate.
That Pope John Paul II should travel as far as Darwin, which has the smallest population of any Australian capital city, was greatly appreciated by the Top End Catholic community. However, this leg of his pilgrimage also took him to the heart of Australia to the only city he visited that was not a capital.
In Alice Springs, His Holiness was welcomed in the Arrernte language by a traditional owner of the land south of Heavitree Gap, and invited to walk a meeting path prepared by indigenous Territorians before addressing people gathered at Blatherskite Park. This address is widely regarded as the most significant of more than 30 homilies and addresses given by His Holiness during his week-long pilgrimage throughout Australia. He is, perhaps, best remembered for his statement, and I quote:
- From the earliest times, men like Archbishop Polding of Sydney opposed the legal fiction adopted by European
settlers that this land was terra nullius - nobody’s country.
The Pope went on to strongly plead for the rights of Aboriginal inhabitants to keep the traditional lands on which their whole society depended. Again, to quote from His Holiness’ speech:
- Let it not be said that the fair and equitable recognition of Aboriginal rights to land is discrimination. To call
for the acknowledgement of the land rights of people who have never surrendered those rights is not
discrimination. Certainly, what has been done cannot be undone. But what can now be done to remedy the
deeds of yesterday must not be put off until tomorrow.
This was more than five years before the Mabo judgment of the High Court of Australia in June 1992, which ruled that the land title of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, most often referred to as ‘native title’, pre-dated European settlement in Australia.
The address by Pope John Paul II to Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders has had lasting significance. Within the Catholic Church and amongst other Christian churches, the words of His Holiness about indigenous Australians making their contribution to the church are frequently quoted. The lasting significance of this address by Pope John Paul II has been taken up by the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Ecumenical Commission of the National Council of Churches in Australia. NATSIEC is the peak ecumenical body representing indigenous Australians in the various Christian churches. This year, NATSIEC is hosting ‘Light of Australia’, a nationwide series of public talks aimed at bringing back to the centre of attention in Australia the very issues raised by His Holiness at Alice Springs in 1986. These talks are one of a number of initiatives planned to mark the 20th anniversary of Pope John Paul II’s visit to Alice Springs and his address given there, which will occur on 29 November next year.
Bishop Ted Collins met with Pope John Paul II on a number of occasions over the past 19 years and he appreciated that His Holiness referred to him as the ‘Bishop of the Aborigines’. Pope John Paul II’s strong and lasting impression, surely based upon his visit to Darwin and Alice Springs, was that the Territory is home to so many Aborigines that the forefront of the church’s ministry to them is to be found here. As well, the meeting of His Holiness with indigenous Australians in Alice Springs remained one of his lasting memories of his first Australian visit as Pope and, as noted, has proved to be of lasting value in the quest for justice and reconciliation.
Finally, it should be acknowledged that the legacy of Pope John Paul II for the Northern Territory, or at least for the Catholic community here, included the example of his own faith, his strong and certain leadership, his clear and consistent teaching, and his witness to the value and dignity of human life in all its stages, as was evidenced throughout the world.
The length of his papacy made Pope John Paul II a familiar figure. Because the population of the Territory is so relatively young, for many Territorians, he is the only Pope they have known.
Madam Speaker, as Chief Minister, and on behalf of this Assembly, Territorians, and particularly Territorians of the Catholic faith, I move this motion of condolence.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, Pope John Paul II, known as Karol Wojtyla until his election to the papacy, was born in Poland in 1920. Involved in the church from birth, he made his first Holy Communion at the age of nine, and was confirmed at the age of 18. In 1938, he began studying literature and philosophy at a university in Cracow; however, Nazi occupation forces closed the university and Karol Wojtyla was forced to work in a quarry and a chemical factory to avoid being deported. By 1942, he was aware of his call to the priesthood and began studying secretly in the evenings because the Nazis had closed all the seminaries.
In 1946, at the age of 26, he was ordained as a priest and moved to Rome to continue his studies. He returned home to Poland in 1948 where, in 1958, he became the youngest Bishop in Poland. In 1964, Pope Paul VI nominated him Archbishop of Cracow and made him a Cardinal in 1967.
In 1978, he became Pope and adopted the name John Paul II. He was the Catholic Church’s first non-Italian pontiff in over 450 years, and history’s first Slavic Pope. Travelling widely since his pontificate, Pope John Paul II gave general audiences to more than 16 million pilgrims. His pontificate was the third-longest in the history of the church, and he visited many countries, travelling over 600 000 km or 30 times the circumference of the earth. In total, he made 104 foreign trips as Pope and was also happy to receive visitors in Rome. John Paul II held 11 161 general audiences at the Vatican.
Pope John Paul II was shot on 13 May 1981 at St Peter’s Square by a Turkish extremist, Mehmet Ali Agca.
He visited Australia twice as head of the Catholic Church, the second time in 1995 to be beatify Mary MacKillop. His first visit to Australia as Pope was in 1986. His messages, regardless of where he was in the world, focussed on human rights, particularly the rights of children. He also chastised western nations and communist countries, viewing communism and capitalism as flip sides of a coin, neither of which would lead to happiness. Since his accession to the pontificate, he restored conservative stances on abortion, contraception and biotechnology. In 1994, Time magazine named him Man of the Year.
In later years, Pope John Paul II developed Parkinson’s disease and increasingly began to rely on his Cardinals to carry out some of his ceremonial duties. At Easter in 2002, he was unable to carry out the washing of the feet ceremony, which is symbolic of the Last Supper. It was the first time the role had been performed by Cardinals.
In an unprecedented gesture, the Pope publicly apologised for the past misdeeds of the Catholic Church. He also called on the clergy to work for greater dialogue with other faiths in the wake of the 11 September 2001 attacks in the United States.
The Pope’s schedule was relentless. In 2003, he travelled to Pompeii, Slovakia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and Spain. As his health continued to deteriorate, he visited Switzerland in June 2004, his first foreign trip for nine months. In August 2004, he visited Lourdes on a two-day pilgrimage to one of the Roman Catholic world’s most revered shrines. It was his second pilgrimage to the shrine in southern France.
In early 2005, his health deteriorated further and the Pontiff spent 28 days in hospital over two periods in February and March. During the second hospital stay, he underwent a tracheotomy to ease respiratory problems. The surgery rendered the man once known as the great communicator unable to speak. The Vatican announced that the Pontiff died at 9.37 pm on Saturday, 2 April 2005.
That is a fairly clinical snapshot of the role and duties of Pope John Paul II. For many Catholics and non-Catholics all over the world he was the only Pope they had known in their lifetime. He was, as I noted, widely known not only because he travelled and was most accessible to any and everyone through general and individual audiences, but he changed the way peoples of the world viewed the papacy until that time: he was The People’s Pope. Most importantly, he restored and reinforced traditional Catholic values, which drew great criticism from many quarters because of his strong, conservative stance and a return to traditional Catholic values, particularly as they relate to the sanctity of life, and his views on abortion and contraception. Whilst he drew enormous criticism, he commanded deep respect for his unqualified stance on those issues, which reinforced not only his position, but forced many Catholics all over the world to question where their beliefs lay by comparison with Catholic values and the contemporary society in which they live.
He also demonstrated to people, particularly in his closing years, the reality of life. More and more, he was seen as a suffering Pope, a Pope who was enduring enormous pain as he maintained his duties. I, like many others, often asked why he did not step aside from his position; he was obviously having more difficulty fulfilling his duties. I believe - and some of the commentary bears this out - that he viewed the suffering that was bestowed on him as, essentially, God’s will which strengthened his own faith. Through that suffering, he demonstrated to many people the reality of life; that is, life involves many things, including suffering. He bore that without comment and demonstrated an unquestioning acceptance of God’s will.
The other example he gave to the world was forgiveness. If we go back to the basic principles of the teachings of Jesus Christ, it was one of forgiveness, and no better example was the fact that, in 1983, he met the Turkish assassin in a Rome prison and forgave his would-be assassin for what he had done. In that single act, he demonstrated to many people that forgiveness was an essential part of his belief, and was a fine example to set to everyone in the world.
He is now gone. He was Pope for 27 years. We wish his successor, Pope Benedict, all the very best for the future. The opposition strongly supports this condolence motion.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I, too, would like to talk about the life of Pope John Paul II. I should note at the outset that I have used some of an obituary by Robert D McFadden of the New York Times on 4 April 2005 to help me to cover the very expansive life that this Pope led.
The pontificate of John Paul II, or The People’s Pope, started on 16 October 1978, when I was a lot younger, and finished on 2 April 2005. As a Catholic, I was saddened by the news of his passing because he had been such a strong influence and leader in a world where secularism is so strong. He was a man of God in a world of godlessness. Looking from the outside, the Pope was a man who spread the word of peace, who travelled far and wide - in fact, to 129 countries - and helped bring down the walls of communism.
For some, both inside and outside the Catholic Church, he was a promoter of old ideals that were out of touch with the modern world. For me, he was a holy man, a wise man, a good man. Yes, a Polish man who, perhaps, did not have a great understanding of Aussie Catholicism, but a man of strength who, through his life, was steadfast about the protection of human life from the moment of conception to the moment of death.
In one of his 14 encyclicals, Evangelium Vitae, the Gospel of Life, he denounced abortion and euthanasia as crimes which no human law can legitimise. In Evangelium Vitae, the Pope urged Catholics to oppose secular laws that violate what he called the fundamental right to life, and he reaffirmed the church’s condemnation of contraception, experiments with human embryos and the death penalty.
People outside the Catholic Church, and inside, may not accept his words, but does that necessarily make them wrong? Divorce, gay marriages, cloning, condoms, women priests and celibacy were all matters that he spoke strongly about; matters that certainly would raise a debate in this House. When it comes to Catholic teaching, is it a case of my ways are not always your ways?
The Pope also wrote an encyclical entitled Veritatis Splendor, the Splendour of Truth, which was a moral theory intended to encourage reflection and discussion. He did not list rights or wrongs, but discussed conscience, reason and freedom, and argued that morality rested on basic truths about human nature and the world, not on individual choice or consensus. Young people today do not seem to be taught subjects such as philosophy where matters such as conscience, reason and freedom are discussed, and that is a pity.
Pope John Paul II preached and practised forgiveness; he forgave the Turk who tried to kill him. He was opposed to the war in Iraq, instead arguing for peaceful means as the solution to problems in that country. He apologised to the Jews about the failure of individual Catholics to act against the holocaust, for the paedophile scandals that rocked the church, the Crusades, the Inquisition, the burning of heretics, and the forced conversion of American Indians and Africans. He conceded that after 350 years, Galileo had been wrongly persecuted for saying the Earth circles the Sun, and not the other way around. He opposed liberation theology and tried to draw out the delicate boundary between religious and political involvement.
He worked to improve relationships and understanding between other Christian faiths and other religions, and was the first Pope to enter a mosque or a synagogue. The Pope also spoke about the worker when dedicating a new church near the industrial town of Cracow in 1997 which, in fact, took 10 years to build because of opposition from the then communist government. Pope John Paul II said that men had a right to more than a job and a living wage. He said:
- There are more profound rights of freedom of the human spirit that cannot be violated: freedom of human
conscience, freedom of belief and freedom of religion.
He visited Australia and our own Northern Territory and made his famous speech in Blatherskite Park, Alice Springs, on 29 November 1986. He told of how Aboriginal culture had lasted for thousands of years, about land rights, and how families were broken up and lived away from their lands. He spoke about the establishment of a new society for Aboriginal people based on agreements that had respect for the dignity and growth of the human person.
He came to Darwin in the sweltering heat of the build-up. Many people from all over the Top End stood for what seemed ages in the heat and humidity so that they could see the Pope. Although I cannot remember what was said on the day, I still have some souvenirs. I was asked to supply fence pickets to mark out areas on the showgrounds for the crowds to stand. When I got the fence pickets back they were all painted white. If I look around my block today, I can still find some.
Pope John Paul II came from a humble background, was a poet, a playwright, the author of many books and hundreds of articles, a philosopher, a formidable debater, an actor, an athlete with a passion for skiing, swimming and mountain climbing, a Professor of Social Ethics, and a linguist fluent in seven languages and skilled in a dozen. He became a priest, a Bishop, a Cardinal and, eventually, the Pope, and reigned over the Catholic Church for 26 years; the second longest reign of a Pope.
For me, his greatest legacy is his unfailing belief in the sanctity of human life because it was his great belief that violence - whether it is reflected in human suffering as in war, domestic violence, abortion, euthanasia, sexual abuse - is not the way to peace. The Pope promoted a non-violent solution to today’s problems. He was a man of peace and a man of God. Undoubtedly, there are those who do not agree with all that this man has said and done, but there is no doubt that he left a large and profound footprint throughout the time he lived on this earth.
In a world of modernism, relativism, populism, commercialism and all the other ‘isms’ on which the world becomes stuck, he was a Pope who was not afraid to challenge these concepts and show us a way of living - maybe not popular with our media manipulators and thought processes of today, but certainly far more profound and eternal. May he rest in peace.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, honourable members. I call upon you to observe one minute’s silence as a mark of respect.
Members rose and observed one minute’s silence.
Motion agreed to.
MINISTERIAL REPORTS
Underground Electricity Project
Underground Electricity Project
Dr BURNS (Essential Services): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to keep the House informed of progress with the undergrounding of powerlines project, a commitment of this government to keep the Territory moving ahead.
The Martin Labor government is committed to progressively extending this project through those Darwin suburbs that are currently serviced by overhead power. In contrast, the CLP opposition have pledged to scrap this exciting project. CLP members have repeatedly gone on the record saying that the CLP opposition does not support the undergrounding of power project and would stop it.
The Leader of the Opposition told ABC radio on 5 July 2002, and I quote:
- … undergrounding power in the northern suburbs would be off the agenda.
Just to confirm it, in a second and subsequent interview he said:
- I would scrap the undergrounding project straight off.
There you have it, on the public record: they are opposed to the underground power project. The Leader of the Opposition has been publicly supported by a succession of CLP spokespeople, including the shadow minister, the member for Drysdale.
Undergrounding the powerlines improves reliability of supply, particularly in the Wet Season, enhances the attractiveness of the city, and it will greatly improve the ability to quickly recover from cyclone damage. Civil works to the underground power supplies in Nightcliff are now well advanced. The Chief Minister, the member for Nightcliff and I recently attended the removal of power poles in Pandanus Street, Nightcliff. I will also be there to witness the removal of some of the next section of power poles, which is planned to be in Nightcliff Road in a few weeks time.
Madam Speaker, the laying of underground power also requires the construction of new footpaths. In order to assist the Darwin City Council to plan its future footpath upgrade programs, I wrote to the Lord Mayor in November last year to advise council of the government’s long-term plans to underground power supplies for a better Darwin. I advised the Lord Mayor that the future work program will extend progressively from Nightcliff to Rapid Creek, then part of Ludmilla, Fannie Bay, Stuart Park, followed by the balance of Ludmilla, Millner and Coconut Grove.
The program will continue to expand into those suburbs that are currently serviced by overhead power. These include Alawa, Jingili, Parap, Casuarina, Nakara, Moil, Wagaman, Marrara, Larrakeyah, The Narrows and Salonika Street. Some residents will be included in the program with adjoining suburbs, depending on from which high voltage feeder their supply comes.
Civil works on the Nightcliff project are well under way and civil works have been completed to the 329 properties that comprised Stage 1, and 7 km of footpath has been laid. The installation of distribution cables, pillars, substations, street light bases and house services is well advanced. To date, contracts to the value of more than $6.2m have been awarded to local Territory businesses for labour and materials associated with the project for the undergrounding of power to the first 686 homes.
This project will result in almost 9000 properties and 16 000 customers in suburban Darwin having their overhead powerlines replaced with reliable and safe underground lines. Power and Water has formally provided Telstra and Austar with notice to remove their cable from the power poles. This has been carried out in conjunction with Power and Water’s program to remove the poles.
Madam Speaker, I take this opportunity to congratulate all those who are progressing this exciting initiative, and I look forward to participating in the demolition of the next sections of power poles.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, it is important to put this matter on the record and it is a pity we only have a couple of minutes. Power and Water have a number of problems and we have conveniently forgotten about live power poles - including in the CBD of Darwin, all the outages - particularly in Adelaide River where they are going to have a public meeting, the shortage of generation capacity, and a number of other problems.
What we are doing is waving one flag: undergrounding power in Nightcliff, which was estimated at about $80m. We understand it will come in at about $120 to $150m. I would like the minister to confirm that in his little rejoinder - that he knows exactly what the costs are and he divulges them to this House. With the budget, we have a difficulty with rhetoric not turning into numbers. When he stands up, tell us what it will cost. Tell us what taxpayers will pay for this. If he does not know, there is another good reason why we should go to estimates and find out. It is something that should be at the forefront of his mind.
While the minister is boasting proudly about what Labor might do if they achieve government, I would like to make a short announcement. We, too, will be undergrounding power. We have made a commitment to continue …
Members interjecting.
Mr DUNHAM: We have made a commitment to continue, so that was actually a falsehood from the minister - but that is all right; we have grown used to that. We have actually made that commitment. It is some years old, so I will not go back there. Here is the new commitment to underground power …
Ms Martin: In the east side of Alice Springs!
Mr DUNHAM: In the east side of Alice Springs.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr DUNHAM: Do you know why we are making that commitment? We are making it because we think the green credentials, the necessity for this power, the outages, is a paramount case.
If all you want to do is grimly hold on to power in the northern suburbs of Darwin, and you make promises like this that do not affect all Territorians, that is the typical Berrimah Line we have come to expect from her.
We will be out there making sure we underground power appropriately, making sure that those big, beautiful trees in the East Side of Alice Springs are preserved, and that taxpayers’ money such as this is not only well spent, but we tell people how much it is.
Dr BURNS (Essential Services): Madam Speaker, the member for Drysdale has raised a few issues; I will try to deal with them briefly.
Regarding the live power poles, there has been a safety audit conducted at speed and that situation has been rectified. Yes, there have been outages in Adelaide River and there was a meeting. Power and Water are working with residents there and developing a plan to address that issue.
In terms of power augmentation from Darwin, the Board of Power and Water has considered this and there will be announcements made in the very near future, I believe.
Regarding the cost of undergrounding power in Nightcliff, yes, the cost has escalated as it has with all sorts of civil construction. If the member for Drysdale wants to ask me a question during Question Time, I will most certainly answer …
Mr Dunham: How much? You do not know, do you?
Dr BURNS: I know how much.
Members interjecting.
Dr BURNS: I know how much. In terms of the East Side, Power and Water are working with the residents. They have given some commitment to the progressive undergrounding of power in the East Side.
Skilled Work Force
Mr HENDERSON (Business and Industry): Madam Speaker, this morning I update the House on recent activities to attract more skilled workers to live and work in the Territory.
Building our population and boosting the Territory’s skill base is a priority for the Martin government. Without a doubt, the skill shortage is the key issue for Territory business at the moment. The government is driving initiatives to train Territorians, including the Territory’s first ever Jobs Plan, and start-up support for new apprentices.
Budget 2005 contains significant new measures in this field. In support of these measures to train locals, the government is backing Territory business to address the skills shortage in the short term, committing over $1m over the next two years to attract more business and skilled migrants to the Territory.
In March, the Territory government participated in an Australian Migration Information Day at the Australian High Commission in London. Almost 2000 people attended the information day, and the Northern Territory’s representative handed out more than 200 packs of information on opportunities and services on offer in the NT. Inquiries about the Territory were received from people with a range of skills and backgrounds including chefs, hotel and business managers, physiotherapists, psychiatrists, nurses, electricians and motor and diesel mechanics.
The migration information day also attracted a number of Asian students in their final year of study in the United Kingdom who were very interested in the opportunities for skilled workers in the Territory. With our strong cultural and historical ties, the UK continues to be a source of skilled migrants to Australia. In fact, UK migrants make up about 33% of Australia’s and 38% of the Northern Territory’s business and skilled migration intake of the Northern Territory.
A great deal of work is now under way to follow up on inquiries received at the High Commission in London, including responding to specific questions, referring curricula vitae to potential employers, and providing additional information to influence the selection of migration destinations.
I am pleased that the government’s boost in resources to business and skilled migration is already delivering results for Territory business. So far in this financial year, to the end of April, the government has helped Territory business sponsor 315 skilled workers from overseas to meet their skills need compared with 159 in 2003-04. Breaking that down into types of visas: there were 88 nominations under the Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme covering 203 visas compared with 118 in 2003-04; there were 72 temporary resident sponsorships covering 96 visas compared with 41 in 2003-04; and 13 independent regional sponsorships with a total of 16 visas, and there were none in this category during 2003-04. These skilled workers have come from a range of backgrounds and, in April alone, included health workers, mechanics, chefs and education workers. In addition to the skilled workers, there have been five business skills sponsorships and the department is working with another 10 business people from overseas seeking support for their applications.
The Department of Business, Industry and Resource Development is also actively involved in a range of programs to assist Territory business to meet their skills needs through business and skilled migration, and has played a key role in the increase in successful applications, particularly those that bring temporary overseas workers to the Territory to fill skills shortages.
The figures speak for themselves in highlighting the benefits for Territory business and the Territory skills base: this year, 24% of skilled migrants are from across the trade areas compared with only 4% in 2003-04; and in the area of temporary residents, 67% of those coming to the Territory are in the skills areas, up from 13%.
Madam Speaker, these results show business and skilled migration is delivering real results for Territory business in meeting the skills shortages, and the government will continue to back Territory business in this important area.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, any initiative to increase the skilled worker base in the Northern Territory is to be applauded, and that is the business of government. What is disappointing is that the government talks a lot of percentages and figures and what they are doing but, when I talk to business operators, the issue of the shortage of skilled workers in the Northern Territory is paramount in every businessman’s mind. There is no doubt about that.
It is one thing to talk about the fact that, yes, the Northern Territory is here and, yes, you should come and work here, but what I want to hear from the government is: what exactly is the government offering to workers who come to the Northern Territory? What has the government said of its own strategy? How can we attract not only skilled workers to the Northern Territory, but ensure that our businesses are supported in a way that they can afford to get skilled workers in, and they can certainly achieve the skilled workers that they need?
I know that there is a lot of work being done by business operators on their own. The business operators I have spoken to recently have not been to the UK; they have been to South Africa. The biggest attraction of leaving South Africa is one of security. The attraction of the Northern Territory is less an issue of wages but of security, because Johannesburg and places like it are fairly unsavoury places to live and work. Those are the sorts of initiatives that I know businesses in the Northern Territory are undertaking on their own. That is good and I applaud it.
When it comes to creating the environment in the Northern Territory, what exactly is this government doing? I know that the government was asked to reduce business taxes, a fairly easy thing to do I would have thought considering the amount of GST that has come into the Northern Territory. When asked to reduce business taxes so that businesses themselves have more capacity to expand, recruit and attract, what does the government say? ‘No, it is all too hard. We will not do it and, if we do, it will take us five years before we can reduce any of those taxes’. If you want to attract skilled workers to the Northern Territory, let us do something in real terms to show what this government is actually doing, rather than sprouting what others are doing for you …
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, your time has expired.
Mr HENDERSON (Business and Industry): Madam Speaker, I welcome the qualified support from the Leader of the Opposition because people in my department are doing a great job working with migration agents and businesses.
Some 315 people who were not here last year are now working in the Northern Territory as a result of this program and these initiatives across all range of trades. That number is going to increase next year with the allocation of additional funding.
What are we doing? We have the most affordable housing in Australia, a fantastic HomeNorth scheme to allow people to get into their houses for the first time, a great lifestyle, good schools, a fabulous health system, education system and also, as of 1 July, other measures which will be announced by the Treasurer at 11 am: the lowest taxing jurisdiction in Australia for businesses with 100 employees or fewer. That is what this government is doing. The Territory is a great place to come to, and I am pleased to welcome 315 people to the Northern Territory as a result of these initiatives.
Indigenous Affairs – Bilateral Agreement
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to report on the historic Overarching Agreement on Indigenous Affairs Between the Commonwealth and Northern Territory of Australia and the announcement of over $5.5m for Our Lady of the Sacred Heart Thamarrurr Catholic College at Wadeye as part of Budget 2005.
I signed the overarching agreement with the Prime Minister on 6 April. It is the first new bilateral agreement to come from the June 2004 Council of Australian Governments’ commitment to improve services to indigenous Australians. This is a major achievement for the Territory; we are leading the nation.
The overarching agreement recognises that the Territory’s indigenous population as a whole suffers the highest comparative levels of disadvantage when compared with other states and territories, and we have a lot of catch-up work to do.
The agreement lays the foundation for more effective funding of indigenous affairs. Both governments are addressing jurisdictional overlap and administrative costs so that more dollars allocated to indigenous communities will actually flow to them. There is also a commitment to ensure that funding under mainstream government programs reaches indigenous communities and is responsive to their needs.
The agreement sets out priority areas for government action: improving outcomes for young indigenous Territorians; building safer communities; strengthening governance in indigenous communities; building wealth, employment and entrepreneurial culture; and improving service delivery and infrastructure.
The first three schedules developed under this agreement are on sustainable housing, strengthening the indigenous arts sector, and establishing strong local government structures. More schedules will be negotiated under the agreement as we move forward and strengthen the collaboration between the Australian and Territory government agencies.
The housing schedule brings together existing Commonwealth and Territory indigenous housing programs into one program to be delivered by the Territory. This will reduce administration costs and free up money to build homes.
The arts schedule commits the governments to taking a coordinated approach to building a strong indigenous visual arts sector with sustainable indigenous arts centres. The agreement also focusses on partnering with indigenous communities to strengthen local government structures as already outlined in the government’s Building Stronger Regions, Stronger Futures strategy. The regional authorities schedule indicates that the government wants to work with communities interested in pursuing voluntary amalgamations of councils to build stronger, more effective and culturally legitimate regional authorities under the Local Government Act.
Local government bodies will not be the only mechanism for indigenous representation and consultation in the Territory; the land councils and indigenous organisations will continue to be sources of information and advice for government. The agreement sets out the fundamental principle that the two levels of government need to work in partnership with indigenous communities to determine arrangements for consultation and participation in setting priorities and developing solutions at the regional and local level.
I would also like to report that the government has announced that it will invest over $5.5m in a major upgrade of Our Lady of the Sacred Heart, Thamarrurr Catholic College at Wadeye as part of this budget. The Wadeye community has made a significant effort to improve student attendance at the school at the start of this year. We have seen 582 students enrolled compared with 467 at the same time last year. This enrolment growth, while very welcome, has placed considerable extra demand on the school in teaching resources and facilities, as well as the teaching staff’s ability to cater for the differing needs of the many students at the school.
We are serious about education and this investment shows we are serious about backing communities that are committed to their young people’s education. The funds will be used for additional teachers and support staff, the provision of extra specialist secondary facilities at the school, a vocational education and training program, six additional houses for teachers, and ongoing funding to meet essential services, including power, water, cleaning, and repairs and maintenance of the new buildings.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I point out to this government and the Chief Minister that the issue here is one of integrity of service delivery.
If we look at the failures of ATSIC in the last few years in service delivery, where we had people like Geoff Clark travelling to Ireland, questions being raised about people like Sugar Ray Robinson and, more importantly in the Northern Territory, an ATSIC commissioner presiding over what appears to be the misspending of millions of dollars of funding in the Papunya community. Service delivery is something that has to be done with integrity.
It is also worth looking at the integrity of this government and how they deliver their own funding into some of these communities. It appears the best way to get funding for anything from this government in Aboriginal spending is to meet with the minister in a pub, then have the minister go back to his officers and say: ‘Let us sidestep all the of the systems that we have in place so that we can make sure that this car gets gifted off to a certain community’, which did not ask for it and did not want it and, in fact, ended up giving it away.
This government spent thousands of Territory taxpayers’ dollars just last week pursuing a victim of crime through to the Supreme Court because of a clerical error. That person had been flogged senseless and, because of a clerical error, ended up in the Supreme Court after this government pursued her for $3000. That is an outrage. If the government is so keen to start pursuing a victim of crime for $3000, what is this government going to do to recover the $35 000 that was given away illegally and contrary to law …
Mr Henderson: Who says?
Mr ELFERINK: Says the Ombudsman!
Mr Henderson: No, he does not.
Members interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: Says the Ombudsman! Contrary to law! The denial by the Leader of Government Business demonstrates quite clearly the arrogance of this government in dealing with taxpayers’ funds.
Who is going to pay the $35 000? Here is another question: how many more Toyotas and other vehicles have been given away under special purpose grants?
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I presented a report to this parliament on a great initiative for the Territory, working with the federal government …
Members interjecting.
Ms MARTIN: … on an overarching agreement that will see the dollars …
Members interjecting.
Ms MARTIN: It is interesting that the opposition is not interested. It will see the dollars that are allocated to our indigenous communities more effectively used, working in partnership. In response, I think it is the Indigenous Affairs spokesperson for the opposition, just goes on with a tissue of lies …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: Withdraw the word ‘lies’.
Ms MARTIN: Well …
Mr Dunham: Withdraw it!
Madam SPEAKER: Withdraw it.
Ms MARTIN: … innuendo, lack of fact …
Madam SPEAKER: Just withdraw.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Ms MARTIN: I withdraw, sorry, Madam Speaker. He comes in here with a tissue of made-up things, innuendo and the lines that he declared in Alice Springs that he is going to run regardless of the truth. It is very sad.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, thank you.
Mining Road Show 2005
Mr VATSKALIS (Mines and Energy): Madam Speaker, I provide the House with an update of the Mining Road Show 2005, which was developed to promote our government’s Building the Territory’s Resource Base Investment Attraction program. This four-year $15.2m program commenced in July 2003, and aims to maximise mining and petroleum exploration, investment and activity in the Territory.
The road show’s main objective is to engage with senior executives from Australia’s exploration sector to highlight the Northern Territory’s mineral potential and business opportunities, including projects requiring finance and companies requiring joint venture partners, and the support services available through government.
The road show has now covered three cities - Brisbane, Sydney and Perth - with Adelaide and Melbourne still to be scheduled, and has produced impressive results, including eight events organised through strategic partnerships with KPMG, Clayton Utz, the Sydney Mining Club, the Association of Mining Exploration Companies, Minter Ellison and Louthean Media; coverage of around 700 exploration, mining and investment executives; individual meetings with five companies in three cities, and I have had useful discussions with several other companies during the course of the various events.
The innovative theme, Top End Secret, provided us with a powerful means to highlight the many exploration and investment opportunities in the Territory. Top End Secret was promoted by a multimedia campaign. Our ultimate message for the road show was that exploration business in the Territory is ‘Mission Possible’. The Top End Secret campaign materials were effective because our team listed 30 undeveloped mineral opportunities in the Top End Secret kit, an exercise for investment attraction that is a first amongst Australia’s geological surveys. We worked in collaboration with industry to develop a promotional CD to profile 17 exploration companies in the Northern Territory. The kit provided an important link to understand and access our services.
I led the team response for delivering the key messages of the Top End Secret presentation and for conducting extensive networking for business development. The team consisted of Trevor Tennant, Managing Director of Bootu Creek Resources; Rod Elvish, Technical Director of Compass Resources; Neville Henwood from the Northern Territory Minerals Council, who attended in Sydney and Brisbane; and Richard Brescianini and Jerry Whitfield from the department.
One of the most successful events in showcasing the Northern Territory was the AMEC Investing in Resources Forum in Perth on 8 April. The day was dedicated to the Northern Territory and was supported by presentations from Bootu Creek Resources, Compass Resources, Arafura Resources, Tanami Gold and Tennant Creek Gold. The response from participants was excellent with the following key messages being well received:
- the Northern Territory is truly Australia’s last exploration frontier;
land access in the Territory is not a deal breaker; and
this government has a can-do approach and is here to support the exploration business.
The road show has proven to be an effective strategy in promoting the Territory’s exploration potential. We are committed to taking the following actions:
- to actively follow up specific priority targets identified during the road shows;
to build and strengthen the relationship with the 700-plus executives who participated in the road show events
and have shown interest in the Territory by maintaining communication through a well-developed strategy;
to continue to work in strategic partnership organisations such as KPMG, Clayton Utz, Sydney Mining Club and
AMEC in order for us to continue to penetrate interstate markets. These four partners alone allow us to access
thousands of executives across Australia and this access, as we have discovered now on the road show, is largely
built on goodwill; and
to view our existing clients as our business partners. Companies such as Arafura Resources and Compass Resources
address many people each year to sell their projects. In order to sell the Browns oxide project or Nolan’s Bore rare
earth phosphate project, they must also be able to sell the Territory.
By working together with our clients and arming them with the tools to sell the Territory in their presentations and annual reports, we develop an excellent group of ambassadors and achieve significant coverage of the global exploration arena.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his report on the road show. It has been four years and, finally, the Labor government has realised how important mining is to the Northern Territory. It is not something new because the Country Liberal Party has always travelled throughout Australia promoting the mining and exploration industry and the importance of it. As a matter of fact, what we have now, minister, is even less promotion than we have ever had before, so it is about time the Northern Territory government looked at it.
While the minister was in Perth, I hope he took the opportunity to talk to Terra Gold which has acquired Maud Creek mine. I hope he ensured that when they do start digging again, they do not put any production into that area because the importance of the water system to Katherine is paramount and it certainly is not in the best interests of the Katherine region to have the water contaminated. I congratulate him on the road show. It is a bit late, but better late than never.
Mr VATSKALIS (Mines and Energy): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her contribution and support. Let me have a look at the CLP record. In the last four years of the CLP government, they approved 230 exploration licences. In the first three years of this government, we approved 800 exploration licences.
Also, it was during the CLP era that mining in the Territory declined. I will not attribute that directly to the CLP, but to the international situation. If we look at another record, it was the CLP that approved a mine that we are now required to rehabilitate – Mt Todd. That is located in the member for Katherine’s electorate. It was a small mine that is going to cost about $20m to rehabilitate, and has cost so much money because decisions were not made based on scientific evidence, but in political offices. We were left with $900 000 and we are required to find $20m to rehabilitate that mine.
I assure the member for Katherine that the Maud Creek Mine will not be another Mt Todd. It is going to happen, and it is going to happen properly in order to safeguard the environment and the health of the Katherine people.
Reports noted pursuant to Sessional Order.
CLASSIFICATION OF PUBLICATIONS, FILMS AND COMPUTER GAMES AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 284)
(Serial 284)
Continued from 23 March 2005.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I will be brief, but I will not deliberately stretch it until 11 o’clock.
Attorney-General, we support this bill. It contains a number of sensible amendments; it is important. I was pleased to see that in the second reading speech, you referred to evening up the classifications on computer games to make those classifications more recognisable and align them more with film and television classifications. That is important for families in the Northern Territory so that mums and dads who are watching, often from a distance, their kids playing computer games have an understanding of the classifications and they are familiar to them.
I commend you on this bill. It is fair to say that, in the event that the Country Liberal Party were in office, we would have proposed a bill such as this. I note in closing that the bill was amended in a number of respects, including getting the penalty units up to speed. As a lawyer, I well understand why it is that, in legislation, we have penalty units and why it is that dollars are expressed in penalty units. I note in passing that I do not think the rest of the world has any understanding of penalty units and I rather wish that we had dollars in legislation for penalties as opposed to penalty units so that normal people have some sort of appreciation of the penalties they will incur should they breach various statutory requirements.
On that basis and for those reasons, Madam Speaker, we support the bill.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): I will also try to brief, Madam Speaker. I, too, welcome the bill, but I have a few issues I wish to raise. Whilst it is important that we make uniform classification between films and computer games, there needs to be a review of these issues.
For instance, when we are looking at penalties - and I know we have upgraded the penalties - how many people have actually been prosecuted under these provisions? It is all very well to upgrade the penalties, but do we find many cases of people being charged under this act, or do we just increase the penalties because they need to go up? I would be interested to know what sort of effect the penalties have had. Does the government police such matters and how well are they policed?
I also ask whether it is time for a review of the way some publications are out and about in our community. I recently spoke to our local newsagent. They have concerns with some of the publications that they have to sell, that are quite available to anyone who walks into that shop and turns the pages over. We have written material that is in plastic covers and we know is for people over 18, but there is quite a lot of material that parents would regard as not suitable for younger people, but is easily accessed. It would be interesting to know whether the government intends to restrict that type of publication by requiring it to be at least covered.
Perhaps part of a review could be to look at the effects of some of our violent computer games and sexually explicit material that is available in light of the fact that we have high cases of sexual abuse and domestic violence. We have also had, as has been seen throughout Australia, a number of arrests relating to child pornography.
Whilst it is good that the minister has produced this bill, I wonder, considering that this government has undertaken many reviews in the life of this parliament, whether it should have expanded on not just looking at making uniform guidelines to match Commonwealth guidelines, but seen this as an opportunity to look at a total review on the affects of some publications, films and computer games that we have in our society. That is an important area that needs to be canvassed. As parents, we believe that we should be protecting our children and, if this sort of material is also out there in the open for people to access, what effect will that have on the future of our children?
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I thank the opposition for their support for the bill. In regard to the member for Nelson’s comments, the whole point of classification is that you give the general public the tools they need to assess what is available in our shops.
Everyone understands that there is a range of materials, right through from quite explicit material that is unsuitable for young kids to things that anyone in the community can look at. That is the whole point of the classification system. This is a Commonwealth process. The Commonwealth has a standing structure that continually responds to and monitors things coming onto the market, hence these latest reforms dealing with computer games. We meet regularly, as classification ministers, so these matters are being reviewed continuously. With those few remarks, I suggest we move the debate on.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General) (by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
APPROPRIATION BILL 2005-06
(Serial 287)
(Serial 287)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move the bill be now read a second time. I table the 2005-06 Appropriation Bill and related Budget Papers.
Budget 2005 is about backing Territorians. It delivers less tax, local jobs and better skills. Budget 2005 outlines cuts in taxes of $40m, including record payroll tax and record stamp duty cuts. The Martin government is the most tax reforming government in the Territory’s history; we have cut more taxes than any other government. Budget 2005 makes the Territory the lowest taxing jurisdiction in Australia for a business with up to 100 staff.
Budget 2005 also provides a significant boost to the task of skilling Territorians. This budget delivers Jobs Plan 2, with the centrepiece being a commitment to training 10 000 Territorians over the next four years, up 25% since 2000.
The Martin government continues record infrastructure spending with $476m in Budget 2005. This budget also fulfils the Martin government’s commitments to a healthier Territory, better education outcomes and a safer community by providing record health, education and police budgets.
This year, the budget also includes the Territory’s financial commitment to the redevelopment of the Darwin waterfront and convention centre. This development, delivered through a public/private partnership, is one of the most significant investments for long-term economic gain that the Territory has ever made. Work will commence shortly on the community infrastructure, which will be substantially complete in 2007, while the Darwin convention and exhibition centre is expected to open in 2008.
The tax reforms outlined in this budget lead the rest of the nation in their support for business. They make the Martin Labor government the most tax reforming government in the Territory’s history. They provide local business with a strong, competitive edge against the rest of Australia. On 1 July 2005, the payroll tax threshold will rise to $1m. Some 79 businesses, including 61 locally-based Territory businesses, will no longer pay payroll tax. The government announces today that, from 1 July 2006, the payroll tax threshold will again rise; this time to $1.25m, the equal best in Australia. From 1 July 2006, a business or group of businesses with wages of less than $1.25m will not pay any payroll tax. That means 53 more locally-based Territory businesses will no longer pay payroll tax. These announcements continue the government’s record payroll tax reform. Since 1 July 2004, we will have doubled the payroll tax threshold, meaning 215 businesses will no longer pay payroll tax. Those businesses still paying payroll tax will save an average of $31 900 per year.
The government will continue its strong efforts to support Territorians achieving their dream of home ownership. Today, the government announces that we will increase the stamp duty concession for first home buyers. In 2002, we lifted this threshold from $80 000 to $125 000, as we promised. From today, the threshold will be increased to $200 000. This nearly doubles the value of the stamp duty concession from a maximum of $3640 to $6800, putting about $2.7m back into Territorians’ pockets. No stamp duty will be payable by a first home buyer on a property up to $200 000. Some 1400 Territorians will benefit each year from this threshold increase. The Martin government’s commitment to get more Territorians into their own homes is now supported by three strong planks: the $200 000 threshold for stamp duty for first home buyers, the successful HomeNorth scheme and a $1500 stamp duty rebate for people buying a home to live in. No other government has made such a concerted effort to make home ownership a reality for Territorians.
As already announced, the Martin government will remove electronic debit duty from 1 July 2005. This duty is applied to all electronic withdrawals from accounts held with financial institutions in the Territory. Combined with our decision to remove debits tax, this is an $8.9m ongoing reduction in tax to Territorians and will save small business with 20 staff around $1430 per year.
Skilling Territorians is a centrepiece of Budget 2005. The Martin government acted quickly to focus funds on training, implemented the first ever Jobs Plan, and fulfilled our election commitment to deliver major improvements in the Territory’s skill levels. In Budget 2005, we take that effort another step. We will train 10 000 Territorians over the next four years. Since the year 2000, that is a 25% increase in the number of Territorians in training.
In Budget 2005 we introduce four new training initiatives. These are:
- a Work Wear Work Gear cash bonus providing up to $500;
40 new VET scholarships at $4000 each;
a Work Ready NT program boosting funding for school to work transition; and
a new Build Skills NT program injecting money into improving the skills of existing workers.
Through Jobs Plan 2, Budget 2005 will increase our commitment to training by an additional $3.6m.
The budget also continues the Martin government’s record infrastructure effort. Budget 2005 boosts infrastructure spending by $476m. We have increased the minor new works budget by 40% to $28.6m. We have also significantly increased the amount of money being spent on repairs and maintenance of roads and schools. This expenditure will provide additional work for smaller local contractors across the Territory. The minor new works threshold has been increased from $150 000 to $300 000, a reform which will see work issued more rapidly. This $476m brings the total of cash injected into infrastructure to $2.23bn since 2001, an effort unparalleled in the Territory. These funds have lifted the construction industry and sustained thousands of local jobs. The Martin government’s cash commitment contrasts with the low levels of cash put in by the previous government.
I turn now to the Territory economy. Economic recovery: over the past two to three years, the Territory economy has recovered from a period of flat growth returning to solid growth in recent times. The onshore economy strengthened in 2004-05, boosted by activity for the construction of the LNG plant at Wickham Point and initial work for the Alcan G3 alumina expansion at Gove.
The tourism sector continued to recover over the year, supported by increased marketing activity. Importantly, business confidence strengthened as the outlook for the onshore economy continued to improve. In 2004-05, Territory gross state product is estimated to increase by 7.3% and state final demand by 1.2%. Solid income growth has supported consumer sentiment reflected in high motor vehicle sales and retail turnover growth, and strengthening residential construction and property markets.
Consumption is estimated to increase by 5.1% in 2004-05 with private consumption growth of 6.1%. Business investment, which will be above $2bn for the third consecutive year, continues to be heavily influenced by major infrastructure works and resource projects. Improved nett interstate migration sees population growth strengthening to 1.1% in 2005.
The Territory labour market was characterised by labour and skill shortages in 2004-05, with stronger activity in key employing industries. However, based on official statistics, employment is estimated to decline by 1.3% in 2004-05. These differences underlie the volatility in the Territory’s official employment data and the government’s caution with these figures. Treasury forecasts gross state product growth in 2005-06 at 6.2%. Continued strong growth reflects the improving employment outlook, population growth, and ongoing recovery across a range of industries. Territory final demand is forecast to increase by 4.7% in 2005-06. Consumption growth is forecast to moderate to 4.2%, and investment is set to increase by 6% supported by increased public sector expenditure.
Output will be boosted by the commencement of LNG production, and manganese production from Bootu Creek. Offshore, Bayu-Undan’s Stage 1 output is forecast to double as production reaches its design capacity.
Employment associated with major projects will continue through 2005-06, though the focus of activity will shift to the Alcan G3 alumina expansion. The strengthening tourism sector and residential construction will also contribute to forecast employment growth of 2%. Population is forecast to increase by 1% in 2006. Year-on-year inflation in Darwin is forecast to increase to 2.3% in 2005-06. It is clear that 2005-06 will see continuing economic prosperity throughout the Territory.
I now move to the fiscal projections in the budget. In 2001, the government set a target of achieving a balanced budget by 2004-05. The expected outcome for 2004-05 is a surplus of $46m, which will be used as the Territory’s partial contribution to the Darwin waterfront and convention centre project. During 2004-05, receipts increased by $143m, and payments by $97m. The higher receipts were largely the result of continuing economic improvement. Specific purpose payments were $19m higher through the year, but come with additional expenditure commitments. Adjustments to timing of taxes paid by government businesses resulted in a one-off improvement of $15m.
Higher population growth of 1.2% and higher GST collections resulted in a revenue increase of $46m and assists the Territory to pay for the additional services a higher population requires. It is a good signal of the success of the government’s continued efforts to boost the Territory’s population. Earlier this year, we were very proud to announce we passed 200 000 Territorians, a significant milestone.
The improved property market and the stronger economy mean greater levels of activity, with conveyancing duty up by $16m and payroll tax by $8m. Operating payments have increased in the government’s key service delivery areas of health - $16m, education - $31m, and police - $7m, meaning improved services, extra teachers, nurses and police.
Capital spending increased by $19m. In 2005-06, operating receipts are expected to be $2.75bn, $62m higher than 2004-05. This increase is the result of the usual anticipated growth in GST revenue of around $90m to pay for service delivery offset by lower specific purpose payments and a return to the usual level of tax equivalents paid by government businesses.
Operating payments are expected to increase by $93m to $2.56bn. The government will continue to improve services in health, education and police, the government’s key priority areas.
Our fiscal strategy targets were re-set in 2004 and included deficits from 2005-06, with the budget returning to balance in 2008-09. The underlying targets remain unchanged: the inclusion of payments for the Darwin waterfront and convention centre increases the deficit for three years as the community infrastructure and the Darwin convention centre are constructed. The budget will return to balance as planned in 2008-09.
I turn now to the detail of budget initiatives. Budget 2005 delivers less tax, local jobs and better skills; it backs Territorians.
Tax reform, skills and business support: as a result of tax changes to business from 1 July 2006, Territory businesses employing up to 100 staff will pay the lowest tax in Australia. In New South Wales, a business with 50 staff will pay $72 024 more than its Territory counterpart. In Western Australia, they will pay $28 479 more. Businesses of 100 staff in New South Wales will pay $73 597 more than in the Territory, and in Western Australia they will pay $15 443 more.
Budget 2005 includes the Territory’s tax reform initiatives in line with the intergovernmental agreement. In addition to the removal of debits tax and electronic debits duty, the Territory will remove stamp duty on: leases, franchises and unquoted marketable securities on 1 July 2006 at a saving to business of $2m; hiring arrangements on 1 July 2007, at a saving to business of $5.3m; and non-real business conveyances on 1 July 2009 at a saving of $5.5m.
Budget 2005 delivers a major boost to training and skilling Territorians. In this budget, incentive grants to small business for trainees increased from $2200 to $3000. There will be 250 grants available. Employers putting on traditional trade apprentices will be eligible for a $7000 grant. The number of these grants will be 150, almost 400% up from the original 40.
The Martin government is also delivering a new Build Skills NT program, backing Territorians already in work by upgrading their skills through training. Some $500 000 will be spent targeting workers in the automotive, building, construction, hospitality and mining industries. These funds will be injected directly to industry and will give them the flexibility to move existing workers through new skill levels.
To improve the transition from school to work, the government will also invest in a new Work Ready NT initiative, and $200 000 will fund the Work Ready Pathways program. Some $4.4m is included this year for the VET in Schools program. This program is expected to prepare 1100 students for the Territory work force.
In Budget 2005, the government has lifted funding for vocational education and training at Charles Darwin University by $1.5m, taking annual VET funding for Charles Darwin University to $35.2m. To provide further support for local business, the Martin government will allocate:
- ∙ $3.8m for the continued implementation of Building the Territory’s Resource Base for mining exploration;
∙ an additional $900 000 over three years to expand indigenous business support programs;
∙ additional funding of $250 000 from 2005-06 to increase availability of skilled workers for industry through the
business and skilled migration strategy; and
∙ additional funding of $148 000 has been provided to develop a one-stop information centre in Palmerston for
information, business and community justice services.
Better schools: education has been a priority of the Martin government since coming to office. The education budget this year is $582m, up by 22% from 2001-02. This year, the record education budget continues the $42m improvements in secondary education. Specific support includes:
- ∙ increasing teaching resources by providing 19 student counsellors;
- ∙ additional vocational education and training in schools;
- ∙ enhanced professional development for teachers;
- ∙ an additional interactive business learning unit at Katherine School of the Air; and
- ∙ additional specialist resources to the bush.
Overall, the education budget provides $266m for early childhood and primary education in government schools; $139m for government secondary schools; and $81m for assistance for non-government schools. The budget supports the ongoing employment of the additional 100 teachers in our system.
This year, around $74m is programmed for new and ongoing capital works, minor new works and repairs and maintenance, including:
∙ $5.5m for education facilities, additional teacher housing and programs at Wadeye;
∙ $2m to replace Mamaruni School after it was damaged by Cyclone Ingrid;
∙ Stage 2b of Parap Primary School redevelopment at $2.9m;
∙ further redevelopment of Darwin High School at $2m;
∙ upgrades to Donyddji and Mapurru Homeland Centres and the Gunbalanya Community Education Centre
totalling $2.5m; and
∙ upgrading Ross Park Primary School airconditioning at a cost of $1.2m over two years.
Community safety: the Martin government is backing Territorians by providing a safer community. We have focussed on preventing crime, responding hard when it does occur, and tackling antisocial behaviour. Budget 2005 delivers a record Police, Fire and Emergency Services budget of $189m. This budget has increased 38% since 2001. The Martin government is tackling antisocial behaviour and violence through record growth in police numbers. We have put an extra 120 police on the beat since 2001.
Funding of $200 000 in 2005-06 has been provided for mobile police stations in Darwin and Alice Springs. These stations will provide police with the flexibility to respond immediately to crime hot spots and community needs. Personal and domestic violence protection units are being established across all major centres. An ongoing program has been approved to deliver 25 additional police vehicles for use by Aboriginal community police officers. These vehicles will strengthen the capacity to address violence and antisocial behaviour across the Territory.
Budget 2005 commits $750 000 to community grants, a substantial increase on the $400 000 provided in Budget 2004: $400 000 will be allocated to crime prevention grants, and $350 000 for approved community safety plans.
Funding to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions to prosecute sexual assault matters will increase by $200 000. Additional funding of $330 000 will be provided for the formal establishment of the Community Justice Centre.
The government will build a fire station at Marrara at a cost of $3.6m.
Health and Community Services: Budget 2005 provides another record health budget. The budget of $687m is an increase of 43% since 2001-02. It includes: $392m for hospitals; $110m for community health services; $87m for aged, disability and mental health services; $48m for family and children’s services; and $50m for public health services and health research.
Additional recurrent funding of $1.94m has been allocated for Alice Springs Hospital to provide improved medical staffing levels for the Intensive Care Unit. Additional funding of $395 000 will be provided for home birth care services and the provision of outreach antenatal services to remote communities. $203 000 will be provided to support Territory nurses to study locally as midwives.
An additional $1.5m will be allocated for the provision of essential mental health services. This includes $200 000 to strengthen 24-hour emergency response and consultation across the Territory, and $350 000 to provide four additional psychiatrists for children and adolescents in rural centres. $1.2m will be spent on mental health facilities to provide community-based residential care in Darwin and Alice Springs.
The government will provide $500 000 per year to assist Territorians requiring travel interstate for life-saving cancer treatment. In addition, my colleague, the Minister for Health, has announced that the government will call for expressions of interest from established oncology radiation services in setting up a unit at the Royal Darwin Hospital.
Alice Springs Hospital will undergo an upgrade to Ward 4 at a cost of $1m to provide eight renal stations for patients. Other capital investment to support health services includes: a $1m upgrade to Flynn Drive renal facilities; $650 000 for a staff accommodation upgrade at Alice Springs Hospital; and continuation of the program to improve renal facilities in remote communities with Stage 3 costing $400 000.
The government will improve the indexation of grant payments to health and community services non-government organisations. These organisations provide an important service to our community and are recognised for this service by the Martin government. This will increase funding by $1.13m.
Supporting families: Budget 2005 backs Territory families with funding designed to support family needs and to keep downward pressure on the cost of living. This year, the budget includes: $8.13m to support Territory seniors and the Pensioner Concession Scheme; $3.7m to subsidise child care, making child care cheaper; $395 000 for additional maternity services; $500 000 for an intensive family support service; and $300 000 to support seven new remote youth services. Budget 2005 supports families and sees no increases in charges.
Lifestyle and environment: Territorians enjoy a great lifestyle. Budget 2005 continues the Martin government’s strong backing of that lifestyle. A capital grant of $5m will be provided in 2005-06 for Stage 1 of the Palmerston Recreation Centre.
Additional funding of $750 000 per annum will be provided from 2005-06 to the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory for ongoing development.
Continued additional funding of $500 000 will be provided to support sporting events in the Territory. The Martin government has an outstanding record of bringing world-class sport to Territorians, and we will continue that in 2005-06. Funding of $300 000 will be provided to assist elite Territory athletes to compete at national and international levels.
Funding of $140 000 will provide additional bus services for public housing seniors villages in Darwin and Palmerston.
$500 000 is provided for a program of multicultural development, and $700 000 for the Multicultural Affairs Sponsorship and Grants program.
Increased funding of $1.2m has been provided for recurrent Territory park management operations, and management of the new Channel Point Recreation Reserve.
Other capital investments include: $5.8m for the Darwin Soccer Stadium; $3.8m for the Hidden Valley Raceway upgrade, which includes eight additional pit garages for the V8 Supercar event; $800 000 for the Alice Springs Drag Strip; and $500 000 for improved recreational fishing infrastructure.
Regional initiatives: the government is committed to continue strong support for Territorians living in our regions. The government provides power, water, sewerage services, aerodromes and barge landings in remote indigenous communities through the Indigenous Essential Services program. The payment to the Power and Water Corporation for providing these services will increase by $1.2m to $47m. The government will employ a Regional Government Coordinator for the West Arnhem region based in Jabiru, and a coordinator at Nhulunbuy to assist with development opportunities and obligations in regard to the Alcan expansion. The government has committed to significant capital expenditure in the regions. Some of the projects include:
- $2.7m for headworks Stage 2 at the Desert Knowledge Precinct;
$500 000 for upgrades to the Ngukurr to Numbulwar Road, and a causeway at Rose River;
$500 000 for the Central Arnhem Road for selected road and river crossing upgrades from
Beswick to Gove;
$500 000 to upgrade sections of the Sandover Highway;
$1.25m for the Alpurrurulam Aerodrome; and
$630 000 for the Pigeon Hole Aerodrome.
Budget 2005 backs Territorians. It delivers less tax, local jobs, and better skills. It is pro-business, pro-jobs, and pro-growth. This budget outlines tax cuts totalling $40m. It takes on the task of training another 10 000 Territorians, and it provides more local jobs through $476m of infrastructure spending. The budget delivers a healthier Territory, better educational outcomes, and a safer community. It tackles violence and antisocial behaviour. Budget 2005 strengthens our great Territory lifestyle. It backs Territorians on a continued path of growth and development. This budget builds on four years of strong economic management and hard work by the Martin government. Much has been achieved; there is much more to do.
Madam Speaker, I commend this budget to the House and to all Territorians.
Debate adjourned.
JUSTICE PORTFOLIO (MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) BILL
(Serial 283)
(Serial 283)
Continued from 23 March 2005.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I will be brief. We support this bill. When the Attorney-General first introduced it in Alice Springs, I was very excited because I thought it might have contained a number of things that lawyers believe should be amended when it comes to statute law reform. However, this was not it.
Having gone through not only the second reading speech but the particular parts of the 11 or 12 items of legislation to which it refers along with the very helpful explanatory statement, it was clear to me and, in turn, my colleagues, that the right thing to do would be to support this bill. There is no reason for us not to support it. I do not think I have missed anything. This statute law reform involves, for someone considering it, really joining the dots. There were 11 items of legislation involved and I needed to track each one. To the best of my ability, I cannot see that there is any sensible reason to oppose it.
I ask that the Attorney-General take my comments as they are intended and, with those remarks, I conclude my comments.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I only have a short comment to make regarding a section which might need clarification. Under clause 19, which is the amendment of section 177 of the Consumer Affairs and Fair Trading Act, ‘Disqualifications resulting from revocation, cancellation or suspension of licence’, you have said that the original penalties are $5000 and $25 000. The amended penalties are 500 and 2500 penalty units. That is, they are actually reduced. Yet, in your explanatory statement, you say that the penalties have been increased. Is that an error or was that intended to be a reduction in the penalty?
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I am sorry for my tardiness. I had to seek advice. First, I thank the opposition for their support for the bill and I counsel the shadow to not get overexcited about legislation. It can be very threatening to health.
To take the member for Nelson’s position, the amendment regarding section 177, ‘Disqualifications resulting from revocation, cancellation or suspension of licence’, as you quite rightly pointed out, it is adjusting the penalties from dollars to penalty units. This amendment actually corrects an error. The penalties should always have been 500 penalty units and 2500 penalty units for a body corporate.
The drafting error occurred when the National Competition Policy amendments were passed in 2002, so if the explanatory notes are saying it is an increase, it is actually increasing to what was the intended penalty. We are not raising or lowering them; we are putting it back to what the intended penalty was when it was not drafted correctly into the bill when we introduced it under the National Competition Policy process.
Having dealt with that member’s issue, we can move on, and I can foreshadow we will be doing a quick amendment in committee.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Mr CHAIRMAN: The committee has before it the Justice Portfolio (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill (Serial 283) together with a Schedule of Amendment No 99 circulated by the Minister for Justice, Dr Toyne.
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole.
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 99.1, which amends clause 56. Proposed section 102A of the Sentencing Act will provide that on making an order under sections 11 or 13, which is release on bond provisions; section 34, which is regarding community work orders; section 40, suspended sentence; or section 44, home detention order, the offender must not leave the precincts of the court without signing the order and a police officer may, without warrant, arrest an offender who the member suspects on reasonable grounds has failed to sign the order.
This amendment will add section 78K to the list of orders to which the proposed section 102A will apply. Section 78K provides that:
The court may order a person found guilty of a domestic violence offence to participate in a perpetrators program
on terms and conditions specified in the order.
Section 78K will be included for the sake of consistency with the other provisions dealing with the making of conditional orders.
Amendment agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
TRANS-TERRITORY PIPELINE AND BLACKTIP GAS PROJECTS
(SPECIAL PROVISIONS) BILL
(Serial 285)
(SPECIAL PROVISIONS) BILL
(Serial 285)
Continued from 23 March 2005.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, the opposition supports this legislation. I thank the Chief Minister for providing explanatory notes and Woodside for the briefing.
The trans-Territory pipeline, TTP, is a proposed 940 km underground pipeline development designed to transport natural gas from the Blacktip gas field in the Joseph Bonaparte Gulf 250 km south of Darwin to the Gove Peninsula in north-east Arnhem Land.
TTP has the potential to provide economic and social advantage to the Northern Territory and will also provide environmental improvements as a result of the transfer from fuel oil to natural gas at the Alcan Gove alumina refinery.
TTP provides the vital gas transportation link between the Blacktip gas facility and the Alcan Gove refinery. The gas will be sourced from the Blacktip gas field and will be treated onshore at a proposed gas plant near Wadeye as part of the Blacktip project. The TTP will commence at the eastern boundary of the proposed Blacktip gas plant and will terminate north of the Alcan Gove refinery on the Gove Peninsula. Alcan is currently expanding the Gove alumina refinery and is seeking to convert the plant’s primary fuel source and operations from fuel oil to natural gas.
A conditional sales agreement was signed on 5 November 2004 with the Blacktip project for the supply of natural gas to Alcan’s Gove alumina refinery, for the supply of 800 petajoules of natural gas from the Blacktip gas field over a 20-year period starting in 2007. The GSA is conditional upon a number of milestones, all of which are expected to be reached by the end of May 2005.
In March 2004, the Commonwealth government granted major project facilitation status to the TTP project and the Blacktip project. In regards to that, the purpose of this legislation is to make special provision in connection with the trans-Territory pipeline and Blacktip projects. The legislation creates new statutory rights to cross roads and waterways with ministerial approval; provides a mechanism to enable future persons responsible for construction and operation of the facilities comprising the projects to rely on the authority certificates issued in connection with the projects under the Northern Territory Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act; and the regulation of the Blacktip onshore gas plant by the Waste Management and Pollution Control Act.
It is necessary legislation and builds on the legislation that was put in place to facilitate the AustralAsia Railway project. The opposition supports the legislation.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I was not expecting any controversy over this legislation and am pleased that the opposition is supporting it. This kind of legislation for a major project such as the trans-Territory pipeline, the details of which were so well outlined by the Leader of the Opposition, mirrors legislation for other major projects. I suppose the last legislation of its kind was for the AustralAsia Railway, the same statutory rights were part of that legislation, and the Merlin diamond and Granites gold mines. All those major projects have had special legislation to facilitate them.
The important thing to remember is that while this legislation will give the trans-Territory pipeline operators rights to cross roads and waterways, they are subject to Territory legislation and to ministerial approval. There are two items of critical legislation here: the Control of Roads Act and the Water Act. They will remain in place. There were some issues raised about them, but they will be in place and, importantly, environmental controls and ministerial consent will be required.
Another act referred to in this legislation is the Northern Territory Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act and an important component of the legislation is that certificates issued under that legislation will be able to be relied on by future owners - not just the present joint venturers, but future owners of the pipeline. That is an important security to have for such a major investment for the Territory.
Also, it is important to note here - and issues were raised about this legislation by the Territory’s Environment Centre - that the Territory’s Waste Management and Pollution Control Act will apply to the Blacktip onshore gas plant, which is to be built near Wadeye, and this project is subject to the strictest environmental impact statements. It is not as though there is an environmental free-for-all. There are strict guidelines. Ministerial consent is needed for the 940 km of the pipeline. Any kind of waterway or road crossing will be made according to our legislation.
This legislation reminds us how important these major projects are to the Territory. We have been talking about the growth in jobs numbers associated with projects like the G3 expansion at Alcan and the LNG plant. This project has hundreds of workers involved, and represents major expenditure into the Territory’s economy of $1bn in building offshore and onshore. It is a very exciting project. I look forward to final investment decisions. At this stage, it looks as though that will be happening within the month. I thank the House for the support for this important piece of legislation and, yes, I hope it happens quickly.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
VOLATILE SUBSTANCE ABUSE PREVENTION BILL
(Serial 270)
MISUSE OF DRUGS AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 271)
(Serial 270)
MISUSE OF DRUGS AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 271)
Continued from 2 December 2004.
Ms CARTER (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, not one member of this House would not hold serious concerns about the harm being caused to people from drug abuse.
Those sitting opposite like to carry on as though they hold the moral high ground on this issue, but we all know their claim is tenuous and that, over many years, the previous CLP government strove to tackle drug issues and had world-renowned success, particularly in the area of alcohol abuse.
When the minister rose to introduce this bill and launched straight into slinging off at the CLP’s position of making the sniffing of volatile substances illegal by calling the idea ‘stupid’, there goes the often hoped-for bipartisan approach to this issue. That is a shame because, as I said from the beginning, we all care greatly about this problem.
I am a member of this parliament’s substance abuse committee. Over the past three years, we have travelled to many places in the Territory and, in a number of those places, the issue of petrol sniffing was very real and traumatic to that community. After one meeting out bush, we left the meeting room only to be met by a happy young boy, leaning on our car sniffing from a can. He was about eight years old. I hate to think what his future holds.
Late last year, half the committee - the members for Nightcliff, Katherine and I - travelled to Brisbane for briefings from experienced service providers on the issue of urban drug use problems. Chroming and volatile substance use were key topics during our study. What we learnt was that, although alcohol abuse is still the biggest problem, the number of people sniffing volatile substances continues to grow. The substances sniffed include paint thinners, dry cleaning fluids, degreasers, petrol, glues, felt-tip markers, spray paint - and the term ‘chroming’ refers to paint being inhaled after being sprayed into a plastic bag - deodorant, hair spray, insect spray, halothane, nitrous oxide and amyl nitrate. The key factors that increase the chance that substances like these are used include their easy accessibility and comparative low cost.
The major concern is that, although sniffing in Brisbane was not as prevalent amongst young people as alcohol misuse, the harm caused by the high toxicity of the substances used was the key problem. A person who is intoxicated with one of these drugs, such as petrol, often displays antisocial and high-risk behaviour.
A publication provided to the committee in Brisbane was entitled Sniffing Around the Valley, which was reported by the Brisbane Youth Service. It was published in 2003. On page 9 of this report, we were advised that:
- There are immediate and delayed health consequences of volatile substance use, known as VSU, that may be
transitory or long term. Initial effects are disorientation, disinhibition, light-headedness and ataxia. Nausea
and vomiting are common side effects. Users may feel drowsy for several hours and experience a lingering
headache and, later, memory loss. High doses can result in hallucinations, delusions and loss of consciousness.
This can lead to accidents, inappropriate behaviour and the young person being vulnerable to abuse or exploitation.
Evidence suggests volatile substances are not physically addictive, but chronic users may develop a strong
psychological dependence.
Death can occur from accidents, vomit inhalation, asphyxiation from repeated inhalations, suffocation from plastic
bags over the head, or sudden sniffing death apparently due to cardiac arrhythmias occurring most commonly with
aerosols.
There is controversy and difficulty with research on long-term, physical effects of VSU. It has been found that
neurological effects from acute, high-level exposure from occasional use are generally reversible.
Heavy, prolonged exposure, however, has been linked to neurological damage. Chronic inhalation of toluene,
which is in petrol, has been associated with a central nervous system syndrome involving dementia, cerebella
ataxia, spasticity and brain stem dysfunction.
Several months ago, the substance abuse committee met with Dr Cheree Cairney who presented her recent findings which indicated that, in many cases, once a person ceases to sniff petrol, their cognitive function can improve to a degree over time.
The toxic nature of the substances which are inhaled -and in the Territory petrol is the key problem - the damage caused and the fact that the damage may not be permanent must spur us on to do all we can to prevent sniffing and the problems it causes.
Harmful levels of drug use are often a symptom of other problems facing a person. As we know, harmful drugs - be it legal, such as alcohol, or illegal, such as heroin - are used to help people escape their reality. In the case of volatile substances, research - and I am referring to the document I have already mentioned - indicates that those personal problems tend to include lower socioeconomic status and social disadvantage, family dysfunction and less family support, mental health problems, having suffered child abuse, concurrent polydrug use and general antisocial behaviour.
The key, therefore, to addressing sniffing is, in the long term, to prevent it from happening by improving the socioeconomic circumstances of the community, by strengthening families so they are able to support their young people, by providing comprehensive mental health services, and preventing child abuse. In the short term, we need to work to provide sniffers with the opportunity to quit sniffing …
Excuse me, Madam Speaker, may I ask that the clock be turned on?
Madam SPEAKER: Certainly.
Ms CARTER: Thank you. That brings me to this legislation, the Volatile Substances Abuse Prevention Bill. We, on this side of the House, will not be opposing it, but my prediction is that any positive outcomes from its passage will be minimal, if any, and that, generally speaking, it will create a lot of headaches. I hope the government will agree to review its effect in 12 months, and change it as needed. I can assure members that this is what the CLP will do if elected to government later this year.
I will raise a number of points now and pursue them later when we examine this bill in committee. The Volatile Substance Abuse Prevention Bill sets up holes which sniffers will quickly discover, and immediately drive trucks through. The classic is clause 8 which outlines where police or so-called ‘authorised others’ can exercise their power. According to this section, the police or the authorised others can only take action such as tipping out petrol if the sniffer is in a public place, is trespassing on private property or on a private premise if consent to enter the premises is given to the police by the occupier or owner of the premises.
This raises the question: what if a 13-year-old sniffer is at home with his young mates? Mum has gone for a few weeks, and grandma is meant to be in charge. Grandma is scared stiff of the sniffer and his mates. When police turn up, the sniffer tells them to clear off, nicely, and grandma concurs. What can the police do? Nothing, according to this bill. How representative do you think that scenario is of the reality in many parts of the Territory? Pretty representative, I say, and this is why I predict this legislation will have little effect. It is a Clayton’s attempt to address petrol sniffing.
We have to ask ourselves why it is, looking at the Orders of the Day, that this legislation has been scheduled for today of all days: the day the budget has been brought down. This government has lauded this legislation for many months. There have been many opportunities to address this legislation in previous sittings; there are opportunities tomorrow and on Thursday to do it. But, no, it sneaks in here today when the public is far more interested, I would argue, in the budget and what is going on there. If the media and public took notice of this legislation and this debate, they would be sorely disappointed at what is being proposed. This is why I believe it is going to be ineffective, and it is a disappointment to me that our scrutiny is probably going to have very little impact on the public. People living in remote communities think the government said they were going to fix the petrol sniffing problem, and the police are going to have some input now, but you will find in 12 months time that very little has changed.
The minister went on about how Labor is banning petrol sniffing with this legislation, but I ask: how? Only if you are out doing it on the footy field, not if you are at grandma’s because she is not going to let the police have anything to do with what young Johnny is doing in the back room.
Similarly, have a look at clause 19. This deals with when a sniffer can be apprehended by police. Needless to say, if the sniffer is inside private premises and the police are not given permission to enter, that will be the end of it. This need to get permission is a great escape clause, and this is what you end up with when you do not make the sniffing of a substance such as petrol illegal, as is the case with cannabis, smoking of which is illegal. If that certain aroma is wafting out of a window, the police wandering by on a foot patrol can just walk in and say: ‘Well, what do we have here?’ But not with petrol, not if grandma stands at the front door and says: ‘Clear off’. That is the end of it.
When I had my briefing from the minister’s staff on this matter, I raised my concerns about clause 8 and the need for the police to have permission to enter private premises. I was advised that the reason they cannot do it without permission is to protect people on the premises from the police. There is the loophole for sniffers. I question the fact that so-called ‘banning’ petrol sniffing is not going to have any effect. We know the damage caused by petrol sniffing. If you compare it with the damage caused by the smoking of marijuana, you would be hard pushed to find anyone who would argue that petrol sniffing is safer than the use of marijuana, yet marijuana smoking is illegal. It appears to me that the government has no problem with that situation, yet they are prepared to let the situation stand: marijuana smoking is illegal, petrol sniffing is not and we are going to hope for the best in the years to come.
It would be interesting to know whether or not houses on Aboriginal communities are classified as private premises. I do not know the answer to that. As most petrol sniffing currently happens on Aboriginal communities, the status of their houses would impact on this problem. Perhaps the minister, when she responds to what members say today, could enlighten us. Are houses on Aboriginal communities designated as private premises? Is it a fact that, if the person who has control of the house stands at the front door and denies entrance to the police, is that the end of it? Is that what this legislation means?
This legislation will put a great deal of responsibility onto our valued police force. There is significant emphasis placed on, for example, protective custody and the need for the sniffer only to be held until it reasonably appears they will not pose a risk. Given that many sniffers could be quite young and/or in a highly agitated state, I hope that the police are supported and resourced adequately to cope with this demand. We are all very aware of the findings of the Aboriginal Deaths In Custody report and the need for significant vigilance by the police with regards to alcohol and adults. Now we have legislated roles for police dealing primarily with children and volatile substance use. The role of the police in implementing this action is significant and they will face difficulties with all the grey areas this so-called ‘banning’ will create.
Under this legislation, a sniffer, if caught sniffing but not on private premises, can be apprehended by the police or a so-called ‘authorised other’ and taken to a safe place such as to the care of a responsible adult or taken into protective custody. If the police think that the person is at risk of severe harm, an application can be made to the minister for the sniffer to have their physical, neurological and/or mental condition assessed by a health practitioner. The assessor can recommend treatment. The recommendation then has to go back to the minister for approval before treatment can begin.
The Department of Health and Community Services can have problems dealing with uncooperative patients. I am aware of one young girl who was living in Palmerston last year - her mum was in the paper talking about this - who, it was believed, had schizophrenia. When her mother took her to the Tamarind Centre in Darwin to be assessed, the girl would just walk out. The staff could not do anything about it so the girl was, apparently, left undiagnosed. I know that this legislation provides for the issuing of warrants by the court to enable the police to escort reluctant sniffers to places for assessment and treatment. It will be interesting to see how that works.
In her second reading speech, the minister commented on the need for protocols and guidelines to be developed between all the different agencies to make this legislation work. I wonder how many months, and possibly years, they will take to develop, and what will happen in the interim. It will be interesting to see how the two key agencies, health and police, work these things out and how well they will work in realty.
Given that, under Labor, the sniffing of petrol will not be illegal, it will be interesting to see how assessments are done and how well sniffers take to attending and participating in treatment action. I hope the minister reviews the success or otherwise of this legislation once it has been in place for 12 months. It will be interesting to hear what remote communities currently suffering from a petrol sniffing problem think of this legislation, police and health action after a year or so. My prediction is that they will not think much of it at all.
When I think back to the visit the substance abuse committee made to one remote community in Central Australia, I recall the request made by the Aboriginal people that petrol sniffing be made illegal so that the police could force the sniffers to attend an outstation for treatment. That outstation, Mt Theo, is well known and has a good success rate. The people said they wanted sniffing made illegal so that the sniffers would not blame them, their families, for sending them to the outstation. We can all understand that motive, and I agree with it. What the community people were suggesting was reasonable and seemed straightforward.
However, because sniffing cannot be made illegal - no doubt much to the dismay of the member for Sanderson who was initially quite keen on this idea until someone over there told him to pull his head in and toe the party line - we end up with a very complex, convoluted system set out in this legislation supposedly aimed at reducing the harm caused by sniffing. My prediction is that it will all prove too hard to implement. There will be too many hoops for those who care about a sniffer to struggle through, and the sniffer will find plenty of loopholes to escape through. Due to the hoops, the loops and the uncooperative nature of the sniffer, in the end, little will change. It will all be too hard and the whole thing will fall over.
The CLP’s position on this matter remains unchanged. Our plan is to make sniffing illegal, so that sniffers can be taken to appropriate treatment centres such as outstations, to empower the police to be able to dispose of the volatile substance, even if the sniffing is occurring inside a private premises, and to develop state-of-the-art treatment programs, which may include residential rehabilitation facilities. Not so many hoops, not so many loopholes. I look forward to the minister’s response to these issues, and I sincerely hope that this legislation does make a real impact on the appalling situation faced by too many in the Northern Territory. However, I do not hold out much hope.
I will pursue these issues and other matters during the committee stage, and I ask the minister in her response to outline what has been done in the last 12 months with regards to petrol sniffing. Last year, the minister heralded that, over the next five years, $10m was to be allocated to this problem. That means that during this five years, on average, $2m a year should have been spent on the problem of petrol sniffing. We are now eight weeks short of the end of the financial year. I would like the minister to outline how much money has been spent on the issue of petrol sniffing this financial year, and what that money has achieved.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, seeing that this is one of the great planks of the government’s crusade to save children from themselves and save Territorians from their own behaviour, I am nothing shy of astonished to find myself on my feet without seeing any member of the government ranks jumping on this issue, because this has gone from a central plank of their policy and advancement for Aboriginal health particularly to something that has been slid in under the radar today. The number of members opposite who are not on their feet talking about it concerns me because it deals with people in their electorates as well as people in my own.
I am going to make some observations about this bill and the mechanics of how it works. The first thing I would point out to the minister - and I would like some comment from the minister on it - is that I notice there is a requirement that people taken into custody as per section 128 of the Police Administration Act cannot have certain things done to them; that is, being charged with an offence, questioned in relation to an offence, or having photographs or fingerprints taken. I assume we well see an amendment during committee stages that will also include DNA in that list, or are we going to allow DNA to be taken during that period? That is something for you to think about between now and the committee stage. I draw the minister’s attention to clause 17(3)(c) of the bill.
I would like to talk about how this bill will work, the mechanics of it. If you create an offence called\ volatile substance abuse, what happens is that the police officer goes out and says: ‘Hello, hello, hello, what is going on here, then?’, reaches over and says: ‘You are nicked, mate. Come with me; I will take you right now before a court’, or ‘I will place you in custody until such time as you are ready to go before a court’. There is another exception to the rule of what police officers do. When someone is so intoxicated, apparently by alcohol or drug, under section 128 of the Police Administration Act, a police officer may say: ‘Hello, hello, hello, what is going on here, then? You look drunk, you are with me, mate, and I will let you go in six hours’. No charge, no investigation into an offence; you are simply locked up. Then, when you have sobered up, you are sent out the door with: ‘Have a nice day’.
This falls somewhere in between those two situations. The reason is because this government wants to do all of those things that an offence will allow you to do without actually creating an offence. We are now creating a limbo between protective custody for being intoxicated and having someone charged with an offence.
What are the mechanics of taking someone into custody when they are merely drunk? Well, the Police Administration Act says to police officers: ‘You may use reasonable force to take that person into custody’. So the police officer walks up to the drunk and says: ‘Hello, hello, hello, you are very drunk, you are coming with me, Sunshine’, and the drunk says: ‘Get nicked’. ‘Well, I am not having any of that, so I will grab you and physically throw you into the back of the cage, maybe put handcuffs on you if you require it, lock the back of the cage, and you are now in custody’. Six hours later, you are released having realised the error of your ways. In fact, it is possible to even commit an offence whilst you are intoxicated by alcohol or other drug, which means that the police officer comes up and says: ‘Hello, hello, hello, you are with me, mate’. If the bloke smacks the police officer in the face, he can be charged with an offence: assault police.
That then takes us to the other side of the way that this system works. Let us say we create an offence. The police officer goes up to the petrol sniffer who is committing an offence and he says: ‘Hello, hello, hello, you are sniffing petrol, you are with me mate’, goes back to the cells and you are immediately charged with an offence. If you are swearing in the street, you are charged with an offence under the Summary Offences Act. If you have broken someone’s window, you are charged with criminal damage under the Criminal Code. If you have murdered someone, you are charged with murder under the Criminal Code. The next thing that happens is that there is a period allowed for investigation and, bang, you are in front of the court. Then the court decides what to do with you; whether to remand you in custody or to release you on bail. There are options open to the court. If it is a minor offence, the court will deal with you at the Magistrates Court level.
What happens is that the accused or defendant ends up in front of the lower courts and the defendant says: ‘Guilty, Your Worship’, at which point His Worship can do all sorts of things, depending on what the legislation allows. Under the Sentencing Act, there is a whole bunch of things a court can do. They can throw you in gaol for having committed a crime, fine you, record a conviction, not record a conviction, or make orders as to your behaviour and conduct.
Now let us have a look at what this process will put in place. The police officer goes up to the petrol sniffer and says: ‘Hello, hello, hello, I have you for petrol sniffing. You are with me, mate, you are in custody. I then take you back to the police station but I am not allowed to throw you into the cells according to this legislation, so I have to put you somewhere else. So I will stick you in the lounge room for the moment, but wherever it has to be …’, and that is being flippant, but ‘… I will stick you in the lounge room at the moment because I cannot take you to a place of care or a hospital because I happen to be in Kintore’.
I have you sitting there in the lounge room and I am thinking: ‘What am I going to do with this person? I can hold him in protective custody for a while, or I can go and seek an order which means that I go and put them in front of the court’. Okay, so I take him to a court to seek an order. Hang on! I actually send a messenger - that is prcising the system; the message goes up the line first and an application has to be made. So I am taking the petrol sniffer, with reasonable force, if necessary, into custody, thus in one way or another depriving them of their liberty, and now I am seeking a court order as to their future behaviour. What exactly is the difference? The difference is, frankly, one little thing: the recording of the conviction against that person’s name.
Let us be a little serious about what we are talking about here. We are talking about petrol sniffers. We are talking about taking them into custody, with reasonable force, if required, which means handcuffs, locking them up. That is what is contemplated by this legislation – the use of reasonable force – and if you do not empower the police to do that, what will happen is the police officer will go up to the petrol sniffer and say: ‘Hello, hello, hello, I am taking you into custody’. The petrol sniffer says: ‘No, get knotted, I am not going’ and the police officer says: ‘Oh, all right’, and walks off. That is an absolutely ludicrous situation even so the police have been provided with reasonable force. The reasonable force provision allows the police officer to use just that – reasonable force. So this petrol sniffer is now in custody of the police officer and they can be either held over or an order can be sought for their treatment.
Why would you create a parallel bureaucracy to the existing bureaucracies and a parallel system where you are going to achieve the same outcome through the same methods with nothing other than not having a conviction recorded at the end of the day? If we are talking about kids shoving petrol up their nose, from their perspective whether the police officer charges them with an offence or not - and it is a moot point to the petrol sniffer as to whether they are in court because there is a treatment order being sought or a sentencing being handed out - is really not going to be at the forefront of the petrol sniffer’s mind.
The government justifies this non-criminal approach based on the single premise that we do not want to see these poor children end up with criminal records. I have to say, that is probably the least of their concerns if they are shoving petrol up their nose - the least of their concerns. That is the point of difference between this side and that side of the House: we understand that the system already is in place.
I would be concerned that the minister for community health, Health Minister Mark II, has other legislation within the minister’s control, and that is the Community Welfare Act. The Community Welfare Act is a pretty strange animal but, basically, it says that the legal system that we have says that you are either a victim or a villain. If you are villain, there is a criminal justice process. If you are a victim, as a child, then there is another process; that which is used to take people into care. It has been a while since I have read the act, so I will have to do it by memory but, basically, it identifies that any person under the age of 18 years is a child and that child may, from time to time, be determined to be in need of care. Then there is a whole range of definitions as to what ‘in need of care’ is, and then you have maltreatment, which is expanded upon at some length in the legislation. Surely, that legislation, when we have petrol sniffers around, is capable of being used for determining whether or not a child is in need of care. That legislation empowers the police, and any other authorised officer, roughly to do exactly what this legislation is suggesting should be done.
We then go to the next part of the approach this government is taking. They create power for treatment orders to be made and, if you do not comply with your treatment order, a warrant is issued for your arrest. What happens next is that the legislation is used to have a warrant because the person who is the subject of this court order - not a conviction, but the determination by a court that you are going to undergo this treatment program - decides to scarper, as is the want of petrol sniffers and other people from treatment programs from time to time. A warrant may be issued for that person’s apprehension and return to the treatment program. The police officer goes and gets a warrant from the court – this, by the way, is what happens when you breach a parole or another sentence of the court, even if you do not pay a fine a warrant is issued for your arrest – and grabs the little petrol sniffer again and drags him in to custody. Guess what? The police officer may use ‘reasonable force’. The police officer drags the petrol sniffer back to the treatment program and says: ‘You are staying there’, and the petrol sniffer says: ‘Na! I am going to bolt the moment you go, and get myself some petrol and stick it up my nose’. The police officer says: ‘No, you are not’ and he uses his power of reasonable force.
What does that mean? ‘Reasonable force’ means exactly that. It means handcuffs, cells – no, you cannot put them in cells according to this legislation - but it means other forms of forced deprivation of liberty, albeit lawful. We are talking about depriving people of their liberty. The legislation as we see it here …
Ms CARTER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I draw your attention to the state of the House.
Madam SPEAKER: Do we have a quorum? We have a quorum, counting me.
Ms CARTER: I withdraw that, Madam Speaker.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: The rules are that I am supposed to throw you out for calling a quorum when it is not so, member for Port Darwin. Continue, member for Macdonnell.
Mr ELFERINK: I have quite forgotten where I was, but basically we were using the …
Ms Carney interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, I think the member for Macdonnell would like to keep going.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, where were we? We were using force to keep Aboriginal and other children in custody, and we were going to use that force as reasonably required to prevent that child from escaping from custody. I wonder, from a petrol sniffer’s perspective, whether they are handcuffed under this or any other legislation, it makes one jot of difference to their attitude. The minister may say: ‘We are not going to use handcuffs’, but you are because your bill allows it.
There is one other concern I have about this legislation and I look forward to the minister explaining it to us. It is the management plan material whereby the legislation allows for the creation of a management plan, which is a little zone marked out in the Northern Territory. Someone carefully squiggles out a line on a map and says that, in that area they are going to have a special management plan and it is going to relate to how you produce or supply volatile substances in those communities. Everyone sits together and has a chat about the management plan that is going to be created, and that management plan will then operate in the area drawn out on the map and will apply to everyone in that area. It is curious that it carries a penalty for contravention of the management plan, and I will quote the clause. It is a very long and difficult clause, which is why I have to quote it at length:
- A person must not contravene a management plan.
Having come to terms with this long and difficult clause, we are being asked by this minister to accept that a management plan becomes pseudo legislation inasmuch as a person can go to gaol for six months for breaching one of these management plans. This is what the minister is asking us to do. She is saying: ‘We do not have any management plans in place, we do not even have the bones of one, we have a rough idea of what might happen and we want you, as legislators, to pass legislation that makes it an offence to contravene a management plan we have not seen yet, and really do not know what it looks like’. That is a big ask.
I will take it on faith on this occasion that the minister will remain fully in control of this process. However, considering that it is legislation whereby we are, effectively, creating subordinate legislation with these management plans - whether or not they will be tabled in this House come the time that the management plans go into force so at least we have some way of knowing how those management plans will operate. We do that already with Police General Orders, council by-laws, those sorts of things. I would like to hear that the minister will place those management plans before the House so that we, and future parliaments, will be able to examine them so we know exactly what people will be contravening.
Something else I would like to know is whether or not the minister can explain to this House contravention of a management plan will be a regulatory offence. It is a very important question, so I expect a response from the minister. A regulatory offence is one of those absolute offences. We commit them from time to time. As motorists we have all sorts of regulatory offences such as wearing a seat belt, and it is an absolute offence. It is one that you either commit or you do not. Breaking the speed limit is a regulatory offence. The very flavour and nature of a regulatory offence is that the offence must be of a fairly minor nature and does not carry a major social impact on you as a person if you are convicted of it. Those are the sorts of yardsticks that a court will use in relation to regulatory offences.
This offence will allow a magistrate to put someone in gaol for up to six months for contravening a management plan. There is a big social hoo-do around someone who has gone to gaol; it affects their future. I hope that the minister can tell the House whether a regulatory offence applies in this case; in which case I have grave reservations about the operation of this legislation or whether, in fact, they will be dealt with as simple offences, summary offences or crimes. This is a very important distinction because, if you have a summary offence determination, then a whole bunch of excuse provisions under the Criminal Code open up to you. If you are at risk of going to gaol, there needs to be the ability for a person charged with an offence under this act to be able to rely on the excuse, justification or authorisation provisions provided by the Criminal Code. If those provisions do not apply, which most of them do not in terms of regulatory offences, then I have reservations about the use of imprisonment for a person who breaches a management plan.
Madam Speaker, as indicated, we will not be opposing this bill, but it is those areas that require explanation by the minister. I look forward to debate from other members opposite so that we can flesh out some more of these issues and we may examine some of them in the committee stage of the bill.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, at the outset, I agree with the comments made by the members for Port Darwin and Macdonnell.
I find it astounding that the members for Sanderson and Millner are not making a contribution, because the member for Sanderson, it seemed to me at least, considered himself something of an expert when it came to sniffing. In fact, it was he who said only months ago that it should be made illegal. It was only weeks ago that the member for Millner issued a pamphlet around his electorate saying that, indeed, petrol sniffing was illegal. Alas, someone needed to grab him. He has this habit of going off by himself and mucking up. We are close to an election. I suggest that his polling and, indeed, the poll for the member for Sanderson, would not be good. Perhaps that is why they are not participating today because their illustrious leader has said to them: ‘No, every time you open your mouth you get it wrong, so do not do anything, just come out the back and leave it for others’.
It is important that I remind people that the member for Sanderson said: ‘We want to make petrol sniffing illegal’ - his words, not mine. In April last year, the Attorney-General was quoted in the Northern Territory News as ‘ruling out a ban on petrol sniffing’. He said it would be counterproductive. In October last year, when we debated a preceding bill - that is, the one we introduced - the Minister for Family and Community Services said that she would be banning petrol sniffing. Then, in December 2004, she said: ‘We are effectively banning petrol sniffing’. It is all over the place, Madam Speaker.
I said when we last talked about petrol sniffing in this Chamber that I could not find the word ‘ban’ in my legal dictionary because it is not a concept generally known to the law; either something is legal or it is not. This is gammon language; this is gammon about banning sniffing.
Members of the Australian Labor Party would have been delighted with a headline in the Centralian Advocate some time ago which said that the government would make sniffing illegal. I have done my darnedest, along with my colleagues, to tell the people of Central Australia that that is not what this government intends. That is the major difference between the ALP and the CLP. Both parties were at one in almost every respect; that is, everyone in this Chamber had a genuine commitment, a very sincere commitment, as I read it - I know I did and my colleagues did - to get stuck into petrol sniffing and, as a parliament, see what we could do.
We issued a position paper. It was only a few weeks later that Labor made their announcement. We play politics all the time about the timing of things. However, on balance, I was not upset that Labor pinched our policy because it reflected our collective commitment to try to do something to assist petrol sniffers and, in essence, make them live longer and lead better and healthier lives. The only difference between the two parties was this business about making it illegal.
Members will remember that, when I introduced a bill some time ago on this very issue, I argued at length why it should be made illegal …
Mr Dunham: Persuasively and passionately.
Ms CARNEY: Persuasively and passionately, thank you, member for Drysdale. I said it should be made illegal for a number of reasons. One was that we needed to send a strong message to people who sniff. I asked why it was not reasonable to send such a message. We say to young people - and let us face it, most sniffers, certainly in Central Australia where I come from, are young people - as a society: ‘Do not take drugs, do not do this, do not do that. Do not take drugs because they will fry you brains’. Yet, we say: ‘Feel free to sniff as much petrol as you like’. What is wrong with sending a message, I asked.
It was also the case that we know that some communities have called for the right to make sniffing illegal, so this is an issue that affects all of us. We have indigenous and non-indigenous Territorians sharing a view. Not everyone shares that view, but we have black and white people saying together that sniffing should be made illegal. I said at the time that it is illegal to sell and supply products for the purposes of sniffing, yet it is ironic that the act of sniffing itself is not made illegal. I said that action needs to be taken not only for the protection of sniffers, but also for those who are the victims of the crimes they are committing. Let us face it: sniffers are on a collision course with the criminal justice system.
I outlined at length aspects of the Territory’s juvenile diversion program. I quoted from police documents that outlined the purpose of diversion programs for juveniles. This was not about sending kids to gaol; it was about getting them before a court and having them diverted. The fact that there are so few juveniles in custody at the moment shows that courts in the Territory are reluctant to send juveniles to gaol; they would prefer and, indeed have an obligation, to divert them.
When we came out and said let us make it illegal, we did it for the purpose of protecting sniffers, to ensure that there was a formal mechanism by which they could be dealt with. Now, under this government’s gammon proposal, there is not really a formal mechanism, although I will come to the bill shortly. It is important that I say that all of us were at one, and are at one, in our commitment to do what we can for petrol sniffers. Why it is that the Australian Labor Party has such an aversion to making it illegal, I do not know. I suspect it stems from a philosophical objection to having the carrot and the stick approach; the stick being the ultimate sanction of gaol for recalcitrant offenders.
In any event, had it been the case that government, in these bills, came up with a thoughtful, considered bill that was not, in my view at least, flawed in some respects, I would not have been all that unhappy. I would have lived with the fact that they are the government and we are the opposition. We want to make petrol sniffing illegal, they do not. However, if we were three-quarters of the way there, I would have been sleeping reasonably well at night. So I was fairly excited when I saw the Volatile Substance Abuse Prevention Bill.
Alas, it falls well short for some of the reasons that I will outline shortly, and I note that the members for Port Darwin and Macdonnell have gone through some areas, so I will deal with the substance - no pun intended - of the bill shortly. Before doing so, however, it is appropriate that I remind members of the Minister for Family and Community Services’ scrambley media release dated 1 October 2004. This was the one issued, it seemed to us at least, at the 11th hour, not long after our discussion paper was released. She said petrol sniffing will be banned in the Northern Territory. She sought to outline a number of ways that the Volatile Substance Abuse Prevention Bill - and it was not introduced then; remember, this was before the parliamentary committee released its findings, so, the minister pre-empted the findings of the committee – and, in attachments to her media release, waxed lyrical about how it might work.
There are a number of things I could take issue with and I have referred to this in the past in this Chamber; however I will do it again because it is instructive. In the attachment to her media release of 1 October 2004, the minister answered the question that she posed. The question was: what if a sniffer refuses treatment? She answered along these lines: the government will work with families and communities to encourage voluntary treatment for chronic users. She went on to say:
- Where a compulsory course of treatment is not adhered to, support staff with the support of the court will
intervene to encourage compliance.
Mr Dunham: We could have awards, encouragement awards.
It is very concerning that the minister pre-empted her own committee’s findings, that she issued a media release and attached documents to it that rambled on about what this bill would have in it, having no regard to the difficulties, and some would say the illogical substance, of the documents themselves. I have some problems with some parts of the bill. We will be going into committee and I relish, as I know the member for Port Darwin does, that opportunity.
Referring to some of the things that the minister said in her second reading speech when she introduced this bill so many months ago. I have forgotten when it was, but it seems …
Ms Carter: December.
Ms CARNEY: December! It seems like an eternity. Again, it is interesting, is it not, that arguably on the eve of an election this bill comes up, but odd that it should come up on budget day. If members of the government really believe that this bill is going to save the world as they know it in the context of petrol sniffing, I would have thought they would give their bill the respect that they would think it deserves by giving it some clear air space. However, that is not the case.
The minister said in her second reading speech in December, and I quote:
- The practical implementation and the mechanics of the proposed legislation such as guidelines for authorised
persons …
And I will come back to that:
- … and police procedures will need to be considered.
I ask: if government were serious and if this was well thought-out legislation, would government have provided those procedures or details or examples of them by way of an explanatory memorandum, for instance, when the bill was introduced? Might the minister have considered the practical implementation and the mechanics of the bill prior to introducing it? It does not appear as though she has. The minister also said in her second reading speech:
- Assessment tools, referral arrangements and protocols between treatment and rehabilitation services, safe
places, health services and the justice system will be developed and privately resourced.
We ask: why have these things not been worked out now? How does the minister envisage the act will work, and when? I suggest that it is quite pointless for an act of parliament to become law when the mechanics of that legislation are not worked out in advance. It is difficult for lawyers and everyone administering the act. I would have thought that any government worth its salt that is fair dinkum about legislative reform of any type would have given consideration to these sorts of things, not just popped it in a second reading speech that, in essence, says: ‘Trust us’. To that, I simply say: ‘Not good enough’.
In relation to the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill, I note that the definition of ‘volatile substances’ is removed. It does not change the existing definition in any substantial way, but it does move the definition from the Misuse of Drugs Act to the Volatile Substance Abuse Prevention Bill, and I have no difficulty with that per se.
It repeals all of section 18 of the Misuse of Drugs Act, which is the section that prescribes a $2000 penalty or two years gaol for anyone who sells or supplies a volatile substance when they know that someone else is going to administer it. That section has basically been moved to become clause 52 in the Volatile Substance Prevention Bill, not of itself something with which we could quibble.
Clause 3 of the Volatile Substance Abuse Prevention Bill lists the objects, which you could say are self-serving. In any event, the objects are all listed and be it on government’s head because, if this legislation does not achieve the objectives set out therein, I would have thought even this government, members of which appear not to ever be embarrassed about much of what they do, might ultimately be embarrassed. We will need to come back in due course and see whether the aims and objectives of this bill have been met. I do not think that they will. I wish they would because that is an outcome that all 25 of us want to see. I do sincerely wish the government well, but I do have some difficulties. I do not think this bill will achieve what government wants it to achieve.
From now on, I will be referring solely to the Volatile Substance Abuse Prevention Bill. I note that in clause 4, the standard definition clause, the word ‘minister’ is not defined. Ordinarily, you would not have thought that the word ‘minister’ does need to be defined, but I raise this issue: which minister? Is it the Minister for Health, or is it the Minister for Family and Community Services? Is this a problem? I do not know. Could it be? Perhaps. Perhaps the minister could answer that in the course of her reply. If she does not, I will certainly ask her about that in committee.
‘Authorised person’ is contained in clause 60. I have some difficulties with the authorised person provisions. The minister will know, as will her colleagues, that this has come in for some criticism from some people who work in this area. The problem is that the minister can appoint a person to be an authorised person who can exercise a range of powers in the same way police officers can.
Under clause 62, it says that the minister may issue guidelines in relation to the exercise of powers, and they may include a code of conduct. I would like the minister, if she would, perhaps in her reply although we can do it in committee, to go deeper and explain what is meant by that. When it says the minister ‘may issue guidelines’, I wonder whether the minister has given any thought to issuing those guidelines now, yesterday, tomorrow, whether they will be issued. I would have thought it is good practice to have those guidelines in place at a relatively early time, and I ask why they are not in place or why criteria for an authorised person or for the powers they exercise is not in the act.
Given what the retiring member for Arnhem has said about dysfunctional Aboriginal communities, it seems to me that it could be argued that, unless guidelines exist and are very specific, they will not serve any purpose, and it is possible that a conflict may arise within communities as to who does have the appropriate level of respect and authority to be called an ‘authorised person’. If the minister is minded to provide guidelines, can she indicate when they will be provided and when they will be made public?
The powers for an authorised person exist under Part 2, Division 2 of the bill. Police officers, as we know, have powers to search and seize and, under this proposal, so do other authorised people appointed by the minister. They will have power to do the same thing. Is this reasonable? Given the dysfunction in some Aboriginal communities, there will be a conflict. Who is the right person? Is it simply a person who the minister may know? Is that appropriate? Maybe; maybe not. Is it a staffer or someone from the department who contacts the minister and says: ‘I reckon this bloke or this woman would be really good to be an authorised person in community X’? Government is leaving itself wide open to the wrong people being authorised people when the door is so open. I wonder whether the minister did consider or, in the alternative, would consider, closing it a bit by providing the guidelines now, or even contemplating an amendment to the legislation.
What training, if any, will an authorised person receive? What qualifications, if any, might an authorised person be required to hold? I say again: might it not lead to abuse and, perhaps, corruption inside Aboriginal communities? I do not know. It might. As a member of this House, I have said it before and I will say it again: my life is too short not to come in here and say what I think in relation to various legislation. It is what I am paid to do.
In relation to Part 2, Division 3, which are the provisions that deal with apprehension, a police officer or, under this bill an authorised person, can apprehend sniffers, detain them and take them to a place of safety. I note that ‘a place of safety’ - unless I have missed something, but I do not think I have - is not defined. It is to be gazetted by the minister under clause 63. I wonder why the minister has not seen fit to define ‘a place of safety’.
Clause 23 is the clause dealing with protective custody. I assume that clause is similar to the procedures for protective custody for drunks. I ask the minister to reply to that. If she does not in her reply, I am happy to ask her in the committee stage. In other words, under this bill is the procedure for dealing with people who are in protective custody similar or identical to that in place for dealing with drunks? If it is a different, why is it different?
Clause 27(1) provides that a sniffer is to be released:
- … into the care of a person who the officer reasonably believes is capable of taking care of the apprehended
person ...
Subsection (2) is interesting. As I read it, a person does not have to be released into the care of someone else if the apprehended person is an adult and objects to being released into someone else’s care, or if the apprehended person is a child who objects to being released into the care of another person and if the police officer shares the child’s view. I simply ask: how is that intended to work? Is this logical? It just seems quite unusually worded. I believe I know what the intention of the clause is, but there are so many fall-back positions, a lot of people might be left scratching their head trying to work out how a person is to be released after being apprehended by one of these authorised persons. It just seems cumbersome, to say the least.
In clause 31 there are some definitions of a few things. Those definitions are light-on. One is an authorised officer. This person can exercise powers under this part. It says that it is a person appointed under clause 66, but clause 66 gives no details as to what experience or qualifications such a person should have. I say again: there are no guidelines provided; we do not know who an authorised officer can and will be, and we do not know who an authorised person can and will be.
These authorised persons or authorised officers have what can only be described as very significant powers under this bill. They can apprehend, apply to courts for warrants, enter a person’s residence for the purposes of apprehension and so on. They are outlined in clause 33. If the minister does not tell us that these people need to be qualified or trained in particular areas, then we would counter and say if it is good enough to have untrained, unqualified people doing this sort of stuff, why is it not the case that the government does not decide to legislate for a whole lot of authorised persons to go down to the courts, apply for warrants and take people into custody for a whole lot of other things? Why is it that authorised persons and authorised officers seem to have a whole lot of powers here that are not really defined at any length and could, I believe, lead to some abuse?
‘Treatment program’ is defined, but the definition is arguably vague. It simply says that it is a program for the treatment of a person at risk. It does not list where or what those programs are or what they might be. It does not say who will run them. It does not say whether a program has to meet any standards. Could it be a program that a few people in the bush run together? I do not know. In the absence of a definition, minister, these are legitimate questions to ask. They may not have occurred to you but, by God, they occurred to me. I look forward to your response.
I noticed that there is a reference on page 31 of Budget Paper No 2 which refers to funding to implement a service network for people with volatile substance misuse problems in conjunction with the new Volatile Substance Abuse Prevention Act. What is a ‘service network’? I do not know.
It is not just the bill. If you want to use all sorts of terms, go ahead, but can you please afford us and the people of the Northern Territory and, in particular, those charged with ruling on this legislation and those given the responsibility to work under it, the courtesy of explaining or defining what you mean by some very key terms?
The minister is smiling; good on her. It is a happy day for her, the best of British luck. Maybe she thinks this is all just rubbish; I should not ask the questions. I do not know, but these are legitimate questions and, if she does not answer them, people will make a judgment in this area. I do not think the issue of petrol sniffing, for what it is worth, is an election issue. However, I do know it is an issue for lots of parents of mainly Aboriginal young men in bush communities around the Northern Territory. If you are not going to be courteous to us, will you at least be courteous to them by providing them with fair dinkum legislation that defines and outlines what it is you are intending to do? I am sure they would be very grateful.
I am running out of time so need to speed up. Clauses 33 and 34 provide the process leading up to the obtaining of a treatment order, that requires medical assessments to be undertaken based on advice received from one of the people referred to in clause 33. Clause 33(2) states that a request:
- … must be in the form and include the information approved under section 64.
Clause 64 is strangely vague because, instead of providing details, it merely states that the minister:
- … may approve a form of request for a treatment order under section 33 and the information required to be included
in that form.
With respect, this hardly make sense and clarification will be sought in the committee stage. The questions I will ask, and courteously I am happy to put you on notice of them now, include: is it an actual form; is it a verbal request; who makes it; who is it made to; what information is provided to the minister when he or she receives a request; and I ask again: which minister?
Clause 35, the process for an authorised officer to obtain a warrant: it appears that a person can be forced into undertaking an assessment under clause 35, although how that is done is not, in my view at least, very clear. I would appreciate clarification on that point.
Clause 36, ‘Application for a treatment order’, says the minister may apply to a court for an order. I will make the point: the minister may, the minister may appoint. What is it that is trying to be achieved?
Ms CARTER: Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that my colleague be granted an extension of 10 minutes to allow her to complete her remarks.
Motion agreed to.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. Clause 41 provides for a warrant to be issued if the treatment order has been made but not complied with. The warrant will enable an authorised officer to enter a residence, etcetera, and apprehend a person. I make the point, and I think the member for Macdonnell either made it or at least alluded to it in his contribution: to issue a warrant for someone who has not committed an offence is probably unprecedented in the Northern Territory. We have people appearing before courts in the Territory every day, Monday to Friday, and it is because they have broken the law. It is because they have offended a provision in one of our many items of legislation. However, here, in this legislation, people are required to go to court or have a warrant issued against them when they have not broken any law. Who would have thought such a thing would be done by a Labor government?
Under clause 41(c), it says that a warrant:
- … must authorise the authorised officer to remain at the place for as long as the officer considers reasonably
necessary to find the person at risk.
This raises some potentially curly questions, such as: will the authorised officers be paid by government; will they have travel allowance; will they have vehicles; what department will pay for them; what happens, for example, if an authorised officer decides to stay at the community for a month waiting to find someone? It is referred to in clause 41(c), which says that an authorised officer:
- … can remain at a place for as long as the officer considers reasonably necessary.
Could that not lead to abuse and rorting? It may not. If the minister can assure me that it will not, then I will be happy, but I am obliged to raise these concerns.
In relation to clause 41(d), I note that it provides that if a person at risk is found, the authorised officer must apprehend them and take the person to a place specified in the treatment order to participate in the treatment program. However, the bill, as I understand it, is silent on how that is done. It is a bundle of words, but it does not provide the mechanics, in my view at least, as to how the intention of that clause or, indeed, the bill is to be carried out.
In relation to clause 41(6), it says that a person assisting the authorised officer to execute the warrant may also use reasonable force in doing so. This is potentially very dangerous for both sides; for the authorised person and for the sniffer and, indeed, you would have thought, for the friends and family of the sniffer. Police officers are able to use reasonable force in particular circumstances. These are police officers who are well trained and work in a hierarchal organisation. They know all about reasonable force; it is drummed into them. Occasionally in jurisdictions throughout this country, newspapers have as their front page news stories of instances of officers having, on occasion, used more than reasonable force. Civil libertarians scream blue bloody murder whenever this happens. Yet, we have in this bill the ability for an authorised officer - and the bill is silent as to their training, their qualifications, anything about them, how they are appointed, except that the minister may appoint them - to use reasonable force in executing a warrant. That is very dangerous, and I will sleep well tonight now that I have put my concern on the Parliamentary Record.
Other questions to ask are: is it envisaged that the authorised officer can delegate his or her powers? I note that is not referred to in the bill. If an authorised person can delegate their power, to whom and on what basis? If not, who can such an authorised officer ask to assist them? Is it possible that they cannot ask anyone to assist them? There are certainly no guidelines in place, so it is looking more and more murky.
I note that the authorised officer is issued with an identity card under clause 66 but, if anyone is able to assist the authorised officer, what processes are in place? Are they issued with an identity card so that people around know that is a person in authority - yes, there is the card, they are able to perform a number of functions, they are able to act in a particular way and they have delegated it to someone else who also has an identity card? It is just not good enough. It is very, very vague.
In summary, in relation to treatment orders, I am concerned about the definition of a treatment program in clause 31. I am concerned that it is so vague. It is hard to see how an order will actually be enforced. Even though the minister can apply for an order that the sniffer must participate in a treatment program pursuant to clause 35, I am troubled about how it is actually going to work. Prior to that, if a sniffer refuses to submit to an assessment, it is up to an authorised officer to make an application to a court for a warrant - again in pursuance of clause 35 - and that will force the sniffer to undergo the assessment. Then, if a sniffer has to undergo treatment but refuses, the authorised officer has to go to court to get a warrant - this is under clause 41 - and then they take the sniffer to the program wherever and whatever it may be. It is so dreadfully unclear. I am really looking forward to the minister’s reply.
I also ask, perhaps more in passing than anything else: can the authorised officer appear in court themselves? If so, is that a good thing? If not, surely it follows as a matter of logic that the person would need to appoint a lawyer. Which lawyer? Will it be a law firm that will need to tender for government work? Those of you familiar with the tendering process will know it is a cab rank system, so that a bundle of law firms get government work and they take it in turns of appearing at court. Will it work like that? Will an authorised officer simply be able to rock up to CAALAS or NAALAS and say: ‘Can I have a lawyer to represent me?’ If they do, who pays? This is all terribly unclear. I am hopeful that the minister, who I think I can hear groaning in the background, will fill us in. If she fills us in and answers all of the questions, I will be a happy camper.
I say again: there are 25 people in this Assembly who are all very serious about this issue. I know the 24 of you pretty well and, despite our political differences, there is a sameness about us; we are united in doing what we can. However, for as long as I am standing, I must ensure that I raise legitimate issues about legislation. I have done it before and I will continue to do so.
In conclusion, my main objections involve not making sniffing an offence, and we have a fundamental difference about that issue. In addition, we have difficulty with ‘authorised person’ and ‘authorised officer’, and those positions are, I believe, potentially open to abuse. Government should do better. The other main difficulty is that there are no sanctions if a person refuses to undergo a treatment order. They are the same arguments we used when we debated our sniffing bill some months ago.
Finally, despite all the government’s spin and propaganda, the word ‘ban’ is not here, unless I have missed something that is not contained in the bill. The bill makes it clear that sniffing is not an offence. It seems to me, therefore, that all this bill does is to provide a wishful framework for treatment that has no sanctions at all.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I wish the minister well. I look forward to the committee stage. She might not think my questions are reasonable. If so, please do me the courtesy of telling me why they are unreasonable. I hope that this legislation is all you want it to be because if this saves lives, this is great. Please note my comments in the spirit in which they are intended.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, it is a tricky subject to talk about because it is easy to make an allegation that, when people like the ALP bring matters like this on, it is really to drive a wedge between blackfellas and whitefellas in this country. That is an allegation that was made in Alice Springs only recently when I talked about petrol sniffing.
Such was the discussion that I am quite happy to read it into the Parliamentary Record. I am sure you will remember it because you were in the Chair at the time. However, it still leaves me a little perplexed, so it is probably worth reading back in. This is from the Wednesday in Alice Springs. I am quoting the member for Barkly who is talking about me:
- For him to drive the wedge between the black and white communities for the sake of $3m is possibly a return to the
bad old days; the days when the CLP, who essentially were first-class in respect to how they drove the wedge
between blackfellas and whitefellas in this country. We now have the member for Drysdale going down the same
path. I say to the member for Drysdale …
A which stage I stood up and said to you, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker:
- A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! I believe the member's comments contravene standing orders in that he
believes that my comments drive a wedge between blackfellas and whitefellas. I think under Standing Order 62 that
is offensive and should be withdrawn.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, I will caution you not to reflect on any decisions of the Chair.
Mr DUNHAM: I am quoting form Hansard. I am not; I am reading from Hansard verbatim.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, I caution you not to reflect on any decisions of the Chair.
Mr DUNHAM: Okay.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: You are on a warning, member for Drysdale.
Mr DUNHAM: I shall continue to read verbatim from Hansard, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, I will not state it again.
Mr DUNHAM: Would you like me to read directly from Hansard, or is that forbidden? I seek your judgment. May I read directly from Hansard?
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Are you reflecting on …
Mr DUNHAM: Thank you!
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, are you reflecting on a decision of the Chair?
Mr DUNHAM: I am reading directly from …
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, I am asking you: are you reflecting on a decision of the Chair?
Mr DUNHAM: No, I am not. I am reading verbatim from Hansard.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Then you may proceed.
Mr DUNHAM: I am not a bit embarrassed about it. You said:
- I do not quite understand what part you find offensive.
To which I said:
- Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, what if I had said 'you drove a wedge between blackfellas and whitefellas'?
Would you find that offensive? Use your judgment.
You said:
- No, I do not find a point of order.
- Okay, well, I think you drive a wedge between blackfellas and whitefellas!
To which you responded:
Are you addressing me as the Speaker there?
To which I said:
- Yes.
You said:
- Then I suspend the member for Drysdale from the Chamber for one hour pursuant to Standing Order 240A on
account of challenging the Speaker's ruling.
So I am very pleased to stand here and speak about petrol sniffing because I have been wanting to do this for some time. It is good that the debate has been brought on. I read, earlier this year, the current minister claim in a media release that she was attempting to obtain $10m from the Commonwealth to match her $10m, for a $20m program for petrol sniffing. It is in that context I talked about other remedies for this problem because some of this grappling for legislative solutions, some of the things that are being done, are poor remedies. They will not achieve what we want to do. If you have $20m at your disposal, you can do much better. This is not good enough! It is not good enough, and there is no good running a racial campaign, for instance on me, who stands up and says: ‘This is a dumb way to spend money’. I will say it again: $20m to address petrol sniffing problems is a dumb way to spend money if your remedies are as regulatory and legislative as this.
The remedies are there; they are difficult, but they are achievable in many circumstances. I want to talk about some of them later. For instance, if you look at fuel, there has been a lot of applause for this brand new fangled fuel that can power the internal combustion motor and, at the same time, does not provide a high for petrol sniffers. It comes at a great cost; a lot of scientists have developed this fuel. We all stand back with bated breath and clamour that it be put into communities and that the high cost of this fuel be subsidised. I have news for you: it exists; it is called diesel. It has been around for a long time, diesel fuel. Many, many communities over a long time have converted their vehicle fleet to diesel. Some of them, particularly coastal communities where they need fuel for outboard motors and lawn mowers have used Avgas, which is a particularly difficult fuel to sniff because it acts as an emetic and does not give a high.
I can tell you that many communities have looked at the fuel problem. The idea that Australians have to power their vehicles with a different fuel because some people choose to inappropriately use it to their own detriment and the detriment of their communities is crazy thinking. Many sniffers are quite aware of their self-defeating behaviours and the harm that it causes yet they choose not to desist nonetheless. So, whether it is legal or illegal, whether it is readily available or not, whether it is available at Yuendumu and not available in Alice Springs, you will have this problem. You will definitely have this problem. The business of this brand new wonder fuel ceasing petrol sniffing - good on the people having a go, but I tell you, I doubt it will make one iota of difference.
The solutions: the member for Stuart believed that the answer was to go and procure all these cans of paint. So he went to a hardware shop in Alice Springs and he said: ‘Look, I have it worked out. If we can buy the paint in Alice Springs, kids will not be able to sniff it’, and what a mighty feat that was. Unfortunately, you can still buy paint in Alice Springs, and 98% of people who buy paint do it for a legal, non-illicit, non-nefarious purpose. If we are going to chase this prohibition down where you do not have volatile fuels, paint, solvents or glue, it does not take much to work out that there are going to be ways around that. You do not have to be Einstein to work out that what the member for Stuart did was no more than a stunt.
I talked to a bloke who went to visit the member for Stuart, and it was about this issue actually. He had a vehicle stolen, and he pointed out to the staff at the front counter that some young people sitting right at the front window to the member of Stuart’s office were inhaling volatile substances. They quickly found distractions looking at the other side of the room, or the fan going around or something, because it is pretty hard to intervene; it is pretty hard to do something about it. When you talk about drugs all the time, which you do on the other side, remember that the problematic drugs for Health ministers will remain nicotine, alcohol, kava and inhalant solvent abuse, substance abuse. They are legal substances that are being abused. So it tells you something.
Remedies through acts of parliament are going to be limited. Education may well be the answer, but that, too, is limited. Let us keeping looking for solutions.
When I lived in Alice Springs in 1986, at Yuendumu, which is well known and loved by the member for Stuart, the Night Patrol started. Yuendumu was the birth place of it. They used to do some of the things you have here; they used to go out and flog young sniffers - flog them with sticks. They were probably appropriately designated, under your bill, as ‘authorised officers’ or whatever. The punishment they dispensed was probably appropriate, but it is a very difficult thing for us to grapple with in this parliament and say: ‘Yes, let us have the older women going out with sticks and flogging these kids’. It was probably a great program. At the time, it was lauded. The people who talk about Night Patrol now talk about its great beginnings. Well, that is what it was. There were people going around flogging young sniffers with sticks; that is what started it. The Night Patrol now is well and truly ensconced and does not do that, but let us look at its humble origins.
Another thing we can look at - and here is a thought about your $20m - is jobs. Jobs! If I was the Health minister and I had $20m, I would be putting it into programs to give jobs to kids on communities. That has to be the answer. If you think that $20m on this hand-wringing approach of people issuing warrants and sitting at the community until they catch these people - it is crazy stuff. The remedies have to be to convince people who are into self-destructive, self-harming behaviour - and this is not an Aboriginal problem, this happens in societies everywhere around the world, this is a human condition - the answers are still in employment and in teaching children fundamental self-worth. We have to look at job initiatives in that budget, and we have to see them as initiatives to address an enormous array of social problems, including petrol sniffing.
Interestingly, it is reported that petrol sniffing started with the Americans in the 1940s when they were here in the northern part of Australia. It is interesting that some of the people who worked with them were actually employed. Ironically, that goes against my theory because those who were employed were the very ones that took up early petrol sniffing behaviour. Most people who have worked with this, though, will tell you that it waxes and wanes. They will tell you that if there are only a couple of kids, sometimes who can get on top of it. Sometimes, they will tell you that when it gets to a critical mass, you can do something. Once it gets to lots and lots of them and it is behaviour that is accepted by the community or in some way condoned, it is almost impossible to do, other than wait for the wave to start coming back down.
Minister, you need a comprehensive suite of solutions. I do not think this act is one of them, but I wish you well with it. If you need the legislative remedies that this act provides, good on you. I do not think it will make a jot of difference. If you want to spend $20m, there are a lot better ways of spending it. I go back to my quote from Hansard. I talked about the $3m that could be put into beef roads, into the remote, rural and cattle producing areas of Australia. I still believe that is a much more appropriate remedy to addressing petrol sniffing and a lot of other social malaises than this knee-jerk legislative solution.
Ms Scrymgour: Why can’t money be given to these Aboriginal kids?
Mr DUNHAM: Pardon?
Ms Scrymgour: $10m over five years to these kids and you do not want it?
Mr DUNHAM: $20m?
Ms Scrymgour: $10m! Get it right! You are misleading the House and you have been doing it for a long time. It is $10m. Get it right.
Mr DUNHAM: Well, I am not even sure if it is because, in the budget papers, minister, you will find that your numbers are a bit short, but that is true of lots of programs. I am not leaving that with you; that is the Treasurer’s little trick.
Your $20m that you sought in January or February of this year is money masquerading as a solution to a problem that is not the solution. It is not the solution. It is not $20m. Pull your media releases out and have a look at it. I heard you on the radio. Anyway, that is not the point.
The point is you can put all sorts of things in acts of parliament and tell people they are not allowed to do it, but if they continue to do it, you have to look at some sort of sanction. The sanctions in this act, you have to realise, are mainly aimed at young people, lots of children. The legislative solutions you have given yourself are to arrest - for want of a better word – incarcerate - for want of a better word - take them out of society and compel them on a different course of action from what they want. These legal remedies for children who are exercising this abhorrent behaviour, I would suggest to you, minister, will not work - they will not work.
I applaud the fact that you are doing something. I applaud that you have been able to argue for that amount of money, but please let us debate this. Let us bring it on. The fact that someone says that you are wrong and it is dumb does not mean necessarily, particularly in my case, that I am driving a wedge between blackfellas and whitefellas ...
Ms Scrymgour: Who said that? No one has accused you of that.
Mr DUNHAM: Pardon? I am sorry. I thought I read it out. Elliot McAdam, the member for Barkly, accused me of driving ‘the wedge between blackfellas and whitefellas’ in this country.
This has to be a level-headed debate. I understand if we go into an election, people will talk about various racial elements that are inherent with various policies, but this is not one of them. This is not one of them; this should be barleys. Apart from the fact that it is probably a silly way to spend the money, the law is stupid and we can debate with you on that, but that does not mean that it is a racist debate; it means you have to get back to addressing this problem.
I will leave it there, but, minister, there are a number of questions you must answer in the committee stage. To ask parliament to sign a blank cheque such as this without the development of regulations and guidelines, without the descriptors of those people who are going to be empowered to do so much to young people in our society, beggars belief. You did not do it in your second reading speech and, unless you can tell this parliament in the committee stage very definitely how you will do it, my suggestion is the only remedy available to you is to hold this entire matter in abeyance until you can come back to parliament and tell us; because regarding the blank cheque you are urging us to sign, we are saying: ‘Maybe it will work and maybe it will not’. I suggest that you have a very strong responsibility on your shoulders, minister, and you have to come back to this parliament and tell us how you will be doing that.
There is one other quick issue I will touch on, and that is the matter of confidentiality. I note that it is in here in big letters and there is a great deal of work to be done on secrecy and we do not want people out blabbing about this stuff. You would be aware, minister, that I have written to you about breaches of confidentiality under the Community Welfare Act and I hope that you are treating the matter seriously. I hope that, if you want to introduce legislation like this and talk about the sanctions against people who should not be divulging information they do divulge, look at the correspondence I have sent you because your candidate for Goyder seems to be in possession of information that could only have come from either a case worker or an intermediary between a case worker and himself. That is a serious matter - an extremely serious matter.
If you want to put those sorts of sanctions in this bill, I would like to see, as a legislator, that you treat them seriously and your bona fides can be demonstrated, minister. It is a fairly simple matter for you to stand up and say: ‘So seriously do I treat confidentiality, secrecy, and matters such as this, not only in this bill, which does not exist yet, but in the Community Welfare Act, I will be working on that quickly. I will be remedying that situation, I will be finding out who divulged that information in breach of the Community Welfare Act and I will be making sure the appropriate sanctions and punishments are in place’. I can tell you that if I were the minister responsible for the Community Welfare Act - which I once was - it is at least a sacking offence for people to be divulging circumstances of a child in want of need.
We look forward to the committee stage, and I look forward to full explanations of the queries in the bill before us.
Mrs AAGAARD (Nightcliff): Mr Deputy Speaker, I speak in favour of the Volatile Substance Abuse Prevention Bill 2004 and Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill 2004.
Inhalant substance abuse is not new. It is a human tragedy which has been recognised for at least three decades in Australia. It was certainly happening well before we came to government in the Northern Territory. It has been the subject of four parliamentary reports over a 20-year period, including this parliament’s report from the Select Committee on Substance Abuse in the Community last October entitled Petrol Sniffing in Remote Northern Territory Communities, a committee which I chair.
This is legislation which has long been needed in the Northern Territory. The legislation will provide for users of volatile substances having their inhalants destroyed by police or other persons authorised by the Minister for Family and Community Services to stop inhalation. It gives police and authorised persons the power to take users who have become a danger to themselves or others as a result of volatile substance abuse to a place of safety. It also encourages communities to develop community plans to deal with the problem of substance abuse. This might include measures to control or prohibit the supply of volatile substances, and the identification of safe places where inhalers may be cared for. The legislation also allows for the minister or the minister’s delegate to apply to a court for an order requiring a volatile substance abuser to attend treatment in an appropriate facility.
The legislation also means that people found guilty of being involved in the sale or supply of a volatile substance to users will face convictions and hard gaol terms. It allows protection for persons supplying information about the supply of volatile substances to police as well.
Significantly, the bill does not make the abuse of volatile substances a criminal offence, and no criminal record will result from volatile substance abuse. Only the sale or supply of volatile substances to users will result in criminal prosecution. There has been a lot of conversation about this matter today, so I thought it worthwhile to go back and look at what the parliamentary inquiries into petrol sniffing inhalant abuse have said. The most notable past inquiry in relation to the Northern Territory was the 1985 Senate Inquiry Into Volatile Substance Abuse. This is of particular relevance because the initiative for the terms of reference was largely taken by the two Northern Territory Senators at that time, Senators Ted Robertson and Bern Kilgariff, who were, respectively, Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the committee.
The committee had a significant Northern Territory focus in its gathering of evidence, findings and recommendations. The committee, in its recommendations, concluded that the act of sniffing petrol should not be made a criminal offence and recommended that no legislative action be taken to create such an offence. The committee recommended that, where communities desire external control to be effected over chronic sniffers, they be alerted to the care and custody provisions of state child welfare legislation. The committee recommended to state governments that increased use of care and custody provisions would be an appropriate response to the requests by Aboriginal communities for assistance in the treatment of chronic sniffers. The committee concluded, however, that there is a need for legal mechanisms to control the supply of petrol to minors in the knowledge that they intend to use it for intoxication, and for a legal mechanism to criminalise the actions of non-minors of inciting minors to sniff petrol, and recommended to state governments that they proceed with the implementation of enabling legislation.
The second report of relevance is the Victorian Drugs and Crime Prevention Committee’s Inquiry Into the Inhalation of Volatile Substances of September 2002. Of particular interest are the findings relating to strategic interventions required to address inhalant abuse in indigenous society, both urban and rural. Of interest is the report’s coverage of the contentious issue of legal sanction or regulation of inhalant abuse. The report details the frustration felt by police in not being able to respond adequately to stop sniffing, particularly when help is requested by members of the community. The report says that it is sometimes interpreted as police disinterest in taking any action. A need was also detailed for adequate training for police to enable them to recognise when someone was high and to act appropriately. The report concluded that the police have a crucial role in dealing with sniffing for which they need to be adequately resourced and trained and, more importantly, their ability to act should be underpinned by appropriate legislation. However, criminalisation of the act of sniffing is not seen as the answer. Instead, legislation aiming to protect the sniffer is needed in tandem with preventative and treatment services for those at risk.
In the year 2000, the House of Representative Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs was also asked to look at this issue. They looked at the social and economic costs of substance abuse with particular regard to family relationships, crime, violence including domestic violence and law enforcement, road trauma, workplace safety and productivity and health care costs. In the year 2001, it released a discussion paper Where to next? and its report Road to Recovery in August 2003. In all, the report contains 128 recommendations. Not one of them suggests that criminalising of petrol sniffing is the way to go.
Last year, this parliament’s Select Committee on Substance Abuse in the Community reported on petrol sniffing. It recommended in the majority report that legislation similar to that which provides for apprehension without arrest of intoxicated persons under the Police Administration Act be introduced to allow for persons under the influence of petrol to be taken into protective custody. It was very disappointing then, as it is now, that the CLP have chosen not to concur with the position of the majority, particularly given the large body of evidence showing that criminalisation of inhalant abuse would be counterproductive. It is also disappointing that the opposition is continuing down this line in opposing this legislation, at least in spirit; instead, wanting the criminalisation of inhalant substance abuse. We do not want more kids in our gaols; we want kids not using inhalant substances and to have a future, not a criminal record.
Speakers on the other side appear to be somewhat confused about what the money is that the government has put towards petrol sniffing. The Northern Territory government has provided $2m in the current financial year, 2004-05, for programs to deal with petrol sniffing, and for the next five years, a recurrent figure of $2.4m. So we are looking at $10m, not $20m, as the member for Drysdale was suggesting. So that members realise that what we are looking at here is a package of services for people who are looking at issues in relation to petrol sniffing, I will go through the areas where the money will be used.
First, we are looking at youth service coordinators in Alice Springs and the Top End who will work with existing youth agencies to assist them to identify, case manage and refer young volatile substance abusers. We are looking at additional staff of Family and Children’s Services to identify and work with young volatile substance abusers and their families, and additional staff in the Department of Justice who will provide assessment and case management services for volatile substance abusers who become involved with the criminal justice system as a result of criminal acts performed in association with their volatile substance abuse. We are looking at pre-court and court diversion programs to enable volatile substance abusers to engage in treatment where they are already involved in the criminal justice system, something in which the member for Araluen was very interested. We are looking at training for staff currently working at existing sobering-up shelters, withdrawal units, and rehabilitation services across the Territory, to familiarise them with best practice methods for assisting and caring for volatile substance abusers. We have additional outreach nursing staff in Alcohol and Other Drugs program services in Central Australia and the Top End to enable the proper treatment of volatile substance abusers in urban and bush communities. We are also looking at the establishment of a safe house in Alice Springs to care for intoxicated volatile substance abusers when no family or other safe places are available.
There is also going to be the establishment of suitable facilities in the Top End to create equivalent safe environments as the location and nature of these facilities result from the community planning process. There will be support of four existing outstation treatment facilities in Central Australia associated with communities with a high incidence of volatile substance abuse. There will be the establishment of four new outstation facilities in communities of high need elsewhere in the Northern Territory, and there will be the provision of project officers within the Alcohol and Other Drugs program to assist communities in the development of community plans and to identify and develop outstation treatment programs. There will also be the provision of training and financial support for families identified by community plans to provide safe environments for volatile substance abusers.
This is a very comprehensive package that we are looking at. We are not simply looking at legislation; we are looking at a very comprehensive package that looks at a whole series of things, where we can be helping young people – mainly young people we are talking about here – to have some kind of future. It is extraordinarily disappointing that members of the opposition seem to be just looking at this one issue: that if we criminalise what is a very serious social issue, somehow we will be finding a better solution to this. The package that we are presenting is an excellent one, one our community will be well behind.
The evidence also suggests that there are around 360 sniffers throughout the Northern Territory, mainly aged 12 to 17 years but, sadly, with children as young as eight sometimes involved and occasionally, people as old as 25. I would be very shocked to think that we might have 8-year-olds looking at a criminal record. Petrol sniffing is a very distressing form of substance abuse. There is little doubt that the major contributing factors that could be considered as indicating a propensity for petrol sniffing are socioeconomic: poverty, boredom, oppression, lack of services and facilities, parental drinking and gambling leading to hunger and neglect, poor education levels and lack of employment and aspirational opportunities. The boredom issue is a common cry from remote communities where any sort of meaningful activity is too often missing.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, as part of the meetings of the Select Committee on Substance Abuse in the Community at communities, parents pleaded for government intervention to prevent sniffing. Too often, people feel unable to deal with the situation and are looking for support through intervention by the authorities. This legislation, and the package that surrounds it, provides that intervention and offers a hope for many young people and their families throughout the Northern Territory.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I have listened to a fair bit of the debate today and the reason that I wanted to speak last was to hear the different points of view.
A member interjecting.
Mr WOOD: I have not said it is finished. Do you think I was going to leave you to close debate? Far from it. I know the members for Braitling and Katherine will have plenty of good points to make.
I was interested in the debate. I believe this is an important legislation. I do not say that it will necessarily work, but we will not know till we try it. That is what we have to be brave enough to do. There has been a certain amount of politics in it because, when it was announced by the CLP that they would prefer petrol sniffers to be arrested rather than apprehended, I felt it was like someone jumping the gun to say ‘our law is tougher than your law’. That is always a danger. I have heard debates in other areas when politics overtakes common sense. We are in politics and one side is trying to get into power and the other side is trying to stay there. That does not always mean that we come up with good legislation.
I understand where the opposition is coming from, but I would like to put my case as to why I do not believe we should arrest petrol sniffers. First, alcohol is a legal substance that is abused and we do not arrest people for abusing it. We may arrest them for smashing a car window afterwards, we may arrest the bar keeper for providing them with too much alcohol, but drunkenness in the Territory is not an offence. Marijuana is an illegal substance. It is not a legal substance, and the law says that you cannot use that drug in any shape or form. Petrol is a legal substance. The problem is that people abuse its use. Fingernail polish, glue and paint are all legal substances, and people abuse them, just as people abuse alcohol. Why should this substance be treated differently from alcohol?
My other concern is that many young people, as we have found, abuse petrol. I certainly do not want to see children of a very young age being apprehended, or even slightly older people being arrested, and having a criminal record for petrol sniffing. People should be arrested for the provision of petrol to minors and others, but I do not believe that arresting young people serves any purpose; it only puts more people into our prison system.
I would like to read from the transcript of meeting No 59 on Friday, 2 April 2004 of Dr Peter d’Abbs, because, even though I have just expressed my personal opinions, I am no expert on this matter. Even though I have been to substance abuse committee meetings for quite a while, I still do not regard myself as an expert. Dr d’Abbs, who was appearing as a staff member and the Associate Professor at the School for Public Heath and Tropical Medicine at James Cook University in Cairns when this issue was first raised, was asked by me:
- I thought I might like to ask you a question about criminalisation of petrol sniffing. Has it been looked at
in other jurisdictions? Do you think it could work, or do you have to look at a more holistic answer?
Well, turning those around a little bit. It has certainly been looked at very carefully in a number of other
jurisdictions, most recently in Victoria where they had a long hard look at it. New Zealand had a long hard
look at it. They both decided no. They could see where people were coming from who wanted to ciriminalise it.
Particularly the frustration that the police faced, who feel that they don’t have the options to deal with it. But
they argued against it on a number of grounds. One is that probably wont work.
- If you look at the number of people who indulge in cannabis which is already illegal, it doesn’t exactly inspire
confidence that making petrol-sniffing illegal would lead to a downturn. Secondly, and you are dealing with
what is an act of rebellion anyway. So even if it mightn’t be an act of illegality, it is an act of rebellion. There
is even a suggestion that it would lead to a slight increase in the status of volatiles, because they were worthy
of banning. The other point of what you could be doing is getting more young people caught up in the
criminal justice system, which is not really in anybody’s interest.
The alternative that they have gone for in Victoria and in Queensland now and I believe in Western Australia is
what is called a civil apprehension model. That involves increasing the powers of the police to apprehend
somebody that they can actually see using inhalants or even they suspect that that person, on reasonable
grounds to believe that that person is intoxicated, with paint all over their mouth or what have you. They have
the power under new legislation and I will give you the reference to the Queensland Act, both Queensland and
Victorian Acts are about to be proclaimed. No, they have been proclaimed, they are about to come into effect.
In fact, I think Victoria might have come into effect this week, sometime in April. Under these powers, the police
have the power to seize - the Queensland law has been defined rather quaintly as a harmful thing. A harmful thing
is defined to include, volatile substances and methylated spirits which is interesting and certainly that is what it is
targeting. It might refer to one or two other things but it is mainly volatiles. So they can seize any paraphernalia,
including the stuff itself, paper bags, bottles or whatever they are using. They can also apprehend the person and
take them to ‘a safe place’. A safe place is then defined under the Act and I am more familiar, in fact I haven’t
actually read the Victorian act, but I have read the Queensland one. A safe place can be a hospital emergency
department, which presumably they would only use if that was required. It can be the home of a family, relative
or friend who is willing to take them, or it can be a place that is actually designated as a safe place.
Dr d’Abbs went on to say:
- What they are going to trial for 12 months in Queensland is, they have identified five places, Townsville,
Cairns, Mt Isa, Brisbane CBD and Logan. For 12 months they have some money and are still being extremely
coy about how much, but they have some.
I am basing my views on whether we should apprehend or arrest on what is partly consistency with the way we deal with certain substances in society already. That is one reason. I was interested to hear similar views from the member for Nightcliff, a person who has dealt with this issue, and who is certainly far more expert on these matters than I, when she quoted a Senate select committee with Senators Ted Robertson and Bernie Kilgariff, when they also recommended against the arrest of people for petrol sniffing.
That is not to say that I do not believe something should happen, it is just that I believe that is not the way we should go about it. Maybe at the end of the review, after 12 months, let us see if it was effective. Is it better to err on the side of caution rather than go in boots and all? We should go in with caution. We are dealing with a very difficult problem. I have concerns about how these people will be apprehended. Whether they are arrested or apprehended, if you can use a certain amount of physical force, I am concerned. I think it was Dr d’Abbs who mentioned that to go after a petrol sniffer can, in fact, cause that petrol sniffer to have heart failure because they are full of this substance and they can go into, I presume, a state of shock of some sort which can cause a heart attack. I am interested to know what sort of training will occur for these authorised officers or police officers in the apprehension of these people. We do not want the reverse to happen when we are trying to bring them into protective custody and they have a heart attack in the process.
The member for Port Darwin raised some interesting issues about whether you can apprehend a person on private land. That needs to be clarified. Is Aboriginal land private land or is it not? If there are no owners around, what do they do? If it is in someone’s house and the owner is not there, can they override simply because it is an emergency? It would be interesting to hear the minister’s answer on that one.
Whilst I understand what you are trying to do, the management plans remind me of the same plans for alcohol, but you end up having this line around a place where everyone sits outside to sniff, and if they move inside that they are arrested. Therefore, all the sniffers hang out at the front gate and, when they have finished sniffing, they all come in. I do not know whether you are creating the same problem we have to some extent with dry areas, where people all sit out on the cattle grid, drink their beer and then move into town and cause a nuisance. I am interested in what you have to say about that.
I support some of what the member for Drysdale said. In this transcript of Dr d’Abbs, the issue of employment came up. It came up about more holistic approaches. I will say again and again that I know the CDEP program is being reviewed through the Commonwealth government at the present time, but we have to create full employment. We need sport and full employment and with that, we need good housing and education. However, if we do not have full employment, we are wasting our time with a lot of these issues; it will not solve everything. I have worked on communities where alcohol was a problem but there was full employment, and we still had alcohol problems, but it can at least lessen some of those problems. We need to have a multifaceted approach to this problem.
I have a couple of other areas of concern that the minister might look at when she is summing up. One was about treatment programs: should they be registered and formalised as to their suitability for providing treatment? I am, like the member for Drysdale, not sure you want them over-formalised because we know Mt Theo, for instance, was working. It does not have a big mission statement stuck on the door, and above that, a vision, neither does not have certificates and all that sort of stuff hanging off it. It is something the people know works in that community. Whilst we should at least be registering these, we do not want the formalisation of them tied up in bureaucratic requirements. If we know they will work, let us go down that path.
When a person is apprehended but not in police custody, I am interested to know whether there should be guidelines of responsibility if something adverse happens to that person during that period of time. That partly relates to what I was saying about whether a person has a heart attack or whether other medical emergencies occur at the time.
Another issue is that we know that authorised officers will have similar powers to police. We need to detail the qualifications and expertise of those people. Perhaps they will require some training. The member for Araluen noted that they will have the ability to use a certain amount of force. You would not want that to go unfettered. There would be some guidelines required before you gave people that power, otherwise you could end up with some very interesting situations.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I support the legislation, but only if there is a guarantee that the government will bring this back in 12 months and give us the results of it. We should be able to say in 12 months whether there been a reduction, what treatment programs we have established, whether there have been any problems - for instance, the issue of using authorised officers - whether the management plans work and whether there are problems with them. The member for Macdonnell spoke about how severe the law is if you contravene a management plan. Perhaps they could come back and say: ‘Has that worked? Is it good or bad? Is it a bit of overkill?’
I note the issue raised by the member for Port Darwin about private land. Whether that is going to be a problem, I do not know, but I would be interested to hear whether the government has an answer on that and if there are some practical solutions.
This is important legislation. We need to at least try. Let us see how it goes, but bring it back to this House and let us know how it has gone in 12 months.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a few comments on the Volatile Substance Abuse Prevention Bill.
Of course, it goes without saying, listening to the members today, that this legislation is creating a lot of interest. There are a lot of very good and pertinent points that people have made. I have only been involved in the substance abuse select committee for a short time and, unfortunately, was not a member when the committee met or visited any of these communities to listen to the concerns of community members and to witness first-hand people actually sniffing. I am, however, very much aware of the seriousness of volatile substance abuse and of the long-term effects on the people who practice this.
One of the most interesting experiences I have had on the substance abuse select committee was when the member for Nightcliff, Pat Hancock, and I visited representatives of the petroleum industry in Canberra last year to have discussions in relation to their responsibilities towards substance abuse and, especially, petrol sniffing. It was a result of that meeting that we were very pleased to learn that BP Australia had taken steps to address petrol sniffing by removing the inhalant that gives the sniffer the lift they are looking for, and has introduced Comgas.
The comments that I wanted to make, having read this legislation - and we definitely need legislation in place – is that I found a lot of this very evasive, not actually detailed enough for my liking. I want to see legislation in place. I know that because it is such a contentious issue and people have such strong opinions about it, that we will never please everyone. I did notice in the minister’s second reading speech, and I quote:
- The crisis and dysfunctions caused by petrol sniffing is so confronting and profound that, regardless of the scale
of the problem at any particular community, it is almost always the No 1 priority issue.
I listened to Dr d’Abbs when he came to the substance abuse committee and with his recommendations. Whilst he said that he did not support petrol sniffing being made illegal, I find it very difficult to understand how we can address it without making it illegal. I am still trying to come to terms with how you can ban something without making it illegal.
I look forward to 12 months’ time. Obviously, government has the mandate to be able to pass this legislation as is, but I look forward and encourage the minister to ensure that this is reviewed in 12 months. In the meantime, I look forward to going in to committee so we can get some answers on some points about this legislation. I support the legislation. We have to have it in place, but I would like to have many issues clarified.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, it is rather ironic that this bill is being passed today, having had a rather torrid few weeks in Alice Springs with petrol sniffers running rampant in the Braitling electorate.
Unfortunately, we have a town camp, Hoppy’s Camp, which seems to have a number of sniffers from out of town. I have had a number of complaints from residents about their cars being broken into - one even had his lawn mower fuel taken; finding pieces of hose in their driveway; and cans that obviously have held petrol. We tend to think of petrol sniffing as being a community problem, but it is becoming a town problem. It is my understanding there would be over 100 petrol sniffers in Alice Springs at the moment.
At the weekend, we had an incidence of rock throwing again. It is true that when the young sniff petrol before they get to the brain-damaged state, they are very cheeky and, when they are older, they get very aggressive and violent. Unfortunately, at Hoppy’s Camp, parents give young children petrol, as you all know, because that is one way of keeping them quiet. However, of course, it does irreparable damage.
As I said last week in my media release, we have to give it a go; we have to try. Until now, there has been a lot of rhetoric about petrol sniffing, but we have not had much action. There are community groups trying very hard to address the problem, but I believe they feel as though they are facing an oncoming tide of problems. We need to get behind them and ensure that they are well resourced and ready to deal with it. We have talked a lot about the bill and, yes, there are questions I would like to ask about it. However, something we have not talked about is why young adults and children sniff petrol. Why is it becoming a pastime that is causing so much damage to them and their health? Let us face it: it causes health problems, antisocial behaviour, criminal activity and individual family breakdown. It has huge consequences for our system in health, police, education and right across the board. It is not just people sniffing petrol who are the problem; it is the consequences of their actions right across the board that we need to address.
This bill is the first step in addressing many of the problems within our communities and towns. Many of the problems that cause petrol sniffing are boredom, lack of discipline, lack of supervision, lack of going to school, lack of employment - all those things. They wander into town. At the moment, it is community football time in Alice Springs. It is great to come and watch the football; it is not so great to go home. We need to look at the whole picture of not just petrol sniffing, but some of the other problems.
Minister, I am sure when you reply, you will give us some details of what you intend to do because that is the important part of this bill. Where are these places of safety? Where will you put these young sniffers when they are apprehended? Will you send them home to a dysfunctional family? Will you take them to a camp? You are obviously not going to put them in gaol, but where are these places of safety? We need to identify them. Programs we have, such as the one at Tangentyere, have a certain capacity, but they need more staff, more resources, more training. They need support and, most of all, there needs to be new services to the communities most in need. I am thinking about places like Kintore and Papunya, and all those places out bush.
You are taking on a huge problem; it is not just isolated to any one area. The difficulty is that because it is so big, it is doubtful whether this bill will cover everything and if you will be able to use it as a trigger to ensure programs are there. Who are the authorised people? Do you include school attendance officers? Do you include Night Patrol? Will you include people who work for community organisations and, if you are going to have these authorised people, will they have some sort of training? Will they have some form of identity? Can I walk up to a sniffer and say: ‘Come with me. I am apprehending you to take you away’? There have to be the mechanics of how this will work, and we are looking for some of the devil in the detail.
It was interesting when the member for Nelson compared substance abuse with the consumption of alcohol. It is not a criminal offence to get drunk. It is a criminal offence to do things when you are drunk that cause antisocial behaviour. That is what is happening to the police at the moment: it is not illegal to sniff petrol, but they then have to pick up the pieces when these petrol sniffers cause problems. The police in Alice Springs will very pleased when this bill goes through because it will give them more teeth; they will welcome the fact that they will be able seize and dispose of the substances. They can do it with alcohol under the 2 km law; why can’t they do it with other substances? I guess this bill is going to do that.
Although the members for Macdonnell and Araluen talked about the technical aspects of the bill, there are people like me who are not lawyers and do not really understand those things. I want to know how this bill is going to be implemented, what programs you will have, who are the authorised people and what places you will go to.
I wrote to the South Australian government because, as you are well aware, the Pitjantjatjara Lands, or Pit Lands, have a huge problem of alcohol abuse. I received this letter recently from Hon Jay Weatherill, who is the Acting Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation. His letter ran to four pages on the ways they are addressing petrol sniffing in the Pit Lands. He talked about the government presence, health and wellbeing. Under health and wellbeing, he has a range of community-based programs developed to tackle substance misuse, including sport and recreation pursuits, renovation of community facilities into youth centres, nutrition programs, musical instrument programs, homelands horse breaking and horsemanship programs, camel and horse mustering programs, establishment of school holiday programs, and development of homelands absent programs. He lists a range of issues under justice and the way they are addressing it, in addition to infrastructure, environment, education, employment and training, community enhancement and governance.
I would like to pass this letter to the minister so she can see how South Australia is tackling this problem in the Pit Lands which has, in many cases, caused their communities to suffer enormously and most of all, of course, their children. You have to remember that many of the petrol sniffers in Alice Springs come from South Australia; they come from the Pit Lands. You only have to look at the car registration plates to know that we are receiving a lot of people from the Pit Lands, and we have organisations in Alice Springs which service the Pit Lands as well as Alice Springs. I am thinking of the MPY program, which does that. When you read this letter, you will see that South Australia has resolved that legislation is not enough; you must have all these other things as well. They do have legislation, of course. It is an interesting letter that spells out a lot of detail, and that is why I keep saying, minister, that we need the detail.
I asked whether one group of authorised people will be truancy officers. Interestingly, part of the problem is that these children are not going to school. No one is making them go to school. We have one truancy officer in Alice Springs, none in the bush, one in Tennant Creek, one in Katherine, and one in Palmerston. What can one attendance officer do when the problem is so great and you see children of school age wandering around the community? This was brought to my office the other day from Western Australia. It reads:
- Truancy Patrol
Notice
School-age students in this store during school hours, police will be called.
How simple is that? I might have mentioned in this House the story of a principal of a bush school who went into the store and said: ‘Why are you serving my students during school hours?’. All they got was a shrug of the shoulders. We could have a sign that says:
- School-age students in this store during school hours, the truancy officer will be called.
Or whoever is the authorised person. At least you have the whole community backing this non-attendance at school so you are saying: ‘Look, you have to get behind us. There is no good allowing these kids to wander, stay out of school, because we know what they will do. They will only get into mischief’.
That is also a suggestion I will pass on to the minister that she might like to take on board because it is one way that the Western Australian government is looking to curb this non-attendance at school, which means wandering around looking for trouble. That is all the petrol sniffers are doing. They are bored, they have no direction in life, they have no supervision, no discipline. We need to put all those social things in place to help the communities that really want to tackle it.
Let us not just have the bill. We can have legislation, but we need to look at the big picture, the big screen, because that is where people will be judging whether what you have done is a success or not.
In my electorate, we have people who are concerned because they see some of these sniffers in their front yards, and they ring the police but, by the time the police get there, the kids have shot through. There is growing concern that private individuals on private property are having their lifestyle affected. They have to have big, high fences. They are locking the gates, locking away their garden equipment. They do all sorts of things that, once upon a time in Alice Springs, we had never had to worry about. We could enjoy an open front gate. We could enjoy knowing that possessions outside in the driveway would be safe. I am pleased that this bill does say the powers can be exercised not just in a public place, but upon trespassers on private property, and on private property with the consent of the occupier and owner. I worry about that last bit, where it says with the consent of the occupier and owner. If the occupier says no, will the police not be able to intervene? Or will it mean that the police will have to walk away and wait for them to come out of that property? We know how dangerous petrol sniffers can be, we know the dangers they can cause to adults, and we have to make sure that we have this right.
We raised the question of what would happen if you, in fact, apprehended a small child and placed him in the care of someone, and that young child became ill. Is there going to be protection for people who have those children in their care to make sure that nothing comes back at them if something happens?
We have talked about the programs you are going to have. We all know Mt Theo has been successful. We could easily set up a program in Owen Springs out of Alice Springs; the government owns that station. Why not put one of these programs with horse breaking and cattle raising so that people can have some skills in this? What about Hamilton Downs? It is a great place. Get them out of town is what I am saying, but do not put them back in their communities; treat them. The communities do not want them; put them in an outstation or in a homeland. There are places around Alice Springs that could be utilised. If you are looking for a holding bay, if I can call it that, open up Aranda House. It is sitting there empty. It was the detention centre for our young people and it is not being used, so why not use that as a place to hold the young people while we are getting them on to a program?
We have heard a lot about authorised officers, but I hope that any program offers a person training so that they have expertise. I do not think they necessarily need a great certificate, as the member for Nelson mentioned. Certificates are fine, but let us make sure they know how to communicate, manage what they are doing, and they have the right training and skills to apprehend people …
Mr Wood: Certificate of practicality.
Mrs BRAHAM: That is right. Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I do not think we should make it a criminal offence, but we have to make petrol sniffing illegal and we have to take steps to make sure that when police are called to someone’s place, they can apprehend them, put them in a program, and make sure that the right things happen.
I noticed you talked about someone who supplies to a third person can be fined or sentenced to two years gaol. We know it happens. We have had used car dealers in Alice Springs leave petrol beside the cars in a can. They do that so that the used cars are not broken into. That sounds a pretty terrible thing when you have to resort to that, but people are seeking solutions. They want, somehow or another, to stop these petrol sniffers from entering their premises and causing damage.
When you are looking at this bill, do not just think in a narrow way about the legislation alone; think about the big picture. Think about how you are going to do it. It is not going to happen in a couple of months or six months. This sort of thing has been going on for years and it is going to take years to address it and get it right. I believe that at least we are kick starting it and we should at least give this a go.
As the member for Nelson said, any legislation that comes into this House should be reviewed because if it is not working, what is the point of it? Most of all, you must make a commitment to resource the programs for this bill, and that is big dollars. You are talking about a vast area of the Territory. I am only talking about Central Australia, and I can imagine the dollars required to set up programs and the right infrastructure to assist sniffers in Central Australia. However, when you are talking about all of the Territory, you are talking about big dollars.
I hope the commitment from the government is right and it does work. We would all appreciate knowing that we can live in harmony in our community; that we do not get humbugged by these petrol sniffers and do not feel frightened by what they are doing and that, somehow or other, we can save them before they, in fact, do themselves irreparable damage.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Family and Community Services): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank all members for their contributions to this important debate.
This is land mark legislation despite some of the negativity by members on the other side. This legislation, for the first time, introduces a comprehensive strategy to tackle petrol sniffing and the harm that it causes in our community. It is legislation and a $10m package - I am not ashamed and neither is any member on this side of parliament for putting $10m over five years to a scourge that has been in our communities for a long time. Lo and behold! The CLP comes up with the policy and is concerned when that scourge suddenly comes from the remote communities into their urban centres so they are absolutely horrified and they want to do something about it.
I am immensely proud of what we, as a government, are working towards in trying to deal with this scourge. For too long, legislators in this House have watched these kids blowing their brains out in those communities and they have done nothing. Do not look shocked across the Chamber at me; there has not been any fundamental strategy that has happened in our communities to deal with this scourge for many years. I am proud of this and so are members on this side.
However, rather than going through all of the issues that members raised, given that we are going to go through the committee stage, and given that members opposite have highlighted that rather than the one amendment proposed, they will be seeking further clarification and comment as we go through the legislation, I thought we will go to committee and work through each of the clauses members are seeking clarification on. We can go through that and I will answer those areas of concern, in particular ‘authorised person’. That has been raised by most members in the debate. Similarly with the issue of private property. If members understand the Aboriginal Land Rights Act, they would understand that this act will apply in the same way as everywhere else. Aboriginal land is not treated any differently.
I want to thank my colleague, the member for Nightcliff, and the members for Nelson, Braitling and Port Darwin for their contributions to the debate. I will endeavour to answer your questions as we go through the committee stage.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Mr CHAIRMAN: The committee has before it the Volatile Substance Abuse Prevention Bill 2004 (Serial 270) and Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill 2004 (Serial 271) together with the Schedule of Amendment No 100 circulated by the Minister for Family and Community Services, Ms Scrymgour, to the Volatile Substance Abuse Prevention Bill 2004 (Serial 270).
Volatile Substance Abuse Prevention Bill (Serial 270):
Clauses 1 to 3, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 4:
Ms CARNEY: Mr Chairman, on one hand, my question relates to clause 5, but it does have a relationship to clause 4, which I raised earlier, and that is the definition of ‘minister’. The minister will note in clause 5 that it includes a reference to ‘the minister’. Earlier, I asked could there be some difficulties with which minister, noting that perhaps the minister could be defined in clause 4. My question is: could there be a conflict in the absence of a definition as to which minister has carriage of this act?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: No. As the member for Araluen knows, or certainly should know, the relevant minister will be the one designated under the Administrative Arrangement Orders, and that is me as Minister for Family and Community Services.
Ms CARNEY: Good.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clauses 5 to 7, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 8:
Ms CARTER: Mr Chairman, my question is with regards to clause 8(c) deals with how the police cannot exercise power unless they receive consent to enter the premises if it is private premises. I understand that the minister has just said that on Aboriginal communities, houses would be seen as private property. Clause 8(c) says police can enter:
- On private premises, if consent to enter the premises is given to the police officer or authorised person –
(i) by the occupier of the premises; or
I am concerned that people could use that as a loophole to be able to go to someone’s house to intimidate them to prevent the police entering.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I thought you asked about houses on Aboriginal land and Aboriginal communities, and I said that the simple answer was that the act will apply the same way as existing legislation such as the Trespass Act, which already applies.
What should also be remembered is that these powers of searching, seizing and apprehending are being exercised without warrant. Police can use them on the spot without recourse to the courts.
The legislation also increases penalties for the supply of volatile substances and allows for community management plans to limit the sale and supply of volatile substances in designated areas. This approach will enable decisive action to be taken against trafficking petrol, and other inhalants and also make it possible for community wishes about restrictions on the availability of substances such as petrol to be respected and enforceable under Territory law.
Ms CARTER: What I am saying is that according to this legislation, it appears to be that if a police officer were to go to a house, unless the owner of the house or the senior person in the house gives permission, even though he or she may be concerned that petrol sniffing is occurring inside that house, the police officer, unless they are given permission to enter the house, can take no further action. Is that the case and, if so, why is that the case?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: As I understand, even if the police suspect an activity happening in, say, any house – just put petrol sniffers to one side. If there is an activity that police have a suspicion that something is going on, or evidence or intelligence on a certain activity happening in that house, people have to get warrants to go in to anyone’s property. People cannot come on to my house, on private land, which I own. You have to get permission to enter onto my land. Why should it not be any different for Aboriginal people in Aboriginal communities or anywhere, whether it is in Alice Springs or Katherine? Let us bear in mind that there is not just a petrol sniffing problem in Alice Springs. We also have a problem in the Top End. Anyone entering anyone’s land must seek permission. Police get a warrant if they suspect something and they want to search and seize.
Ms CARTER: Would it be the case that a police officer can get a warrant to go in and look to see if people are sniffing petrol on a private premises and take action?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: As I said, if they believe and they have, on good authority, that there is reason to suspect that something is happening there and they have evidence, they can exercise their authority under existing law. They can get a warrant and go in and search that premise.
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I will make a couple of comments on this. While you can take a very narrow view around the legalities of an individual site and an individual decision by a community member, you have to keep the context of how this is going to work in terms of previous experiences we have had in combating petrol sniffing.
The first point I make is that petrol sniffers very often head for unoccupied or out-of-sight areas around a community. Therefore, the type of issues being raised at the moment are probably not dealing with one of the major contexts where intervention needs to occur.
The second point is that in any experience I have had with combating petrol sniffing in locations, particularly in families, you have to work beyond the individual household anyway, and that is where the community management plans are critical to this. It is not for an individual householder, necessarily, to make a solo decision about whether police should intervene or not. It will be negotiated or put in place at the communal level, not only in a remote community. A lot of the work that is being done in Alice Springs at the moment is based on looking at the extended families of sniffers, looking at the community as a whole, as to what action can be mandated by the community and supported by it. It is not going to be a case of an individual policeman trying to convince an individual householder. In the majority of cases, it is going to be what the community as a whole has decided should occur under the management plan.
Mr ELFERINK: That is entirely wrong, Attorney-General, entirely wrong, and I will tell you why.
Dr TOYNE: Well, I am sorry.
Mr ELFERINK: This does not apply to Alice Springs and just to Aboriginal communities; it applies right across the Northern Territory, including the northern suburbs. This is clearly one of the areas of concern on this side of the House. This bill goes to great pains not to create an offence of petrol sniffing. The only reason you can secure a warrant from a court under the operations of the Police Administration Act - the act that provides the powers to obtain warrants and to give warrants for magistrates and Justices of the Peace - is specifically the detection of offences and reasonable grounds to believe people have breached the law.
As this does not create an offence, there is no opportunity at all for a warrant to be obtained because it is beyond the power of the Police Administration Act and a Justice of the Peace to issue a warrant where there is no offence being committed. The consequence of that is, quite simply, that once the police officer reaches the front door, they then becomes powerless unless he or she has the consent of the householder to enter into those premises. That is, the householder says: ‘Come in and do something about my substance abusing son, daughter, child, person’.
If that is the case, then this bill will only operate in public places and where people are trespassing on property. Often, petrol sniffers and people inhaling volatile substances are trespassing or are in public places. However, as a result of the operation of this act, they may not be. There is no way around this problem. Warrants are only issued because offences have been committed or reasonably caused to have been committed, or people are the subject of warrants. However - I will pick up on that.
The Trespass Act is a reflection on the common law of trespass, and trespass notices are not exclusively issued by the police; they are issued by the person who owns the property as well. That being the case, if the person gives consent to the petrol sniffer being on their property, the Trespass Act is meaningless because it deals specifically with those people who are unwelcome on property. If a petrol sniffer is on a property and the person who owns or runs that property is saying to the authorities: ‘No, you cannot come in here’, and no offence has been committed, the police officer must turn around and walk away. This is only a public place offence as far as this government is concerned, or a trespass on private property.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: In relation to what the member for Macdonnell was saying, where he was completely wrong …
Mr Elferink: No, I am not wrong.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: … when children are involved - and let us bear in mind a lot of these sniffers are children - police have existing powers under existing legislation …
Mr Elferink: Where?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: … such as the Community Welfare Act ..
Mr Elferink: Okay, then why are you not using it?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: In this way, this bill complements other laws such as child protection legislation and care and protection laws. Children will continue to be dealt with – all right? If you had bothered coming up and getting a briefing, member for Macdonnell, maybe you would understand this a bit more …
Mr Elferink: I understand it perfectly well.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: … care and protection under the Community Welfare Act. It is not as if it is setting precedents; there are other acts that generally require police or other people to have permission of the owner or occupier before they enter. The Dangerous Goods Act is an example. If a police officer believes an offence has been committed, he can get a warrant. However, as I said, where a child is involved, police can exercise their powers under the Community Welfare Act.
Mr ELFERINK: This is exactly the point that I was making during the second reading debate: legislation already exists. This legislation does not have to come in the form that it comes now. A simple policy directive saying that the Community Welfare Act applies to petrol sniffers would have solved this problem in the first place. That would have then dealt with the issue of petrol sniffers being seen as victims needing to be taken into care. This falls into that nexus between the two.
I agree that there is no shortage of legislation that says consent is required. The common law requires consent. Otherwise, a police officer on someone else’s property is trespassing themselves and must leave, especially when that directive is given. What I am saying is that, because of the way this is worded, volatile substances becomes a public place or trespass oriented offence only and if it is happening inside the property and the householder turns a blind eye to it. There is nothing the police can do unless that child is then the subject of an action under the Community Welfare Act. The Community Welfare Act does not exclusively operate in private properties; it can operate in public as well. What I said in the second reading debate and I reiterate now is that the Community Welfare Act is the organ by which this issue could have been dealt with by this minister easily, rather than having to go through this process.
Ms CARTER: Mr Chairman, I want to bring to the minister’s attention that we have expressed a great deal of concern with regards to children and the sniffing of petrol, and it may well be that under the Community Welfare Act, action can be taken by police entering premises. It is interesting to wonder why it is not happening now. I bring the minister’s attention to coronial findings from South Australia that we received some time ago with regard to the deaths of three people who died in 1999, 2001 and 2001. There was a joint coronial inquest, and the ages of the people were 27, 25 and 29. That illustrates the issue of adult sniffing and the fact that adults are dying from this situation as well.
In respect of sniffers, be they children or adults, it is my understanding that on communities many people are frightened of them. It is my concern that they will use their aggressive and violent behaviour to intimidate people who normally control houses - for example, grandparents - and use this loophole in this legislation to move from behind the school or the sports ground or down at the river, and take whatever they are sniffing now and their sniffing behaviour into houses where they intimidate and dominate people, and it becomes something very serious for communities. That is what I believe is going to happen.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clauses 9 agreed to.
Clause 10:
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chairman, I ask the minister what her understanding of the term ‘force that is reasonably necessary’ is.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Mr Chairman, reasonable force is a concept commonly used in Australian law. It means force - and I will see if I have this right, member for Macdonnell because you are the law person, I take it, and the one with all the intelligence on this area – that is fair, proper and reasonably necessary in the circumstances. The term ‘reasonable force’ provides protection for people who might be apprehended under this bill, and guidance to those people who are apprehending them. The term imposes an objective test of the levels of force that might be used to apprehend a person.
The term ‘reasonable force’ is commonly used in Northern Territory legislation. Under the Mental Health and Related Services Act, police have the power to apprehend a person using reasonable force so that the person can be assessed. The act also allows the use of reasonable force to restrain a person being treated where it is necessary to prevent them from harming themselves or another. The Community Welfare Act permits a police officer or authorised person to use reasonable force to take a child in need of care into custody.
Being able to use reasonable force will not be a problem. It is essential if we are to reduce the harm of sniffing to individual sniffers, their peers and families, and the broader community. I know that this was an issue raised by some people in the community. There were some sector members in Alice Springs, I have met with them, I have had many discussions in relation to the use of reasonable force. I believe that is a pretty good explanation of reasonable force.
Mr ELFERINK: No, it is an excellent explanation and it is the one I expected to be given. Minister, as a result of that, do you foresee police officers, where reasonable force is required, using handcuffs and other forms of restraints on children?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Do not think for a minute we have not consulted with members of the Northern Territory Police force over this. They would find it quite insulting that you are alluding to the fact that they would use handcuffs in the apprehension or as part of reasonable force to apprehend a sniffer, member for Macdonnell. That is what you just stood up and said.
Mr ELFERINK: Exactly. That is exactly what I asked you. Do you expect it to be happening?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Am I expected to be happy that the police would use - we have had a lot of consultation with the NT Police over this. As I have said, they would be quite offended that you would be alluding to that.
Members interjecting.
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I feel absolutely bound to point out the extremely confusing position that is being put from the other side. Your colleagues are arguing that you should make the activity illegal. What are you proposing? Are you proposing that you are going to make petrol sniffing illegal, but then you do not want to see police use any reasonable force to …
Mr Elferink: No, I did not say that.
Dr TOYNE: Well, what is your proposal? What is your proposal: you are going to have an illegal act and you are not going to allow the police to use reasonable force to enforce that position? I would really like to know where you are coming from.
You have the member for Drysdale over here saying: ‘Fix the beef roads and that is going to fix up petrol sniffing’. You have the member for Araluen saying: ‘We want to make it illegal’. You are saying that you do not want to see police use reasonable force. Boy! That is some policy coming from over there.
I will tell you one thing, member for Macdonnell: I have been out at Kintore, Mt Liebig, and Haasts Bluff, and they cannot wait to see some intervention with some force behind it - reasonable force - to allow them to intervene in the petrol sniffing that you have done nothing about for the whole time you have been the member for Macdonnell.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chairman, this is quite extraordinary. I fully expect the police and any other authorised officer to use reasonable force, including handcuffs …
Dr Toyne: Well, let us move on, then.
Mr ELFERINK: … if it was necessary. However, all I wanted to hear from the minister is whether she understands that the term ‘reasonable force’ will include the use of handcuffs and other sorts of restraints, including cells, where those cases may occur.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I have answered it.
Mr ELFERINK: No, you haven’t.
Ms CARNEY: Minister, we all know we are dealing with predominantly young Aboriginal men, some of whom are big blokes. If a police officer is talking to a sniffer and they are creating some problems, and the police officer thinks: ‘I am about to use some reasonable force’, would it not include handcuffs or other restraints? Yes or no? Are you happy with the bill if it means that police officers would use such restraints?
Mr HENDERSON: Mr Chairman, as Police minister, I must respond to this nonsense. Police have an absolute inherent responsibility in carrying out their duties across the Northern Territory to use their best judgment for protecting life, property and enforcing the law. It is a judgment call for the police officer in the line of duty of protecting life, protecting property and enforcing the law. If reasonable force is required, as is required in any aspect of policing - whether it is petrol sniffing, domestic violence, a break and enter, shoplifting, crowd control at a sporting event - to protect life, limb and property to uphold and enforce the law, they will do so. They are accountable for their actions under the Police Administration Act. They are accountable to the Professional Responsibility Command within the police to the Commissioner. They are accountable to the Ombudsman for their discretion and their judgment, and I am absolutely confident that our police force will use this legislation in an appropriate manner.
It is not an issue about whether we are happy or not happy. I am not happy, as a parent, to think that any child may be placed in handcuffs, but if it is appropriate for police to do so to protect life, injury, property, to uphold the law, then that is a judgment for the police day-to-day around the Territory. There is nothing different in this legislation from what police already do on a day-to-day basis. It is an absolute nonsense that the opposition is running here, and it is an insult to the police who have been consulted widely about this legislation.
It is not about whether ministers are happy or not happy that people may be handcuffed or otherwise restrained. It is the responsibility of the police under their standing orders to use their judgment on a day-to-day basis. I urge the opposition to move on to something more substantial.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chairman, I appreciate everything the minister is saying. He is not wrong. I want to make sure that the minister understands the term ‘reasonable force’. The reason I raise that issue is because she cannot bring herself to say it here.
Members interjecting.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
Mr ELFERINK: She cannot bring herself to say it here. The fact is that this minister cannot squib out from under this issue. Reasonable force, in certain circumstances in the general common law that surrounds reasonable force, can include fatal force. It depends on the circumstances of the case.
Mr Henderson: What is your point?
Mr ELFERINK: The point is that I want this minister to be able to tell this House that she appreciates that, despite the fact there is no offence, the police may still use things like handcuffs and other forms of restraints on people. If the minister is not capable of standing up in this House and saying that, then I am not quite sure why she is the minister. When you take control of this sort of legislation, you have to understand the full consequences of what you are promoting.
Mr AH KIT: Mr Chairman, I have sat back and listened to the rantings and ravings of the members for Araluen and Macdonnell. I believe the Police minister has given an ample clarification of a police officer’s role. It will be a judgment call at the relevant time if they were to move into a household, private or public, and decide that there are petrol sniffers creating trouble for residents or tenants. They could reserve the right - the petrol sniffers, that is - to silence, so that would be interesting.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clauses 11 and 12, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 13:
Ms CARNEY: Minister, you are aware of the questions I asked earlier so I am fully expecting you to read your response. In relation to clause 13, you would concede, I guess, that an ‘authorised person’ has a considerable amount of power; namely the power to search the person.
Civil libertarians get twitchy when people - whether they are police officers or not - have a capacity to search the person. I am not sure that there is a more intimate contact, if you like, between a police officer and another human being. In light of the potential sensitivity of an authorised person having this power to search a person, can you let us know what sort of person might an authorised person be? What training might they receive? What, if any, qualifications would they be required to have? How would the minister go about appointing such an authorised person who has a significant power pursuant to clause 13?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: There are a number of questions that the member for Araluen asked. Let me go through for the first one, which is power given to an authorised person, communities and police. Under this clause, communities and police have requested the power to intervene quickly to protect people who are abusing volatile substances. The bill provides such power. The Volatile Substance Abuse Prevention Act will give police and authorised persons authority to effectively intervene when people are, and have been, inhaling. They can search and remove the volatile substances and, if necessary, take the sniffer to a place of safety.
In most regions, authorised persons will be selected from Night Patrol teams or from warden schemes - people who know their communities. For example, in the member for Macdonnell’s electorate, there is a very good group of people at …
Dr Toyne: Ntaria.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Ntaria, that is right, who have in place a fantastic program. They could certainly become authorised people to deal with that. This is giving them the legislative backing to be able to do what they are already doing.
In some communities, other people may become authorised persons. Again, they will need to have a detailed understanding of their community, to be supported by community leaders. It is very important. We ask for ACPOs or Aboriginal Community Police Officers to be nominated by communities. One of the criteria is for them to be supported by the community. The community puts in a letter, and we could follow the same process with that. They have particular skills, knowledge and attitude that will enable them to work successfully with people who abuse volatile substances.
This bill provides some new tools. One of the things - and we are not blind to it - that needs to be done is a lot of training. There is certainly money in the budget to be able to get that training in place for those who are authorised persons to be able to use force to intervene with sniffers. There is a lot of work in the regulations and guidelines that will need to be developed to ensure that these powers achieve the best outcomes for all, particularly the community, the family and the sniffer as well.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, minister. I have a couple of questions arising from your answer. First, I notice that you said there was an amount allocated in the budget for training. Could you outline what sort of training you envisage? You have said training. I am interested in what sort of training you would expect such authorised people to undergo.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I do not have the specifics on that, member for Araluen. The department will be implementing a lot of this and, at an operational level, will identify with communities and authorised peoples, with police, with FACS, and a number of agencies because this goes across a number of agencies.
The staff in Alcohol and Other Drugs will be looking at what sort of training is involved. We could get the specifics and the details of that training to you, if you like, as to what we will be looking at in the training of those authorised persons, and what they will be doing in their activities out in the community.
Ms CARNEY: Yes, thank you. I am not wanting to verbal you, but may I ask for an undertaking that you will provide us with details of the training that you envisage? I will let you answer that because it is important for Hansard, before I go on.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: As I said, we could get that information and provide it to you. Whether this is an undertaking, I will get the department to send that through to you.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you. Can you indicate what sort of time frame you are looking at for implementing the training? You have, basically, said that you do not know what sort of training it will be. Do you have a date in your mind as to when the training will commence? If so, can you let us know how long the training will be? Might it be for a week, a month, six months, whatever? So there are two questions in that.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I know there are two questions in there. As I said, I do not have that detail, but we will get those details to you, member for Araluen. There are probably some communities and people who are dealing with this who would probably give us some training because they have certainly been dealing with this long before any of us and before this legislation. Those details can be forwarded to you at some stage when we write to you about the first bit.
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I want to again point out the fundamental nature of this initiative is to help to mobilise communities and extended families to help with the intervention on kids who are at risk because they are sniffing. Whilst you can talk about training, we are not talking about creating a whole force of police auxiliaries or some sort of formalised force, if you like, of strangers who are going to intervene on these kids’ lives. It is going to be people like the aunties or the uncles or strong family members within the community and from within the extended family who are going to be taking on these sort of roles. What training do you need to be a strong uncle of a nephew who is at risk, and you see the need to intervene?
The essence of this is that you will look for the authority within the family and use that authority alongside and in conjunction with the statutory powers that are created in this legislation to intervene. That, in my overwhelming experience of working on these issues in communities, is what makes the difference. That point should not be lost in a formal, legalese exploration of these statutory arrangements.
Yes, we need training, and you need people who are working on Night Patrols simply because we are putting a statutory framework in place. They need to know about how the statute is going to work, but the essence of their ability to intervene is because they are a family member, they are a community member who these young people know and respect. I would hope, if we found the right people, and that is why the intervention is going to be effective, not because of becoming a pseudo police auxiliary.
Ms CARNEY: I thank the Minister for Health for his comments. He is the Territory’s first law officer at the same time, which makes his comments alarming. Certainly, this is about getting the right people - as the other minister said before, people who have been involved with sniffers, that sort of thing - but this is not just some stuff that has something to do with petrol sniffing. This is about giving authorised people the power to search another human being. These people ...
Dr Toyne: Go out and try it. If you get involved in one of these programs, you will understand them.
Ms CARNEY: Hang on, Peter. This is about giving these people powers that police officers in Australia have. I am astounded, frankly, that the Territory’s first law officer is seeking to say as long as we have people who are trained and know something about sniffing, he seems to be suggesting that that is all we need. No, it is not. This is a very serious and significant power that Labor is giving to authorised people.
The question I asked in relation to training is not unreasonable at all. The government could find itself very easily on the end of legal proceedings where a person will issue proceedings against the Northern Territory government because someone has not searched a person properly; they have done things that perhaps if they had adequate training, they might not have done. I am astounded by the Attorney-General’s and the Minister for Health’s response.
I am concerned that the Minister for Family and Community Services does not know what sort or training might occur, and does not seem to even know when it might occur. Whilst I am grateful that she is going to provide me with the information, this is a significant power. This is unprecedented, I would have thought.
Having dealt with the comments of the Attorney-General, getting back to the training, minister, are you able to advise, for instance, how many authorised people may exist in the regions from individual communities? Would you be aiming for an even distribution between men and women? I would like those questions answered and I ask the question about men and women because we are dealing, essentially, with Aboriginal people. I would not have thought that any woman, regardless of her colour, would not necessarily appreciate being searched by a bloke who may not have any training. If we are talking about doing the right thing, I ask the minister to allay my concerns about this. I appreciate she is not answering any questions about training. Do you have any idea, minister, about how many authorised people from each region might exist? Is there a cap on it? Do you have any idea as to distribution between men and women? Finally, are you concerned or have you turned your mind to what might occur if an Aboriginal man seeks to search an Aboriginal woman?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I think we have gone through this clause enough. I have said to the member for Araluen that I undertake to get some of those details to her. In terms of the training, a bit of common sense here. There have to be some competencies that people have to prove. Authorised persons are not going to be just anyone who comes along. There will be a very strict screening process. It will not just be anyone with criminal records or of suspicious character. That is where we will work very closely with the communities and do the consultation that is needed to ensure that issues such as you have raised where an Aboriginal man is potentially searching an Aboriginal woman which is inappropriate - there are also many cultural issues that have to be taken into consideration. There are certainly a number of things in the training, competencies and criteria that authorised persons will have to undergo.
Screening is certainly a big part in terms of that person’s standing in the community. You are not going to grab just anyone who may have a criminal background or a criminal record or be of suspicious character. That is all part of the screening process and working with the communities to identify people who will then go through and meet certain competencies. First aid is probably one that people will need to have. Anyone having worked in the health sector or who has seen these sniffers would know that having basic first aid is a competency that people will need to prove or have as part of becoming an authorised person. I do not know if that has answered your question, but I feel that that is as far as I can answer it. I think we should move on.
Ms CARNEY: I can assure you, minister, I will not be spending much more time on this. I am troubled, however, because when I first started to ask you some questions about training, you said you had no specifics on the type of training that would be involved. Then, in your answer to the question I just asked, you did say that there would be some competencies that might have to be proved. You also referred to training as being culturally appropriate and you referred to first aid.
If, 10 or 15 minutes ago, you did not have any specifics on the type of training and yet you have rattled some off, is it reasonable for me to assume that you have not given any thought to this training until we raised these concerns? If that is not the case, why did you say 10 minutes ago that you did not know any specifics on the training?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I have answered it.
Ms CARNEY: Sorry, was that no answer? Thank you.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14:
Ms CARTER: Mr Chairman, one point with regards to clause 14(3): I have trouble grasping the logic of this section where it says that the police officer or the authorised person must inform the person - that is the sniffer - that although it is not an offence to possess a volatile substance or to use it for inhalation purposes, they are able to search them for the substance and seize the substance.
The first thing happening is the police officer saying: ‘What is happening here is not an offence, but I have the right now to search you and seize that substance’. Can the minister explain how this is logical?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: What that is, basically, saying is that the act is giving them the power of search and seize, and you are right, at the same time it is saying that it is not a criminal offence.
Ms CARTER: Minister, does it seem to you to be logical?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: This is something where we are going to have to agree to disagree. I know there have been calls for criminalisation on this issue. I am fundamentally opposed to criminalisation, but it does not mean that we stop doing what we are doing because we both have differing views on this. I do not think you and I are very different in terms of our views on a lot of this, member for Port Darwin. It does give police the power to seize and search, but it does not make it a criminal offence.
Ms CARNEY: Mr Chairman, I refer to clause 14(4), which is about procedures for searching for a volatile substance or inhalant. Subclause (4) says that a police officer or an authorised person must then request the person to give the police officer or authorised person any volatile substance or item used to inhale a volatile substance that is in the person’s possession. My question is: what if the person refuses to do so? What happens if the person refuses to do so?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: We have just had this debate on the use of reasonable force.
Ms CARNEY: Do I take it from your answer that if a person refuses to provide the volatile substance, an authorised person can then, if necessary, produce the handcuffs?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: We have already had this discussion when we talked about reasonable force. We have certainly gone through it, and any answer that I give you now is only going to go over what we have talked about in clause 10, where reasonable force may be used.
Ms CARNEY: With respect, minister, that was an appalling answer. Did you give any thought to providing a sanction other than allowing an authorised person, who may be untrained - because we do not know the details of the training they are going to receive, or at least you do not know - but it is possible that an untrained or badly trained authorised person, if a sniffer fails to provide the substance to use reasonable force. Did you think it might be reasonable to provide some sort of sanction other than simply allowing an authorised person to use reasonable force?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I have already answered this. Move on, Mr Chairman.
Ms CARNEY: No, you have not. I would like an answer. The minister has declined to answer that. I will ask another question, and we have plenty of time.
Minister, might it not have been a good idea to impose something in the order of a financial penalty, as we see with so much legislation in the Northern Territory, so that if a sniffer refuses to provide the substance, a fine might ensue as opposed to a possibly untrained person using reasonable force?
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, a couple of comments. The first thing is that, clearly, clause 14 is dealing with ability of the authorised person or police to locate and seize volatile substances or inhalants that they have reason to believe the child or adult has been using. The basis on which they act in that situation is set out in the objects of the act at clause 3:
- (1) The objects of this Act are to support child, family and social welfare and improve the health of people in the
Territory by providing a legislative framework for –
- (a) the prevention of volatile substance abuse; and
- (b) the protection of persons, particularly children, from harm resulting from volatile substance abuse.
That is the object of this whole structure, and when a police officer or authorised person is in the situation where they want to confirm that there is a harmful substance present, and to subsequently seize and dispose of it, they are the principles under which they are operating. I just do not see where the opposition member is trying to go with this.
Ms CARNEY: Well, thank you for those illuminating comments. Minister, in the Northern Territory, we have a number of laws. One of them, to use a simple example, is that if you are driving on the road and you are pulled over by a police officer and asked to show your licence and you refuse to do so, that police officer can take action. It is an offence.
If I follow your logic, you might say that you do not want to make that an offence; you reckon that the copper should just use a bit of reasonable force to encourage the person to show their driver’s licence. It is completely illogical that for so much legislation we have various sanctions - there are offences and fines - and yet in this legislation, if someone fails to do something, it is a bit of reasonable force. I certainly would not suggest that an authorised person might then get into a bit of the old hip and shoulder. However, I would be a bit worried if I was on my own, a woman in an Aboriginal community, and an authorised person whose training no one knows about, asked me to provide a volatile substance. There are no sanctions, so that person gets a bit of reasonable force. Minister, this is bizarre. Are you comfortable with this clause? Might you give any consideration to amending it?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: No. What exaggeration and patronisation, member for Araluen. Let us look at clause 14(4):
- The police officer or authorised person must then request the person to give the police officer or authorised
person any volatile substance or item used to inhale a volatile substance that is in the person’s possession.
Go to clause 13, ‘Search for and seizure of volatile substance or inhalant’, subclause (4) reads:
- If subsection (3) applies or the person does not comply with a request made in accordance with section 14(4),
the police officer or authorised person may search the person and seize any volatile substance or inhalant that
is in the person’s possession.
I do not know what you are alluding to in this and why you think that it has not been answered, member for Araluen.
Ms CARNEY: It has not been answered; you are playing ducks and drakes. It is because you do not have much of an idea about the very bill you are introducing, despite the fact that it has been on the books for quite some time and despite a very flowery media release with attachments that was issued in October 2004.
It is patently clear that you, minister, have not given any consideration to training, and we have established that. Then you got sick and tired of it being hammered, so you thought: ‘No, I am not going to answer that one’. Now it is abundantly clear that you sanction the situation …
Mr Henderson: She thinks we sit in the office and write up the training package.
Ms Scrymgour: She would do it; she would sit on the whole bloody thing.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Order!
Ms Scrymgour: Could you hurry up, Mr Chairman? I have asked for it to be hurried up and you do not do it.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Order!
Ms CARNEY: … where if someone fails to do something, up comes the hip and shoulder. You should be ashamed of yourself, minister. Clearly you do not know. It is good that your male colleagues are here to support you. You have the Attorney-General who offers his advice his advice every so often…
Mr CHAIRMAN: Member for Araluen, have you a question, please? We will move on …
Ms CARNEY: My question, Mr Chairman, is - I will ask it again because the minister did not answer it.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I have answered the question.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Member for Araluen, it cannot be the same question. We will be starting to get into repetition.
Ms CARNEY: Minister, are you comfortable with a situation where the safety of sniffers might be compromised by authorised people who may not have been trained and who may overstep reasonable force when exercising their powers under this clause?
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clauses 15 to 16, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 17:
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chairman, I draw the minister’s attention to clause 17(2). I raised in my second reading debate about subclause (c):
- must not be photographed or have his or her fingerprints taken.
What about DNA?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: As you know, Mr Chairman, the Police Administration Act allows the collection of intimate samples where a person is in lawful custody on a charge of an offence. The Police Administration Act is very clear. The act also provides that a person may provide their fingerprints or have their photos taken voluntarily where the police are investigating an offence.
The Volatile Substance Abuse Bill does not allow this to occur simply because the person, (1) is intoxicated and, (2) is not being arrested. If the police think that the person has committed a crime, they will arrest them under existing law.
Mr ELFERINK: That is my point. There is no right for the police to take fingerprints or photographs, but when a person comes into custody for an offence, fingerprints, photographs, DNA are taken. Under the Police Administration Act - and it has been a while since I read section 128 - it is quite specific about fingerprints, photographs and DNA not being taken when people have been apprehended for protective custody. This is an effort to protect a person from having their DNA taken. It is a very straightforward suggestion. There is no power to take fingerprints, no power to take photographs, and there should be no power to take DNA. I am actually agreeing with the intent of this legislation.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I have just checked section 130 of the Police Administration Act, ‘Protection of apprehended persons’, (1)(c):
- shall not be photographed or have his fingerprints taken.
The same is reflected in this bill.
Mr ELFERINK: Then I was incorrect because it was my understanding that DNA had been added to that list, but that is by the by. Whatever is wrong with the Police Administration Act is not under debate here. What I am concerned about is that on my reading of this, if a person is in protective custody under this legislation, they shall not be photographed. Good. They shall not be fingerprinted. Good. It would be an added protection that no DNA samples are taken, either. What do you think?
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, my understanding under the DNA legislation is that you cannot have DNA samples taken unless you are going to be charged. No one is going to be charged in this situation unless they committed some other offence related to the Criminal Code.
Mr ELFERINK: That is not how it works, mate, you ought to go and read it up. I am not going to dwell on it, Mr Chairman. It is something that should tidy up in this legislation. I was hoping to make a quick amendment here and now, but they are digging their heels in and there is no point in going on about it.
The fact is, by the way, Attorney-General, DNA is taken whether you are charged or not. Once you are arrested, the DNA is taken, and that is whether you are released 10 minutes later because they suddenly realise that they have you for the wrong offence. DNA is still taken and kept.
The other question that I would like to put to the minister in relation to this clause is that an apprehended person must not be charged with an offence, must not be questioned by a police officer in relation to an offence and must not be photographed or have his fingerprints taken. Bearing that in mind, if a person is in custody under this bill and a police officer suddenly becomes aware that the person may have committed a crime, what does the police officer do then? What are the mechanics of it?
A member interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: No, it is not. It happens all the time under 128.
Mr HENDERSON: Members can speculate and hypothesise. Again, the police, under operational orders under the Police Administration Act, make those calls all the time. If someone is in protective custody and information comes to police that the person has a warrant against them for a particular offence or other information comes to the police, the police respond accordingly with their powers to question and, ultimately, charge any suspect that they may or may not have in protective custody or who might be out walking the streets. All of those issues are covered under police operational orders and procedures and there is nothing in this legislation that is any different from what already exists.
Mr ELFERINK: I am fully aware of the procedures, minister for Police. What I am trying to demonstrate to the public of the Northern Territory is that this minister has brought legislation before the House and does not understand the consequences of the legislation. I know the procedure for the hypothetical I just put; this minister does not. The problem is that the minister who has carriage of this legislation must be able to explain to this House how these processes work. The minister struggles to even bring herself to talk about the consequences of reasonable force as a concept. The consequences are quite simple.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I answered reasonable force quite well.
Mr ELFERINK: The consequences are that people end up in handcuffs, restrained, in straight jackets, and in padded cells.
Mr Henderson: They may do.
Mr ELFERINK: They may do. They are the consequences of reasonable force. The consequences of the operation of this legislation are that people’s lives are affected. People who have committed no offence can be arrested, taken into custody - all for their protection, I accept that – and certain powers may be exercised.
Whether the minister likes it or not, when you bring legislation into the public arena, you do so with the expectation that the legislation is followed. In circumstances such as in this sort of legislation, the subjects, petrol sniffers or users of volatile substances, may be forced to do things. The issue that I raise is that this minister must be able to demonstrate that she understands that force has to be used, and she has not once in this debate been able to bring herself to say that people might end up in handcuffs.
Mr Henderson: In your mind.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Have you finished?
Mr ELFERINK: No, I have not and I have another eight minutes if I need it.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Well, you asked me to respond to you.
Mr ELFERINK: Well, the fact is that you have failed to respond on numerous occasions …
Ms SCRYMGOUR: You are a patronising …
Mr CHAIRMAN: Order! Order! Member for Macdonnell, I want to query the relevance to the clause, which is clause 17.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chairman, I have 10 minutes on every clause and I am quite happy to go back to this clause.
Mr CHAIRMAN: No, no. I have no problem with people questioning the minister because, in a unicameral system, this is the only time you can look through the bill properly. However, we are dealing with clause 17 and that is where we must stay …
Mr ELFERINK: I return to clause 17. This minister must understand the mechanics of how this stuff operates and clearly has failed to demonstrate that she understands even the most basic elements of this.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: You never let me answer them!
Members interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, I know the answer. You don’t! This is your legislation.
Members interjecting.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: You are a smarty!
Mr ELFERINK: You have to convince this parliament that you know what is going on, minister! The fact is that you clearly are struggling with this.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: No, I am not. Sit down and I will answer it for you. Sit down! You like listening to the sound of your own voice, that is the problem!
Mr CHAIRMAN: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: The fact is that you thought this might be a good idea, but the effect of all of this is that you are going to end up having to do all of those things that would occur in any instance if petrol sniffing was an offence. What you are doing is window dressing, and that is a real concern to this side of the House.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: What drivel! I have never heard such uninformed and patronising drivel in my life. The member for Macdonnell - now he walks out and does not want to hear …
Members interjecting.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Minister, please withdraw that.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I withdraw.
He asked whether I knew what would happen under the Police Administration Act if a person has been taken into protective custody and it comes to the notice of the police that a crime may have been committed. The answer is that person would be released out of custody and then taken back into custody under existing legislation.
Ms CARNEY: I have a different question, minister, in relation to clause 17 …
Dr Toyne: Oh, goodie! Another question.
Ms CARNEY: Sorry?
Dr Toyne: Oh, goodie! Another question.
Ms CARNEY: Try to stay contained, Peter.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Order!
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Member for Araluen, please use the correct title.
Ms CARNEY: Minister, place of safety: I note in clause 1 that the apprehension of a person is the detention of a person in order to take the person to a place of safety or to a responsible adult, and a ‘place of safety’ is defined under clause 63. That simply says:
- The Minister may, by notice in the Gazette, declare a place or premises or class of places or premises to be a
place of safety …
Etcetera. Minister, can you tell us what you envisage will be a place of safety, both in urban and remote communities?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Under that clause, you have asked about a place of safety. It is an issue that will need to be agreed on a community-by-community basis. It is not a one-size-fits-all solution. In many instances, a place of safety will be returning someone to their home or to the care of a responsible adult.
In other instances, a place of safety may be a local facility which the community has identified as being appropriate; for example, a youth centre or maybe a women’s centre. In some cases, it might be a nearby outstation. In terms of Central Australia, that is certainly what they have worked towards: rather than trying to keep those children in the main community, but rather develop outstations and put the infrastructure out there and have that, so that could become a place a safety or deemed as a place of safety operating under the supervision of the community or family members.
In urban areas - for example, Alice Springs and Darwin - they will become the two new residential treatment facilities that we have earmarked and that will go to tender in the next couple of weeks.
Ms CARNEY: The two facilities that you just mentioned in Alice Springs and Darwin, are they what you describe as the bricks and mortar component to your package in the document that you attached to your media release on 1 October? It is just a point of clarification. I assume it is, but can you just confirm that it is?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Yes.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19:
Ms CARTER: Clause 19(1) states that ‘a police officer or authorised person may apprehend a person’ if they believe that they have been inhaling. I take it with the use of the word ‘may’ that there is discretion?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Yes.
Ms CARTER: Thank you, minister. With regards to clause 19, and the apprehending which may or may not occur, I take it that it will be as we previously discussed with regards to clause 8, that a police officer or authorised person will not be able to apprehend a person if they are sniffing in a private residence. Is that right?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Sorry, could you repeat that last bit?
Ms CARTER: I take it that the apprehension may not occur in a private residence unless the person who controls that residence gives permission for the police to enter.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Right.
Ms CARTER: Given that situation, I assume that the police could seek a warrant to be able to do that, as you have already mentioned previously in clause 8.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: No, because the sniffing is not an offence. I said this before, although I am not sure which clause. If police have reasonable suspicion that there are activities which constitute an offence, they could certainly get a search warrant and go into that place. However, because it is not an offence, they …
Ms CARTER: Minister, can you explain why a police officer or other person can seek a warrant to take a person for assessment as outlined in clause 35, but you cannot get a warrant to apprehend a person to take any further action at that very early step?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Clause 35, which is what you are talking about, is where they need a warrant to take them for an assessment and that is in line with the compulsory treatment; that is to apply to a magistrate to get a treatment order.
Ms CARTER: You see, minister, once again, I have problems with the logic behind this legislation in that, obviously, you can get warrants to take people for assessment, and a bit further on you can get warrants to take people for treatment. However, here it also says that because sniffing is not illegal you cannot get a warrant to make that very first contact with a sniffer who might be in the back bedroom. It just does not seem to follow logic.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: We can stand up and have the debate all day about this. I know what you are trying to hint at here. This is something, as I said to the member for Araluen, on which we are just going to have to agree to disagree about the issue of the illegality and whether the substance is illegal or an offence. It is set out very clearly. That is our approach. We are proud of the fact that we are not making it a criminal activity. I do not know how much more you want to go into this, member for Port Darwin.
Ms CARTER: To conclude on the comment, then, it seems to me that, in taking someone for assessment if they are not prepared to go for assessment, the inference is that there is some level of illegality because you can get a warrant to drag them off for assessment or for treatment. On the other hand, at the very start when they are actually sniffing, if it is in a private residence without permission to enter, there is nothing you can do. It just does not seem to be logical and I will leave it there.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Do not think that this is something new. Under the Mental Health Act and, clearly under this bill, if a person is harming themselves and clearly shows that, this is in the best interest of not just the community or the family but also the sniffer. I know where you are coming from, but we are just not going to be able to avoid the issue that we do not think it should be a criminal activity or should be illegal. However, if a person is presenting as harming themselves in a severe way, this is a point of intervention and we will intervene, either the police or the authorised person.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clauses 20 to 23, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 24:
Ms CARTER: Mr Chairman, clause 24, which says a child is not to be kept in a police station cell, also says things must be done in accordance with the regulations. Minister, could you advise the current status on development of the regulations, which are obviously going to be linked to this legislation?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: The regulations have not been drafted as yet, member for Port Darwin, but there is discussion between the police and the Department of Family and Children’s Services in relation to the various regulations and, in particular, to this issue of children in cells. The issue of children going in to cells is only as a last resort. The regulations are still being developed through those discussions with the police and FACS.
Ms CARTER: Would you be able to give the House any indication as to when those regulations may be finalised?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Obviously, the regulations will have to be in place before the bill takes effect. The regulations are still subject to discussions between police and FACS, member for Port Darwin. Certainly, as we get closer to it, I undertake to let you know.
Clause 24 agreed to.
Clauses 25 and 26, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 27:
Ms CARNEY: Minister, I referred to this in the second reading debate. I am looking at clause 27(2)(a):
- if the apprehended person is an adult who objects to being released into the care of the other person …
I would like to know what happens if the apprehended person objects to being released to any other person. Does an apprehended person simply, for want of a better description, hang out with the authorised officer for an indefinite period of time?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: In subsection (2), if the (a) and (b) scenario occurs, they will be kept in protective custody and released. If they object to being released into the care of other persons, the other provisions will apply. I will just check that.
They are released in accordance with the general release provisions in clause 26(1). Clause 27 only refers to the earlier release set out in clause 26.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, yes, that does answer the question. It is not every community, or perhaps it is the case, where there will be a place of safety. I am assuming that protective custody would occur at a place of safety, is that correct? Yes?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Yes.
Ms CARNEY: Yes, okay. So what if somewhere there is not a place of safety, where is someone kept in custody - in the back of a car?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: In the back of a police car? I thought I already answered that in terms of a place of safety, member for Araluen. We have gone through that. I said that this will vary from community to community. I also said that one size does not fit all; we are going to see a different approach community by community. The back of a car? It is a bit wild to be saying that.
Ms CARNEY: Well, I am sure you do, but if that is the best answer you can come up with, fair enough.
Clause 27 agreed to.
Clauses 28 to 30, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 31:
Ms CARTER: Mr Chairman, with regards to the definitions detailed in clause 31, I draw members’ attention to ‘authorised officer’. The definition reads:
- ‘authorised officer’ means an employee appointed under section 66 or a police officer;
If you go to clause 66(1), it reads:
- The Minister may in writing appoint an employee ...
I ask: which minister?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I responded to that, member for Port Darwin, when I responded to the member for Araluen who asked that same question. I said that under the Administrative Arrangements, and because I have carriage of this legislation, I will be the minister.
Ms CARTER: That being the case, and continuing on with regards to 66(1):
- The Minister may in writing appoint an employee ...
Does that mean the employee has to be working within the area of Family and Children’s Services or Mental Health or one of the areas that come under your portfolio?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: If I could, member for Port Darwin, there was a minor amendment we were going to move, and I am not sure whether this is the clause, Mr Chairman.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Yes.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: This is the clause in which I was going to propose an amendment to add in ‘health practitioner’. Do you want to …
Mr CHAIRMAN: We can deal with that clause now.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: That goes to the heart of the workability of this, particularly in some of the remote communities.
Ms CARTER: All right, we will do that and see whether it fixes this problem.
Mr CHAIRMAN: The question is that clause 31 stand as printed. Minister.
Ms CARTER: Excuse me, I still want to discuss that issue with regards to ‘authorised officer’. I thought you just wanted to talk about ‘assessor’, which was that amendment.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Do you want to finish what you were asking about ‘authorised officer’ and then we will deal with the amendment?
Ms CARTER: Yes, if I could just pursue that. Clause 66(1) says the minister, yourself, may appoint in writing an employee as an authorised officer.
I might be misconstruing things because we are talking now about treatment orders, not authorised persons; we are talking authorised officers. Is the authorised officer the same as an assessor? My concern is that Family and Children’s Services and Mental Health and Alcohol and Other Drugs are one part of the Health Department and, if you, as minister for those areas, are the only person who can appoint somebody as an authorised officer, does that mean you cannot have, for example, health professionals like nurses appointed as authorised officers because they fall under the Minister for Health’s area and he is not the minister.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: The definition means an employee within the meaning of the Public Sector Employment and Management Act, so that covers …
Ms CARTER: Are you comfortable that will work?
Mr CHAIRMAN: I refer back to the amendment, and ask the minister to speak on that amendment.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 100.1. This amendment is to change the definition of ‘assessor’ in clause 31. The definition will be amended to:
- ‘assessor’ means a health practitioner approved under section 34 to make an assessment.
Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 32 agreed to.
Clause 33:
Ms CARTER: With regards to clause 33(2), a request for treatment must be made on a form. Is there such a form, and what sort of information would go on a form like that?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Clause 64 allows me, as the responsible minister, to approve a form of request for a treatment order and the information required. I will make two comments on that: (1) it is not unusual, as the member for Araluen is aware, for legislation to allow forms to be prescribed; and, (2) when determining what form and what information, I will be taking advice from the department, program providers and communities. Most important to me will be ensuring that families and communities are not prevented from using these mechanisms because of overly bureaucratic administrative procedures.
Ms CARTER: With regards to the regulations and now this form - things that are required to be developed in the future - can you give any indication as to when you would expect this bill to be fully operational?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: There is a whole lot of work being done in terms of the regulations and we are trying to get all of that work that needs to be done finalised before this bill is enacted, and the department has been working on that for some time now.
There has been a lot of discussion between the police and FACS to get those things happening. No, I cannot give you a time frame at the moment.
Ms CARNEY: I note in your answer to the member for Port Darwin you said that the department, or you, were consulting with communities in relation to the question she asked. Has that consultation been occurring since you introduced the bill in December last year?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Yes.
Ms CARNEY: Minister, when you introduced the bill you said and I quote:
- The practical implementation and the mechanics of the proposed legislation, such as guidelines for authorised
persons and police procedures, will need to be considered.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: A whole lot of work has been done. Member for Araluen, with all of the consultation and discussions happening between FACS and the police, we are now in the process of developing the regulations. With the regulations come guidelines, and part of that is synchronising it all with service providers. That takes some time. We are not giving time frames, whether it is three months’ time or whenever. However, it is taking some time because, whilst we have the bill, the regulations are going to become very important because they are where a lot of the detail is going to be.
Ms CARNEY: Could I ask whether you have a hunch that it might be completed this year? Is that reasonable?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I think all of us can assume that it would be before the end of the year, member for Araluen.
Clause 33 agreed to.
Clause 34:
Mr CHAIRMAN: There is an amendment to clause 34. I ask the member for Port Darwin if that is what she is going to talk about or is it something else?
Ms CARTER: I have not seen that amendment.
Mr CHAIRMAN: The amendment should have been circulated. It relates to subclause 1(b).
Ms CARTER: Right, yes.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: It was circulated to everyone.
Mr CHAIRMAN: I am just checking to see whether …
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Do you want me to move it, member for Port Darwin, and then we can …
Mr CHAIRMAN: I just wanted to make sure that was the same amendment that the member for Port Darwin was looking at.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 100.2. This relates to an assessor who may perform these assessments. Clause 34(1)(b) will become:
- a health practitioner registered under the Health Practitioners Act to examine the person and make the
assessment.
Who can be this assessor pursuant to the act? While the categories of professionals who can perform assessments must continue to include medical practitioners and psychologists, limiting assessment to these two categories of health practitioner would significantly impact on the effectiveness of the assessment processes. Other categories of health professionals such as some nurses also have the competence to conduct assessment and excluding them would impact on the assessment process.
The person to be assessed may need to travel to the assessor or wait for the assessor to visit. These delays would be felt most acutely in smaller communities and more remote areas, the very areas most likely to need to be able to access assessment. The amendment rectifies the undesirable situation where family members or others request the minister to assess a person believed to be at risk of severe harm, and this assessment is unduly delayed because of the lack of approved assessors. This minor amendment will help ensure that people can be assessed, referred to courts and rehabilitation programs in a timely fashion.
Ms CARTER: I am quite happy with that amendment. I gather I may now speak with regards to the whole clause.
Mr CHAIRMAN: I will check. We can pass that and then still come back. We are just passing that one amendment. Yes, so if you are happy with it, I will put the amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Ms CARTER: Mr Chairman, with regards to clause 34, which is about the assessment of someone, subclause (1) deals with the minister being satisfied with the information provided under clause 33 that a person may be at risk of severe harm, the minister may, in writing, approve the assessment of a person’s physical, neurological and mental condition.
Minister, can you advise approximately how long you think it would take from you being advised that person might be at risk to you being able to provide, in writing, approval?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Not at the moment, member for Port Darwin. There could be a time frame specified in the regulations. One of the things that we do not want to do is to have a system that is going to be overly bureaucratic and work against what we are trying to achieve here; that is, to get someone into treatment. We can have a time specification in the regulations once they are done.
Ms CARTER: Minister, would it actually be you in your position as minister, or would you be able to delegate that to someone else within the department?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: As with the Community Welfare Act, where even though the act says ‘the minister’, the minister may delegate. That is where we are going to have to look at the proper workability of this act, that it is delegated to officers who are quite capable of doing this work.
Ms CARTER: I am quite comfortable with that. That brings me to another question. With regards to assessments, let us say, for example, that a young person has been sprung sniffing out at the back of a school, which means that the police were actually able to have a role to play with regards to tipping out the petrol. Noting that the young person was intoxicated, say, on a Tuesday, then on Tuesday evening they take that person into the care of, perhaps, the child’s grandparents and the next day, the police take steps to have the child assessed, it would possibly be reasonable that the assessment would not occur due to the need for permission to be provided, until Thursday. By then, the sniffer has sobered up.
How does the situation of assessment work when you have a young person who is sober, who may have been sniffing quite frequently, but they are not interested in answering any questions. How do you see this process working? They are no longer intoxicated.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: It is not an assessment of their intoxication, member for Port Darwin. Clause 34(1)(a) says an assessment of the person’s physical, neurological or mental condition. Even if they have sniffed and may not be sniffing in two days’ time, it does not mean that they are not going to return to sniffing.
We know the reality is that a lot of our sniffers who are out there are hard core sniffers, even if they have one or two day intervals where they are not sniffing, they are going to return to sniff the substance because of the addiction process and why they are doing it in the first place.
Ms CARTER: Minister, you may have already touched on this issue earlier, but clause 34(4) deals with making recommendations to appropriate treatment programs. How long before those programs are up and running?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: There are some service providers providing treatment for these sniffers. I know that CAAPU was a facility where they were sending some sniffers from some of the remote communities; however, I know that has changed. We certainly need to look at this and build on it with those service providers.
A lot of the providers have said they have not been able to provide that service or treatment because of resource issues and funding. This package - not just the legislation, but also the $10m that we have allocated over five years - is part of what we will be putting towards these services and working with them to get the treatment programs in place.
There is no point in having a process where you have compulsory treatment if you do not have any facility or treatment services for these people. At Mt Theo and Ntaria, they run a successful treatment program, as we saw when we went out there. There are services that are already doing it. We need to pull all that together and get it happening a bit more effectively.
Clause 34, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 35:
Ms CARNEY: Minister, I have a couple of questions in relation to clause 35. First, in relation, generally, to the fact that an authorised officer is able to apply to a magistrate for a warrant, I come back to training. Earlier, we were talking about an authorised person; now we are talking about an authorised officer. Can you outline what sort of training an authorised officer may need, given that they will be making applications to magistrates?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Can you repeat that last bit, member for Araluen? I am sorry; I was distracted.
Ms CARNEY: Can you indicate what sort of training authorised officers might need, given that they will be making applications to magistrates for warrants?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I thought I answered that before, even though you felt that I had not adequately answered your question in relation to authorised officers and doing these assessments, member for Araluen.
Ms CARNEY: No, I am sorry, minister. We were talking about authorised person. There are two classifications in this: one is an authorised person; one is an authorised officer.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Okay. With authorised officers, this person is a police officer or a public sector employee and it is entirely appropriate for a police officer to be exercising a warrant.
Authorised officers who already exist in a number of Territory acts: the Kava Management Act; the Dangerous Goods Act.
The Kava Management Act allows the authorised officer to request and use assistance. The act does not define or limit the person who can provide assistance.
The authorised officer has no power to delegate their authority.
Ms CARNEY: I may have misunderstood you, but are you aware, minister, that an authorised officer can be someone other than a police officer? It was not clear from your answer.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Yes.
Ms CARNEY: An authorised officer, of course, given the responsibility of obtaining warrants from magistrates, I ask again, given that we are now talking about an authorised officer as opposed to an authorised person. What you said earlier in relation to an authorised person really does not apply because we are talking about something different. Can you please advise what sort of training an authorised officer will be required to undertake or may need?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: As I said at the start, if we are talking about an authorised officer being a police officer, well, obviously that person has gone through their training.
Ms CARNEY: And if we are talking about an authorised officer who is not a police officer, what sort of training will they be required to have?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: You insist on going through it again, but I have spoken in terms of the training. Again, the member for Araluen is not satisfied that it was answered.
As I said, there would be, in the training, a number of competencies that would need to be satisfied. No, we have not developed it, but it is being developed at the moment regarding the training. Competencies such as, say, first aid, a lot of people will need, particularly working at the coalface in a situation such as this.
Ms CARNEY: With respect, you really do seem quite confused between an authorised person. I refer you to clause 60 of the bill that very specifically lists the things an authorised person can do, compared with clause 66, which is an authorised officer.
Do I take it that you are relying on the answer you gave regarding questions I put in relation to an authorised person? Is it the same answer for an authorised officer under clause 66, noting that there is a difference?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: With respect to the training, there will need to be some training for both. As part of discussions with the police and FACS staff, there will be training across these agencies. Both will require training and both will receive it, whether it is the officer or the person.
Ms CARNEY: Given that an authorised officer is the person who can apply to a magistrate for a warrant, can you tell us whether you envisage that authorised officer instructing lawyers to make application for warrants in the event, for instance, of an authorised officer not feeling able to make an application him or herself?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: To answer your question, the authorised officer will need to have appropriate skills to appear in court, as you have just said. There are FACS employees who have these skills.
Ms CARNEY: You would be aware that, even say, under the Community Welfare Act, whilst there are people at FACS who do have the ability to appear at court in most matters or in matters that are of a different or complex nature, they instruct solicitors to act for them - indeed, lawyers sign up for Health Department tenders for that very purpose; I was one of them in a previous life. Do you envisage that an authorised officer will instruct lawyers to appear on occasion for applications for warrants?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Yes, depending on what the situation is.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you. That being the case, does it then follow that law firms in the Northern Territory will have an opportunity to tender for work under this bill to cover the situations where an authorised officer might not feel comfortable appearing themselves? Does that follow as a matter of logic? I think it does.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I suppose if the situation arises, that that is how it would be. I mean …
Ms CARNEY: Have you given any consideration, minister, to how many applications for warrants might be made in a calendar year and, if so, what the costs of engaging or paying solicitors for that purpose might be?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: No, member for Araluen. It is a bit far-fetched for you to stand there and ask me if I know the cost of engaging lawyers. That is a hypothetical …
Ms CARNEY: Forgive me, minister, but I …
Members interjecting.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I cannot answer that for you and, because I do not answer it, you are going to say: ‘You are not across the bill. You do not know what you are talking about’.
Members interjecting.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Order! Because we are in the committee stage, we need to try and keep it to the clause and that question was slightly hypothetical. The clause relates to a warrant to take a person for assessment, so we need to hone in on that.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Sorry, Mr Chairman, what clause is the member for Araluen up to?
Ms CARNEY: 35.
Mr CHAIRMAN: We should be on clause 35, so we need to keep focussed because we are in the committee stage.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Yes, we are on clause 35 and it is all about warrants and authorised officers making applications for warrants and, when they are unable to do so, instructing lawyers.
The reason I asked the question is that I had an expectation that the minister was across the issue. I thought that, as the minister responsible for this bill, consideration may have been given to the ramifications of people who are not able to appear in court. It was only after my third question to that effect that she eventually said: ‘Oh yes, they will need training. We will need to make sure that they are able to appear in court’.
This is not a minister who is across the issue, and I do not think it is unreasonable to ask whether there is any consideration to other costs arising from it. It demonstrates to me this has not been thought through.
In any case, noting her answers, I now change tack a little. In relation to clause 35(6), it says:
- Any person assisting the authorised officer to execute the warrant may also use reasonable force in doing so.
Did I hear you correctly? Mr Chairman, the member for Wanguri is obviously having a lovely time. I am happy that he is, but it is a little disconcerting. Can you giggle outside? Thank you. Minister …
Mr Kiely: Oh, dear!
Ms CARNEY: Well, I am happy to be here all night, Mr Chairman.
Members interjecting.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Order! The member for Araluen is speaking.
Ms CARNEY: I will start again. Clause 35(6):
Any person assisting the authorised officer to execute the warrant may also use reasonable force in doing so.
Minister, who can assist an authorised officer?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Member for Araluen, could you repeat the question?
Mr CHAIRMAN: Could you repeat that question please, member for Araluen?
Ms CARNEY: Who can assist an authorised officer?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: The bill allows the authorised officer to request and use assistance. It does not define or limit the person who can provide assistance.
Mr Elferink: The tea lady.
Ms CARNEY: Sorry, minister, I had …
Ms SCRYMGOUR: The tea lady! Use common sense, for goodness sake!
Mr Elferink: Well, it can be. Under this legislation, it can be. That is the problem: it can be the tea lady.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The member for Araluen is on her feet.
Ms CARNEY: Minister, would you be good enough to repeat that answer? I did not hear all of it. Whatever! Can you repeat it?
Mr CHAIRMAN: Order! We will have a break at the end of this clause.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: The authorised officer can certainly get anyone to assist, and I answered this before. If we look at the Kava Management Act, it also allows the authorised officer to request and use assistance. The act does not define or limit the person who can provide assistance.
Ms CARNEY: You quoted there from the Kava Management Act. Is that correct?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: The Kava Management Act.
Ms CARNEY: The Kava Management Act, yes, okay. I am not, with respect, interested in the Kava Management Act. I am interested in this act.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: No, but a lot of this is already in existing acts.
Ms CARNEY: So, do I take it, minister, that in this bill you are happy for anyone to assist an authorised officer execute a warrant and that person, namely anyone, is able to use reasonable force in so doing?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Mr Chairman, we could go backwards and forwards on this. Member for Araluen, a bit of common sense should prevail here. Surely to goodness you are not just going to get the tea lady, as the member for Macdonnell suggested. He might become a tea lady in his next life. For goodness sake! Common sense should prevail here. The person may request assistance, say, from a health worker who would be an authorised person, a nurse, or a member of the Night Patrol.
Ms CARNEY: So it can be a health worker, a nurse or a member of the Night Patrol …
Ms Lawrie: For example.
Dr Toyne: For example.
Ms CARNEY: For example. But it might be anyone else. My concern, and it is obvious why I am troubled about this: in this bill, you are giving quite significant and specific powers to authorised people. I have asked a number of questions in relation to their training. You have said that you did not have the specifics.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Yes, look at your bill! What did you have?
Ms CARNEY: Hang on, hang on. Do me the courtesy. You have said that you did not have the specifics about their training. Only after more questions did you give a couple of examples as to the training. One was first aid.
Did you give any consideration or would you give any consideration to changing that section, even in six or 12 months, so that you can better regulate a type of person who will be assisting an authorised officer using reasonable force, and do you concede that the clause, the way it is worded, may be open to abuse in some of our remote communities?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I do not think it will be open to abuse in our remote communities. That is something that we are going to have to work with. Mr Chairman, I believe I have answered this. Can we move on?
Ms CARTER: With regards to clause 35 and the warrant to take a person in for assessment, we have already established the minister and I are never going to agree on this. The fact is clause 35(1)(a) is another illustration of how the sniffing of a substance which is not illegal, and the sniffing as an act is not illegal, but a person can, however, be forced to be assessed. We will settle on that yet again, that the minister and I are not going to agree on that particular issue.
Going to clause 35(2), the magistrate may issue a warrant to the authorised officer if the magistrate is satisfied that things have been done that are approved and all other grounds for the application are established. Could the minister give any detail as to what sort of other grounds, which would not be the mental health, the physiology, etcetera, would exist that need to be established in order for a warrant to be granted?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Well, the risk of harm.
Ms CARTER: Okay. On the same issue, with regards to the granting of warrants, is there any method for a person to appeal in an effort to try and prevent this action happening to them? Is there anywhere they can go to appeal?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: The magistrate may issue the warrant and they can appeal after that.
Ms CARTER: Who would they appeal to?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: To the court.
Ms CARTER: Continuing on clause 35, what if the police were to take a sniffer to a clinic for assessment and the sniffer refuses to stay and keeps walking out? Can the person be forced to stay there while the assessment is being done?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: As the clause says, they are to remain there. If you look at clause 35(4), the warrant stays in place for 30 days, and clause 35(5), in executing the warrant, the authorised officer may use reasonable force or assistance, and must produce the warrant to a person at the place where the warrant is executed.
Ms CARTER: You were referring then to clause 35(3)(d)?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Yes.
Ms CARTER: No, you were at clause 35(4). My point, Mr Chairman, is that it appears from the legislation we are dealing with a warrant to take the person for assessment, so it is the ‘taking’. Does that allow for the person then to be held for the assessment, which might take an hour or so to do, or does it not?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Yes.
Clause 35 agreed to.
______________________
The committee suspended.
______________________
The committee suspended.
______________________
Mr CHAIRMAN: We will resume the committee stage of the Volatile Substance Abuse Protection Bill 2004.
Clauses 36 to 38, by leave, taken together:
Mr ELFERINK: In relation to clause 36(1), what is the time between a person being taken into custody and such an application being made? In relation to clause 36 …
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I am applying to the court for an order that the person at risk named in the application must participate in a treatment program. One would want to think that once that has come to my notice and I have been asked to apply for this, I would try to do it ASAP without any delay.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chairman, can the minister advise how long she would expect between a person being taken into custody by her department and her being advised would be? What the sort of time delay would she expect?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: May I say to the member for Macdonnell that being in custody is not a requisite for treatment. They are two separate things.
Mr ELFERINK: I am a little confused by that response. A person is taken into custody and an application is made for a treatment order, they may occur separately, but they may also occur together. I would like to know how much time a person may potentially spend in custody before an application is made.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: On applying for an order?
Mr ELFERINK: An application for a treatment order; that is the application. I am a little confused by the minister’s response. A warrant to take a person in for assessment is how clause 35 works, so the person is going to be assessed and the assessment is done by the department, I take it.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Because you keep talking about custody, I am not sure where you are coming from. Custody is covered by the protective custody provisions, and they have specific time frames that are not relevant here. What are you trying to say?
Mr ELFERINK: I am trying to figure out how this assessment - you are introducing a whole new …
Ms SCRYMGOUR: You are talking about custody as if someone is in custody, and that is what I said. Being in custody and being assessed are two different things.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes. You just talked about a warrant to take a person for assessment. That is custody. You arrest that person and take them into custody so that they can be assessed. Is that how a warrant works?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: We did this in clause 35, which is about warrants. We are on Division 3 and talking about treatment orders. It does not mean that you are talking two of the same. We are now Division 3, treatment orders, so stick to those clauses. You are saying that someone in custody would automatically get treatment. That is not the case.
Mr ELFERINK: All right, fine. So you are saying that a person under clause 35, which we have already discussed, can be taken into custody for the purpose of an assessment. You are saying that the operation of the treatment order is entirely different so that at any time, the minister, on the advice of the department, can make an application for a treatment order. Yes?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Once the person is assessed, okay? We do the assessment and the person has been assessed. I can then apply to the court for a treatment order for that person on whom we have just done the assessment. The person is held - only held - under the warrant for the purpose of the assessment and not until the matter goes to court.
Mr ELFERINK: Okay, so the way I understand your legislation working now is that you get a warrant to take a person in for an assessment, the assessment is complete, you then let that person go, and then you make an application for a treatment order. Is that correct?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Yes.
Mr ELFERINK: Okay. Minister, how does that protect a petrol sniffer?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: It provides a lot of protection for petrol sniffers, member for Macdonnell. What did you do in all the time that you were on this side of the House in government? No, no! Do not sit there and frown. What did you do?
We are not going to have a perfect system here, and we are not pretending that we have a perfect system, but what we have is a framework that we are going to build on. At least we, on this side, have put together the legislative framework that needs to be now implemented. We have put the $10m in the services and treatment that this issue needs to have, so there are things that have been happening.
You get up there, all holier than thou, as though what you had in place was a perfect system, and that you had the commitment to deal with this scourge. I am not saying that we have all the answers and that what we have is going to be right the first time. It may not be right, but we need to have these things implemented and then we will have a look. We may need to finetune in six to 12 months, and look at the workability of this legislation.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chairman, just a closing comment. This is the minister’s legislation; it is not my legislation. What has happened is that the minister has said: ‘We have a system we are going to put into place’. That involves taking people into custody. It then involves releasing the person back into the community whilst the minister goes and seeks an order. That means the relevant person will then be at liberty to continue engaging in self-harm or, if that is that person is not at liberty, that person must be in custody of some sort. That may not necessarily be locked up in a cell, but it is a deprivation of their liberty in one fashion or another, which is other than a normal liberty that people enjoy. Consequently, the minister is suggesting that we apprehend, then release, and then, I imagine with a treatment order, re-apprehend.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Like all these things, inevitably there is going to be some delay between the assessment and the decision-making regarding treatment and access to that treatment. We want, at all costs, to make sure that that time frame is as short as practicable. It is in everyone’s interest to make sure that we cut out as much bureaucratic delay as we can, and that these time frames are met.
Mr ELFERINK: In relation to the operation of clause 38, I notice that any of the following persons may attend a hearing for the application: the person at risk, any other person given notice of the application, any member of the family of the person at risk. Then it says:
- (3) If the applicant is required by section 37 to give notice to a responsible adult and is unable to find such
a person, the Court may hear the application in the absence of a responsible adult ...
Is there any provision here for legal representation?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: In a court hearing, the person at risk may want legal representation. If you go to court, you go and get a legal representative.
Mr ELFERINK: This is interesting because the function of the system that applies here is that there is a section that says that the application may be heard in the absence of the applicant if the applicant is represented at the hearing. Therefore, it is either the person themselves who has to be there, or some sort of representative. Why have we not put into (2) a legal representative, just to be sure?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: That is one of the reasons for the notification in clause 37(1).
Ms CARTER: With regard to clause 36, it says:
- (1) The Minister may apply to the Court …
And I assume that is the Magistrates Court:
- … for an order that the person at risk … must participate in treatment.
How do you make a person participate in a treatment program? Does it mean, for example, that an authorised officer has to accompany them throughout the treatment if they do not want to participate? It says ‘must participate’, not ‘attend’ but actually participate in it.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: In terms of compulsory treatment and where we cannot order people to go into court-mandated treatments; if it is a court-mandated treatment, of course you can get them to go into treatment.
The CLP, with the Liquor Act, had a provision under that act and you called it prohibition orders, but it became too hard because the one thing that needs to happen is the enforcement. When the CLP was in government, that was one of the things that they did not want to do: put the resources towards enforcing and making sure that those things happened. This is not anything new. This was taken from what I believe is quite a good clause, which was legislation developed under the CLP government.
Ms CARTER: With regard to participation, do you believe that this legislation can really force someone to participate in a program? How do you actually do that? For example, say you are in a focus group or some sort of group work, how do you make a person participate as opposed to just sit there?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I will just answer this, and then that is it; I am going to move on. The Volatile Substance Abuse Bill is not about turning sniffers into criminals. We have already had that determined and said that we will always agree to disagree about that. It is also not about locking kids up; it is about banning petrol sniffing, and giving police and the community the power to stop sniffing when it is occurring.
It provides a legal framework for current community and family practice. It builds on community sanctions against use and allows communities to use the legislation to stop the harm that sniffing causes. This is the type of support that communities want, not laws that punish or lock people up; most often young people.
The emphasis of this bill is on prevention and early intervention, and police will have the power to remove petrol or paint containers and take the young person to a place of safety. This type of immediate intervention will have far greater and longer term benefits than criminal sanctions.
The legislation allows for courts, at the request of families and communities, to require that people who are serious or chronic users to be compelled to participate in a treatment program. It is this coercion from family and community leaders and the evolution of formal court processes that will ensure compliance.
Clauses 36 to 38 agreed to.
Clause 39:
Ms CARTER: Clause 39 is about the jurisdiction and procedure of the court. Where is this court? Is it located in one of our main centres, or is it a travelling court that goes out to communities? If it is, could it be some months before a person actually appears before that court?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Whether it is a court in any of our centres, member for Port Darwin, we have a very good bush court circuit that goes quite regularly through a lot of our bush communities. We are building on what is already in place and making sure that happens.
Ms CARTER: Minister, given your answer there, could you envisage a situation where it might be, for example, three or four weeks between the concept of a treatment plan being developed, having a client who is reluctant to participate, and the need to get a court order? Could it be, for example, three weeks between the need for a treatment being identified and obtaining a court order?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: It could probably take three weeks, member for Port Darwin. A lot of this is about case management, getting the individual and sitting down to develop a proper case management plan for that individual.
Ms CARTER: Clause 39(3) says that the court is not bound by the rules of the court or the rules of evidence. Why is that?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: As I understand it, it is to allow the court to act more informally. Where you have the bush circuit and those issues had to go before that bush court, it would allow flexibility.
Mr ELFERINK: Just very quickly: clause 37 again, which is the …
Mr CHAIRMAN: We have moved on. We are on clause 39.
Clause 39 agreed to.
Clause 40 agreed to
Clause 41:
Ms CARNEY: Minister, you will be aware that during the second reading debate, I raised a number of issues so these questions certainly will not come as a surprise to you. In relation to clause 41(3)(c), it says that a warrant must authorise the authorised officer:
- to remain at the place for as long as the officer considers reasonably necessary to find the person at risk ...
Could you answer these questions? I assume that under clause 66, the authorised officer will be employed by the Department of Health. Do I take it then that the person has the ability to stay at a place for an indefinite period of time? If so, do you have any ideas as to limiting the period of time they might stay at a particular place whilst they are trying to find a person at risk?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: As I said before, member for Araluen, when we were getting down into the semantics of this, a bit of common sense should prevail here. Unless you are willing to allow your common sense to look at some of this and see what the intent is, I have answered it before.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, minister. When dealing with bills that affect the people of the Northern Territory, it is prudent for us all to get down to semantics. It is all about statutory drafting and interpretation, so I note your comments, but I disagree with them.
Would you be supportive of, say, an authorised officer staying at a community for a month? Is that reasonable? Would you envisage issuing any directives or protocols for the employees?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I am not even going to answer that.
Ms CARNEY: Is that a refusal to answer that question, minister? Yes, it is.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I have answered it.
Ms Martin: You are not in court.
Dr Toyne: It is so silly it does not deserve an answer.
Ms CARNEY: You can all join in, everyone. You can murmur away, but if you have something to constructive to put, why don’t you get to your feet, you cowards?
Mr CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
Members interjecting.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
Ms CARNEY: Minister, in relation to the authorised officer, them being an employee, their role is determined by clause 66 and, obviously, we will come to that later. Will you be advertising those positions for authorised officers or do you envisage just appointing them?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: They will be appointed, member for Araluen. Can I just pick up on what you were saying before with regards to the person remaining in place for as long as the officer considers necessary to find the person. You asked whether this person could just stay there for months collecting travel allowance. Basically, what I believe you are trying to ask me is whether I think public servants abuse the system, and my answer is no. I think that public servants will carry out their duties ethically and appropriately, as they do now.
Ms CARNEY: Hear, hear, minister! Minister, in relation to clause 41(6), it says:
- Any person assisting the authorised officer to execute the warrant may also use reasonable force in doing so.
We talked about this earlier and you said that really anyone could assist the authorised person to use reasonable force. Do you envisage an authorised officer, for the purposes of clause 41, delegating his or her powers?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: No, and I answered this before.
Ms CARNEY: Minister, you will be aware that an authorised person under clause 66 is issued with an identity card and so on. In relation to anyone who assists an authorised officer, might it be prudent for them to be issued with an identity card and comply with the same requirements as an authorised officer needs to comply with so that a person who is on the other end - that is a sniffer - can be assured that any person assisting an authorised officer carrying out the functions under clause 41 is a person of authority with some sort of imprimatur from you as minister to act in that role?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Again, your common sense went out the window when you went out, member for Araluen. When I answered before, I said that the authorised officer, being a police officer, and the person assisting would be a health worker or a nurse. That has already been discussed and we should move on.
Ms CARTER: Mr Chairman, with regards to clause 41(6), we are talking about a person assisting the authorised officer and it deals with the use of reasonable force. We have not established a definition of the person assisting. It may well be, for example, someone’s husband, so it might be that a registered nurse becomes the authorised officer and she or he gets called out late at night to deal with an issue and his or her spouse, then assists as the person assisting. If you turn to clause 68, it deals with protection from liability and lists the people who are protected. It does not mention a person assisting. I wonder what sort of problems with regards to liability someone who is assisting but who is not a member of the public service could encounter.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Under clause 68, member for Port Darwin, they are protected. If you are going to have a husband and wife team in a community dealing with this issue, both, I assume, would be authorised persons and they would be covered under this legislation. Clauses 68(2) and (3) certainly cover the person assisting the authorised officer to carry out that work.
Ms CARTER: With all due respect, minister, clause 68(1), on my reading of it, applies to a person who is or has been an employee, an authorised officer or an authorised person. It does not deal with anyone else. Subsection (2) deals with ‘the person’ detailed in (1). Someone who becomes an assisting person, a person assisting as mentioned in clause 41(6), unless they are a public servant or have been duly authorised in those areas may find themselves in legal trouble.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I have checked it, but I will seek more advice on that, member for Port Darwin. We will move on and I will get back to you.
Clause 41 agreed to.
Clause 42 agreed to.
Clause 43:
Ms CARTER: Minister, I am asking this question solely because I do not understand clause 43. For Hansard and clarity of legislation, because I suspect I would not be the only person in the Territory in this position, clause 43 is headed:
- Declaration that area must not be management area.
Could the minister provide any detail as to what that actually means?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I will have that checked, member for Port Darwin.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Minister, would you like us to wait or do you want to move on?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: No, we have it. In relation to clause 43, that would be like the CBD of Darwin, for instance.
Clause 43 agreed to.
Clause 44 agreed to.
Clause 45:
Ms CARTER: Clause 45 deals with the meeting that must be held about a proposed management area, and clause45(1)(a) stipulates that the minister must:
- … inform the residents of the area of land described in the application, and other interested persons ...
How would you do that, given that, in many instance, we are talking about a remote Aboriginal community?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: We would have a meeting with them.
Ms CARTER: For the record, I assume, with regard to clause 45(2), it may well be that the role of the minister has actually been delegated to a member of the department.
Clause 45 agreed to.
Clauses 46 to 48, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 49:
Ms CARTER: For the record, would you be able to provide any detail as to when the regulations would be able to provide the detail outlined in clause 49(3) with regards to the form of management plans that are detailed there?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: We have talked a lot about regulations and time frames. When the other regulations are done, these will be done as part of them.
Clause 49 agreed to.
Clauses 50 to 65:
Mr ELFERINK: Hang on! Sorry, was that 51 and 52? There is an issue I wanted to raise.
Mr CHAIRMAN: It has been and gone.
Mr ELFERINK: There is an issue I wanted to raise. I apologise for that. May I raise it or not? It was 52 and 53, specifically two very short, simple questions.
Mr CHAIRMAN: If you keep it short.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes. Clause 52.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: No, we have passed that.
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Mr Chairman! The committee stage of debate follows an established precedent of moving through clause by clause. If the member for Macdonnell cannot follow the course of the debate, that is his issue. I am sure that if he seeks further clarification, if he contacts the minister’s office, that clarification will be provided. However, we are now on clause 66 and I urge you, as committee Chair, to continue with the passage of the bill.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chairman, I am guilty of an evil crime; I missed the jump when I misunderstood what clauses we were up to. They are very straightforward questions and I understand the minister is anxious to get this through, but they will take a couple of seconds to answer.
Mr CHAIRMAN: I will allow it, but I will not allow any further deviation. Is it 52 and 53?
Mr ELFERINK: Clauses 52 and 53. Can you advise whether clauses 52 and 53 are regulatory offences or simple offences?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: They are part of the bill so they …
Mr ELFERINK: No, no, no. That is not how it works. As I said in my second reading debate in which I signalled I was going to bring this issue up, all I need to know is whether they are going to be dealt with by the courts as regulatory offences or as simple offences or crimes?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: No.
Mr ELFERINK: You have not got a …
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I did; I said no.
Mr CHAIRMAN: We will move on.
Clauses 50 to 65 agreed to.
Clause 66:
Ms CARNEY: Minister, I appreciate that we have traversed issues regarding an authorised officer and, indeed, an authorised person, in the last couple of hours. However, I would like to ask another couple of questions in relation to it based on the concerns that have emerged as a result of your answers.
I note that clause 66(2) provides for you to issue to each authorised officer an identity card, which is a good idea. On that identity card will include a photograph and signature of the officer, a statement of the powers the officer is authorised to exercise and any other information prescribed by the regulations.
Minister, given that you intend to be quite particular in providing the authorised officer with the statement of the powers he or she is authorised to exercise, why is it that you have been so relaxed, for want of a better description, in relation to anyone else who may assist an authorised officer?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: It is the person assisting, member for Araluen. It is not being relaxed about the whole thing; we take this quite seriously. It is someone assisting in a one-off situation.
Ms CARNEY: You would concede, minister, that a one-off situation actually can be a situation where the person assists in using reasonable force. Are you not concerned at all about someone other than an authorised officer perhaps overstepping the mark or, in the alternative, a person not having had the sort of training that may be envisaged for an authorised officer?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: There has been a lot of consultation in relation to this bill and, particularly, in relation to that. As I said, I am aware of the issues that have been raised by sections of the community in Alice Springs. Alice Springs is about the only place where this issue has come up. There has been a lot of consultation with those people and those services. We hope with the regulations, guidelines and other things that are put in place that we will avoid scenarios and hypotheticals to which you are alluding. Sometimes there are situations that you cannot avoid; certain things will happen. Authorised officers will be police officers, nurses or others, so a bit of common sense will tell these people who they will go and get to assist them if they have to use reasonable force to apprehend a sniffer.
Ms CARNEY: Minister, you have said on a couple of occasions now that an authorised officer can be a police officer, which is clearly the case; and the other example you have given is that it could be a nurse. You would concede, would you not, that an authorised officer could be anyone who is appointed pursuant to clause 66? Are you not troubled by the fact that no guidelines are yet in place that would assist even an authorised officer - putting to one side anyone who could assist the authorised officer? Are you not concerned about not having guidelines in place? I ask that because it would be no doubt of assistance to an authorised officer and it would also assist people that the authorised officer is dealing with.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I am not troubled because we are developing those guidelines and regulations.
Ms CARNEY: Minister, you referred to people in Alice Springs raising concerns. You would be aware of the concerns expressed by Blair McFarland. I will quote from an interview he did on 17 December last year on ABC in Alice Springs. He said this:
- The bill is not enacted yet, but the problem with becoming an authorised person is that unless they use very strict
criteria, it is going to mean that people without appropriate training are using force against children.
You spoke to Blair McFarland, I gather, since that interview? What advice did you give him to reassure him about his concerns? It is not just me raising these concerns, obviously. What advice did you give him in relation to his concerns?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I have not spoken to him since that interview, but I have talked to him in relation to the intent of this bill. He has been quite supportive of this bill and its intentions. We have gone through enough; I have provided the explanation for authorised officers. You are not happy with that. We can keep going backwards and forwards on this …
Ms CARNEY: I have two more questions in relation to clause 66. I asked earlier whether you would advertise the positions of authorised officers, given that they are going to be employees …
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I have answered that; I said that they would be appointed.
Ms CARNEY: Sorry, you have misunderstood. I asked whether you were going to advertise; you said that you would appoint them. Why do you prefer them to be appointed, and why will you not advertise those positions, given that they are going to be people employed by the Health department?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: They could be currently employed. If we are looking at remote Aboriginal communities, once we consult with those communities, they are going to be in a better position to be able to tell us. Once we have gone through those people and they meet the criteria, then they will be appointed into those positions.
Ms CARNEY: That is the criteria that does not exist yet, I take it, minister?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I am finished.
Ms CARNEY: I note that you decline to answer. In relation to clause 66(3), it says as soon as reasonably practicable after a person ceases to be an authorised officer, the person must return the identity card to the minister. How does a person cease to be an authorised officer?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: They could find another job, or they could die, or they could move away, and if they move away and relocate somewhere else, they cease to be an officer.
Ms CARNEY: So, minister, do I take it from your answer that the only way someone does cease to be an authorised officer is if they die, relocate, move away …
Members interjecting.
Ms CARNEY: Members of this Chamber obviously do not take scrutiny of legislation seriously, as we do.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Order!
Members interjecting.
Ms CARNEY: Given that there is no criteria, given that these jobs will not be advertised, people will receive money for them, which I assume probably will include motor vehicles - the word Toyota rings in my ear - travel allowance, a salary. Given that you, minister, are going to appoint these people, I ask: is there any other circumstance in which a person could cease to be an authorised officer? Yes or no.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: They are already employed. If new positions are created, of course we will advertise. Power to appoint also includes power to repeal this appointment. Also, appointment may be time-limited or dependent on them being an employee.
Ms CARNEY: Sorry, could you repeat the first part of your answer, the reference to advertising? I could not quite hear it.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I spoke loud enough, member for Araluen. You are being pedantic with a lot of this. I said, and if you can open your ears and listen …
Ms CARNEY: Well, you can open your bloody mouth, woman! Speak louder!
Members interjecting.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Order!
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I refuse to answer it. Move on, Mr Chairman. I am finished.
Clause 66 agreed to.
Clause 67 agreed to.
Remainder of bill taken together:
Ms CARNEY: I have a question in relation to clause 68. You obviously have an aversion to answering questions. However, we will proceed, it being our right when scrutinising your legislation that you so obviously know so little about.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Order, member for Araluen!
Ms CARNEY: In relation to clause 68, minister, can you tell us why it is that you afforded protection from liability for the people of the positions outlined in clause 68(1)?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: In a previous question that the member for Port Darwin put to me in relation to this, I said that I would provide the information on this and forward it to her, and I will do so.
Ms CARNEY: Minister, this is your bill. You introduced it in December. You now seek to pass it, and yet by your answer, you are saying you do not know why it is that you afforded protection from liability for the people described in clause 68(1). Minister, would you like to reconsider your answer?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: This is a standard provision in all legislation where appropriate.
Ms CARNEY: The minister said it is a standard provision so, whilst she said to the member for Port Darwin when she raised it that she would get back to her, when I asked her, she said she would get back to us.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Yes.
Ms CARNEY: After receiving advice, she has finally realised why it is that in her bill she has included a clause like clause 68. Minister, since you have now apparently been advised why it is that you did include this clause, why is it that you afford protection from liability for the people described therein, yet there is no protection from liability for anyone else assisting an authorised officer?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I did answer it before when I said that this was a standard provision. In relation to what I said to the member for Port Darwin, because there is more detail that is involved with the person assisting, I undertook to get that that detail to the member for Port Darwin, which she agreed to.
Ms CARNEY: Minister, can you tell us why it is that you have not provided any protection from liability for other people who may go to the assistance of authorised officers? Can you explain the logic for that decision?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: In terms of someone assisting, we cannot identify those people. We do not know who those people are. That is about all I am answering, Mr Chairman.
Remainder of bill agreed to.
Bill to be reported with amendments.
Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (Serial 271):
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill to be reported without amendment.
Bills reported; report adopted.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Family and Community Services): Madam Speaker, I move that the bills be now read a third time.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, we said at the outset that we would not oppose this legislation, and we will not. However, what has emerged from the minister’s very ordinary answers is that she really does not know very much about this. We have seen it in the parliament before. I thought the minister might know more about this than she revealed. In the relatively short time I have left, I am happy to go through about how little she knew. I am disappointed about how little she knew.
Members interjecting.
Ms CARNEY: Well, they can scream abuse all they like - whatever. This is a minister who issued a media release in October saying ‘We are going to do this and we are going to do that’. Then in December, they introduced a bill. This minister indicated to Territorians that: (a) she knew what the bill was about; and (b) that it was actually going to achieve some outcomes in relation to petrol sniffing and sniffing of other substances. What she has so clearly and embarrassingly demonstrated tonight is that either she never understood it or she looked at it some months ago and has not looked at it since.
Let us look at some of the things the minister had no idea about. She had no idea about when the act would commence - pretty incredible. She thinks it will be some time this year, so it will be some time, she thinks, between now and the next seven months. Given the speed with which she issued the media release in October 2004, I would have thought that she would be well versed on when this bill would become law, and yet it seems to be falling into an abyss. She does not know. She could not even give us an indication, except that it would come in at some point this year.
Despite what she said in her second reading speech in December - and I will remind people what it was she said:
- The practical implementation and the mechanics of the proposed legislation, such as guidelines for authorised
persons and police procedures, will need to be considered.
I had an expectation, and I am sure I am not the only one, that the minister might have given those matters consideration before pressing the bill to be passed today. It is clear from her answers that she has not given them any consideration.
Let us go on to see what else she did not know about. She had no idea about the type of training that an authorised person might undertake. She said she did not have the specifics on the type of training, that the department would identify it and they would be working with the police and so on. The minister who sponsors this bill said: ‘I have no idea of the specifics of the type of training’.
Then, to make matters worse, after she was pushed on several occasions, she ultimately said there would need to be some level of competencies that would need to be proved. She did not seem to know what they were. She said something about some people knowing something about first aid which, whilst it may assist some, demonstrates that she really does not understand what an authorised person will be charged with doing under this legislation.
To make matters worse, she was clearly confused about the difference between an authorised person and an authorised officer. The former has their responsibilities outlined in clause 60 and the latter’s responsibility are outlined in clause 66, a fairly fundamental difference; different definitions and slightly different roles. The minister threw them both together and assumed that the answers she provided in relation to an authorised person were the same as those that could be applied for an authorised officer. No, minister, that is not the case.
The minister had no idea whether an authorised officer may need to be trained, in the sense that the person would make an application to magistrates for warrants. Again, when pushed, she said: ‘Oh, yes, they might need some sort of training to assist in making applications’. Further, she did not know whether such people might need to engage lawyers to appear for them in court. Again, after being pushed, she conceded that might be the case. She had no idea as to the costs that might be incurred by the retention of lawyers for that purpose, a fairly extraordinary lack of knowledge, I would have thought, given that, no doubt, the media release is all lined up for tomorrow that will be sent around the Northern Territory saying how wonderful the minister was and what a great job she did. Well, she did not.
Dr Toyne: Something’s finally being done about a problem after a quarter of a century.
Ms CARNEY: She knew embarrassingly little about her own legislation.
Mr Henderson: A minister. Show some respect.
Ms CARNEY: Then, of course, we saw the members for Wanguri and Stuart trying their bit to protect and help her, but the minister is fairly exposed in this case, and I believe we showed the extent of her lack of knowledge. I expected more.
Ms Lawrie: You are in fantasy land.
Ms Martin: What is the word for picking on women? Misogyny?
Ms CARNEY: I know that she has a personal commitment to this issue and, yet, as a minister of the Crown - and that is what she is, Madam Speaker, a minister of the Crown - who sponsors legislation, she comes in here and just wants us to say: ‘Yes, no problem, we will concede to every point you raise …
Ms Scrymgour: I did not expect you to. Not you! Not you, poison drop!
Ms CARNEY: Well, Madam Speaker, members of the Northern Territory Branch of the Australian Labor Party may not take legislation or the scrutiny of it very seriously, but I do. We are parliamentarians; we make law. It is a solemn duty that we have. I am sure it would have been pleasing to members on the other side if we on this side had just stood back and said: ‘Yes, we agree’, but we do not agree.
Every question was reasonable, and the way in which you and the boys came in and tried to huddle together and tried to protect her clearly demonstrated that even they knew how deficient she was in her knowledge of her own legislation. Tonight we have seen one of the worst performances of a minister of the Crown that I have seen since I was elected in 2001.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Members interjecting.
Ms CARNEY: It was absolutely abysmal. In fact, when I raised the point of Aboriginal men undertaking searches of the person against Aboriginal women, she seemed even shocked that that might be an issue. An indigenous woman herself, proud to be – good on her! – but she is a minister of the Crown first and foremost and it is abundantly obvious that she did not even consider what consequences may occur from an authorised person undertaking a search of another person. A more intimate exchange between – well, there are more intimate exchanges between two people, but to search another is pretty darn intimate. Yet the minister seemed unconcerned by the concerns that we raised in relation to it, particularly in having regard to Aboriginal people and the difference between Aboriginal men and women.
So that is just one example. There are others. She seemed apparently unconcerned that anyone would be able to assist an authorised officer to use reasonable force, a rather cavalier approach to that, I would have thought. In the words of Arnie Schwarzenegger: ‘We’ll be back’. We will be back because they will need to amend this. It will be implemented and it will go on for a while and eventually even the people on the other side will say: ‘Oops! We will need to change some things’. When the Northern Territory is on the end of legal proceedings, people accusing others of using unreasonable force, people assisting authorised officers and not being afforded the same protection from liability as those outlined in clause 68, the government will be on the receiving end of some statements of claim, I would have thought. Perhaps then this government will realise, if it is in at that stage, that parts of this are deficient.
The minister gave an incredible response to: ‘What happens to an authorised officer, how do they cease to be an authorised officer?’. ‘They die or move away’. I would have thought perhaps an answer might be if someone uses an unreasonable amount of force, that might create a situation where their role is taken away or they are no longer authorised officers. It did not even occur to the minister.
Madam Speaker, it is a sad ending to the petrol sniffing debate. I know the minister has been crook, but I really wish she had done better. She will be judged on this legislation and be it on her head. I say again: we will be back.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Just cease, thank you. Member for Macdonnell, before we go on, would you please stick to the motion, which is the third reading of the bill.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Yes, Madam Speaker, I appreciate that. I am going to deal with it fairly briefly. I realise that it is painful for members of government to be held accountable in a place like this, but that is the process here.
Bearing in mind that the government has made the call several times about ‘What have you guys done?’, we introduced a bill about 12 months ago to make it an offence to sniff petrol. That would have meant that a person would have been arrested and brought before the court and the court would determine, through the normal sentencing processes which included the ability to make court orders, as to that person’s behaviour and how that person conducted themselves.
Under the kinder, softer, non-charging legislation, a person may be arrested three times for the same thing through the process that has been outlined here. That person may be arrested with reasonable force on each occasion. On two of those occasions for the purposes of executing a warrant, reasonable force may be used, which may mean breaking open doors and those sorts of things. That is what happens when you execute warrants; doors are broken into and jimmied open and those sorts of the things. Reasonable force is then applied three times on this person so that they may be brought into custody and then into custody again for the purpose of an assessment, and then into custody again for the purpose of treatment. So, the kinder and softer process that has been outlined by this legislation is quite straightforward and quite simple. The kinder and softer process is: we will arrest you three times and take you into custody using such force as necessary to obtain the same result.
Whilst we play politics with this issue and the House defeated the opposition’s bill some 12 months ago, if memory serves me correctly, we have allowed petrol sniffing to go on. Now we have a kinder and softer process which involves multiple arrests and apprehensions and, consequently, from the petrol sniffer’s point of view, I do not think it makes one jot of difference whether the court gives them a criminal conviction or not. I can tell you: if you are sticking inhalants up your nose, the least of your worries is whether you have been convicted of a minor summary offence. What you are going to know is that the man in the khaki uniform or the person with the little badge is the person who takes you into custody and puts you in front of the court and takes your liberty away. That is all you know or care about from that perspective.
Therefore, the liberty of these people will be taken away on a multitude of occasions under this kinder and softer bill. I agree with the shadow minister that because of some of the shortcomings in this bill, (1) the courts will be critical of it, and (2), we will be back in here before too long trying to iron out some of the problems.
Motion agreed to; bills read a third time.
ADJOURNMENT
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
It is with great sadness that I draw the attention of the House to the death of Sara Henderson. Sara was a Territorian of remarkable strength of character who, from the depths of despair, rose to enjoy high public esteem. She was the Territory’s most prominent female pastoralist and author, writing six best-selling books.
Sara died of breast cancer last Friday in a palliative care ward at Caloundra on Queensland’s Sunshine Coast. She was only 68.
Sara was born Sara Grew in Sydney and, when she was 19, was involved in a terrible car crash that nearly cost the use of a leg, ending a prospective tennis career. At 23, she met the man who was to be her husband, an American, Charles English Henderson III. They were married in Hong Kong where he operated a shipping business. They later had three daughters: Marlee, Bonnie and Danielle.
After a few years, the shipping business collapsed so, in 1965, the Henderson family moved to the Northern Territory where Charlie had purchased a cattle station some years earlier. Bullo River Station was a wild, remote area station covering an area the size of Sydney, and 800 km from Darwin by an appallingly rough road.
The family’s first years there were trying. Sara spent much of her time in the saddle, regularly droving cattle 80 km to where they could be loaded onto road trains. After years of toil at Bullo River, in 1986, her husband Charlie died of lung disease, leaving Sara with a virtual mountain of debt, amounting to over $0.75m.
Rather than sell up and leave Bullo River, Sara’s response was to fight back, playing the stock market to keep the station solvent. In the next 12 months, Bullo River made $114 000 through trading shares, and nearly as much the second year. It was a remarkable run of luck. Even luckier was her decision to sell her shares just a month before the stock market crashed in 1987.
In 1991, Sara Henderson was named the Qantas Bulletin Business Woman of the Year and chronicled her life up to that point in her autobiography, From Strength to Strength. She was seen as the quintessential Aussie battler who refused to quit, even under the most adverse conditions. The book became a best seller and propelled Sara into the public limelight, placing her in great demand as a celebrity speaker. I remember I was one of those journalists who interviewed Sara Henderson about that amazing book, From Strength to Strength.
That book led Sara to write five others, all of which became best sellers. They detailed life at Bullo River and the continuing dramas inside the Henderson family. Her creditability was recognised by the Cancer Council of Australia when they asked Sara to be the face of the National Breast Cancer Awareness campaign. As a result of the ensuing advertising campaign, the number of women over 50 having mammograms tripled.
Sara summed up the Henderson credo in her book The Strength in Us All. She wrote:
- All the strength you need to achieve anything is within you. Don’t wait for the light to appear at the end of the
tunnel, stride down there and light the bloody thing yourself!
We have a number of excellent retailers in the Fannie Bay electorate, and tonight I want to talk about one highly regarded business, which this year is celebrating its 50th anniversary.
Jackson’s Art Supplies was founded on 1 January 1955 by the late Harry Jackson. With outlets in Perth and Subiaco in Western Australia as well as the Northern Territory, it remains a solely family-owned business that is now run by Harry’s son, Kevin.
Jackson’s was initially situated in the industrial area of Winnellie, until the shop moved to Parap Village 15 years ago. Manager, Ingrid Gersmanis and her staff Sue Denton, Bryan Bulley, Kate Fernyhough and Cecily Wills, provide a terrific service to a wide range of clients. The clientele of Jackson’s include well-known artists such as Jeff Todd, Rob Brown and Noel Foley. Other important customers include art students from local schools and from Charles Darwin University, and other local artists and craftspeople such as quilters and calligraphers.
I congratulate Jackson’s on their 50 years and wish them our very best for the next 50.
It is always a pleasure to be involved with the opening and launch of a quality product. Direct Air certainly qualifies as a class act, and it can only be good for Darwin and the Northern Territory to be attracting businesses that maintain the highest levels of service, comfort and safety to the Territory.
Direct Air’s entry into the Darwin and Alice Springs air charter business displays a strong conviction that the Territory economy is expanding. I had the pleasure of opening the company’s Darwin facility on 31 March. This facility complements Direct Air’s Alice Springs office, which has been operating successfully since November 2003. Congratulations to Vas Nikolovski, who is the Managing Director, and Gray Smithe, Marketing Manager, and their team. I wish them every success. It was great to see many people from local business and the community on hand to welcome Direct Air to Darwin.
Some of those attending were Shellie Morris, local musician, Alana Young and Nikki Smith from Tourism Top End, Maree Tetlow and Brent Campbell from the Tourist Commission, Graham Poon and Clalia Mar from the Chamber of Commerce, Grant Cracker from Regional and Northern Maintenances, Stephanie Hawkins from ANKAAA, Mildy Raveane from Darwin Airport Resort, Dr Joe Wright from Remote Health, Dave Sampson from DIPE, Jason Stack and Leah Farinola from Seven Spirit Bay Lodge, Julia Guinta and Samantha Eckles from Specialist Outreach Services, Cynthia Thompson from Harvey World Travel, Cindy Clarke from Davidsons Arnhemland Safaris, Joel Couturaud from Darwin Prisons, and Brett Reiss, Bob Calaby, Jon Knight and Viv Rees from Northern Territory Airports.
On 16 March this year, an old friend of mine died after fighting a gallant battle with illness. I am speaking of Ray Shepherd, who many of my colleagues will know because he was always in the Northern Territory Library here in Parliament House. Ray was a tireless researcher into all things aviation. He loved the library, writing and working on his histories of aviation in the Territory and elsewhere.
As the member for Fannie Bay, the electorate with arguably the oldest aviation history in the Territory - in fact, probably nearly the oldest in Australia - I have had a fair bit to do with Ray over the years. I could name a host of projects Ray was involved in, and that is only those in my electorate. For example, Ray provided most of the research material that became the basis of the Conservation and Management Plan for the Old Qantas Hangar: pictures, plans, details; Ray had them all.
Ray was the man behind the move to celebrate the landing of Ross and Keith Smith each December at the memorial at the end of Ross Smith Avenue. This event has grown bigger and bigger and now includes the local schools and community celebrating our history. I missed Ray last year as we all stood together to celebrate this event; he was too sick to be there.
Ray was an amazing man, warm, friendly and the best aviation historian in the Territory. I was away in Alice Springs at the sittings at the time of Ray’s funeral. I wish I could have been there to say goodbye, but it is good to have this opportunity now to remember a terrific bloke. My sincere condolences to Lynn and their children Lisa, Glen and Tracy. Ray was a family man and so proud of his family. It is such a terrible loss that he is gone, but he will always be remembered through his work and collections of aviation history which, fittingly, he left to his beloved Northern Territory Library. Goodbye, Ray; we will certainly miss you.
Next tonight, I want to speak about a terrific exhibition that I opened on 15 April at Gallery Philip Neville in Harriet Place called Purnu. Purnu, the traditional word for coolamon, meaning something to carry people, is also, I believe, a name of one of the locomotives on the Darwin to Alice Springs rail line. It is also the local word used for the train.
Gallery Philip Neville is an initiative and partnership of two long time Territorians: Philip Grice and Neville Pantazis. Purnu features the work of two excellent Tennant Creek artists, Flora Holt and Lindy Brodie. The artists, together with Alan Murn from Julalikari Arts and other members of the community, were in for the exhibition opening.
The exhibition, assembled under the guidance of Manager, Meg Eupene, features acrylic paintings, mainly on the theme of the Alice-Darwin railway. Both Flora and Lindy paid tribute to the excellent work of Ruth Dawson who did some of the first train paintings, while at the same time bringing a fresh point of view to the railway. I recommend those art works to everyone here; they really are terrific, a wonderful celebration of the rail and a lot of detail in those trains that have been painted to celebrate the first time that Tennant Creek had a railway line. It was an occasion of great moment for them. It is a wonderful exhibition and I encourage people and all members to visit it down in Harriet Place.
I know that some of my colleagues went to the terrific production of Guys and Dolls whose season ran over the first couple of weeks of April in Darwin. What a great show it was! Wasn’t the member for Nelson fantastic as Harry the Horse? If you did not see the member for Nelson as Harry the Horse, you missed out on quite a dramatic feat.
Superstar Productions comprises participants from Cavenagh Theatre, the Darwin Chorale, Darwin Entertainment Centre and Darwin Theatre Company in a separate company dedicated to presenting Darwinians with classic musicals. This production was especially wonderful because we saw the return of one of our own, Kris Stewart, the New York-based artistic director whose family has strong ties to Darwin and musical comedy, who returned to direct the staging of Guys and Dolls.
It was a wonderful opportunity for locals to work with a top-class director with international experience, and great for Kris to be able to come back to Darwin where his family has such a strong legacy of theatre.
The performers were enormously talented and I would like to table the names of everyone - cast, crew, sponsors and volunteers - who contributed to making this such a glittering and exciting theatrical experience. In all, over 180 people were involved in Guys and Dolls, a great effort. It was an excellent show, a fantastic night, and I am sure all my colleagues who saw it had a terrific time. Well done, Superstar Productions.
One of the most impressive things about the productions that we have seen coming from Superstar Productions is how the direction has given what our local actors do a much more professional look on stage. The set designs have increased enormously since that first one, which was Jesus Christ Superstar, and it is amazing what getting that kind of professional component into a local show does. Each and every one of those on stage was enormously professional and did things that they probably thought they never could do.
Someone recently was trying to describe to me about the male chorus line, and the fact that they had to sing and dance at the same time. They said when they first started they thought: ‘This is an impossible task. These guys will never do it’. When I saw them on stage, they were terrific. Local people learning and acting beyond the ability they thought they had, and what we had, as a Darwin community, was a fantastic production. Congratulations to everyone.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to have the names of all those involved incorporated in the Parliamentary Record.
Leave granted.
- Director: Kris Stewart. Principals: Martin Gore; Lizzie Moore; Mark Pearce; Beth Martin; Col Goodsell;
Darroch Robinson; Daniel Tolliday-Henderson; Graham Buxton; Gerry Wood; Jenny Scott; Derek Farrell;
John Phillips; Reg Prasad, David Lilliebridge, Sue Little, Annette Gore, Peg Gellert.
The Hot Box Dancers: Geraldine Green, Lisa Boscaini, Maddie Haslett, Natalie Leysley, Ashley-Louise Buba,
Kathy Hillery, Felicity Wannan, Kira Goodsell, Anna Heikkinen, Lucy Buckley and Debbie Savil. The Cuban
Dancers Carl Black and Jennifer Francis.
Ensemble cast: Rohann Chin, Phillip Denson, Greg Mariager, Gavin Alder, Rachel Tolliday-Henderson,
Courtney Hare, Kyra Mulvena, Kate Fegan, Trish Chin, Kate Gore, Bonnie Galea, Jessie Adams, Gabrielle Morris.
The orchestra under Andrew Snell included Penny Reis, Anastasia Coronea, Judy Shultz, Eleanor Blackford,
Barbara Screier, Bronwyn Myers, Chrissie Berryman, David Parry, Mark Bleakley, Bruce Cartwright,
Matthew Sutton, Kylie Fairbrother, David Chin, Wanita Gallagher, Lindsay Mee, Adam McNeil,
Stephen Mee, Serena Wegener, David Miles, Paul Kelly, Lindsay Snell and Larissa Kaye.
Creative team included: Dominie Hooper, Jan Hedenig, Don Hopkins, Karen Maxwell, Elka Kerkhofs,
Sue Camilleri, Margaret Park, Frank Gustafson and Alison Dowell. Mary Fox, Michael Gore, Rachel Fox,
Jon Robins, Des Gellert, Alana Coulton, Tony Mount, Joanna Wells, Margaret Tonkin, Bill Griffiths
and Digby Barrow provided back up and crew.
Further support from: Nora Lewis, Neil Hawkes, Neil McKnight, Reuban Hopkins, Tom Pryce and Peter Twigg.
Also Anita Harris, Richard Fisher, David Hibbert, Linda Brookes and David Taylor and Janine Sutter assisted.
The costumers included: Margarete Park, Edith Freed, Myra Ramsay, Jenny Glencross, Amy Jephcott, Diane Sachs,
Megan Lennis, Pam McLeod, Margaret Byrne, Lorraine Durant, Ros Swenson, Rowena Kalikajaros, Naomi Collier,
Simone Kilian, Suzette Shaw, Carmel Tuohy, Penny McIntyre, Rosemary Hately, Jenny Atkinson, Kellie Nicol,
the Sewing Room and Charles Darwin University Fashion Studies.
Superstar Productions holds a real place in our community and along with the businesses and organisations,
individuals such as Diana Jarvis, Jo Dodd, Peter and Sheila Forrest, Sue Carter, Paul Henderson, Alf Leonardi,
Stanley Chin, Tony Mount, Noelene and Bernie Trinne, Esther Wright, Myrna Presland, Geraldine Green,
Amy Brand, Vanessa Thomas and Phillip McDonald also provided support.
Carlton and United lent support, as did C&R Distributors, Lays Distributors, Tracks Dance Theatre, Swordfish
Secondhand, Darwin Joinery, Business Unusual, ABC radio and television, Hot 100 and Mix 104.9, Top FM,
the NT News, Darwin Palmerston Sun, Fresh, Territory Times, The Australian, Browns Mart, the Northern
Territory Library, Karelka Productions, eprint and Furlanos.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016