2002-06-20
- Madam Speaker Braham took the Chair at 10 am.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise you of the presence in the East Gallery of the delegates to the Indigenous National Women’s Conference. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
PETITION
Fireworks – Use and Sale
Fireworks – Use and Sale
Dr TOYNE (Stuart)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I present a petition, not conforming with standing orders, from 485 petitioners relating to the sale and use of fireworks.
RESPONSES TO PETITIONS
The CLERK: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 100A, I inform honourable members that a response to petition no 13 has been received and circulated to honourable members. The text of the response will be included in the Hansard record.
- Petition No 13
Date petition presented: 28 February 2002
Presented by: Mr Maley
Referred to: Minister for Essential Services
Date response received: 19 June 2002
- Date response presented: 20 June 2002
Response:
- the power poles along Leonino and Reedbeds Roads were designed and installed by the
Commonwealth government around the 1950s when the roads were unformed tracks. The
poles were designed to run along an alignment near the centre of the then 66 foot road reserve;
in the past, the Litchfield Shire Council embarked on a road widening program - increasing
certain road reserves from 66 feet to 30 metres and relocating the poles to a new alignment.
This has, however, resulted in the poles forming a zigzag pattern. To move the remaining poles
is estimated to cost around $1m and the Litchfield Shire Council has asked the Northern Territory
government to fully fund this work;
generally, the poles are in good condition and there is no urgent need to replace them. However,
damaged or structurally unsafe poles resulting from vehicle collisions and any that have reached
the end of their useful life, have been replaced or relocated to their preferred alignment where the
road reserve has been widened;
the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment has examined several alternatives to
minimise costs. The most favoured option includes a two-lane sealed pavement with barriers to
separate the vehicle lanes from the poles;
this means not all of the poles need to be relocated, thus reducing the total cost of the project.
the council has to date rejected this worthwhile alternative. I urge the council to reconsider the
department's offer to provide advice to them regarding concept design and traffic management in
order to minimise the costs and allow the council to fund the works over a number of years;
when the Litchfield Shire Council was first formed, it received a government contribution of $10m
to upgrade/maintain its road network, and has recently received Commonwealth funds from the
Roads to Recovery program.
MINISTERIAL REPORTS
Indigenous Women Leaders
Indigenous Women Leaders
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House, as you have just made reference to, that indigenous women leaders from across Australia and New Zealand are meeting in Darwin today and tomorrow morning in the first meeting of its kind. On behalf of government I would like to extend a warm welcome to the indigenous leaders who are observing this session of parliament.
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms MARTIN: I would particularly like to acknowledge Maori women from New Zealand and the Territory delegates, Pat Anderson, Betty Carter, Linda Turner, Roz Frith and Betty Herbert.
Like women who are here for this gathering from other states, the Territory women are well known as leaders who have worked tirelessly in a range of areas to highlight and advance the needs of indigenous people throughout the Territory. These women are, or have been, involved in governance, in the health arena, in education, in community service, and ensuring that women’s voices are heard and that their needs are met.
This meeting is taking place in conjunction with the Commonwealth, state, territory and New Zealand Ministerial Conference on the Status of Women which the Territory is hosting and I am chairing. I am particularly pleased to be chairing this conference as the Territory’s first female Chief Minister, and at a time when we have seven women in parliament - a record number for this Territory.
The gathering is being facilitated by the only two indigenous women currently elected to parliament in Australia - the Northern Territory’s member for Arafura, Marion Scrymgour, and the member for Kimberley from Western Australia, Carol Martin. I welcome Carol Martin to the Territory and I acknowledge both Marion Scrymgour and Carol Martin as wonderful role models for indigenous women and, indeed, all women across Australia. Both Marion and Carol represent electorates that are large in size and remote from capital city infrastructure and services. Both had to fight to win campaigns in which their gender was used against them. Through their strength and their courage, and with the help of good networks of supporters, Marion and Carol overcame this tactic. I see their victories as milestones on the path towards justice and equity for indigenous women in Australia.
The indigenous women attending the gathering will identify key issues for national attention. Their issues will help to form a planned national action plan for indigenous women. Ministers gathered here for the Ministerial Conference on the Status of Women will meet with these women tomorrow to listen to and discuss their priorities. Indigenous women are keen to make a difference in family and community life and to have more say in what is happening in their communities. I am also pleased to acknowledge the work of the Office of Women’s Policy which has been undertaking consultations across the Territory prior to this gathering and ministerial council meeting.
Over 66 indigenous communities have been visited and indigenous Territorian women have identified their most important concerns. These priorities will be used to inform the national action plan as well as providing my government with information that can be used to ensure indigenous women’s concerns are being acted upon.
I look forward to spending some time with the delegates, to hearing their contributions and getting to know them and their communities better. Once again, a warm welcome to the women involved in the indigenous gathering, and our very best wishes for your deliberations.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I rise in my capacity as the shadow minister for women’s policy. Without hesitation or qualification, I thoroughly endorse the comments made by the Chief Minister. I also welcome all delegates and look forward to meeting them later in the day.
Initiatives for Recreational Fishing
Mr HENDERSON (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Madam Speaker, I rise today to inform the House of some exciting new initiatives for recreational fishing in the Northern Territory.
I also congratulate all involved in the recent World Recreational Fishing Conference that was held in Darwin. The conference was a huge success. Thanks go to the organising committee, AFANT, and particularly its Executive Officer, John Harrison, who put in a huge amount of effort; and also personnel from my department, my Fisheries Division head, Richard Sellars, and Anne Coleman, who again put in a large amount of time, a lot of it her own time, in bringing this conference together.
The Recreational Fishing Conference took place after this year’s world class events, the Barra Nationals and the Barra Classic. The conference covered a wide range of topics. I was particularly pleased to hear, in numerous of the papers delivered at the conference, that the Northern Territory was acknowledged to be at the forefront of recreational fisheries management. One of the outcomes from the conference was the support of our participatory and consultative mechanisms of fisheries management; in particular the involvement of indigenous people through the fisheries consultative committees and the land councils.
Consistent with our budget initiative and following the closure of the McArthur River to commercial barramundi fishing on 1 July this year, the Fisheries group in conjunction with local traditional owners expect to have two marine rangers operating from Borroloola early in the new financial year. A regional recreational fishing code of conduct is being developed for the Borroloola region. My department is coordinating its development along with the traditional owners, AFANT, local residents and the King Ash Bay Fishing Club. The government intends to increase these consultative mechanisms by recognising that there are several stakeholders in the fisheries of the Northern Territory.
I announce today the formation of the NT Fisheries Forum. The NT Fisheries Forum will bring together stakeholders from the fishing community, recreational fishers, commercial fishers, indigenous stakeholders and fishing tour operators. The forum will have representation from fishing regions throughout the Territory. This forum will provide high level advice to me on fisheries issues and provide input for fisheries management advisory committees that will deal with specific operational issues in specific sectors.
The formation of this forum is recognition that our fisheries are there for all Territorians and that all stakeholders should have a say in their management and their future. This forum will be made up of representatives nominated by the stakeholder groups. Public consultation will be at the core of all decisions and recommendations of the forum. As a result of the formation of this forum, the Ministerial Council on Recreational Fishing, known as MCRF, will be dissolved. Issues that up until now have been dealt with by MCRF will be addressed by the new expanded forum. More details on the nature of the forum will be made public shortly.
Most members will be aware that the government has acknowledged the need to further develop recreational fishing infrastructure in the Territory by allocating $500 000 a year towards its improvement. The government is seeking input from the public right now on how this money should be allocated. Public comments are currently being sought with cutout feedback forms in newspapers throughout the Territory. Whilst the advertisements have only been running for two weeks, hundreds of comments have come in, which is really pleasing to see.
One of the key areas of improvement must be security. Too often we see articles in the newspapers about vandalism at boat ramps and we have also had many representations from our constituents. My department has initiated a working party to look at options to increase security at boat ramps. The interdepartmental working party is made up of personnel from Fisheries, Transport and Works, Parks and Wildlife, local councils, and the Commonwealth Department of Defence as some of our boat ramps are on their land.
They are looking at several options including on site managers; fenced, secure parking facilities; and potentially electronic security systems such as cameras where appropriate. The facilities at Leeders Creek with manned, 24-hour, secure parking is a model that the government is studying to see if it can be applied to other boat ramps so that fishermen can leave their cars and trailers in safety overnight if they wish.
Finally, it is pleasing to note that the Fisheries group within my department has been successful in attracting external funding from the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation to expand research on the key NT fisheries species, barramundi and Spanish mackerel. This will help sustain the current quality of our recreational fisheries. Maintaining the health of our fisheries and developing infrastructure to allow recreational fishers to access prime recreational fishing areas in the Territory will be a priority for the Fisheries Division of my department.
Mr BALDWIN (Daly): Madam Speaker, I welcome the news delivered by the minister today, particularly on the development of the NT Fisheries Forum. I also congratulate, on behalf of members of this side of the House, the organisers of the World Fishing Conference for a well thought out and well delivered conference. It was great to see so many international visitors as well as national visitors at the conference, and there have been many good outcomes from that conference. The conference of course will build the Territory into a prominent place as far as fishing goes. On the recreational fishing side we know that is the position we want to hold in the world of fishing, and it is great that a conference such as this can deliver.
There was much comment on a whole range of things at the conference, including comments about Labor’s promise to close the Adelaide River and Bynoe and it is something that they have to move on. The whole strategy of barramundi fishing in the Northern Territory, the 10 year strategy that we have been pushing for - that we started with the delivery of a discussion paper earlier last year - is something that needs to be progressed and those promises delivered. The Northern Territory Fisheries Forum is a good way of providing that start and I know the stakeholders are keen to get together to proceed with that. I look forward to receiving more information on that fisheries forum.
One thing that was commented on by people at the fisheries conference was the cardboard life size cutouts of the Chief Minister and the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries. It was noted that the minister for Fisheries had the rod in the wrong hand and it was upside down. Everyone was commenting on that, so you have to learn how to use a rod.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I will make a couple of quick comments. If the government is spending $500 000 on infrastructure, I think it is important for the government to include the possibility of some fish propagation areas, especially in Darwin Harbour, where there is an increased number of people, especially amateur fishers, as there is no commercial fishing in the harbour any more. We should take that into consideration. I believe you mentioned Leeder’s Creek as a model for protecting peoples’ vehicles and equipment. There is also the Howard River boat ramp where something similar was done. That would be a good initiative that we could promote. I know recently some friends of ours were at the Middle Arm boat ramp and they lost quite a bit of their equipment so I certainly think the government should put some more effort into that.
There is talk about closing the Adelaide River. I have also had discussions with commercial fishermen, and before we go closing any more rivers we need a detailed debate over the whole issue of amateur fishing versus commercial fishing. I hope we do that before we go ahead with it solely because it was promised. We owe all the fishing people something better than that.
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Speaker, picking up on the generally supportive comments, the whole idea of the fisheries forum is to do exactly what the member for Nelson is saying. We now have a forum where we can attempt to achieve consensus in the management of our fisheries across the Northern Territory. We are not going to play winners and losers with this. We are going to try to seek negotiated outcomes, and to put in place a long term strategy which gives certainty to all stakeholders in the industry. We are not going to make policy on the run in the lead-up to the elections like the previous government did, and not consult with anybody, and basically rip the livelihood out of many people.
In terms of the photographs, yes I will admit that I do not go out fishing as often as I want. However, I did get out to the barrage at Shady Camp at Easter which probably explains why my technique is not as good as it should be. I did not catch anything but my son did. Maybe I will take some lessons from my son. I would like to get out more often.
Indigenous Knowledge Centres
Mr AH KIT (Assisting the Chief Minister on Indigenous Affairs): Madam Speaker, earlier this year in my ministerial statement on indigenous development, I spoke of indigenous knowledge centres. In keeping with my undertaking to report to the Assembly, I now take pleasure in advising you of significant progress on the matter.
The idea of these centres grew from knowledge that libraries in the traditional sense often do not provide remote community people with what they need. Indigenous knowledge centres are an opportunity for communities to drive their own idea of libraries and what they should offer. Indigenous knowledge centres will meet the needs of all residents for knowledge in whatever form, whether via the Internet, through local stories, local artefacts, public meetings or through books.
I am happy to announce that my department has been working with the Galiwinku community and that, together through community support and this government’s commitment of $172 000, the idea has progressed from a dream into a solid proposal. While the people of Galiwinku have been talking to the library division of the department for many years about their ideas, it is only now with the Labor government that any substantial amount of money has been committed to allow the idea to get off the ground. The people of Galiwinku told government that they had a vision for their knowledge centre. They wanted the centre to be a community place for holding ceremonies; a meeting place for Mala leaders; a place to hold video and audio information about the histories of the clans, their language, and land and sea traditions; a place for telling stories, a place for keeping Rangga, which are sacred objects; and a place for modern technology like computers.
The community also identified an existing building that could be developed to suit their needs. The funding that this government has provided will help bring the Galiwinku people’s vision to reality. Specifically, it will help provide training to community members in web design and content creation so that genuinely local stories can be told by locals. An exciting element of this proposal though, is that it offers an avenue of commercial opportunity through local people being able to sell their cultural products and stories online. In this way, the knowledge centre can become an integral part of the Galiwinku community, helping the community grow while sharing knowledge with each other and the outside world. The people of Galiwinku are excited and have already begun donating artefacts such as morning star poles and carvings.
This project has regional, as well as local significance, as the work of the indigenous knowledge centre at Galiwinku will be able to be accessed by the Yolgnu people of the area.
The Galiwinku council has engaged an independent consultant to work together with our Northern Territory Library and Information Service staff so that the business proposal can be put into action. I commend the Galiwinku community as a whole for their efforts so far, and also the staff of my department whose energy and interest has enabled the people of Galiwinku to advance this wonderful project.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his report and also support the initiative. It sounds very interesting particularly using a pilot in an area such as Galiwinku. I recall when I was last out at Galiwinku there were significant problems in that community with kava. That is a separate issue. I will be interested to see how it is progressing since those times.
On the issue of information technology and the concept you described, certainly it is a good initiative. We support it. I would be interested in some of the technical aspects of it. For example, when it comes to computer use, is there a relationship with the Education Department’s IT initiatives? Also, what are the difficulties, not only in that community but in other communities, regarding getting reasonable download facilities through the Internet? It has always been my understanding - and I am a technical nerd, I will be the first to admit - that one of the problems with increasing technology on some of our remoter communities was the ability to get reasonable download facilities from the Internet.
However, in a general sense, it is a great initiative. From an educational point of view, the use of technology, I believe, will be attractive to indigenous people on remote communities and, in many respects, will be an incentive for greater learning. With those few comments, I thank the minister and look forward to the success of this initiative.
Mr AH KIT: I thank the Leader of the Opposition, Madam Speaker, for his support, and the support from that side of the Chamber. It is welcomed and would no doubt be appreciated by the Galiwinku community on Elcho Island.
In respect of the downloading and the relationships that need to be developed, this is their vision. We want to ensure that the ideas that they have - and how they progress this and move it forward so that it rewards them with the best possible outcomes in terms of the indigenous knowledge centre - and the relationships that develop with the Education Department and other areas of learning are going to be very important, and no doubt an initiative that they will progress with many priorities.
As we understand it, it is the first in Australia, not just in the Northern Territory, and it is certainly something that is more than welcome, to fully understand our people in the bush. Whilst we might think, ‘Well, maybe this could have gone to Education or to Housing’, really, indigenous knowledge centres are a big priority in terms of storing and sharing that cultural knowledge.
Corporatisation of PAWA
Mr VATSKALIS (Essential Services): Madam Speaker, I rise to inform the House about the corporatisation of the Power and Water Authority. Members will have noticed advertisements in today’s NT News on page 4 announcing that the Power and Water Authority will become a government owned corporation on 1 July 2002. This is an exciting time in Power and Water’s history. This move is designed to increase Power and Water’s focus on its customers, its service delivery and its efficiency. From 1 July, customers will receive copies of Power and Water’s new customer charter. This charter is a statement of Power and Water’s service commitment to its customers and will be sent out with customer billing issued after 1 July.
It is the government’s intention, which Power and Water is also committed to, that the service level summarised in the customer charter will continue to improve over time. The service levels actually achieved will be measured and reported to both customers and the Legislative Assembly. Power and Water is vitally interested in customer views and feedback. Feedback will be sought formally and informally with a view to further sharpening of the focus of service delivery.
In recent years, Power and Water has brought power and water supply reliability in the Territory close to the national average and better than levels in comparable states. In Darwin, the unplanned electricity System Average Outage Duration, known as SAOD, has been reduced by more than 40% over the last five years from 334 minutes in 1998 to 191 minutes for this last year. Similar improvements have been achieved throughout the Territory. In Katherine, SAOD has been reduced from 10 hours to about 4 hours; in Tennant Creek, from nine hours to less than four hours; and in Alice Springs it is around two hours which is the best in the Territory and around 30% better than last year’s results.
These are very substantial achievements. The operating conditions of the Northern Territory cover some of the widest and wildest environmental extremes. When faults occur, most of us are at home while the Power and Water workforce are on the job restoring the services. The Power and Water workforce is highly skilled and efficient in providing essential services that we tend to take for granted. The government is very proud of and commends the hard working staff of Power and Water.
The staff can be assured there will be no change in employment conditions as a result of the move to government owned corporation status. The staff of Power and Water will continue to be employed as public servants under the Public Sector Employment and Management Act with their own enterprise bargaining agreement, as is the case now.
The government strongly supports Power and Water continuing and strengthening its excellent work in managing the environmental impact of its operations. An environmental action plan is being finalised and will be released early in the new financial year. Power and Water will actively engage the community and environmental interest groups in updating this plan. The services provided by Power and Water are a key component of the Territory lifestyle and fundamental to the economic development of the Northern Territory.
Establishment of Power and Water as a government owned corporation is not a precursor to privatisation. Privatisation is not government policy. It is government policy that Power and Water will remain 100% owned by Territorians as a government owned corporation.
The main difference that the public will notice from 1 July is Power and Water will be operating with a new look. Extensive consultation has been undertaken with both customers and staff in developing the new corporate image. I am happy to advise members that the transitional cost to this new look will be very small, as stocks of old materials have been run down over the last six months. Some of the remaining stock of old uniforms will be donated to the United Nations operations in East Timor.
Power and Water looks forward to displaying its new look and the skills of its highly qualified operational staff at open days that will be held throughout the Territory on 30 June. I am looking forward to revealing the new corporate logo for the new government owned corporation at the Ben Hammond complex in Darwin on 30 June. I also look forward to working with Power and Water in this exciting new era in delivering efficient power and water services to Territorians.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, there are some quick points to make. The first is that when the government owned corporations bill was debated in this House we talked about the necessity for further extensive debate about this matter, particularly relating to the statement of corporate intent which I assume is due not this sittings but perhaps at the next sittings. We would hope that that opportunity is afforded to this parliament. These are matters that require significant discussion in here and education for members.
As an opposition the other thing we would say is we do not want the corporatised PAWA to become a no-go area as far as the interrogation and overview from this parliament is concerned. Its corporate status is good and is supported by the government. However, the levels of surveillance and criticism and audit from this parliament should not be fettered in any way. Yesterday we saw the debacle where the minister did not know what the $12m asset strip was. We believe that these are issues that should come to this parliament and should be discussed fully.
Dr Burns: Demonstrated a full knowledge.
Mr DUNHAM: Demonstrated a full knowledge of it, Madam Speaker. The Chairman of the PAC is dead right. We think a $12m underspend in a corporation is a significant amount of money and it is something that should be looked at.
Dr Burns: You would be an expert on those underspends. $8m worth of them.
Mr DUNHAM: $8m versus $12m, so I would be careful, Mr Chairman. The other thing we would not want to see is the government hiding behind the excuse of the independence of the Power and Water Authority to fudge numbers, particularly rates and charges, and to shrug their shoulders and say: ‘Well, it is an independent organisation now and it is something that we have no capacity to shape’. In the debate, we made it very clear to the Treasurer, as share holding minister, that she has enormous capacity to shape fees, tariffs and charges that come out of this instrumentality.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Speaker, as for the Statement of Corporate Intent, that will be presented to parliament in the next sittings and members will be fully briefed, as will the shadow minister.
With regards to some of the issues you brought up, especially the $12.5m, I recall the member from the other side calling it a stripping of assets. He knew very well it was not stripping of assets. The Power and Water Authority was not directed to hide or return or put the money somewhere else. They themselves asked for the money to be put aside by the Treasury Corporation.
However, this is an exciting time for Power and Water; this is the transformation of Power and Water to a government owned corporation, something you started. Power and Water now becoming a government corporation has our full support. We will work very closely with the people in Power and Water and, certainly, always keep in mind the interests of Territorians.
Reports noted pursuant to Sessional Order.
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
Take Two Bills Together
Take Two Bills Together
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent bills entitled Northern Territory Employment and Training Authority Amendment Bill 2002 (Serial 71), and Northern Territory Employment and Training Authority (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2002 (Serial 72): -
- (a) being presented and read a first time together and one motion being put in regard to respectively the
second readings, the Committee’s report stage and the third readings of the bills together; and
(b) the consideration of the bills separately in the Committee of the Whole.
Motion agreed to.
NORTHERN TERRITORY EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING AUTHORITY
AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 71)
NORTHERN TERRITORY EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING AUTHORITY (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL
(Serial 72)
AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 71)
NORTHERN TERRITORY EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING AUTHORITY (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL
(Serial 72)
- Bills presented and read a first time.
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I move that the bills be now read a second time.
The purpose of the bills is to amend the Northern Territory Employment and Training Authority Act to achieve two aims:
(1) to alter the provisions of the act to abolish the existing board for the replacement of a new
Ministerial Advisory Board; and
(2) to change the title of the act by removing the word ‘Authority’.
Madam Speaker, the changes to the act seek to broaden representation on the board by:
13 representatives;
representation from two training advisory councils and a person nominated by the
Northern Territory Chamber of Commerce and Industry;
the major centres of Darwin and Palmerston;
representative from ATSIC;
Labour Council;
for Vocational Education and Training programs in the Northern Territory; and
the inclusion of both the CEO responsible for administering the act, and the CEO of the agency
responsible for industrial development.
The proposed change to the title of the Northern Territory Employment and Training Act is simply a matter of housekeeping. By removing the word ‘authority’ from the title of the act, the legislation will better reflect the wider purpose of the act. It will also better reflect the merger of the agency known as the Northern Territory Employment and Training Authority with the former Department of Education and the Work Health Authority into the one Department of Employment, Education and Training.
I commend the bills to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
WORK HEALTH AMENDMENT BILL (No 2)
(Serial 77)
(Serial 77)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I move the bill be now read a second time.
Members will recall my statement to the House on 23 May 2002, in which I outlined the government’s three stages of policy development and implementation of strategies to address occupational health and safety and workers compensation in the Northern Territory.
This bill represents the first stage, which involves the implementation of recommendations from the review of the working group into the operation of the Territory’s Workers Compensation Scheme. As I mentioned in that statement to the House, this is a review, the results and recommendations which the previous government sat on for over 12 months without doing anything. This government, by contrast, has approved 26 of the 35 recommendations. In my statement, I said that I expected that 17 of those recommendations would be introduced in the June 2002 sittings. In fact, the bill now before the House has 15 of those recommendations, with two having been withdrawn to enable further investigation and consideration before implementation. The two matters that were withdrawn relate to negotiated settlements and workers obligations to be proactive in the rehabilitation process.
Other approved working group recommendations requiring further consideration before implementation involve accreditation, definition and coverage, and mediation issues. These matters will be progressed within the second stage of the policy development and implementation program.
I now address those matters contained in the bill. The bill will provide for a stronger ability to deem injured workers to have an earning capacity after 104 weeks of incapacity. This will have the potential to reduce future long term scheme costs by enabling the possible reduction or cancellation of benefits in accordance with the claimant’s reasonable capacity to earn. Currently, a long term partially incapacitated worker can remain on total incapacity benefits if, because of the condition of the labour market, suitable employment is not readily available. This provision will only apply after 104 weeks of incapacity. It will not affect current long term claimants, nor those in the future who, because of the seriousness of their injury, will have little or no real ability to return to the workforce.
The bill will increase the work related death benefit from $127 545 to $212 576 in today’s figures. This will provide a more realistic benefit to the dependents of a deceased worker, but will have a negligible effect on overall scheme costs. The number of compensable work related deaths in the Territory is, thankfully, very low, with an average of two per annum.
The bill will increase the maximum commutation amount payable to claimants who had high, pre-injury earnings and therefore relatively high, long term incapacity benefits. The existing restriction on the maximum commutation payable means it is unattractive to such claimants who therefore prefer to remain on long term benefits. This provision, in combination with the stronger ability to deem an earning capacity after 104 weeks, will assist in reducing the future long term scheme costs.
Other provisions of the bill relate to:
an improvement to benefits payable to junior workers;
improved rehabilitation and return to work procedures;
improved dispute resolution procedures;
changes to compensation payable to claimants who are in prison, such that claimants who are
imprisoned outside of the Northern Territory are not eligible to receive weekly compensation
benefits, as is already the case for those imprisoned in the Territory; and
changes to compensation payable to claimants who move overseas, in that those claimants will not
be eligible for weekly benefit payments unless the rehabilitation process is complete.
These changes are aimed at improving the overall efficiency of the Workers Compensation Scheme and will go some way to alleviating some of the problems that workers, employers and insurers have encountered in recent years.
Of the 26 approved working group recommendations, not all require legislative change to be implemented. Matters involving scheme monitoring, work health education and insurers providing risk management services to the client employers are being addressed administratively.
As I said, this is stage one of a three-stage program, the second of which involves the public release and discussion of the Lord report. Dr Lord’s report addresses medical issues associated with the Workers Compensation Scheme and, in particular, the efficiency of medical and allied intervention in the scheme.
The second stage will also include discussion of the meditation system and litigation as they currently affect parties to work health claims. Subject to the consultation process, legislation in relation to these issues and the outstanding matters from the working group recommendations, are envisaged by the end of the year. The third stage will address the occupational, health and safety provisions of the Work Health Act.
The bill before the House is the first stage of this government’s commitment to ensuring an efficient and effective Workers Compensation and Occupational Health and Safety Scheme.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
PAY-ROLL TAX AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 73)
(Serial 73)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms MARTIN (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill now be read a second time.
The Pay-roll Tax Amendment Bill will put in place a package of payroll tax measures effective from 1 July 2002. These measures are designed to make the payroll tax system fairer by removing certain anomalies that impact unevenly across those employers who pay this tax. Let me stress, while consistent with this government’s commitment to reducing payroll tax, these measures are not directly related to it. They are about ensuring equity by removing certain biases from within the existing payroll tax arrangements. However, I would like to assure members that the government is on track to begin delivering on its commitment to lower the payroll tax impact on Territory business from the 2003-04 financial year, as promised in the lead-up to the election last year.
The measures contained in this bill broaden the payroll tax base slightly, with the additional revenue being used solely to reduce the payroll tax rate on Territory businesses. It will be broadly revenue neutral. In each case, the Territory will align the basis for levying payroll tax with that employed in the relevant Commonwealth legislation. This will assist taxpayers in assessing their liability, and reduce their compliance costs. Similar measures have already been introduced by a number of state jurisdictions. The changes, therefore, will also reduce the administrative burden on those firms with interstate operations.
The bill is being introduced today to enable businesses in the Territory to incorporate the proposed changes from the start of the 2002-03 financial year. However, the bill forms part of the 2002-03 budget. If we had waited until the budget is delivered in August, the implementation of the measures by business part way through a financial year would have been made far more complex. Therefore, these measures will apply retrospectively to wages that are paid or payable from 1 July 2002.
Three changes are proposed, which together broaden the payroll tax base and reduce the payroll tax rate. First, payroll tax will be payable on the ‘grossed-up’ amount of fringe benefits, as per the Commonwealth’s fringe benefits tax legislation. Under the Commonwealth’s fringe benefits tax legislation, fringe benefits tax is payable on the grossed-up value of fringe benefits, whereas the pre-grossed-up figure is presently used for payroll tax. The pre-grossed-up value of fringe benefits represents the cost to an employer of providing the benefit. However, the grossed-up value of a fringe benefit represents the actual value of the benefit in the hands of an employee, as if it were taken as cash salary or wages prior to paying income tax. This is calculated using a ‘grossing-up’ adjustment.
The assessment of payroll tax on the grossed-up value of fringe benefits will ensure consistency in the payroll tax treatment of fringe benefits and cash salaries. This approach is in line with the operation of the Commonwealth’s fringe benefits tax legislation and follows closely the recent steps taken in Victoria, Queensland, Western Australia, New South Wales and South Australia in respect of their payroll tax regimes.
Unlike most other states however, the Northern Territory regime will be further simplified for Territory business by applying a single grossing-up rate. Two rates are included in the Commonwealth’s fringe benefits tax legislation related to whether or not firms are able to claim GST input tax credits on the various types of fringe benefits provided. While these differential rates are relevant for the purposes of the Commonwealth legislation and the interaction with the GST, they are not in terms of payroll tax. If the dual ‘grossing-up’ rates were adopted by the Territory in regard to payroll tax, further anomalies between different firms would arise in the impact of the changes contained in this bill. This is not good tax practice and has accordingly been addressed in this legislation. New South Wales is the only other jurisdiction so far known to be addressing this technical anomaly.
Second, payroll tax will apply to those employer payments relating to the cessation of employment that are defined as eligible termination payments under the Commonwealth Income Tax Assessment Act. The provisions will also apply to termination payments made by companies to their directors and other members of a company’s governing body. Currently, payroll tax is levied on certain termination payments that represent a reward for service to which employees have pre-existing enforceable rights. These payments include deferred or accrued wages and salaries and accrued leave entitlements. In contrast until now, payroll tax has not been payable in respect of the part of the termination payments that are made gratuitously or do not represent a reward for services. Such payments include payments in lieu of notice; gratuitous payments, for example, golden handshakes; redundancy or severance payments; and payments that reward unused sick leave.
This treatment tends to favour businesses that downsize rather than grow their workforce. In addition, employers face administrative difficulties in identifying those payments that are subject to payroll tax and those that are not. Yet these same payments are currently subject to the Commonwealth income tax regime, either when paid on termination or deferred by roll over.
From 1 July 2002, these payments will attract payroll tax. This measure will simplify the administration of these payments by aligning the Territory’s definitions with those used by the Commonwealth. Payments from sources other than an employer, such as a superannuation fund or approved deposit fund, will not be taxed. This measure is consistent with recent steps taken by Victoria, South Australia, New South Wales and Queensland in defining their payroll tax bases.
Grossing-up fringe benefits and including eligible termination payments will raise an additional $2.7m in the first year. This brings me to the third measure of distributing this additional revenue of $2.7m back to all employers by reducing the payroll tax rate from 6.5% to 6.3%. As such, the cumulative effect of these measures will broadly be revenue neutral.
Madam Speaker, let me reiterate, the changes proposed by this bill are about ensuring equity and fairness within the payroll tax arrangements that apply within the Territory. Good tax practice means there should be no differential treatment under the law depending on whether some firms choose to provide remuneration to employees through salary payments or fringe benefits - but there has been until now. Nor should there be one definition of the treatment of eligible termination payments under Commonwealth law and a different one under Territory law. While the changes in this bill do broaden the payroll tax base marginally, the government has acted with integrity by returning the additional collections to Territory businesses by a reduction in the payroll tax rate.
Nonetheless, the total value of payroll tax collections will continue to increase in line with forecast wage and employment growth. The changes in this bill preserve the estimated growth in payroll tax that would have been received had there been no base or rate changes.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
LEGAL PRACTITIONERS AMENDMENT (COMMUNITY LEGAL CENTRES) BILL
(Serial 78)
(Serial 78)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to provide a more certain legal framework covering the operations of community legal centres and the legal practitioners who provide legal services from such centres. Australia’s legal services markets have been under consistent review and reform since the beginning of the 1990s. The overarching objective of the call for reform has been the creation of a more competitive market for legal services while providing appropriate protection of the interests of clients, the community and the judiciary.
Reforms have occurred having regard to the following principles:
the structure of the profession must be one that facilitates regulation in the public interest
having regard to consumer choice and protection whilst maintaining quality of service; and
accessibility, cost, speed and quality of legal services.
Community legal centres are non-profit organisations that exist to provide legal services dedicated for various disadvantaged groups or special interest groups. In some cases, the services receive government funding and may even be established by legislation. They may also perform functions other than the provision of legal services. However, they all operate independently of government direction, control and supervision. The community legal centres in the Northern Territory include the Darwin Community Legal Service Incorporated; the Top End Women’s Legal Service; the Katherine Women’s Information and Legal Service Incorporated; the Environmental Defender’s Office NT; the Central Australian Women’s Legal Service; the Central Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service; the Katherine Regional Aboriginal Legal Aid Service; and the Northern Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service. Organisations that provide some community legal services include the Pitjantjatjara Council Incorporated and the various land councils established under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1978.
The current Legal Practitioners Act was designed in 1974 to regulate the traditional providers of legal services, namely services provided by private firms and barristers. Over the past 20 years, the legislation had been modified and adapted so as to cover government legal aid services, government lawyers and foreign lawyers. The government lawyers’ provisions in the act have been used to bring about a process that facilitates the operations of various kinds of community and semi-government organisations which employ legal practitioners to provide legal services to specific sectors of the community. This process has involved the making of regulations that prescribe organisations for the purposes of section 25(1)(c) of the act. Currently, the organisations prescribed under section 25 include:
numerous government organisations such as the Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission,
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, and the Parliamentary Counsel’s office;
independently of government. These include the Northern Land Council, Law Society Northern
Territory, and the Central Land Council; and
a number of community legal aid or legal representation services. These include the Central
Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service, the Katherine Regional Aboriginal Legal Aid Service,
the Northern Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service and the Pitjantjatjara Council Incorporated.
The effect of prescription for the purposes of section 25 is that pursuant to section 22(3A) and 22(3B) of the act, a legal practitioner may be employed by such a body but must hold either a restricted practising certificate or a restricted practising certificate class 1; and that the service of the legal practitioner employed in such an organisation counts where that legal practitioner seeks to be issued with an unrestricted practising certificate.
Despite the very limited effect of section 25, prescriptions have been used as a mechanism permitting various legal aid centres to operate. There are many problems with this approach. These problems include:
the absence of any regulatory mechanism for determining the basis on which an organisation is
prescribed;
the absence of any regulatory mechanism for determining whether an organisation should continue to be
a prescribed organisation; and
doubts about how the rest of the act is to apply to the community legal centres. For example, the
provisions of the act relating to insurance, trust accounts, managers, receivers and the indemnity fund.
These issues came to a head in September 2000, when the Law Society Northern Territory approached the former government with a request that the Administrator prescribe a number of additional community legal centres. This approach was rejected at the time, and subsequently in late 2001, because there had been no mechanism for reviewing such prescriptions. Since September 2000, the Law Society Northern Territory, the community legal centres and departmental officers have worked with the former Attorney-General and me for the purposes of developing a new regulatory scheme that addresses the specific needs of community legal centres. This bill provides for that scheme. It is based on section 48H of the New South Wales Legal Profession Act 1987.
The key elements of the proposed scheme are as follows:
firstly, for the act to clearly recognise community legal centres. Such a centre will be a body
corporate that holds itself out as being a centre providing not-for-profit legal services for persons
or organisations that either lack the resources to obtain privately funded legal services, or who are
raising issues of public interest or of general concern to disadvantaged groups; and
secondly, that such a body be able to act as a community legal centre if it employs a supervising legal
practitioner, if it holds appropriate indemnity insurance, and if it has paid any prescribed fee to the
Law Society Northern Territory.
One of the areas of concern in developing this legislation has been that of ensuring that community legal centres retain their distinctive characteristics that permit them to provide legal services at relatively low cost. With this objective in mind, the community legal centres sought some exceptions concerning the need for a supervising legal practitioner to be a person with an unrestricted practising certificate. By way of background, a legal practitioner is entitled to an unrestricted certificate if he or she has been employed as a legal practitioner for a prescribed period following the completion of articles of clerkship.
After receiving and considering numerous submissions from the Law Society Northern Territory, the community legal centres and the Chief Justice on this matter, the government has adopted the following position. It is that each community legal centre must, as a general rule, have as a supervising legal practitioner, a person who has an unrestricted practising certificate, or who is an interstate legal practitioner with an equivalent qualification. However, the Law Society Northern Territory will have the power to approve, in very limited circumstances, applications by community legal centres for other legal practitioners with unrestricted practising certificates to be engaged as the supervising legal practitioner. The word ‘engaged’ has been used so that it is clear that this temporary supervision can be provided by a member of a management committee of a community legal centre, or by a consultant.
Decisions by the Law Society Northern Territory in respect of such applications will be subject to review by the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General. This policy approach has been taken because, at the end of the day, the government was not convinced that it was appropriate that the general principles regarding operating a legal practice should be potentially weakened just because of the nature of the clientele or of the services provided. Additionally, the requirements to obtain an unrestricted certificate are not onerous, particularly given that the Master of the Supreme Court has now made it clear that holders of such certificates are not required to maintain trust accounts. The bill also makes an amendment to section 55 for the purposes of putting this issue beyond all doubt.
The bill seeks to ensure that regulation of the community legal centres remains relatively light. For example, there is to be no approval process aside from notification. The bill acknowledges the possibility for a regulatory fee to be charged by the Law Society, however regulations for such a fee will only be made if and when the Law Society both seeks the fee and provides justification for the fee.
The bill makes a number of other amendments in respect of community legal centres and legal practitioners who work other than in private legal firms. These include:
clarification that employment in a community legal centre only counts towards receiving an
unrestricted certificate whilst the community legal centre is supervised by a legal practitioner
with an unrestricted practising certificate;
giving the Law Society Northern Territory the discretion to recognise, for the purposes of issuing
unrestricted practising certificates, service gained in the performance of work of a legal nature. This
is intended to give recognition to legal services provided with corporate or government bodies other
than those prescribed under section 25;
providing that certain kinds of disciplinary action may be taken against persons who control community
legal centres. That is, such actions may be taken regardless of whether such persons are legal practitioners;
and
trust accounts, fidelity fund, costs and managers, but noting that such general provisions may be modified
by regulation.
The remaining amendment of significance to mention is one that relates to all types of providers of legal services. New section 36 provides a new scheme for the giving of exemptions regarding indemnity insurance. Currently, the regulations provide that exemptions are given by the Law Society Northern Territory but must be approved by the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General. The exception power is significant because it permits the Law Society Northern Territory to develop appropriate indemnity insurance for sectors of the legal profession - such as barristers and community legal centres - whose indemnity insurance needs to differ from those of mainstream legal firms. Barristers belong to a national scheme overseen by the Australian Bar Association, and the community legal centres belong to a scheme negotiated by the National Association of Community Legal Centres.
It is proposed that this scheme be amended so that the role of the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General is limited to reviewing the decisions of the Law Society in respect of exemptions. This means that the executive government will only be involved in exceptional circumstances. This role accords with the general framework of a self-regulating legal profession, where the basic responsibility for such day-to-day decision-making rests with the regulator.
New section 36 also provides for the publication of exemptions. This will ensure that there is some searchable public record of such exemptions. Such searching is currently not possible with regard to the exemptions currently thought to exist concerning barristers.
This bill has been a while in the making. I would like to express my appreciation to the Law Society and the community legal centres for their cooperative approach in bringing matters to a close. In saying this, I recognise that there may be some matters which both the community legal centres and the Law Society may wish to have finetuned between now and the passage of the bill. I undertake to consider any such changes by way of committee stage amendments.
I am also advised by the Department of Justice that the drafting process for this bill has revealed some inconsistencies within the bill in respect of matters incidental to the main purpose of the bill. One of those is the period of post-admission experience required of a legal practitioner before he or she is entitled to an unrestricted practising certificate. Currently, this is two years for legal practitioners who completed a practical training course, and one year if the legal practitioner completed articles of clerkship. I undertake to commence action on the removal of this anomaly at the earliest opportunity. I will seek a submission from the Law Society Northern Territory.
Finally, the bill makes minor statute law revisions that remove unnecessary transitional provisions, and which clarify that trust accounts need only be maintained by persons with unrestricted practising certificates if those persons handle trust money.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: I advise members that during the minister’s long second-reading speech the visitors in the gallery were members of the Ionian Club of Darwin, accompanied by Jetta Natt, their Social Secretary. Unfortunately, I did not get a chance to acknowledge them, but we should record that they were here.
LEGAL PRACTITIONERS AMENDMENT (MORTGAGE PRACTICES) BILL
(Serial 70)
(Serial 70)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill now be read a second time, and I would like to assure you that this is a shorter speech.
The purpose of this bill is to amend the Legal Practitioners Act so that there cannot be any claims against the Legal Practitioners Fidelity Fund of the Northern Territory, (the Fidelity Fund), in respect of losses suffered by clients because of the activities of legal practitioners when providing financial services such as mortgage broking.
Honourable members would be aware that a legal practitioner may at times arrange for funds to be directly lent by a client to another person, secured by a mortgage. In some of these transactions, the legal practitioner acts as a nominee for a number of clients and pools clients’ funds in what as known as a contributory mortgage. Traditionally, such monies have been invested very conservatively. However, in the past 20 years there have been numerous examples in other jurisdictions where these monies have been invested either less cautiously or fraudulently. For example, the monies may have been invested in speculative land developments or may have been invested with inadequate security having been taken. Sometimes the affected investors have been in a position to make claims against the relevant fidelity fund. Such claims may result in the insolvency of the fidelity fund and a consequential levying of the members of the legal profession for the amounts necessary to pay the claims.
It is generally understood that the Northern Territory legal practitioners do not usually provide such mortgage broking services. However, the creation of the national legal services market and the recognition of interstate practicing certificates means that is now more likely that legal practitioners who practice from time to time in the Northern Territory will be persons who may engage in such mortgage broking services.
The fidelity fund established under the Legal Practitioners Act exists to compensate clients of legal practitioners for thefts committed by his or her legal practitioner. It should only be available in respect of monies being handled by legal practitioners consequential to their roles as legal practitioners. There is no particular reason why the fund should protect clients who choose to use a legal practitioner as a financial broker, that is those clients who hand over the funds for the purposes of investment.
The training and background of most legal practitioners should not lead clients to assume that they will have any particular expertise in investing monies. There is a practical need to impose various regulatory controls on mortgage broking legal practitioners in order to ensure that basic consumer protection measures are in place. The bill makes it clear that the conduct of mortgage practices and management investment schemes are not part of the practice of a legal practitioner. As such, the bill will prevent claims from being made of the fidelity fund if a client sustains losses from a dishonest or fraudulent act of a legal practitioner arising from a mortgage practice.
However, the bill will ensure that the clients of legal practitioners who conduct a mortgage practice continue to receive protection from such losses by requiring legal practitioners to hold a policy of fidelity insurance which is in terms approved by the Attorney-General. It should be noted that the innocent clients of legal practitioners who fail to comply with the new requirement set out in the bill will be permitted to make a claim on the fidelity fund.
The bill also establishes supervisory arrangements for legal practitioners who conduct mortgage practices. The bill will prevent a legal practitioner from conducting a mortgage practice unless the mortgage complies with the regulatory framework set out in the bill, or the mortgage is a run-out mortgage, that is a mortgage entered into before the commencement of these provisions.
A legal practitioner will be required to notify the Law Society Northern Territory if he or she conducts a mortgage practice and will be required to comply with rules which will be detailed in the regulations. The legal practitioner will be required to notify any client of a mortgage transaction about the fidelity insurance arrangements and other matters. The bill also deals with the status of a legal practitioner who has an interest in a managed investment scheme, including a mortgage practice, which is regulated by the Commonwealth’s Corporations Act and regulated by the Australian Securities and Investment Commission.
The bill provides that if a legal practitioner has a certain kind of interest in a managed investment scheme, and the legal practitioner accepts money from a client to be invested in the scheme, the legal practitioner will be required to notify the client that he or she has an interest in the scheme and that the managed investment scheme is not part of his or her practice as a legal practitioner. Under these circumstances the client will not be able to make a claim against the fidelity fund for any losses incurred.
These amendments recognise that the managed investment activities which are supervised by ASIC are not part of legal practice and ensures that the community appreciates that the special supervisory arrangements which apply to legal practitioners are not applicable to large investment schemes. These arrangements will ensure that the clients of legal practitioners who conduct managed investment schemes are aware of their rights.
The amendments proposed in the bill arose from a request from the Law Society Northern Territory that the Territory consider amendments to the Legal Practitioners Act which were consistent with amendments to the equivalent New South Wales, Victorian and Queensland legislation. The Law Society Northern Territory has been provided with a copy of the draft bill and are happy with it.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
Pass All Stages
Pass All Stages
Mr HENDERSON (Business, Industry and Resource Development): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Mining Amendment Bill 2002 (Serial 63) passing through all stages at this sitting.
Motion agreed to.
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
Pass All Stages
Pass All Stages
Mr HENDERSON (Energy): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Oil Refinery Agreement Ratification Act Repeal Bill 2002 (Serial 62) passing through all stages at this sitting.
Motion agreed to.
MINING AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 63)
(Serial 63)
Continued from 23 May 2002.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, this bill, as I understand it, is of mainly a technical nature and a tidying up the administrative processes that are no longer relevant. With such a huge and all-encompassing act as the Mining Act, it can be expected to suffer almost constant amendment.
As the minister noted in his second reading speech, advances in information technology, the introduction of the exploration initiative and geoscientific programs in recent years are changing the way exploration and mining companies work. It will ever be thus and so amendments are needed to keep the act up to date. The electronic age we live in means that the way we exchange information is constantly evolving and some of these amendments take that into account with the way titles information is dealt with. Other amendments make the process easier for companies reporting on their exploration activities each year by allowing them to submit a combined report on two or more exploration licenses in the same locality rather than having to report on each and every one individually.
There are also amendments to the proceedings of the Mining Warden’s Court which seem to be eminently sensible and will help overcome mineral leases and minerals becoming locked up in the court process interminably.
The other major area of amendment is in relation to mining and extraction authorisations which will now be capable of being renewed, transferred or devolved. These authorisations are an asset of the company or miner and, all things being equal, should be able to be transferred or devolved in the same way that the company could be sold or changed in some way. As the minister said, these amendments have the support of the industry and I am happy to add the opposition’s support.
However, that said, while we are talking about the mining industry and amendments to the act that govern that important industry, I would like to raise a matter that is mentioned in the government’s Economic Development Strategy. In looking at the government’s Economic Development Strategy on page 12, one of the priority actions of this new government is to:
Coordinate the development of legislation that facilitates mining and review major legislation concerning
mining by June 2003.
As members will recall, and in particular the present Minister for Community Development who at the time was the Shadow Minister for Mines and Energy, the Mining Management Act was replaced last year with a brand new act after an extensive review.
In the debate with regard to that particular act - I refer members to debate on Tuesday, 3 July 2001 - Mr Ah Kit, in responding to the government’s amendments to that particular act, made a couple of points which were poorly received by the opposition at the time. He said:
- It seems to me that what is happening is that the government is handing over the best interest of Territorians
to the control of the mining companies and they are creating the potential for graft and undue influence.
Under these proposed amendments, at every stage it appears that in the development’s history,
exploration, development, operation and rehabilitation, the interests of the mining company are given
preference over those of Territorians. No doubt the minister …
who was Mr Manzie at the time
…will beg to differ. The proposed amendments also shift undue power and influence from ordinary
Territorians, as exercised by laws passed by the people’s Legislative Assembly into the hands of the
minister of the day in the interest of the mining companies.
By giving and delivering this undue power into the hands of the mining industry and its lobbyists,
real concerns are raised.
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! We are debating some technical amendments to this piece of legislation before us, the Mining Act. I cannot see the relevance of raking over debate about another piece of legislation, the Mining Management Act, not the Mining Act, which we are debating here today. I just do not see the relevance of the Leader of the Opposition’s comments.
Madam SPEAKER: I believe the comments are relevant to the act in the broad sense concerning the Mining Act.
Mr HENDERSON: Just a point of clarification, Madam Speaker. We have two pieces of legislation. We have the Mining Act, which we are seeking to amend here today, and the Mining Management Act, which is the legislation that is not before the Chair at the moment, which the Leader of Opposition is seeking to introduce debate on.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, I believe you are trying to make comments relating to the act that we are now debating too narrow. The subject is mining, so I believe we can use that broad spectrum.
Mr BURKE: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I wonder why the minister is so prickly and sensitive. It is an opportunity to simply clarify what I believe is an area of concern for the mining industry in this debate. You could take the opportunity, I would have thought.
Anyway, what happened was that he came in and made these comments. The next day the Leader of the Opposition said that his comments did not reflect at all the opposition’s view at the time, and the next day the Leader of the Opposition, now Chief Minister, came out and said:
- Some extremely inaccurate comments were made by the member for Arnhem last night in the debate on
the Mining Management Bill. Those remarks were not representative of the views of the opposition and
we reject them entirely. … The opposition values our miners and strongly supports the Mining
Management Bill that was passed in this House last night.
In any case, that would have been put aside completely, except that if you look at your own economic development strategy, it says: Coordinate the development of legislation that facilitates mining and review major legislation concerning mining by June 2003. The question is simply this: Perhaps the minister, in his closing remarks, could indicate if this act is part of the review, and why the government feels it is necessary to conduct a review so soon, less than 12 months since the last one they so strongly supported was passed. We would hate to believe for a moment that the comments made by the member for Arnhem at that time have somehow gained some substance and influence since the opposition came to government, such that a major review is about to take place particularly on an act that only began at the beginning of this year. The minister might also indicate what other mining legislation the government is intending to review, and whether they have decided on the method of that review. With that said, as I indicated, the opposition supports the bill.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Madam Speaker, I rise to speak in favour of amendments to the Mining Act. The mining industry is of vital importance to the Territory. In 1999-2000, the Northern Territory ranked only behind Western Australia in the percentage that mining activities contribute to gross state product. In Western Australia in 1999-2000, mining contributed 20.1% of total GSP, while it contributed 17.7% of total GSP in the Territory. It is noteworthy that the next ranked jurisdiction was Queensland, where mining contributed just 5.7%.
Our government is serious about progress in the important resource area of mining and exploration, and our support for amendments to the Mining Act is further evidence of this. Such amendments are especially needed to support technological advances in the mining industry.
As the minister foreshadowed in his speech, these amendments follow close consultation with the industry. The amendments are intended to cut red tape, to benefit both industry and government. Significantly, there has been consultation with the four land councils in the Territory. This government is committed to meaningful and effective consultation with Aboriginal people and their organisations to bring positive benefits to our people and our economy. This government has made great progress in building partnerships with Aboriginal people since coming into office. These partnerships have had substantial and immediate benefits to the mining industry. I refer, of course, to our efforts in clearing up the log jam of 900-odd mining exploration licences which had been piling up on the desk of the previous Minister for Resource Development. No wonder there was an air of suspicion during those days.
I agree with the current minister when he attributed the reason for this log jam under the previous government as the failure of the previous government to sit down and constructively negotiate, particularly with Aboriginal organisations such as the Central Land Council. In February 2002, Minister Henderson announced that 178 licences had been cleared for granting over a massive 1000 km2 of the Northern Territory. The minister also foreshadowed a further 150 000 km2 of land across the Northern Territory being opened up for exploration due to negotiations between companies and land councils.
That is the difference between this government and the former government. We constructively engage with Aboriginal people and their organisations. It is testament to the current minister who, in such a short time, has had such positive wins in this area. I congratulate him for it, and I am sure the mining industry also congratulates him, because it is a win-win situation for Aboriginal people and the important mining sector of the Northern Territory.
As stated previously, there are also changes needed to administrative arrangements under the Northern Territory act to better support the mining industry. The proposed amendments to sections 30, 165 and 169 allow the sole use of a web site as the means to publish grants, reductions, and terminations of exploration and mining titles. This not only represents savings to companies, but also to government. Changes to reporting requirements under section 34 also allows companies which hold two or three licences in the same vicinity to submit a consolidated annual report. This will substantially increase business efficiency related to reporting. Authorisations for extractive licences in and about Darwin are a major asset for the companies which hold them. Formerly, these could not be transferred, renewed or devolved. The amendments under section 178 allow transfer, renewal or devolution of such licences.
Under the current legislation, some matters related to mineral leases and mineral claims before the Wardens Court can be adjourned sine die. Although not a lawyer …
Mr Burke: Sine die.
Dr BURNS: Sine die. Well, I was about to tell you that I learnt Latin …
Members interjecting.
Dr BURNS: I am afraid it is quite some time since I did Latin in high school. I did do it at high school; I was a favourite of the Latin teacher, no doubt. Miss Gormley, God bless her. Obviously, my Latin has gone a bit downhill since those days, but I translate sine die to mean the twelfth of never, and that is a long, long time.
Because these matters had been adjourned in such a manner they often remained unresolved indefinitely. Incorporation of a new section 59A will allow the minister to relist such matters and place an onus on the Warden to make a determination on them, rather than adjourn them again indefinitely.
In conclusion this suite of amendments provides significant benefits to both government and industry. I commend these amendments to the Mining Act to honourable members.
Mr AH KIT (Community Development): Madam Speaker, it was not my intention to contribute to the debate on this Mining Amendment Bill …
Mr Burke: You had better watch out, you might get sacked again.
Mr AH KIT: …but I thought it would be remiss of me not to respond to some allegations made earlier by the Leader of the Opposition.
I place on record my support for the amendment. Obviously it is going to streamline those processes which are placing unnecessary administrative burdens on both industry and government. And that is the prime intention of the amendment. As a responsible minister, my colleague, the minister for mining, has ensured that proper consultation has been processed through the relevant stakeholders.
We know the history in regards to the former government’s position, in respect of their opposition to the land councils and the politics that was played out. In fact, we have since made the mining industry quite happy in being able to release the log jam that existed because this former government proposed to implement their own native title regime which was knocked backed on a couple of occasions by the Senate. Without revisiting too much the allegations made by the Leader of the Opposition about my sacking, and being lazy, I can tell the Leader of the Opposition that I am born and bred in the Territory. I have been here all my life and I have worked to develop and progress the Territory at every opportunity whether it was at the Darwin association, at the Kalano community association, or whether it was at the Northern Land Council. And even here today, I will continue to progress the future of the Territory because, unlike the Leader of the Opposition, who sits there and is lazy, along with his colleagues, in not trying to be a good opposition, not understanding what a good B-grade team should do, we see the Leader of the Opposition being provocative and slagging off at ministers.
I am a proud minister in the Martin Labor government. I will continue to pursue Territory dreams in terms of economic development, and opportunities for us to progress all Territorians in an inclusive manner, unlike the former CLP government which was arrogant and exclusive.
Mr HENDERSON (Business, Industry and Resource Development): Madam Speaker, I thought this would be a fairly simple passage of administrative amendments, which all parties in this House would support. We all come to this Chamber regardless of which side of politics we are on, or whether we are independents, looking for development, looking for investments in the Northern Territory, looking for wealth creation, looking for jobs for Territorians. This is what we are all here to do for our constituents. So it does not bode well for the Leader of the Opposition to come into this Chamber and seek to make some cheap political point scoring on some comments that were in the past, in history.
I commend my colleague, the member for Arnhem, as somebody who has made a huge contribution to the Northern Territory with his work over many years in many different organisations, and continues to make a significant contribution on behalf of all Territorians and, in particular, on behalf of indigenous Territorians. It really was a bit churlish of the Leader of the Opposition to come in here and make a cheap political point, trying to be mischievous and divide people here in this government.
I say in terms of the economic developments …
Members interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON: … we are a government, and I …
Members interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON: …and a minister for mining in the Northern Territory who is absolutely committed to outcomes. That is what this government is committed to - outcomes. Outcomes for the mining industry in terms of access to land for exploration, and where deposits are commercially retrievable, to then facilitate the grant of those mining licences.
In pursuit of those outcomes - as opposed to members opposite who were not interested in the mining industry, who played cheap politics with the mining industry for so many years where 900 applications were piled up on the former minister’s desk with the dust so thick on the titles they could not read them – we will work with all stakeholders in this area. We will work with the owners of land - whether they be traditional owners, freehold owners, Crown land – with the mining companies in pursuit of those outcomes that all Territorians want to see which is development and jobs.
Within the pursuit of those outcomes, there are processes, whether they be under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act or the Native Title Act, both acts of the Commonwealth parliament. We will seek to work with all parties. Discussions are taking place. It just goes to show how well tapped into the mining community the Leader of the Opposition is, that he is not aware of this: discussions are taking place in which we are looking at all of those processes under legislation, and if we can achieve consensus in terms of those processes, we will make representations to the federal government for amendments to legislation. They are in the pursuit of outcomes, they will be negotiated and where consensus is reached, we will make application to the federal government and I believe we will have success.
There are no specific proposals on the table at the moment, but we are all working through the process issues in good faith. Indeed, I had a meeting with the full board of the Minerals Council last week to seek mechanisms to further progress these issues. Only a few weeks ago, senior government ministers met with senior officials of the Northern Land Council and the Central Land Council to address some of these issues. Progress is being made. The fact that we have released over 70 000 km of the Northern Territory in the first 10 months of this Labor government to exploration is a testament to that process bearing fruit.
We are a government that is pro the mining industry. As I mentioned in this parliament in a ministerial statement, the mining industry has moved on a long way past the rhetoric of those members opposite where all of the mining companies in the Northern Territory, without exception, acknowledge and accept the fact that they have to deal with the land councils under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act and the Native Title Act and are working very hard to engage Aboriginal people, to provide training and job opportunities for Aboriginal people, and have a very progressive attitude in dealing with Aboriginal people as opposed to the regressive attitude that members opposite still have. They are out of touch with the industry. I would urge the Leader of the Opposition to look at what some of these major employers in the Northern Territory are doing; look at their corporate statements, their statements of intent and the programs they have running, and stop trying to achieve cheap political points to divide Territorians.
Madam Speaker, outside of that, I am glad the opposition supports these technical amendments. I thank my colleague the member for Johnston for his constructive comments. I urge support for this amendment from all members of the House.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr HENDERSON (Business, Industry and Resource Development)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill now be read a third time.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, apart from the rhetoric from the minister which did not give me any more information, I simply asked for some clarification. He talked about consultation and discussions with everyone. There is a bill that was introduced in this parliament less than 12 months ago that has only been in operation for a few months. It is called the Mining Management Bill. You, in your strategic document, are saying you are going to conduct a major review of important mining legislation. Obviously, that bill is part of that. I would like you to give me some examples of where you believe that bill fails in this present context.
Mr HENDERSON (Business, Industry and Resource Development): Madam Speaker, it really is drawing very long bows here. Again, it just shows the honourable member’s ignorance in terms of the process. The Mining Management Act that is in place at the moment, that this government totally supports, requires all mining companies in the Northern Territory to lodge mine management plans with my department by 1 July this year. My department will proceed, under the new legislation, to issue authorisations for mining against the new legislation.
We have a new Mining Board in the Northern Territory which has oversight and advisory capacity to the minister. It is brand new legislation. It really is contemporary legislation compared to the legislation in other states. As with any new legislation that is as extensive as this legislation, once the nuts and bolts are actually put into practice, there may well be requirements for amendments to that legislation. But there are none foreshadowed at the moment. It is just recognition in terms of that statement before in the Economic Summit that we do have an economic development strategy, that we do have ground breaking legislation in the Northern Territory.
In terms of authorisations issued under that legislation, they have not commenced yet because the lodgement of mine management plans are not required to be lodged before the department until 1 July. There may be issues that come out of that which would seek amendments to legislation but, again, they would be agreed to by all parties before they are brought to this House.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
OIL REFINERY AGREEMENT RATIFICATION ACT REPEAL BILL
(Serial 62)
(Serial 62)
Continued from 23 May 2002.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): I am going to make a couple of comments, so do not get too prickly, all right?
Members interjecting.
Mr BURKE: There is nothing contentious in it, just settle down. Realise the great status you have, the good wages you are earning, the wonderful advantages and fringe benefits you have, and try to keep calm.
Madam Speaker, this particular act goes back to 1984, when the hopes for the Mereenie field were perhaps a bit optimistic. The vision was for a large refinery in Alice Springs providing oil and petroleum across the Territory from our very own source at Mereenie. When the leases for the field were granted, the government put in a condition that the refinery had to be built or else prove it was uneconomic. The then Minister for Mines and Energy, one Ian Tuxworth, told the parliament in his second reading speech that one of the reasons the government was keen to secure the Territory’s own supplies was: ‘The recent sad events in the Persian Gulf also reinforce another reason for this government’s policy, security of supply from the Middle East can no longer be taken for granted’. It is sad that, almost 20 years later, the situation in the Middle East still presents such problems. However, it is obvious that this act has served its time.
As the minister explained in his second reading speech in May, the competition policy legislative review uncovered this old act and recommended its repeal on the grounds that it was considered incompatible with competition principles and difficult to justify in terms of competition policy. As the minister noted, this review of legislation has been going on for some time, and both this parliament and the previous one have had to deal with quite a number of acts, either repealing them or amending them, to fit the new competition principles. We have a number of such bills before the House at the moment.
The opposition supports this repeal, and the consigning to history of those hopes of 20 years ago, of the northern petroleum industry in Central Australia that was supposed to make the Territory self-sufficient.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the minister a question. Could he give a more indepth explanation on what was the original agreement between government and the oil company, and why is that agreement in conflict with the competition policy?
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Madam Speaker, I rise to speak in favour of the Oil Refinery Agreement Ratification Act Repeal Bill.
Before I do, I would like to digress and thank you for a very pleasant evening last night. It was enjoyed by members, or most members. I commend the soirees that Madam Speaker has. It is a very affable way to get to know people from all sides of politics. I particularly thank Madam Speaker for her hospitality. It was a great opportunity to meet Mr Dillon, the new head of the community development department. It is an informal way of meeting each other and important people who are coming into the public service. Everyone had a good time and I commend it to honourable members.
Members: Hear, hear!
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, as part of the systematic review of NT legislation under the National Competition Policy, it was found that this act contained restrictive and anti-competitive provisions. Possibly the minister will be commenting in more detail about that. The agreement referred to in this act is quite specific. It was between the Northern Territory government and the Mereenie joint venturers, as the Leader of the Opposition pointed out. It related to the possible construction of a large-scale oil refinery in Central Australia. My understanding is that, to date, such construction has not occurred, mainly on economic grounds and because of limited petroleum reserves in Central Australia.
Following the review, the repeal of the act was recommended and accepted by the previous government. I was also pleased by the minister’s reassurance in his second reading speech that the Mereenie joint venturers have signalled initial support for further discussion with the government over the agreement.
I digress again but I would like to inform the House that I am someone who has small shareholdings, not in Mereenie joint venturers, but in a range of mining companies …
Mr Burke: We have a capitalist on that side!
Dr BURNS: It is on my record of pecuniary interest. Anyone can see what they are. At a personal level, I am not a speculator; I inherited these shares as part of family inheritance. I will hang on to them; I am not a speculator. However, I do have an interest in …
Mr Kiely: He is a capitalist! There is a capitalists amongst us.
Dr BURNS: That is right, but I do not drink expensive champagne; it gives me heart burn.
Mr Henderson: Or Chardonnay.
Dr BURNS: That is right. However, I do have an interest. Like many Australians, I do have a small share portfolio; a number of them are related to mining and minerals, and oil and gas. I am a great supporter of the mining industry for that reason.
Finally, I commend the Oil Refinery Agreement Ratification Act Repeal Bill to honourable members.
Mr HENDERSON (Energy): Madam Speaker, I thank all honourable members for their contributions to this debate. Again, I hope that this puts lie for the last time - I hope for the life of this parliament we do not hear the cry of ‘Chardonnay swilling socialists’ from members on the other side. My colleague, the member for Johnston, has quite ably demonstrated - and I am sure a look at the pecuniary interest would show a number of members on this side with some shareholdings - and that this government is moving forward in terms of creating wealth. The Labor Party has moved on from some of the rhetoric of those members opposite. We have moved a long way further, and I think there is a fair amount of VB and Melbourne Bitter consumed on this side, as well as some Chardonnay and red wine from time to time.
Madam Speaker, moving to the legislation before the House, I thank honourable members for their support. This legislation has been tripped over by the NCP review. It is totally redundant and irrelevant. Although, having brought this legislation before the House earlier this week, I was absolutely amazed and delighted to pick up The Centralian Advocate from Alice Springs on Tuesday, where I though we might be a bit fast; I might have to withdraw this legislation. I will be keen to catch up with Mr Glen Piper when I am in Alice Springs next time. For honourable members information, the small oil refinery that we do have in Central Australia - as opposed to the very large oil refinery that this legislation was trying to underpin – operated by the company Central Oil Refineries is looking for a $3m development lot on the old Alice Springs drive-in site for an independent retail outlet for petrol refined at that particular refinery. If this gets up and we are very keen to see this get up - and as I said I will be contacting Mr Glen Piper to get a full briefing from him – and we believe what the Centralian Advocate is saying, it could mean a reduction in fuel costs of up to 10 cents per litre for Alice Springs. I understand that Central Oil Refineries do provide fuel to the pastoral industry in Alice Springs and in the Central Australian region at about 10 cents per litre cheaper than the other major wholesalers can. So that is a very interesting development and I wish the company absolutely every success. I will be very keen to get a briefing from them. I do not think the repeal of this legislation before the House this morning will adversely impact on their plans.
Going to the comments from the member for Nelson regarding giving the Mereenie joint venture development licence requirement under legislation to build an oil refinery in Central Australia, I suppose the vision was at the time of having the potential to discover much larger on-shore oil reserves in Central Australia. It was a visionary piece of legislation. This type of legislation was fairly prevalent at the time in terms of issuing development licences and permits. Governments tried to leverage additional investment on the back of those reserves, very much in some ways as we are trying to do through negotiation this time and public pressure as opposed to legislation where governments at the time believed these oil reserves belonged to the people of the Northern Territory. And that if we were going to licence a company to commercially exploit those reserves, we would try – and at that time through legislation – to make sure the economy of the Northern Territory benefitted as much as it could by requiring them to build an oil refinery for the capital investment and the jobs, and that cheaper fuel to Territorians that would result.
It is a very similar argument that we are putting for the Sunrise development at the moment. Just a point of principle that these reserves do not belong to government, they do belong to the people of Australia. Governments, on behalf of the people of Australia, should do everything they can to ensure that those reserves benefit the people of Australia as well as providing the commercial developers of those reserves a return on their investment.
That is where the legislation sprang from, member for Nelson. In terms of the national competition policy review, it is a point of principle that is being picked up and I will read from the competition policy review. The statement in here is:
- Compliance is not anti-competitive in terms of the Central Australian Oil Refinery market, but may
potentially disadvantage the Mereenie joint venture in respect of other competitors. The act is intended
as an incentive to encourage the Mereenie joint venture to undertake a commercial investment where
none is contemplated in the short term.
It is a point of conjecture and debate, I suppose, that potentially if another company found oil in Central Australia they would have a competitive advantage because there was no requirement for them to build an oil refinery as a result of that discovery. A point of conjecture but it is irrelevant in nature; there is not the volume of oil there. We hope that there are more finds. There are petroleum exploration licences up for bid in the Central Australia at the moment. But this type of legislation is really not valid anymore and is just a clean-up of government’s legislation and that is why we seek to repeal this legislation.
Madam SPEAKER: It certainly was a visionary piece of legislation at the time and the forerunner of the oil refinery in the Northern Territory.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr HENDERSON (Energy) (by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
VISITOR
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the Speaker’s Gallery of Juho Nykanaen, a Rotary exchange student from Finland who will be returning home in a few weeks after spending nearly 12 months in the Northern Territory. He is accompanied by John McLaren, a past district governor of Rotary. On behalf of honourable members, I extend you a warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT
Mr STIRLING (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly at its rising adjourn until Tuesday, 13 August 2002 at 10 am or such other time and/or date as may be set by Madam Speaker pursuant to Sessional Order.
Motion agreed to.
TABLED PAPER
Darwin Port Corporation Annual Report 2000-01 – Correction to Financial Statement
Darwin Port Corporation Annual Report 2000-01 – Correction to Financial Statement
Mr VATSKALIS (Transport and Infrastructure): Madam Speaker, on 29 November 2001, I tabled the Darwin Port Corporation annual report and financial statements for the year 2000-01. I am now advised by Mr Barry Berwick, the Chief Executive Officer of Darwin Port Corporation, that it has been subsequently determined that the copy of the annual report forwarded to me for tabling did not contain the correct wording in the Auditor-General’s qualification on the financial statements as required by section 10(3) of the Financial Management Act.
In order to get a full and accurate report, I now table a complete version of the Darwin Port Corporation’s financial statement for the year 2000-01.
PUBLIC ORDER AND ANTI-SOCIAL CONDUCT ACT REPEAL BILL
(Serial 50)
MISUSE OF DRUGS AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 53)
MISUSE OF DRUGS (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL
(Serial 54)
(Serial 50)
MISUSE OF DRUGS AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 53)
MISUSE OF DRUGS (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL
(Serial 54)
Continued from 15 May 2002.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I rise to place on the Parliamentary Record some general observations relating to the introduction of the Public Order and Anti-Social Conduct Act Repeal Bill (Serial 50), the Misuse of Drug Amendment Bill (Serial 53) and the Misuse of Drugs (Consequential Amendments) Bill (Serial 54).
I make it absolutely clear that the opposition will support anything which this government does to reduce crime and the impact of crime on people who live in the Northern Territory. However, before I address the minutiae of the legislation, there are two other matters I wish to place on the public record.
Firstly, part of the legislative reform package relates to the re-categorisation of licensed premises and the consequences which flow from dangerous drugs being sold, or that sort of conduct, on those premises. My family, in the form of a family trust, has been in the main the part owner of the Discovery Night Club, the Victoria Hotel and, recently, the Don Hotel - all located in the CBD of Darwin. Whilst the corporate entity which owns that interest is in the form of a trust, I have been variously the trustee, director, beneficiary, and I am also the family’s commercial solicitor. However, to avoid unnecessary criticism from my socialist champagne swilling brothers and sisters on the other side of the House, and to assure that there is not only no actual bias and no perception of bias, I have excluded myself from the Maley Bloodline Trust and given over the position of trustee to my uncle, who is also a solicitor, and my brother, Gerard Maley. Accordingly, at this moment, I do not have any real control over any of those three premises and, subject to the filing of documentation with the ASC and the Stamp Duties Office, will shortly have no legal ownership.
Secondly, any criticism I make of the legislation, now and possibly at the committee stage, should not be taken in any way to be criticism of the legal practitioners who were merely following the limp and misguided instructions of the Attorney- General.
In the May sittings, the Labor government introduced a new law designed to attack the new or perceived new enemy of drug dealers. The Attorney-General made a number of statements and, quite openly – it is on the record in Hansard – said the fundamental purpose and effect of the bill, and the purport of the raft of changes, was to implement major parts of the government’s three-point plan on drugs and drug-related crime. If the government had genuinely developed an effective three-point plan on drugs and drug-related crime, it would not only be headlines in the Northern Territory, it would be headlines across Australia and, indeed, most of the Western developed world.
Therefore, it is important that no one be left under any misapprehension that there is any effective three-point plan; but rather, the three-point plan is merely one of the tools used to ensure that there is a flawless transition between reality and the political manipulation of not only the poor old press, but also the Territory public.
The Attorney-General once again does himself a severe disservice when he makes over-simplified and general comments such as:
- For this government it is a simple issue. If we as a community want to combat crime, and particularly property
crime, we must introduce measures to prevent and deter the manufacture and distribution of dangerous drugs.
That is certainly a worthy and powerful statement, but devoid of any substance and certainly does not assist the reader in explaining what this government is going to do. Let me reiterate that every decent human being advocates a position which would minimise the impact of drugs and crime on our community, particularly our young and, indeed, anyone with a scintilla of community mindedness would do all that they could to reduce the impact of drugs, particularly on our youth.
Perhaps the best way to examine the legislation - apart from going through each and every clause which may occur at the committee stage - is to see what some of the legal commentators are saying about the legislation and what their views are of the fabled three-point plan.
The President of the Criminal Lawyers Association, John Lawrence, in the most recent issue of Balance dated May 2002, devotes his entire column to the new laws. Indeed, the Martin Labor government’s new drug laws made the front page. I can hold that up for honourable members to read. It says: Drugs laws are ‘junk’. The headline really sets the tone for the informed comment and criticisms which the profession has made of the learned Attorney-General’s comprehensive three-point plan. The calibre of the article is such it is worthy of reading portions of it onto the Parliamentary Record. I can make the entire article available to honourable members who are interested in exposing what is occurring. The author is John Lawrence and I quote from the article at the bottom of page seven, the second last paragraph:
- The philosophy is property crime (the target of the previous government’s mandatory sentencing regime
promptly repealed by this government) is drug generated and will be attacked by attacking drug dealers.
It then goes on to say:
- The ‘bods’ who created this’ junk’ then got to work. Before the bills were tabled in parliament the local
newspaper, privy to their substance and intent by virtue of briefings from the ‘bods’, no doubt, tell us in ‘an
exclusive’ on the front page an inside what the government was going to do and its purport. This includes
colour photographs of Chief Ministers and Attorney-Generals [sic], etc, etc.
- The bills then were tabled in parliament during that week. And what is the new law? Well, before we talk
about its substance let’s just watch how the media then covered its introduction. They, of course, predictably
look for ‘bites’ in reaction from various interest groups. This is how news works.
They wanted one from CLANT and they got others from the usual suspects: civil liberty groups, drug experts
from down south, etc. None of those, of course, fancied the legislation. As predicted by the ‘bods’, it’s political
manna from heaven for the government: a whole bunch of lily livered do-gooders oppose us; we must be right.
What is known as good politics.
Mr MALEY: It goes on to say:
What about the law? At long last …
This is talking about consulting - just leaving the article for a moment – at long last, it seems CLANT is then consulted. This is the lawyers. This is a cross-section of both prosecutors and defence lawyers who deal with this day in, and day out and have a genuine interest in ensuring that the effect of crime on the community is minimised and effectively the instance of crime is also reduced.
But he goes on to say:
- At long last, on the evening of 15 May, CLANT was given the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill which creates
a new regime attacking drug premises. Legislation creating procedures and substance as regards targeting
premises and having them declared ‘drug premises’ and, consequently, assisting the police in killing the
cause of property crime.
He goes on to talk a little about the mechanics of legislation. We will do that ourselves in a moment. But after touching upon some of the provisions and making it clear what the definition of ‘junk’ is and quotes the dictionary, he says:
- So having now read it, is the reason why I earlier called it junk. … [defined] worthless stuff, rubbish.
He goes on to say at the top of page eight:
…but really in the main it’s a new body of law that isn’t worth the paper it’s written on. It’s a gigantic waste
of time, resources and discussion created by politicians … the media which takes our community absolutely
nowhere as regards its problems with crime and dealing with it. It is in the main window dressing and show.
It will lead to increased litigation and more work for lawyers and will have little effect on the claimed problem
it seeks to address (or is it invented?).
Property crime will continue. Drug offences will continue and nothing in this legislation will reduce either.
The legislation is nothing more or less than a cynical, political exercise.
- This cynical exercise shows that our democracy produces governments who are intent on retaining government
rather than righting wrongs and problems.
However, what came as no surprise was the mischievous and misleading way in which the Labor government has conducted themselves. There is no three-point plan in substance. There is no three-point plan. This legislation contains nothing new.
Over the luncheon adjournment, I received a letter from the chairman of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, the Honourable Bronwyn Bishop MP, and what has happened is that the Commonwealth government has set up an important forum here. The terms of reference are crime in the community, victims/offenders and fear of crime, and there are a number of very specific matters which are going to be addressed. If the Labor government had genuinely created a three-point plan which addressed these, then there would be no need to have this inquiry. Perhaps they could have attended one of the Attorney-General’s fabled briefings, and with a briefing there would be no point in having an inquiry.
The standing committee is addressing precisely the issue which this rabble say they have already resolved. It is just outrageous. The types of crimes committed against Australians - well, hang on, we have that covered. The Attorney-General stood up and in a very embarrassing and belittling way quoted a couple of cases from the Supreme Court and with that powerful research said, ‘Oh well, property crime is drug related,’ and in a roundabout way he seemed to use that as some sort of justification for the raft of new provisions.
All these things are quite important: the effectiveness of sentencing, apprehension rates, strategies to support victims, and it goes on and on and on. So, this very issue is being addressed. For this government to genuinely stand up and say they have a three-point plan, and to try to sell that to the media as a genuine and effective way of dealing with crime is really outrageous and misleading. If the Northern Territory News was constrained solely by the facts, tomorrow’s headline should read, ‘Labor government - hoax drug laws’ because they are a hoax – it is really, really outrageous.
There has been some special singling out of licensed premises, and there are some solicitors and a number of business operators who quite genuinely hold the view that this legislation, by singling out licensees and licensed premises, will bring organised crime to the Northern Territory for the first time. That is how serious some of the people who operate in this industry, some of the people who know what they are talking about, are taking this. Their view is that this legislation has the capacity, for the very first time, to bring organised crime to the Northern Territory.
Let me elaborate on that. Currently our …
Members interjecting.
Ms CARNEY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Goyder is addressing matters involved in this legislation. I ask that he be allowed to do so.
Madam SPEAKER: What is your point of order?
Ms CARNEY: That they be quiet, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order. But there have been a number of interjections and I realise there will be a number of members who will want to make remarks later. I am sure you want to make your remarks in silence also. Perhaps you should remember that.
Mr MALEY: The proposition is put in this way. There are a number of licensed premises in town, and they are owned by many reputable and long term Darwin families, such as the Colemans, the McNamees, Foxy, the Walkers, and by targeting these people you are now putting them in a position where they will review their investments. That is precisely what has occurred in South Australia. If you create this divide between licensed premises and the authorities, then these type of people, these reputable people, say, well we are not interested in running the gauntlet of this type of legislation. They step out and, sure enough, the type of people who buy those premises are people who do not care and are not interested in being branded with being the owner or operator of a drug house with this type of legislation. There is a quite genuine concern there, and one that I said I would articulate and put on the record, and one which the government clearly has not taken the time to give any weight to.
Because of the overriding importance of a bipartisan approach to law enforcement and ensuring a strong message is sent to the Northern Territory community that this type of offending and offending in a general sense will not be tolerated, the opposition is not going to oppose the legislation. However, we have had the courage and fortitude to state quite clearly on the record the basis upon which we lend our support. The opposition will be watching carefully. We will be looking very closely at the effect of this raft of reforms, and the fabled three-point plan has on crime and offences committed within the Northern Territory. We look forward to coming back to this Chamber in 12 months time and closely examining the statistics and the effect the big plan has had.
The three-point plan is rhetoric, and I have said that a number of times because it is an important point. There are a number of other matters which are completely overlooked. We have already heard the Minister for Community Development answering a question today about fortifying an inner city apartment block. It demonstrates that this government does not have confidence in its own legislation. If there was any genuine belief that the new legislation and the raft of changes would reduce property crime and reduce crime, then spending taxpayers money and building a fortification would not even be contemplated. Instead, you would have the reassuring words that, it’s okay, the three-point plan which we have really based our electoral futures on, is going to work.
There was an amendment at the 11th hour. The amendment was given to me at about 10.45 this morning. It was a six-page amendment, and quite frankly, I have not been given the opportunity to really look at that closely, or discuss its effect, or the purported effect it is going to have on the industry. There is no time for me to form a considered view. There is no time to get one of the fabled ‘briefings’ which, according to the Attorney-General and his master, would have resolved all the issues: ‘Just have a briefing, and like father and son, we can work it out. We can come in here, we will work together’. In a perfect lefty world, there is no need for parliament.
In truth, there is no effective policy. It seems that there is almost a religious aversion to any effective policy. I have seen absolutely nothing of substance, and of even more concern than that, there seems to be an enormous amount of effort in trying to sell this message to the media, through political minders and the like, yet no real and genuine effort to talk to the Criminal Lawyers Association, the Hoteliers Association, some of the licensees, who will be affected by this legislation.
The legislation is designed to seize the headlines; that is probably the number one aim. There is no remedy, no solutions, just a soft and spongy policy-deficient, weak government. I get the feeling that it is like polishing the portholes in the Titanic.
Mr Stirling: Why are you supporting it then?
Mr MALEY: I have explained quite clearly the basis upon which we are not going to oppose it. If the concentration span of my brothers and sisters on the other side is so short that they cannot remember what I said ten minutes ago, then I suggest that they refer to the Hansard, or perhaps get a tape recorder, or one of their scribes to take the notes.
Madam Speaker, I indicate that the opposition will not be opposing the passage of the legislation.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, I rise today in full support of the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill 2002. As we all know, the cost of illicit drugs to the community is enormous, both in economic and social terms. The costs includes: health and welfare costs; financial and psychological costs; property and personal crimes committed by drug addicts to fund their addictions; the cost of law enforcement activities directed principally at drug offences and drug-related crime; and, of course, the cost to the courts and prison system.
It was estimated in a study a number of years ago, that the economic and social costs nationally of illicit drugs was approximately $1.6bn. Nationally, of this amount more than $200m was spent by the health and welfare sector; $450m was spent on drug law enforcement activities; approximately $64m was spent on the court system; and $230m was spent on the prison system. As we have also heard, it is estimated that at least 12% of all prisoners are drug offenders. Additionally, every year, millions of dollars are laundered in and through Australia of which a significant proportion can be attributed to illicit drugs.
The Territory is not an island and it is not immune from this scourge. The links between illegal intravenous drug use and crime, especially property crime, are well documented and almost universally acknowledged. So that the Leader of the Opposition could stand in this House and claim we are immune from this national problem, indeed, that our community’s flirtation with illicit drugs is only minuscule, is both misleading and offensive.
Two or three decades ago, much illegal drug distribution was akin to a cottage industry. Small-time traffickers, including tourists, picked up a few hundred grams of heroin or cocaine, or a kilo of marijuana, from a producer and distributed the product directly to casual, but trusted, contacts and personal friends. They in turn passed on small amounts, some of it for financial gain. Although a proportion of the trade in drugs is still carried out this way, trafficking is increasingly organised, particularly at the wholesale and intermediary levels for amphetamines or heroin, but arguably less so for marijuana. Vertically integrated, multinational illicit drug distribution organisations exist and trafficking is now increasingly facilitated by sophisticated organisations and distribution techniques. Evidence of substantial organised production and marketing networks exist.
Mr Elferink: Name three of them.
Mr KIELY: You lot support it.
A consideration of the broader socio-economic and political effects of consumption revolve around an understanding of when self-harm constitutes social harm. Most of the problems drugs create for individuals also imply social and economic overhead costs, particularly those associated with medical care, welfare and other social activities.
In terms of society’s interests, acute or chronic consumption is clearly more harmful than occasional consumption and use of drugs by many people is more harmful than use by a few. The consumption of a moderate amount of alcohol or cannabis may produce little social harm whereas excessive consumption may lead to disasters for others as well as for the user. With harder drugs, amphetamines and the drug of choice in the Territory, morphine, the public implications are potentially more severe.
The Northern Territory Drug Trends 2000 report demonstrated strong links between amphetamine and morphine use and property crime. In 2000, illicit morphine users were paying between $100 and $200 a day to feed their habit. With the vast majority of these users unemployed, it is obvious that a substantial amount of property crime is being committed to feed their addiction.
One needs to go no further than reports in last weekend’s Territory newspapers for confirmation of this observation. Shocking crimes have been and continue to be perpetrated by people who have an illicit drug addiction. People in the previous speaker’s own electorate have been injured and suffered severe trauma and it can be directly linked back to illicit drug use. For the previous speaker to say that it is not a problem in the Territory, well, let me say that those people in his own electorate would argue very strongly against that. The member for Brennan and his CLP colleagues should open their eyes and ears and listen to the people of the Territory. They know the drug related crime in the Territory is not minuscule.
This government is committed to a law enforcement strategy of zero tolerance when it comes to drug manufacturers and suppliers. This bill creates new offences, gives police new power and gives more options to courts to stop the traffic and trade in drugs which are so harmful to our community.
When I speak of zero tolerance, I do not see it as being something in conflict with this government’s position on harm reduction strategies for users. Let us think of the struggles of the family with a drug dependent member. It is possible for them to believe in zero tolerance towards the dealers in drugs, but at the same time to want to minimise the effect that the drug represents to their son or daughter. They want zero tolerance directed at the Mr Bigs of the trade in hard drugs but, at the same time, they want to see that as for as long as their son or daughter is dependent, there will be clean needles and health improvement strategies.
Our legislation should not be seen to be acting in isolation from the broader community concerns; it is just one part of this government’s comprehensive strategy toward building a safer community for all. There have been some sections of this community which have expressed a disquiet of the proposed drug premise audit, but the need for these types of audits can be clearly seen when we look at the notorious drug houses in Parap, Coconut Grove and the drug house that has most affected the people of my own electorate, Foils of Moil.
If I may for a moment provide the Chamber with a neighbour’s eye view of what it is like to live near one of these drug houses: while meeting the residents who live alongside the walkway that commences at the intersection of Parer Drive and Lee Point Road, just up the road from the Foils of Moil drug house, I was constantly informed of the annoying behaviour of young people who would sit in the area after dark and smoke dope obtained from the drug house. When they were high they would engage in all manner of antisocial behavior. This would range from excessive noise in the form of swearing or running amok, to graffiti writing and opportunistic property theft. As well, quite a number of residences had been broken into and attractive light-weight goods have been stolen.
This pattern of crime indicated to some home owners that the group that sat in the park way were probably responsible for the thefts. These residents know of the drug house and were constantly amazed at the previous government’s apparent neglect to take action to shut it down. I understand these people are supportive of the proposed drug premises orders.
But what of those people who are landlords, who may not be aware of what their tenant is up to? I was concerned about this group of people, as we have so many local real estate investors in the Territory, people who have obtained a second or third property as their superannuation nest egg, people who need the rent to be coming in every week otherwise they will face hardship in paying the mortgage. These are not large property developers, just your everyday mum and dad trying to ensure their financial security when the time comes.
On behalf of these people I sought briefings from the minister’s office on the drug premise order. I am pleased to inform this House that I am very satisfied that this is good legislation for the wider property owner because eviction of tenants who run a drug distribution network from the property will be made easier under the consequential amendments to the Residential Tenancies Act.
The Misuse of Drugs Bill provides for persons affected by the order, such as the owner or landlord of the premises, to apply to the court for orders to be revoked. The court may take into account the fact that the landlord has evicted or served a notice to quit on the tenants in deciding whether to revoke the declaration. The court is empowered to revoke the order if it is satisfied that the premises are no longer being used as drug premises.
This government is serious about measures to combat drug abuse and drug related crime. It is the duty of government to reflect the mood of the community and to provide legislation that is clear, unambiguous and supported through the criminal justice system leaving little doubt in the public’s mind as to the authorities of the police and the consequences of breaking the law. This is what this legislation achieves.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bills to honourable members.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I wish to change things a little and start by commenting on the repeal of the public order and antisocial conduct legislation. I feel compelled to spend some time on this. Words could barely describe my anger, and the anger of many of my constituents, when government announced that it would repeal this piece of legislation.
Madam Speaker, I note with interest that you were a strong supporter of the Public Order and Anti-Social Conduct Act when it was initially introduced. I thought it apposite to quote from your very insightful comments made on 4 July 2001:
- Mr Speaker, I support the legislation. Yes, sure, you will get criticised for doing it, but at the end of the day,
what our people want is to be able to live in harmony with each other, both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal.
At the moment there seems to be one element of our population which seems to make life very difficult for all
people. So, it is probably pretty brave of government to do this. They will get criticised. There will be
demonstrations and backlashes from them. But at the end of the day, you will find the people out there in
the community support it and wish the police well; that they are able to their job in a manner that makes them
feel that they have the security of legislation; that they know they won’t be wasting their time; they will know
that they will have the support of the people in this parliament to do this job; to bring about a decent quality
of life for all people.
It is my hope that having expressed your view very eloquently that you will, on this occasion, exercise your right to vote in this Chamber so that you also can report to your constituents and tell them, like I will be doing, that I did all I could to oppose the repeal of that important piece of legislation.
The Public Order and Anti-Social Conduct Act was, on any analysis, courageously introduced by the CLP last year. It showed Territorians it did have a government that was not shy about being accused of being tough on crime. This is in stark contrast to the new government which should really hang its collective head in shame as it is obvious it does not have the capacity to be tough, regardless of the pictures of police officers that sit behind the Attorney-General and his Chief Minister on the news grabs. But the people of the Northern Territory are not stupid, they do not buy it for a moment and they will not.
I notice in the Attorney-General’s second reading speech in May he referred to previous debates in which the former ALP opposition asserted that the legislation was insufficient because, according to the member for Nhulunbuy, and I quote an extract from the debate in July 2001:
- Under the existing words in this government bill, drug houses are not included because they may often conduct
their business peacefully and without commotion and will not necessarily come under the provisions of this bill
as it presently stands.
In other words, the bill was okay; it just did not include drug houses. So if one follows the logic of the Australian Labor Party, if there is legislation on the books that deals with drug dealers, this legislation, the Public Order and Anti-Social Conduct Act, could stand. But, surprise, surprise, even though at the end of this debate there will be specialised drug legislation on the books, the Labor government seeks to repeal, in any event, the Public Order and Anti-Social Conduct Act. The inconsistency in their argument is startling.
Again, I noticed in the Attorney-General’s second reading speech on 15 May that he said that the Public Order and Anti-Social Conduct Act:
- … did nothing to address the problems and nothing at all to address the underlying causes of these problems.
Here is the critical point: nor does the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill. It does nothing, does nothing, to use the holier than thou language of the Labor Party, it does nothing to:
- … address the problems and nothing at all to address the underlying causes of the problems.
This demonstrates, in my mind, and the minds of many others, the hypocrisy and weakness of the government’s position. It opposes legislation that the CLP government introduced, because it says it did not target the causes, and then introduces its own legislation in a related area that truly goes nowhere near targeting the causes and expects not to be called to account. Their position lacks intellectual rigour, to say the least, and how they sleep at night, I just do not know.
The Public Order and Anti-Social Conduct Act deals with antisocial conduct without reference to drugs. The government’s new drug laws deal with drugs. So, by repealing the Public Order and Anti-Social Conduct Act, the government has legislated to do something with drug dealers, but repealed the very legislation that was directed at those who engage in antisocial conduct not drug related.
Again, in the Attorney-General’s second reading speech in May, he said that: ‘the act serves no useful purpose’. Well, Mr Attorney-General, can you explain to the residents of Alice Springs, for instance, why powers for police to give reasonable directions to ensure the individuals or groups engaging in antisocial behaviour remove themselves from an area serves no useful purpose? Can you explain why powers for police to take preventative action …
Mr Stirling interjecting.
Ms CARNEY: Yell all you like, Syd, I will just get louder.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms CARNEY: Can you explain, Mr Attorney-General, why powers for police to take preventative action, if they form a reasonable apprehension that a person has engaged in, or is in engaging in, or is about to engage in antisocial conduct, serves no useful purpose? Can you, Mr Attorney-General, tell us why legislation that has as its central focus and intent, the notion that the community has a responsibility to maintain minimum standards of social conduct that do not continually or repeatedly disrupt the lives of others in the community, serves no useful purpose? I think not, Mr Attorney-General.
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! The member for Macdonnell, cross chatter.
Mr Elferink: Madam Speaker, I agree, it is just horrible.
Madam SPEAKER: You are disturbing the member for Araluen. She cannot make her speech while these interjections are going on. Now you will all get your chance. Just be quiet.
Ms CARNEY: My question to the Attorney-General, who is also Minister for Central Australia, is what does he propose to do about the problems there? ‘Nothing’, is so obviously his answer. I refer to an interview on ABC Radio on 6 June and will quote part of it:
- Reporter: ‘So when you talk about an enforcement though are you talking about changing the laws to
make them tougher on juveniles?’
The minister: ‘No, that is not the direction I am taking. I think what I am saying is we need to be able to go
up to these kids and say, “No, you can’t just say you are not going to do what we are suggesting you should
get involved in”, because the police are saying these kids know their rights’.
This shows very obviously that the minister really has no idea what to do. But we have every reason to suspect that whatever he decides to do, when that might be, it will be a soft option. We all know that the Minister for Central Australia met with a group of business people, led by Max Klein, three or four weeks ago, and the minister assured that group of local business people that he would come up with something, and that he would report back to them in three weeks. They still have not heard anything. He has not come up with anything, and yet he has the temerity to come into this Chamber and argue against the legislation, seeking to repeal legislation that actually did do something and would have, had it been policed properly – which of course was impossible since this government came to power.
Mr Stirling: It is the police’s fault now. It is the copper’s fault.
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The Leader of Government Business knows full well he cannot speak from a place other than his chair. His interjections are unruly enough but he single handedly is trying to drown out the speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of Government Business, we will allow you to speak from the chair when you have your opportunity to speak, but your interjections have been disorderly. Give the member for Araluen a chance; let her finish her speech.
Mr Kiely: Another bucket of tripe.
Madam SPEAKER: Without further interruptions.
Ms CARNEY: In his second-reading speech, the Attorney-General said, and I quote:
This government is committed to a law enforcement strategy of zero tolerance when it comes to drug
manufacturers and suppliers.
The ALP does not have any answers. The Minister for Central Australia said something a few weeks ago which was a welcome surprise to us all, because it meant that he actually woke up from his long and deep sleep. He seemed to concede that there was, in fact, a problem. We were glad that the minister joined us in that belief.
Of course, it is not the first time that the Attorney-General has made something of a dill out of himself. We know he has a certain view about letting prisoners who should be serving life sentences out of gaol. The minister wants to let them out early. Reportedly, some of his Cabinet colleagues are against him on that, so he might like to talk to his mates first before coming out with policy on the run. However, I digress.
The issue at hand is that this government is getting rid of a vital piece of legislation. It gave police powers to deal with the riffraff we see on the streets every day. Some police officers I have spoken with - who do not want to be named for very obvious reasons - have told me that the act was not enforced since the ALP came to power because they were told that the government was going to get rid of it. Now, Blind Freddie could see that the government was going to get rid of it; you were always going to get rid of it. Of course, given the cuts made to the police force in the mini-budget - of course, I am thinking about the Manison memo about the police cuts - it was very easy to see that enforcing this legislation was not a government priority. The government did not give that piece of legislation a chance and they certainly did not give the police the resources to enforce it. Indeed, it is the opposite; it cut police resources. The repeal …
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Araluen is misleading the House. We did not cut the budget for police in the mini-budget. I would like her to substantiate that. We have not cut police numbers. So she cannot stand up in here and say we have cut resources to the police, or we have cut funding to the police. Well, we did not.
Mr ELFERINK: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker, the member is fully aware of how to proceed with misleading allegations and if he wishes to do so, he may.
Mr DUNHAM: Further speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker, the police numbers were not in the mini-budget because they were entirely expunged from this document for the first time.
Mr Ah Kit: Well, how can she make that allegation?
Mr Henderson: Precisely.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, I really do not think there is a point of order, but do not make allegations that you cannot substantiate, because you know the rules about that.
Ms CARNEY: I will certainly go back to the Hansard with interest, Madam Speaker. I do not believe I referred to cutting police numbers.
As I said, the hypocrisy in the repeal of this legislation is really astonishing. That is a view shared by many people in my electorate, friends and colleagues. The Attorney-General in particular will have some trouble holding his head up in Alice Springs. He is the Minister for Central Australia; he does know what the problems are at last; he is just too scared to do anything about it. He should do something; he was part of the Australian Labor Party opposition during the election that promised Territorians that, after 27 years, they had all of the answers. Then, when he comes to government he stands there and says: ‘Um, er, um’. My constituents want and deserve much better.
The act should not be repealed especially when nothing is offered to replace it. I strongly oppose the repeal of this legislation and I know that my CLP colleagues stand with me on this matter. In particular, my colleagues from Central Australia oppose the repeal of this act.
Moving now to the Misuse of Drugs Act, it is noteworthy that parts of the bill in fact mirror the Public Order and Anti-Social Conduct Act which the government now seeks to repeal. There are numerous similarities between the two pieces of legislation, but to illustrate one in terms basic enough even for the Labor Party to understand I will use this example. A section of the Public Order and Anti-Social Conduct Act says and I quote:
- … police … may apply to the Court for an order … declaring the place specified in the application to be a
place of anti-social conduct.
This bill, the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill, provides for essentially the same thing. It says:
- The Commissioner … may apply to the court for a drug premises order…
In other words, one seeks to declare an area a place of antisocial conduct so that the police can take particular action; the other one - the Labor Party one - does much the same thing but in respect of drugs. The problem, however, is that the government has placed a higher emphasis on drugs than the most common cause of abhorrent behaviour which, as anyone in the Northern Territory can tell you, is alcohol.
My constituents in Alice Springs, for the most part, do not see drug problems when the walk around the CBD or their neighbourhoods, but they do see the terrible affects of alcohol. Indeed, the minister would know that Max Klein does not think the crime rate in Alice Springs is drug related; he thinks it is alcohol related.
Madam Speaker, I seek leave to table two documents coming at this argument from a separate tack. One is letter to me signed by numerous hoteliers in Alice Springs; the other is a letter to me from the Alice Springs Memorial Club.
Leave granted.
Ms CARNEY: Madam Speaker, the significance of this is that it underlines how ill-prepared this Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill is. It has not consulted with hoteliers, it has not given detailed, long term thought to some of the issues that these good people are thinking about. In relation to the letter dated 14 June from Alice Springs Memorial Club I will read a short paragraph as follows:
- Not only is it possible under the proposed legislation for a licensed premise to be declared a ‘drug house’
on the basis of circumstantial evidence relating to the conduct of staff or contractors, but as the hearing is
to be conducted in private and no notice given, it is conceivable that the first time a licensee will know
that the authorities have any concern in relation to their venue is when the drug premise order is served.
In relation to the second letter which is signed by the licensees and/or owners of the following hotels in Alice Springs: the Todd Tavern, Melanka Lodge, The Gap Hotel, Bojangles, Firkin & Hound, and Scotty’s Tavern. I will again quote just a couple of paragraphs of a fairly detailed letter:
- Is Dr Peter Toyne suggesting that we should drug test all our employees and customers to ensure that we
are not breaching these draconian measures? Is his government prepared to meet the costs for those of us
in the industry? Will we be forced to train our staff as police officers? Will he give us the power of arrest
without fear of prosecution?
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Members, you are again being unruly.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
- Is this another way for this government to cut costs?
And further in the correspondence - this is terribly significant, but I guess not all that surprising when one considers the behaviour of this government in the last 10 months, but I will quote this:
- We employ a great many people who rely on a wage to pay their bills, to tell our employees that they
will be unemployed for 14 days due to a witch hunt conducted by the Northern Territory government
and police is outrageous. We face the prospect of losing qualified staff that we have invested time
and money on because there will be no job security for them. Why does this government insist on
promoting the hospitality industry to our young people as a means of employment when they are
threatening their very jobs? Why spend money promoting the NT?
As the member for Goyder touched upon in his speech, and perhaps I can put it this way, the legislation falls short because there is a great risk that the owners of these establishments in Alice Springs will leave town. If their businesses become unprofitable as a result of this, if the demands placed on their staff are such that staff cannot come to work for 14 days then it is very possible that this legislation in very real terms ends up targetting the good guys. And you blokes want to catch the bad guys, and so do we.
The legislation is so curious in parts, and we raise it in the hope that perhaps you will amend it in due course, that there is a real risk that the good guys will be targetted. I am troubled by a number of parts of the bill, however …
A member: Get a briefing.
Ms CARNEY: I will pick up that interjection quick smart from the cretin over there. I have had a briefing. I attended the briefing. It was very detailed and thorough, and any time I am interested in legislation, I will ask for a briefing very quickly. I am happy to compliment the Attorney-General and his staff. They have always afforded me great hospitality when I have been there, and the briefings are always wonderful. Thank you.
Mr Kiely interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Sanderson, that is enough.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Some of the concerns I have about the act are that in some areas they are draconian, they could be considered offensive. It is interesting, isn’t it, that those sorts of words were bandied around when the CLP introduced the Public Order and Anti-Social Conduct Act. The true believers have changed the goal post inside 10 months. They were so pure, so self-righteous, that some people, even I on a down day, respected them for it. Their self-righteousness was, from a distance, greatly to be admired. Well, they have really come down. Civil liberty groups around the country have had a go at this legislation like never before.
Let’s look a little closer to home to see what some of the learned people in the Northern Territory have to say about this bill. I am very pleased to quote from the Law Society Northern Territory magazine, Balance. That authoritative, scholarly publication has been scathing, to say the least. I will happily table an extract from page 3. Madam Speaker, I seek leave to table that document.
Leave granted.
Ms CARNEY: That is the president’s column, the president of the Law Society, Mr Ian Morris. I invite members on the government side to look at that article if they have not already. It is a long article, but I will just quote a couple of paragraphs. He says:
… at least the existence of known drug houses gave the police some measure of controlling the problem
with the resources they have. Now the ‘drug houses’ will be reduced to ‘drug street corners’ or ‘drug panel
vans’ or the like and will be impossible to track, at least with the resources the police currently have.
- The police had to move, and the government will have to legislate, and neither of them will be able to control
the more mobile ways in which drugs will be sold in the future, certainly not without considerable increases
in the resources of the police.
That is the relevant extract from the president’s column in Balance. But the article by the very learned John Lawrence, the president of the Criminal Lawyers Association of the Northern Territory, known as CLANT, is just sensational in terms of its intellect and insight. I seek leave to table that two page article.
Leave granted.
Ms CARNEY: The member for Goyder and I spoke briefly about what we were both going to say about this legislation, and members will have noticed that from time to time, the member for Goyder and I think a bit differently about certain things, and that is a real plus. That shows the depth of talent in the opposition, because I have quoted bits that the member for Goyder did not. Happily I would quote those bits. The article from the president of the Criminal Lawyers Association of the Northern Territory says, Drug laws are ‘junk’:
- That junk is now law; specifically the additions and amendments to the Misuse of Drugs Act creating drug
premises etc.
He goes on:
- What was invented was getting tough on drug crime which they claimed was the real cause of property crime.
Now, of course, this is the Northern Territory, where every man and his dog knows that if there is one thing
that causes crime … it’s VB.
It’s VB! It’s VB! He goes on:
- The Attorney-General said that the new laws would address ‘operational problems’ which the police had in
dealing with the crimes going on in and about these houses. Now, we all know, including the Drug Squad,
that that is arrant nonsense.
Strong words from the President of the Criminal Lawyers’ Association. He goes on further:
- The creation of this new procedure is pure cosmetic political nonsense.
Strong stuff, scathing stuff, junk, worthless stuff, rubbish and the best sentence in this, and this is the only part that the member for Goyder quoted from, but it is so apposite that I am very happy to quote it again: ‘The legislation is nothing more or less than a cynical, political exercise’. Oh, how the mighty have fallen, Madam Speaker. You self-righteous …
Dr Toyne: Oh, my God, John Lawrence does not like it, we had better pull the bill …
Ms CARNEY: What is so interesting about this is that prior to the last election, and I said this in the debate we had about the DPP, the very group of people who the members on the other side actively courted, actively courted for years, have now turned on them. There is obviously a lack of confidence in the government side. They must surely be wondering why they took all those lawyers out to lunch all those years ago!
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Members on the government side.
Ms CARNEY: And of course, from the lawyer’s point of view, well, I am sure they are not happy either, and I have said on one previous occasion, and I am happy to repeat it, they backed the wrong horse. They backed the wrong horse because they did not think, they never thought that you lot would introduce self-righteous, cynical, political garbage like this.
Members interjecting.
Ms CARNEY: Too right I am, let me tell you why. Let me tell you why I am going to support this. I am delighted to support this legislation. In fact, I withdraw that. I do not oppose the legislation, and am very happy to do so, and let me tell you why. This lot have staked their political future on it. This lot say that this legislation will reduce property crime in the Northern Territory by 50%. And do you think I don’t want to sit back and watch them? I do, I do.
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! It again goes to misleading the House. I would like the honourable member to point to any statement on the public record, on the Parliamentary Record where we have stated that this raft of legislation will reduce property crime by 50%.
Mr ELFERINK: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: There are too many interjections. Now I have been tolerant, but you are beginning to test my patience. Member for Macdonnell, you were speaking to the point of order.
Mr ELFERINK: Very briefly, Madam Speaker. The same point I raised before. The minister is fully aware of the processes in relation to misleading the House, and he knows what options he has to take.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order, minister.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Madam Speaker. No doubt the likes of Max Klein and the group of business people with whom the Attorney-General met some weeks ago will be delighted if this government were to reduce property crime by anything like 50%. I would be delighted. I would feel safe walking down the street to get a carton of milk at night. If this government can do it, I will take my hat off to them.
If this legislation achieves what this government wants it to, then I will really be the first one to say well done. But it cannot, and that is why I have highlighted, as have others, as have people much more clever in the law than I would ever be, very learned people have said the legislation will not work. And that is why I won’t oppose it. If it does, then good on you.
But I, in particular, am interested because the way I see it is that the Misuse of Drugs Act is like a ball and chain you will carry for the next three years. It will be the cross you carry, the burden you carry, every single day for three more years. I look forward to interrogating the government over the next three years about all of the promises made in support of this piece of legislation. To do what the government has done, for me, really is a red rag to a bull because they have very firmly affixed themselves to this legislation. They say it is going to solve just about everything. Well, I will sit and watch and, as I said, look forward very much indeed to asking the Attorney-General question after question as the months and years roll on.
Mr AH KIT (Community Development): Madam Speaker, I have to say a few words about the performance by the member for Araluen in respect of this repeal bill.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, I will remind you, you are speaking to the bill, not the last performance.
Mr AH KIT: Madam Speaker, I am speaking to the bill and I am commenting on some of the remarks that she made. That was the biggest backflip I have ever seen in this House in seven years. We saw a situation where it was quite clear she categorically denied that she would support the bill, until her budding lawyer colleague came in and reminded her that they had better be together on this. It was the wish of the Leader of the Opposition and she now supports it. Whilst it was a good performance, she is getting better; she now knows what she has been told to do and is, in fact, now supporting the bill.
I rise to support …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! I think the government member could at least let their own member have his say in silence.
Mr AH KIT: I rise to support this bill and the repeal of the legislation. Since the Public Order and Anti-Social Conduct Act became law under the previous government there was not a single conviction attributed to it - not one single conviction. This government, the Martin Labor government, is the government that is not going to allow these pieces of legislation sit idle for no real good reason. Therefore, we are moving to repeal it.
In a small way, this law shows why the Country Liberal Party lost the last election. As a government, they were into window dressing; they were into passing laws that served no purpose. They were a government which wanted to beat their chests and look like tough guys and gals without actually addressing the problems.
I have already spoken in this House of how antisocial behaviour offends me. I have said that I have felt shame when people cause humbug in public places, especially in many cases, my Aboriginal people. This government will not mouth empty rhetoric and wave around useless laws. We will address problems in a practical and thorough manner.
Today, I will outline part of the government’s overall response to address antisocial behaviour, particularly in Darwin, through the Itinerant Strategy. We will obviously continue to work with the Minister for Central Australia in addressing the antisocial behavioural problems in Central Australia also. In Darwin, an action research study was conducted last year to provide a comprehensive understanding of the nature of the issues facing indigenous itinerants and service providers in the Darwin region. The study also provided recommendations for addressing these issues, including proposals for pilot projects. The report recommended four key strategy areas: patrolling, education, regional visits, and alcohol and accommodation. Working parties for each strategy have formed, and these groups have been identifying immediate priorities and medium to long-term strategies. The working parties are represented by 40 government and non-government service providers. The immediate priorities of the itinerant strategy is primary health care and intervention through extended Night Patrol hours; expansion of outreach and referral workers; feasibility studies; a day facility with diversionary activities; and community education.
The patrolling strategy aims to coordinate existing patrolling activities, increase the hours of the current Night Patrol, and change the nature of the Night Patrol to a more proactive community patrol including the introduction of outreach referral workers. The education and regional strategy includes Larrakia and key regional leaders visiting remote communities in the Top End to develop an education campaign to promote respect for Larrakia protocols and a campaign…
Mr Dunham: Not working, then, mate. If that is what you are doing, it is not working.
Mr AH KIT: I will pick up on the interjection from the member for Drysdale.
Mr Dunham: It is not working.
Mr AH KIT: Well, we are doing something positive about it. This is the difference. We are attacking the problem. We are seeing an opposition that wants to have legislation on books and they have not one single opportunity to use that - not one conviction. We are the government and we are having a go. It would be better for the member for Drysdale to work with us on this rather than to say it is not working. We are in the process of putting a budget together to start moving towards these strategies.
The education and regional strategy includes Larrakia and key regional leaders, as I said, visiting remote communities to develop an education campaign to promote respect for Larrakia protocols, and a campaign aimed at the wider community explaining both the nature of the project and the legitimate rights of indigenous visitors to the city. The alcohol strategy is aimed at introducing coordinated service delivery to assist those itinerants with alcohol abuse problems to move away from this destructive life cycle. The accommodation strategy is aimed at helping those people who wish to stay in Darwin and Palmerston to find safe, appropriate and permanent accommodation.
On 14 May this year, I announced that the government would be funding a project coordinator and would devote substantial funding to the key strategic areas outlined in the report. My department has now appointed a project coordinator. The position will be outposted to the Larrakia Nation organisation to ensure that all aspects of implementing strategies is done with the cultural authority of the Larrakia and at the community level with community participation. Work has begun on the implementation of the strategies. A budget proposal that outlines the report’s recommendations has received significant Cabinet support, and I am pleased to say the strategy will be the subject of a major budget announcement.
Further research, consultation and feasibility studies are also part of the immediate package of measures. These will be required prior to the introduction of medium and longer term measures including tackling structural disadvantage in remote communities and developing options for appropriate accommodation and effective service delivery models in the city.
Positive signs for the project includes widespread community and organisational support. The project will include the introduction of a further range of discrete initiatives including a cultural and tourism project at the Darwin Museum precinct, a Larrakia Ambassadors program initiated by Darwin City Promotions, a proposal for Larrakia rangers on the Casuarina Coastal Reserve, and improved networking and data collection among service agencies dealing with alcohol and other substance abuse.
Individual Territorians and community groups have rightly been concerned for many years about the large number of people from remote communities living an itinerant lifestyle in and around Darwin and other centres. These concerns include the negative effect of inappropriate behaviour, effects on long-grassers’ relatives who live in Darwin, the health and safety of people living in the long grass, and the negative effects on local business in Darwin and Palmerston.
To solve these long-standing social problems, you must work carefully and thoroughly with all parties. You cannot, like the CLP did, wave your arms around and stamp your feet; you cannot talk about monstering and stomping on people. The Itinerant Strategy provides a meaningful alternative to the Anti-Social Conduct Bill. It does so because it works with people.
Madam Speaker, I support repeal of the bill and I support the government’s considered approach to antisocial behaviour.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I commence by saying a few things in relation to cognate bills. This is one of the problems with putting through bills of such magnitude in a cognate structure because invariably there is a little bit of confusion when people are talking about supporting this aspect or not supporting that aspect. When the Attorney-General gave notice and sought to have those bills heard cognate, I did not choose to climb up to my feet. I thought, okay, let’s see how it goes. But now we are starting see demonstrated to us a problem with the cognate bills because we have members referring to supporting the bill – well, frankly, which one? Some members are saying we are supporting the bills, the bill. Some people are saying we are supporting this and not opposing that, and it becomes a very confusing process for this Chamber to deal with this. And truth be known in hindsight, I think that there is some very real room here for bills of this magnitude to be heard separately because there are separate issues involved.
I also turn to the use of the term ‘zero tolerance’. Zero tolerance has become to mean something in this day and age which it was not when it was originally introduced and studied in the United States in the late 1980s if memory serves me correctly. Zero tolerance as a policy was based on work done by a Dr Philip Zimbardo, a fairly Mephistophelean-looking sort of character who came from Stanford University. Dr Zimbardo and his colleagues worked on a principle that people who were of an antisocial nature worked on signals in the community. This process was eventually to be called the ‘Broken Windows’ theory. The theory goes something like this: the villainous or mischievous mind will work off signals in the community to accept or find those signals as some sort of information that they can operate in that community. So the theory goes that if you remove those signals you can then start to do something about removing those villainous or mischievous minds from your community.
It works something like this: if a person saw a single window broken on a factory it was not long before all the windows were broken and the signal was simply this: ‘Ah, a window is broken. It seems like the right thing to do. I am a villainous or mischievous person and therefore I will do the same sort of thing’. If you can prevent the first window from being broken, that signal is not sent …
Mr Stirling: Or repair it.
Mr ELFERINK: Or repair it for that matter - that signal is not sent. The process that was applied in New York City where the original zero tolerance approach was taken was that zero tolerance was not targeting the Mr Bigs; they had spent years in New York City pursuing the Mr Bigs. They started targeting everything at the street level. If you swore in the street you were arrested; if you urinated in the street you were arrested; if you did a small time drug deal on the street corner like Mr Small or Mr Tiny you were arrested. You were simply taken out of commission. As the Deputy Chief Minister interjected, you simply fixed the window. The astonishing thing was, was that this process of cleaning up at a street level reverberated right up through …
Dr Burns: Like drug houses.
Mr ELFERINK: I pick up the interjection from the member for Johnston - absolutely - it reverberated right up the food chain and even drug houses started to find it very, very difficult to live in these districts because these districts were getting cleaned up, they were removing the clientele.
I heard the member for Sanderson refer to zero tolerance against the Mr Bigs. It is actually a contradiction in terms in terms of the original use of zero tolerance …
Mr Kiely: No go back and read what I said.
Mr ELFERINK: However, I will accept what the member for Sanderson had to say on this occasion because I understand what he is driving at. He is saying we are just going to concentrate on the Mr Bigs and we are not going to take anything from them. We are not going to accept anything about the Mr Bigs, we are going to clean those blokes out – good, no problem with that, happy to see you doing it and I am happy to support that part of the legislation.
Going back to the cognate bill approach, we then see us absolutely trying to remove one of the important powers that we have given to police to try and move these people on. The member for Sanderson said one of the problems that he has with the people in the Moil area is that the people who visit the drug house then go and sit in the park and create all sorts of problems. I ask the member for Sanderson why is he supporting the withdrawal of the bill which gives the police the power to move those people on?
The member for Sanderson is now trying to withdraw the very legislation that would help solve the problem he outlined. The member for Sanderson has to realise that he has fallen into the same cognate bill trap that other members have fallen into, because he is saying, ‘Oh, I support the whole package.’ Well now he is supporting the withdrawal of the very powers that the police are going to be using to remove …
Mr Kiely: Why wasn’t it used on the houses before, John?
Mr ELFERINK: The members opposite have interjected repeatedly, ‘Why wasn’t it used?’ Well, the fact is, as the member for Araluen pointed out, that the decision was taken not to use the bill because the police were already aware that the ALP was going to withdraw that piece of legislation. They were aware that the ALP was going to withdraw that, so they chose not to do that. It is called a discretionary power. But what we have is the members opposite, who fail to demonstrate any sort of imagination when they stand up and speak. Their speeches are scripted and prepared for them by the staffers upstairs and, as a result of that, we get this coherent zombie-like agreement with everything that government is doing. It is like watching the Night of the Living Dead - ‘We will follow the government line, we will follow the government line.’
Members opposite have an enormous amount of latitude to speak about things which do not quite fit into the government line. If you go back to Hansard, there are any number of members who have stood up in this Chamber in the past and used the ability to debate things out to almost disagree with the government line. Steve Hatton was a case in point - used to do it all the time. I used to do it from time to time.
Members interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: They can sit there and laugh but I can tell you something, I am still a proud member of the CLP and I am still a member of this Chamber. Where’s your candidate, Sunshine? Where’s your candidate, mate? Because I was honest with the people in my electorate, and that sometimes meant that I had to do things which were not just the slavish adherence to the policy of government at the time.
I am not ashamed to stand up and say it, but I wish some other backbenchers would show a little bit of spine from time to time.
Mr Kiely: I wish they would too, John.
Mr ELFERINK: Now, we also from time to time hear the term …
Madam SPEAKER: Excuse me for a moment. Member for Sanderson, I think you should cease your interjections.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, we also hear from time to time this term ‘whole-of-government approach.’ With the whole-of-government approach to this, I just wonder, and I invite the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure to comment on this, what is his Department of Transport and Infrastructure going to do in this tough on drugs fight? You immediately think, well, what could Transport and Infrastructure have to do with it? Well, I will give you an example. I was going for a jog the other day and as I was jogging through town, a numberplate came past me, and that numberplate said, ‘THC4ME.’ T-H-C, figure 4, M-E, me. I thought about that and I thought, there is something that Transport and Infrastructure can do. It can start to withdraw those numberplates which promote the use of illegal substances in our community. Is there a policy from the Transport and Infrastructure minister in relation to this sort of thing? It is an important question.
No, and I see the Attorney-General is laughing, but I am actually deadly serious about this, because the whole-of-government approach means that every department, no matter how remote they appear to be from the problem, should turn their attention to the issue – whole-of-government – it is not a huge thing to do. There are other number plates like that in circulation, and it would be a good thing to try to develop a whole-of-government approach which deals with these issues.
The Attorney-General might find it mirthful that such number plates are in existence, but what if under his new tough drug houses policy the number plate ‘dealer’ is issued. It is on a panel van which is driving around town and all of a sudden it becomes the signal that that is where you can score. It would be an interesting question to ask, and I think it is an interesting question to ask. I would urge the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure to pick that point up and report to this House during today’s debate.
While we are creating the big drug boss as the major villain, we are forgetting what happens underneath the major villain. I have no problem with going after the Mr Bigs, but I would also like very much to see the police, and the authorities as a whole, go after the Mr Smalls as well, and the guys who are on street level. Those little drug houses in Moil, don’t think they are the Mr Bigs. The Mr Bigs are way up the food chain. I suggest that the Mr Bigs that the government is purporting to suggest they are after, are not within the government’s jurisdiction; that a lot of these drugs come from outside of our jurisdiction - certainly amphetamines. I would put a lot of money on it …
Dr Burns: You have not read that report. I will read it to you later.
Mr ELFERINK: I can tell you something. I would be very pleased to see the Northern Territory government go after those couriers in between. However, at what point, if you think of the philosophy of the government opposite, does a person go from being a Mr Big to a Mr Small or the victim? By withdrawing this type of legislation - the antisocial legislation which was passed in this House prior to the last election - what they are effectively saying is that those people who are in the parks and on the streets are actually the victims of the Mr Bigs. The Mr Bigs are the big evil fellows. It is almost like the old capitalist pig with a cigar sitting in a restaurant having a feed, and the young matchstick girl has her faced pressed up against the glass type scenario. That is the scenario that they are trying to paint for the Territory: that the people who break into your house, by virtue of the fact that they use drugs - if they are indeed relying on the proceeds of their crime to pay for those drugs - according to the members opposite, these people are rendered so dumb and moronic by the use of their drugs that they no longer have control of their own functions. That is, breaking into somebody else’s home is an autonomic response to a drug problem that they have.
Nothing could be further from the truth. I have met drug addicts over the years; people who have used drugs recreationally; and people who have used drugs, both licit and illicit. All of those people were capable of expressing a choice; and they often do. Often, those choices are bad choices – that is when the break into your house, steal your car, etcetera; but they are capable of making that choice. However, inherent in what the government is saying is that they are not really capable of making that choice; they are the victims of some dark conspiracy.
I have never seen a situation where a person who has broken into the house has somebody else standing behind them with a gun saying: ‘You will break into the house’. People are given choices to make every single day, and they sometimes make abhorrently poor choices. The consequences of those choices normally flow on to the person who makes them. Under the members opposite, those choices and consequences will not flow on. The message that I get from this tough on drugs campaign is: ‘We are tough on the Mr Bigs, but you little guys, gee whiz, we feel for you’. The Minister for Community Development said roughly that when he said: ‘We are going to take an approach which is consultative and caring’. Well, that is fine if that is the philosophy you want to pursue. However, what I am saying is: let us get a consistent message out there. If we are going to be tough on the drugs up there, then come right down the food chain to where the plankton are living and get tough on drugs there as well. If that is the community expectation, then you do it from the street level all the way up. You do not make excuses for one group in favour of another group, because it is an inconsistent message and it will fail to reach its mark. That is why I am concerned that this package of legislation will fail to make its mark.
I also wish to very quickly raise the issue of the power to move people on. I find it curious when the members opposite say it has never been used. The member for Johnston interjected earlier: ‘Nobody’s every been charged’. Well, the power to move a person on is the power to walk up to that person and say: ‘Go’. If that person stands up and leaves, then that power has been exercised and I would be very surprised if a record is kept. Does the member of the police force whip open his notebook and say: ‘On 20 June 2002 at 1625 hours, I moved a person on’? He may take a name and address for other reasons, but at the end of the day it is impossible to measure …
Mr Henderson: You never did it? You never asked somebody to move on before the legislation was introduced?
Mr ELFERINK: Absolutely! And under the former legislation, I never reported using it. That is the point, you dill!
Mr Henderson: That’s right, but you had the power so it was useless legislation.
Mr ELFERINK: Rubbish! The legislation that I used to use had certain requirements. The new legislation had different requirements. The power at that level in the first instance remained the same. Big deal.
Now, the fact is this policy package has passed through the alimentary tract of the Labor Party policy machine and has produced what you would expect.
Mr Henderson: But you are going to support it, anyway.
Mr ELFERINK: I am not supportive, not supportive, of the section of the cognate bill, and this is the problem I was talking about before …
Mr Henderson: Then move amendments, divide and oppose. It is easy enough. You know the mechanism.
Mr ELFERINK: I am not supportive of the section of the bill which removes the legislation that we introduced last year. I am supportive of the legislation that gets tough on drugs. If you guys wanted to do the job properly, you would not bring this stuff in a cognate structure into the House. As I said in my opening statements, I was prepared to hear it on this occasion, go through the cognate process and it shows you what a disaster the cognate process is when you are dealing with bills of this magnitude.
I have made my position particularly clear. I am disappointed that the good legislation brought forward by the CLP last year is being withdrawn. However, I am supportive of the process of being tough on drugs.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Madam Speaker, I speak in favour of amendments to the Misuse of Drugs Bill and the consequential amendments to this bill within the Residential Tenancies Act, the Commercial Tenancy Act and the Liquor Act.
I believe the misuse of drugs represents a major cause of social and physical harm in our society and I would agree with members opposite that alcohol - and I will add tobacco - cause the most damage in Australia in relation to health and well-being, especially in the Territory. However, I believe the impact of illicit drugs in the Northern Territory was often deliberately overlooked by the previous government to the detriment of our community.
Unlike tobacco and, to some degree excluding alcohol, illicit drugs are major contributors to crime, particularly property crime. These illicit drugs include opiates such as morphine and heroin; amphetamines as a broad group including speed, ice, ecstacy and other variants; and cannabis.
Cannabis is often touted as a relatively harmless drug, and possibly 20 years ago that might have been a reasonable position to take. But there has been sufficient research, very solid research, over the last 20 years that indicates cannabis is not a harmless drug. In fact, to some people it can be a quite harmful drug. There has been some talk in the medical literature about the uses of THC and cannabis in treating nausea, vomiting and appetite loss in terminally ill patients, but the jury is still out on that one. There is some fairly solid evidence - and I will read a summary from an article by McKay and Tennant in the Medical Journal of Australia in 2000. They have basically summarised the potential psychological harms of cannabis use.
- Cannabis use has been associated with:
poor school performance;
possible progression to other illicit drug use;
an ‘amotivation’ syndrome (now felt to represent chronic intoxication in heavy long-term users);
dependence;
which is a very important aspect because this is a drug that can cause a very heavy psychological dependence, so it is not a drug without harm;
subtle impairments in information processing;
and also cognitive impairments associated with long term cannabis use, particularly in memory and executive function. And most importantly, I believe,
psychosis.
There has been toxic psychosis identified with cannabis use and my colleague, the member for Arafura, has identified some of the problems particularly in Aboriginal communities of young men using large amounts of cannabis, heavy use of cannabis, chronic use of cannabis at very high doses, and the depression and suicide that is possibly implicated with that type of use. Cannabis is a drug that we ought to take very seriously and we are showing that we are taking it seriously through this Misuse of Drugs Act.
The other drug that I mentioned was opiates. We have a very unfortunate history here in the Territory where we saw the use of prescription morphine escalate. There is an article in the Medical Journal of Australia from the year 2000 by Berbatis et al, showing how the consumption of this particular drug in the Territory escalated from about 1996 and peaking in 1998 and off into 1999. Quite interestingly, the current opposition leader was minister for health during much of this period of this escalation; he was minister for health between 21 June 1996 and 14 September 1997.
We have substance abuse committee operating within this parliament, and I will be asking some very serious questions in relation to this particular matter because with every prescription for morphine on the PBS, or even a private script, a copy of that prescription gets sent to the health department. The health department then collates all that information. The type of questions I will be asking are: was the then minister for health, who is now the opposition leader, made aware of this rapid escalation in the use of prescription morphine in the Territory, and what exactly did he do about it? I am just flagging that as some questions that I would like to ask. There is no doubt in my mind that this increase in use or diversion of prescription morphine actually fuelled drug use within the Territory and I think we are still feeling the consequences of that today.
Data from the Health Insurance Commission shows that between 1998 and 1999, around 200 000 and 300 000 tablets of 100 milligram MS Contin were diverted. Each one of those tablets is worth $50. I am not saying all of it was diverted, but that has a potential value of over $10m per annum. That is Mr Big, that is a lot of morphine, that is a lot of money. This is why it is very important for us to get to the bottom of this particular graph here. Who was responsible? Who knew about it, and what did they do about it? My knowledge is that nothing was done until the Health Insurance Commission intervened in this particular matter. As our substance abuse committee moves along its path, we will be asking questions about this and hopefully getting some very important answers for this parliament and the people of the Northern Territory.
The Labor Party has always had a consistent and realistic position on the link between illicit drugs and property crime - a position based on research, evidence and common sense. I quote from the Labor Party position paper, Building a Safer Community - Tough on Drugs, which was published prior to the last Northern Territory election - The Link to Crime:
- The links between illegal intravenous drug use and crime especially property crime are well-documented
and universally acknowledged. A recently published study by the Australian Institute of Criminology on
4 May 2000 stated, ‘the results confirm that there is a very strong link between opiate use and property crimes.
Of those detainees whose most serious charge was a property offence, 43% tested positive for opiates. The link
between illicit drugs and criminal offending is very strong for all crimes.
The opposition needs to take that message on board. They certainly did not in the year 2000.
The Australian Institute of Criminology also reported recently, and this is still quoting from Labor’s position paper:
- In several jurisdictions where surveys were recently done, 86% of adult males detained on property offences
tested positive to a drug of some type, excluding alcohol and tobacco.
So that shoots the VB theory down in flames. This is in stark contrast with the opposition who, whilst in government, did all they could to avoid recognising the problem.
Here is an excerpt from an interview given by the member for Katherine, then the police minister, to Fred McCue on the 17 January 2001.
- Fred McCue: Do you concede, Mr Reed, that there is in fact a direct link between drugs and crime, and the
increase in crime in the Territory?
- Mike Reed: Well Fred, all sorts of things contribute to people committing crimes. The fact is that once they
commit a crime, police are charged with the responsibility of trying to apprehend the offenders.
That is a pretty weak answer in my book, given the Labor party position which puts the science of it, the known facts of it. That was a pretty weak answer, I thought, by the then police minister, Mike Reed. Again, later in the same interview:
- Fred McCue: It’s just that the government seemed in the past to be reluctant to admit to that.
and what he was talking about was the link between drug use and property crime.
- Mike Reed: Well, what does happen in the Northern Territory, Fred, is at a lot lesser degree than what
happens elsewhere.
The opposition leader, who was of course Chief Minister and Attorney-General at the time, also shared this foolish and uninformed denial of the obvious link between property crime and illicit drugs.
Twelve months prior to last year’s election, in answer to a question in parliament on drug-related property crime, the then Chief Minister stated: ‘There is drug-related crime in the Northern Territory, there is no doubt about that, but compared to other jurisdictions, it is minuscule’. Well, it was also a case of shoot the messenger, as the former government, the member for Katherine in particular, tried to deny the magnitude of the drug problem in the Northern Territory. I refer here to Dr Bridie O’Reilly, whose NT findings as part of the national illicit drugs reporting system caused such a furore and provoked venomous and hysterical attacks on her professional competence by the member for Katherine. It also led the former government to cowardly refuse further Commonwealth funding for her projects, all because they did not like to hear the truth.
What were the findings of Bridie O’Reilly that so infuriated the member for Katherine, who had reportedly called drug problems in the Territory ‘infinitesimal’? I quote now from an interview on Thursday, 18 January, 2001, conducted between Bruce Honeywell and Dr Bridie O’Reilly.
- Honeywell: That’s right, well from your work, what’s the overview of the Territory? There is an illicit
drug use problem here, is it growing?
- O’Reilly: Definitely. We do have illicit drug use in the Territory, and this has been known since the
National Drug Strategy household survey in 1995 and 1998. In 1998, we had the highest proportion
per head of population of people that have recently used any illicit drug, injected an illegal drug, and
particularly the highest proportion had recently used cannabis, amphetamine and hallucinogens.
So this is not new information, it is information that has become more publicly available. I would suggest that is what was really upsetting the government. We have this massive problem, and a government in denial. I would like to further quote from O’Reilly’s findings, which are on the web, and here she is talking about amphetamine and methamphetamine trends: most likely to be first drug injected, particularly by youth; youth more likely to last inject amphetamine; IV use was the most common means of administration - for any parent, that is very scary. Polydrug use was common and increasing; and here is an interesting one - four-fold increase from 2000 to 2001 in the proportion of these people who were using crystal methamphetamine in the last six months, and on the supplier side it was easy to obtain and availability was stable. Here is an important point that possibly the member for Araluen should take note of, an increase in suppliers and local manufacturers. So this manufacture is going on locally. I have already spoken about morphine, so I will not revisit that.
I wonder whether the opposition, particularly the member for Katherine, still hold their foolish and uninformed views on this topic. Possibly they should read the NT News, as I did within the first week of June and maybe a little later, and begin to understand why this government is introducing tough, new legislation to come down hard on dealers, manufacturers and drug houses at the very bottom of the supply chain, whose products create the demand which drives a significant proportion of property crime.
Here are some newspaper articles.
This is from Monday 3 June: ‘Teen in break-in rampage, seven homes robbed. A boy 15 broke
into seven suburban homes while people were asleep’.
Here is an interesting one: ‘Constable Quinn said that the boy stole goods worth $1400 from a
house in The Narrows swapping them for half an ounce of cannabis worth about $200 on the street’.
How is that for very direct evidence?
‘Teen jailed for break-in spree’, a 15-year-old offender proud of his exploits.
Here is another: boy who has broken into suburban homes and then went on a driving rampage, and also
has an methamphetamine problem.
‘Man burgled $66 700 to feed drug craving’.
‘A raging speed addiction costing $200 a day was the catalyst for a young man’s burglaries of 35 Darwin
businesses, the Supreme Court heard yesterday’.
Here is another one: ‘Addict’s Crime Spree’. He gets three years after admitting to 68 offences.
‘A young burglar with an amphetamine addiction who pleaded guilty to 68 offences was sentenced
yesterday to three years jail’.
All you have to do is look in the NT News. It is right there before you: the link between drugs and crime, particularly amphetamines and crime. But you did not want to know about it.
As the Attorney-General highlighted in his second reading speech, the amendments to this bill provide new powers for police in dealing with drug premises. Whilst there has been substantial publicity in recent times about so-called drug houses, there is one not far from my electorate office in Moil, the so-called ‘Foils at Moil’. I can attest to widespread indignation from residents in the area. I doorknocked this particular area and there was a consistent message coming from the residents there. They were saying: ‘How can this place continue to operate in a very public way and not be closed down? This is flouting the law, and is unacceptable’. It was like a slap in the face to law-abiding people and the law, and they did not like it. Most residents were upset that these particular premises had flouted the law over many years. Residents were also upset that these premises were operating 24 hours a day, with many undesirables coming and going, loud music, fighting, trespassing and property crime.
I will relate a little anecdote in relation to this: while I was doorknocking some residents in Byrne Circuit, which is probably one block away from the ‘Foils at Moil’, a resident told me he heard a noise coming from his car one evening. He went out to investigate. The doors were open and fishing gear had been taken from his car. He had a feeling which way the offenders had gone so he pursued them across the park which links Byrne Circuit to Lee Point Road. There were some young people in the park. They said to him: ‘Are you looking for those blokes with the fishing gear?’ He said: ‘Yes, I am’. They said: ‘Oh, they have just gone up to the ‘Foils at Moil’ to swap them for some drugs’. So, there is a very direct link between property crime and these drug houses. These residents will be very glad when these places close down.
One of the problems is that the police would move on one group of tenants or bust them, whichever way you want to put it, only to have them replaced by another group. There is a need for the legislation and I believe this legislation addresses this issue.
There is also deep concern on the part of many parents in my electorate, who are worried about some of the entertainment night spots in Darwin also being venues for drug dealing. Whilst some civil libertarians and militant rastifarians may have questioned our new legislation, I believe our strategy of empowering police to target premises involved in the supply of drugs is reasonable, and does not infringe on the rights of average citizens. It does, however, give drug dealers something to fear. The indicators used under section 11C to identify and declare drug premises are fair and reasonable and include: obstruction of police, including the fortification of premises; use of lookouts; indicators of manufacture, supply and use of drugs; presence of property reasonably suspected of being stolen or being exchanged in return for a dangerous drug; and the presence of documents or cash involved in drug dealing.
Reasonable amendments and consequential amendments have been made to related legislation dealing with commercial and licensed premises. These ensure innocent proprietors are not commercially or professionally compromised by activities taking place on their premises of which they have no knowledge. I take the point from the member for Goyder. This government is not into persecuting proprietors of licensed premises, many of whom have very good names and contribute heavily to the business and social life here in the Territory. These business people are to be commended. What we are against is people on licensed premises who are knowingly dealing drugs with the consent and involvement of those who may own those premises. We have no intention at all of trying to persecute decent and fair people who run licensed premises.
In the case of residential landlords, consequential amendments to the Residential Tenancy Act facilitate the eviction of tenants who have been involved in drug dealing from a declared drug house.
These are some of the simple but effective strategies employed under these amendments to deal with the manufacture and distribution of illicit drugs. Formerly, illicit drug manufacturers could be in possession of sizeable quantities of chemical precursors used in the manufacture of substances like amphetamines with relative impunity. Compounds like iodine – I am talking about large quantities of iodine here - and very large quantities of pseudoephedrine are very good examples. We heard from Bridie O’Reilly’s report that local manufacture is increasing. At a briefing I got the distinct impression from police that they feel somewhat frustrated when they visit a premises, these precursors are there in quantity. Formerly, they really did not have any power at all or could not use that as an indicator of drug manufacture. Now, under these amendments, they do. Similarly, people could be in possession of glassware and other specific equipment used in drug manufacture. Possession of such chemical precursors and specific items in connection with illicit drug manufacture will now constitute an offence under sections 8A and 8C.
There have been some concerns brought to my attention concerning the amendments relating to the possession of documents or recipes for the production of dangerous drugs under section 8B. We are all aware here that some university text books on chemistry and pharmacology contain synthetic pathways for the production of drugs. I know as a pharmacy student and also as a science student, that part of our studies was to learn the extraction and purification of a whole range of drugs. That was in a subject called pharmacognacy and we were expected to have detailed knowledge of these chemical pathways and chemical techniques.
I raised this question during the development of this legislation and during briefings, and I was assured that the drafting of the amendments reflect the fact that possession of such material on its own would not constitute an offence. An offence only occurs if it was shown that these items were held in association with other items such as substances, and other articles and glassware used to manufacture drugs. So those librarians at NTU and the Central Medical Library here in Darwin and our own Parliamentary Library can now rest easy.
Naturally, as an old apothecary, the amendments in sections 3A and 3B dealing with admixtures caught my eye. It is well known that drug dealers often dilute their product with fillers to increase their profit. While some of these substances are inert, such a glucose, others can be dangerous. In many cases, substances used to fill or cut are as dangerous as the original drug, and substances such as rat poison and household cleaners were never intended to be injected or ingested. Furthermore, by diluting the main drug, dealers often hope to evade laws which relate to the traffickable quantity of pure drug. Our admixture amendments deal with these issues and provide a stronger approach to prosecutions for dealing in prohibited substances.
We are also repealing the Public Order and Anti-Social Conduct Act introduced by the previous government just before the election last year. This government believes that our amendments to the Misuse of Drugs Act are an effective way of addressing drug issues that the previous government consistently ignored. Nevertheless, I am sure that the opposition will attempt to make mischief with the repeal of the Public Order and Anti-Social Conduct Act particularly in relation to itinerancy and drunkenness issues in and around Darwin and Palmerston. I am aware it is a big issue. It is a big issue in my electorate and I am keen to do something effective and positive about it.
I believe this House can rest assured that this government is fully committed to effectively addressing these important antisocial issues just as we are with drug issues. I welcome the minister’s statement today on progress in that particular area. I am keen to support that and I believe all members here should support that statement. The ‘stomp them and monster them’ approach a previous Chief Minister from the other side adopted was certainly counterproductive. This idea of just moving people on – move on, move on – just squeezes the problem somewhere else. We have to draw a line and say, okay, this is the problem, and we are going to address it. We are fair dinkum about solving that issue.
Importantly, this government is also committed to other elements of our drug strategy, including providing effective services for treatment and rehabilitation in Darwin and Alice Springs to reduce the amount of intravenous drug use in the community; and a properly resourced drug prevention strategy including family support, policies and education campaigns directed at our schools.
I believe we have a very effective overall strategy. We are looking at the law and order issues and we are also looking at treatment and rehabilitation which was also sadly lacking under the previous government. We are also looking at prevention strategies particularly education. But it has to be effective education. I know the former senator, Grant Tambling, described the 10 members opposite as 10 budgerigars in a cage. Well, this particular legislation has really drawn that out. I know that one of the members opposite tried to make an apology saying, ‘Oh, it is very complex, this is why people get confused’. Well, we are not confused on this side of the House. We caucus well and we are solid and united. But it seems to me during question time in this House, you have two or three from the opposite side jumping up at the same time; they do not seem to be very organised. Particularly the member for Goyder as Shadow Attorney-General put one point of view about not opposing it and then the member for Araluen seems to have another point of view. Well, we will hear what the member for Drysdale has to say. I do not know whether the member for Greatorex is going to speak on this issue or possibly the member for Brennan. Maybe we are just going to get 10 different and divergent points on this. But we will have to wait and see.
Madam Speaker, I commend to honourable members these amendments to the Misuse of Drugs Act. After years of deliberate neglect by the previous government, the amendments represent an effective means of dealing with the inter-related issues of drugs and crime that are afflicting our community.
_________________________
Distinguished Visitor
Distinguished Visitor
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I wish to draw attention to the presence in the gallery of Ms Diana Hatton MLC, Member for Ballarat. On behalf of all members I offer you a warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
_________________________
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, the debate will be wide ranging because of this seeming bonding together of a variety of cognate bills some of which do not seem to have much identity with the others. It is important to note that the government is saying that antisocial behaviour has an absolute nexus with this legislation, and that the repeal of this antisocial legislation is such it is now redundant, it is irrelevant, because one piece of legislation will be so totally effectual that antisocial behaviour will disappear. We can get rid of that because it is no longer needed. By putting together a cognate piece of legislation like this, that nexus has been drawn. It has been drawn legislatively and in a policy sense.
There is much fear about this stuff and it is fairly evident when you look at the interjections for instance, the whole issue of do you support it or don’t you support it, being one step away from saying, ‘Ha! the government did not support it, therefore they support drug users, or therefore they support pushers’. I think we have to revisit what was said by our lead speaker on this. I will repeat a direct quote from the member for Goyder: ‘Let me make it absolutely clear. The opposition will support anything which the government does to reduce crime, or the impact of crime on the wider Territory community’. So that is the support word.
Now let’s look at the things we do not support. We do not support your extrapolations. We do not support your absolute confidence that the property crime that arises from illicit drug use, argued to be 50%, will be obviated by this legislation. We do not believe that, with this legislation on the books, you will reduce property crime by 50%. We support your capacity to do it and we are entirely hopeful that you make some inroads in that area, but we do not believe that your blind acceptance of whoever is advising you about this will in fact come to fruition.
The theatre, too, about the backdrop. We get the Chief Minister speaking with police looking over her shoulder in a backdrop. ‘Tough on crimes’, done in some rugged commando-type style print. It is done in such a way that people look at it and say, ‘Well, there’s Clare Martin being tough on crime again’. What you have to do, Mr Deputy Speaker, is look at whether the words actually come to fruition. This is something that the government is now learning. The theory and the rhetoric are all very good in opposition, but you actually have to make it work. That is where we are coming from and we want to see an outcome.
By interjection, the member for Millner said: ‘Two years, you will see the reduction in two years’. That is not bad. That is giving them a fair bit of time. I would have thought they would try to fudge it out past the election, or at least next to the election so they say: ‘Ooh, it’s starting to bite. The war on drugs is starting to bite. Give us another term’. Once this legislation drops, we want to measure its success from then. We want to start measuring this legislation in terms of its effect on property crime immediately.
The broken windows thing. If you look at the so-called invasion of this parliament, that was a broken windows thing. We saw various people posturing as lobbyists on this legislation, having a little camp in here on the grounds of Parliament House. They then had a little meeting out the front and were told not to climb up the steps, which they did. So, essentially what they did was, they searched to push the bounds so that they could take the thing as far they could. I think the zero tolerance would have had them say ‘No, we do not want you on the precinct. Out you go’. So, the first couple of times they stepped over the line, we had indications that these people were going to take it further. And that was theatrics yet again. Some of the anger is probably genuine among that group, particularly since the Labor party cossetted them during the election in terms of the Social Alliance and the various things they thought they could do. That is probably where the anger comes from. These people saw themselves as distant cousins to the government and were very disappointed when their mates decided to try to distance themselves from them.
And why would they think that? Why would they think that this mob over here do not mind a bit of reefer? They do not mind some of those sorts of things? Because they have heard it from the Chief Minister. The current Chief Minister is on the record saying that marijuana is pretty much the same as a glass of wine. The member for Johnston said: ‘Yes, cannabis 20 years ago was seen as okay, but we now know better’. Well, her comments are less than a decade old. They must ring in her ears now, because she is trying to run a line like, ‘Well, I smoked gunja and it was sort of okay then, but there is a new dangerous gunja out there and I do not want my kids smoking that’. The message is, do not smoke ganja. The heritage she took on comes from before her. I can remember Brian Ede saying in this parliament, ‘It is a rare teenager in the NT who does not have a bong on his mantelpiece’. That nonchalant attitude about illicit drugs is what fuels some of this debate, and what fuels some of the tolerance that goes to your broken windows theory.
We should look to cannabis, too. When the health minister spoke about the drugs task force - and at the time I think we were on the record saying: ‘Well, we think it is just a charade, they already have the answers. They are posing in some sort of consultative device. We really think they will do what they are going to do’. That has now been amply proven by the Attorney-General where he said this morning: ‘Yes, we are going to have these drugs courts’. Dr Meadows was in the media this morning saying: ‘Well, are we? I thought we were the ones providing that advice’. We know they will introduce a methadone maintenance program - we know that. They have sent off Dr Valerie Asche and a variety of other people to say: ‘We are very keen to find out about these issues that we do not know about, and to look at some solutions, some of which are not within our ken at the moment’. Well, they are within their ken, and they do know what the issues are. They are just using this funny little device because, in most of their blueprint for attaining government, they have pinched from somewhere else - Western Australia and Victoria - and if you go to the Western Australia media, this is exactly the same charade that they went through there.
When this thing was set up - and we do not get much notice of these little quaint mini-statements - but the minister stood up and said: ‘Look, this is what we are going to do; we are going to look at drugs’. She left out cannabis and Aboriginal communities. In the five minutes or so that we had to digest the words that were coming out of her mouth, they were the two points that were made. We think cannabis is a big issue here, and we think Aboriginal communities too, have problems with illicit drugs. Hopefully, that group - if it is not just some charade and not some silly device - can actually do some trips into the bush and can take on cannabis as one of their terms of reference, and can advise the health minister, who I hope will be speaking in this debate.
When you talk about a whole-of-government strategy, you have to have the key ministers speak. We have had the member for Johnston talk about various matters within the portfolio responsibilities of the health minister. Obviously, many of the social issues - the educative, training and rehabilitative issues - will come, not from the Justice Minister, but from the health minister. I would hope that we get a fulsome contribution from this particular person, and I hope the contribution is such that it flows as things you can measure in terms of reality; things that have performance indicators. If you say: ‘We are going to have more rehabilitative programs’, are you going to rehabilitate more people? Will you have a 50% success rate; will you have 25%, whatever it is? You have to start putting some of that stuff in instead of the ‘we care, we care’ type stuff.
Much noise made about how the legislation did not work. The Minister for Community Development, in particular, pounded the desk and said: ‘We will not have idle legislation sitting on our books, no siree. It has to work or nothing’. Well, it depends what you mean by idle. If society says these are intolerable behaviours and, if you do not desist in pursuing these behaviours, there are some ramifications of the law that will attend on it. The first might be the move on thing, the second might be something else, and incarceration in fact could even be in there. I point out to the Minister for Community Development, that we have statutes about torture and slavery and things like that on our books here, and I do not think we have had a prosecution under them either. But that is not the point. The point is, what we say in this parliament, are things that are found to be offensive.
So we describe what society will tolerate and what it will not. I can tell you, in my neck of the woods - not only my electorate but in the electorate of the member for Wanguri - there is a strong feeling about the current high levels of antisocial behaviour, particularly among Aboriginal people who are living rough on our streets and in our parks. I am glad the Minister for Community Development spoke before me, because I think this is a no-go area for the government. We have to start talking about this: the levels of Aboriginal people drunk and camping in our streets is intolerable. People are sick of it; it is getting higher and higher and more visible. If you are going to contribute to this debate, we want to know some tangible things about that. We want to know: yes, if Mr Big is caught, that is good and everyone will applaud you. Will it affect drunken people, sitting outside the shop, drinking out of flagons? I suggest no. I suggest that is a bit of a long shot, and that is why this debate has been defined the way it has. What it has done is define a problem that we will all sign off on. All of us will say: ‘Yes, we want Mr Big caught, we want fewer drugs, we don’t want our kids taking up drugs, we want people who are affected by drugs to be treated, we want people to be locked up if they offend our laws in such a way that we think they should be put away for a while’.
We will all sign off on that. But what is difficult to sign off on is the fact that having introduced that legislation, we can now throw away the antisocial legislation. I cannot see that link. I cannot see, no matter how good this legislation is, that it is going to reduce the main thing that is in the face of the people in the northern suburbs, and that is drunken Aborigines.
Mr Bonson: Not drugs. Not serious drugs. You are kidding!
Mr DUNHAM: They are drugs. They are drugs. For the education of the member for Millner, alcohol is a drug. It is a drug of addiction; it is a drug that causes immense pain. It is the worst drug in the Northern Territory in terms of its impact on people in prisons, people in hospital, people in Accident & Emergency, in terms of violence, and in terms of criminality. It is the worst drug.
If we are saying that this lovely piece of legislation that the Attorney-General has brought in is going to get rid of antisocial behaviour, I will be measuring that. I support him because it is his business to do that. It is entirely his call, and I will not be attempting to embarrass him if he is successful. But I will be attempting to educate people about the fraud that has been perpetrated with this legislation in the event that it does not sit properly.
The itinerant strategy, too, is a great initiative - if it works. Visitor protocols, Larrakia people going out bush, a cultural centre, all of those things are probably good. But we still want to see cause and effect. We want to know if the visits by Larrakia elders to Lajamanu, Wadeye, and Maningrida are effective, whether there will be fewer people coming in, whether they will be better behaved, whether the incidence of violence that often accompanies people living in illegal places will improve.
It is often trotted out that for 27 years you did nothing about it. I lived in Alice Springs in the mid-1980s and I was there when we formalised a couple of illegal camps into legal camps. When I left, there were 19 of them - 19 town camps in Alice Springs. There are substantial landholdings in Katherine and likewise in Darwin. The business of saying: ‘We cannot just say to people, just move on,’ as the member for Johnston said – oh, yes you can! You can say: ‘We do not want you sitting in the front door of Woolworths’ and you can say: ‘We do not want you drinking in the park’. If your argument is that these people have nowhere to move to, I would strongly disagree with that because the origins of town camps in these places was to have some sanctuary for people who probably did not have houses in the town, but somewhere for them to go that had a formalised sort of a setting within a - dare I say - culturally appropriate context where people could go to pursue these behaviours that others found offensive.
We have to get to this real quick because, for me, this is one of the big, burning issues out there. I am happy to talk about drugs until the cows come home; I am happy to talk about people with illicit behaviours and injecting and all the rest of it. But you have put the antisocial behaviour in here; you are the ones who have said: ‘Sweetness and light act with the illicit drugs and Mr Big, and now we don’t need antisocial behaviour; we will repeal it’. Well, I do not agree with you.
Turning to some of the issues about hotels, I am the son of a publican. I have lived in hotels for much of my life and I have worked in many, many licensed premises. I know they are places where drugs are traded; you would have to be Blind Freddie not to know that sometimes there is a flurry of activity and people come in and then leave. Often you cannot see it. That might be hard for some people to believe, but this is a nefarious activity and it is not the sort of thing that skilled drug dealers do brazenly and openly. But if you look at your act, you do have to be a bit careful. The interjections from the member for Wanguri came across: ‘Oh, they will be right unless they are running drugs. Running drugs’. Well, they might not know that drugs are being traded on the premises. They have no capacity to search their patrons as they come in. They do not have sniffer dogs and the like. They have the capacity to involve themselves with the police and collaborate, and many, many do. I suggest 100 % of them, if the police asked for cooperation, would provide it.
In one of our particular licensed premises, we had a big fight one night in the front bar. There was a charge that came out of it and it was quaintly called ‘keeping an unruly house’. The matter was pursued. It might have gone to the Magistrates Court or something and in the end, we got off. But I can tell you if you are a publican with two barmen on late at night and 15 people decide to smash each other up, it is very difficult to pull it up really quick. It is the same thing that happens now. An intoxicated person walks out of premises A and walks into premises B and they are found on the premises to be intoxicated. They might not be carrying in their liver and belly the grog from that particular premises, but it is an offence for that particular publican. So I would suggest that they go careful with this. I would suggest that they collaborate with the industry in a very constructive way. Because they will find that most publicans, 100% of publicans, would find that matters relating to drug dealing and drug consumption on premises offends them and they would like to do something about it.
This act has the capacity for people to go in, in a very heavy-handed way. Forget your three strikes thing and all the rest of it. I have read it too. There is a capacity for a couple of charges of people carrying illicit drugs being found on the premises and, bingo, you have done your licence. As an ex-publican and a strong opponent of illicit drugs, I would say that there is room for both here and you have to be pretty careful about it.
I would like to see more on the compulsory rehabilitation and treatment. Anybody who has worked in the drugs area would know that it is very, very difficult to compulsorily treat a drug abuser. If you think that the people out there who use drugs all want to get off it, you are wrong. It is a very persuasive and seductive habit. It is a habit that most people will see their circumstances, job, family disappear from them in the pursuit of this particular activity. Do not assume that you can get a judge or a magistrate or some sage old wise head to wag their finger at them and say from 9am to 5pm you will do this or whatever. You will need to have an approach that has significant penalties hanging off it including incarceration. You are going to need vigilance in terms of perhaps daily supervision of naltrexone. That is what we would like to see in there. So, that if somebody is using opiates for instance and they are indicated towards using naltrexone, that they attend the police station, or somewhere, and they consume it orally in front of somebody who can certify that. If you do not do that, basically you are paying lip service to it.
Then we should look at what purpose your methadone program will have because the two are acting at odds. One is a program that maintains people on an opiate, albeit synthetic. And the other is a program …
Dr Burns: What about buprenorphine?
Mr DUNHAM: Well, we would like to see that too. We want it described, is what we are saying. I think rehabilitation is a good thing.
Dr Burns: But it is an antagonist.
Mr DUNHAM: Yes, it is an agonist and an antagonist. So, it is good to see that some of these initiatives are under consideration. What we would ask is that they bring it into this place.
I will finish, again, on antisocial behaviour. I remember Scrubby Hall, a magistrate in Alice Springs, and Denis Barrett, a magistrate in Alice Springs, and I remember some of these things being discussed way back 20 or 30 years ago - about antisocial behavior, alcohol, people who had to be taken into custody for the sake of themselves or the community. Denis Barrett once said that as a society we should be looking at this and finding peoples behaviours offensive, not their race. So the fact that I have mentioned Aboriginal people, itinerants around the suburbs, is because it is entirely obvious and evident to everybody that that is currently where the main problem is. And if people want to choose to use my words to say that ‘Dunham mounted a racist attack’ or whatever, perhaps they can do it. I will leave it at that.
But what I would say is, let’s look at peoples behaviours and if their behaviours are offensive, it does not really matter what their community of origin is, or if they are of Aboriginal descent or not. But we have to have something that says these are lines that we have drawn in society and you have stepped over them and whether you have had a visit from a Larrakia elder, or you understand the protocols or not, bad luck; you have now earned the wrath of this particular section of the statute or whatever it is.
We could talk about drugs all night. Suffice to say that, if there is an initiative that the government has that will reduce drugs, we will applaud it, but we want to see the data that goes with it. The pulling of the data out of Neighbourhood Watch has left a very bad taste in the mouth of the entire community. People cannot see why you would not want to provide any measuring devices. We have been told don’t worry, there are some other statistics behind it which are really good, and better, and more indicative and better statistically. We do not care. We want to see a whole series of trends. For starters, the Neighbourhood Watch crime figures that have been provided for a long time should be reinstated. It is a bit on the nose to have this stuff going on, where we are saying that drugs will reduce criminality and break-ins and all this stuff, and then not show us the data. We want to see the data. If you come up with a better series of numbers, we want to see them too. But, at the moment, this ‘trust me’ approach is not well thought of by the community and if those members opposite are not hearing this loud and clear from their constituencies, they are obviously keeping their ears blocked, as is their wont.
We will support the government’s right to do this, and we will support actions that are proven to be effective.
Mr BONSON (Millner): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to speak on a very important issue faced by our whole community. Many people in this House, and in the wider community, have had contact with some of the illicit drugs that the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill 2002 attempts to deal with, in the context of the law.
The Minster for Justice and Attorney-General has outlined the basic aim of the Misuse of Drugs Act amendment, which he describes as having two parts. The first part is to provide for a drug premises division in the act, along with the necessary consequential amendments to the Residential Tenancies Act, the Commercial Tenancies Act and the Liquor Act. The second part, as the minister has described, particularly deals with the amendment to provide for both technical and substructural improvements to the operation of the Misuse of Drugs Act to facilitate police practices and prosecution of drug cases in the courts.
As we all know, this legislative policy comes from the Labor government’s three-point plan on drugs and drug related crime. The drug plan tackles the illicit drug problem and associated property crime through:
law enforcement with zero tolerance on drug production and distribution;
a sound drug prevention strategy, including family support and police and education campaigns
directed at our young people.
Tonight, the opposition put forward that this is our sole answer to the problems related to illicit drugs in our community. It is quite obvious, with our three-point plan, that there is a whole scope of things that will be occurring over the next few years and, hopefully, and I say hopefully, everyone in this House will support our objective, which is to prevent and minimise the damage of illicit drugs in our community.
The legislation package debated this week puts into place the first point of our plan. It is not a total package. This government will bring further initiatives to deal with drug issues in our community such as a magistrates court based on drug courts. I was lucky enough to run into one of the most celebrated criminal solicitor and barrister in the Northern Territory at lunch today, and he was congratulating us on the concept of introducing drug courts as being very forward thinking. It is a great initiative that can really address issues to do with illicit drugs.
This scheme allows magistrates to order offenders with a drug problem to undertake a three month treatment and rehabilitation program whilst on bail, before going back to court for plea and sentencing. This is a fantastic initiative because it allows the offender to deal with the problem in the context that an improvement with their drug habit or condition will show the court, their families and the wider community, that they are taking positive steps to deal with negative issues affecting their lives, their families and the community they live in. I assure all honourable members that this is not the soft option, that a strict regime of monitoring processes will be in place assisting addicts to deal with their problem. It goes without saying that failure to take positive steps will also come to the attention of the court, their families and their communities.
I want to now speak about my own experiences in the Territory community. I would like to highlight a few of my observations, conversations and experiences that drugs in the community are closely linked with crime, whether minor, major or organised. I also recognise that this debate has been hijacked by self-interested groups and that was highlighted in the attack on the Chamber by people who are concerned with the rights of people interested in marijuana, ganja, skunk, mull, bush gear and many other names that people might use to describe cannabis.
This is not specifically an attack on any one illegal drug in the Territory or Australia. I say illegal because I recognise that tobacco and alcohol abuse cause as much damage as any other drug. This government will be taking steps to address the effects of alcohol abuse in our communities, in remote and urban areas. This should not be forgotten; this one piece of legislation we are introducing to do with drugs is not our sole attack on this issue.
This legislation, in fact, is an attack on drug dealers and the manufacturers of illicit drugs. Illicit drugs cover a broad range of illegal substances including heroin, morphine, amphetamine, speed, cocaine, ecstacy and many other types of hybrid designer drugs. People reading this legislation and talking to members of the Labor government will be informed by all that this an attack on drug dealers and manufacturers. I am disappointed that certain interest groups have tried to hijack the debate in parliament tonight. We have heard contributions from the members for Goyder, Araluen and Drysdale; and they are really quite hilarious. They are purporting to support the bill, yet they criticise it and say it has no chance of working. It sounds like a very tired group of people. It is disappointing, especially coming from the new members – you would think they would have some vigour and they would be supporting this option.
I support the Chief Minister’s condemnation of the Network Against Prohibition course for school students to wag school in protest. You are basically a joke! Young people are the members of the community whom we should be giving an opportunity; and that opportunity is to get to the level of education where they make informed decisions about things that will impact on their lives. Illicit drugs taken at an early age will limit the opportunities and choices they make. I have seen first hand the experiences of those choices in people whom I grew up with and I know and see daily in the community.
However, what really disappoints me is the dead silence coming from the opposition in relation to this matter in the public arena. They have shown their real hand in the Chamber tonight. Their response has been disgraceful. The member for Goyder, who purports to represent the view of the CLP, states that he will not oppose the bill, but yet strongly criticises it and its maker, leaving me to wonder what interest groups or community members he or the CLP purport to represent.
I grew up in Darwin. I walked and rode around the streets of Darwin and Millner. As I grew up - from a child to a teenager, to a young man, and an old bull on the streets - as the member for Sanderson would like to be known as – I have seen with my own eyes the change in the culture of crime and of drugs. When I grew up, the choices were simple: sport, girls, cannabis, alcohol, school and work. I somehow, with the support of my family, negotiated these turbulent times. The first time I noticed the cultural change in drugs in the Territory was after a holiday to Perth in 1990. On the holiday, I came in contact for the first time with hydroponically grown cannabis. In Perth, they called it ‘hydros’. I returned to Darwin at the start of the new year where, at the time, what is known as ‘bush gear’ was the only available cannabis. Over the next two years, hydroponics were introduced to Darwin as ‘gunk’. Since that time bush weed has virtually disappeared as a product to sell. Police intelligence and street contacts will tell you that the hydroponic form of cannabis has become the drug of choice. The member for Johnston has touched on his views on the quality and content of hydroponically grown cannabis, and has raised some concerns. I will definitely be supporting any investigation of any long-term of effects of hydroponic cannabis on long-term users.
The second significant change in the drug culture in the community that I was aware of - and possibly the most significant and dangerous - was the shift towards other illicit drugs, in particular the use of intravenous drugs, speed and amphetamines. I find it amazing that someone would put a substance into a needle and shoot it up their arm. As we have seen tonight - in particular, in the contribution of the member of Drysdale which dumbfounded me – there are still those who refuse to admit that there is a serious issue in our community with intravenous drugs. This type of drug use has had a dramatic effect on urban youth communities. It also coincides with the development of drug houses. The sad thing about this is the drug houses have changed the culture of accessibility to drugs by the public.
Before this, accessibility to illicit drugs and cannabis was difficult to obtain for young people in Darwin. When I grew up, young people knew of drug use but it was difficult to get. I believe this was due to the simple fact accepted by all cultures around the world: the concept of shame. People did not want to be known as drug sellers, in particular, selling drugs to youth. Shame! What an important concept to our community it is. I believe it is still a shame job in this community to be known as a drug seller or manufacturer and that shame is well deserved because making money out of people’s habits, in particular the youth, is despicable.
Madam Speaker, the bill provides for a new Division 1A, ‘drug premises orders’, in the Misuse of Drugs Act. As the Attorney-General has said, the new division targets suppliers, those whose occupational business it is to provide dangerous drugs. It does not target users and persons in simple possession who can be dealt with under the existing laws. In the case of cannabis, the shame – which is the most powerful community function in my eyes - will come when, as the bill provides, a premises can be declared a drug house. Up goes the sign and a group of residents and landlords will have their premises declared a drug house. Shame job!
The member for Goyder mentioned a couple of well known local family identities, well respected local families identities, who he purports to suggest are concerned with this legislation. What I would say to those well known local families is: you have nothing to fear if you uphold your community responsibility, and that is to ensure that illicit drugs will not be sold on your premises.
The Attorney-General has outlined the procedural elements. I will not add to those comments. The development of drug houses, in particular the Moil flats, or ‘Foils at Moil’, which has been clearly identified and has been around for many, many years, and which the past CLP government did nothing to ...
Mr Kiely: It is on the Internet.
Mr BONSON: It is on the Internet, is it? The member for Sanderson tells me it is on the Internet and what did the CLP do? The House of Horrors in Fannie Bay and Dick Ward Drive or Speed Plus, as was mentioned in previous statements tonight, to use their common street names, have not been recent creations. These places have operated for around seven years and this was well known to the community at large. What did the CLP do? Nothing. I personally complained to the proper authorities in regard to the effects of these premises on the community. At one stage I remember they had the Aboriginal flag and the Torres Strait Island flag outside the ‘Foils at Moil’, and I was ashamed. Where was the CLP and what were they doing during this period? The answer is nothing. Absolutely zero.
We won government, thank God, and in nine months, less than a year, we offer solutions to deal with these problems. I believe if you are an adult you make choices but sometimes they are bad choices. But selling illicit drugs to teenage kids, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 years old, and particularly selling cannabis and speed is disgraceful. And those people will meet their makers and be judged. But before then they will have to deal with us.
What I found disgraceful was when I was asked to attend a Young Labor stall at the sign-on day for the University clubs. I knew with all the misinformation out there that people might speak to me about our government’s tough approach to drugs. Well, the first off the rank was a high profile member of the Network Against Prohibition who made an attempt to defend these well known drug houses, in particular Speed Plus on Dick Ward Drive, an establishment not in my electorate but having direct effect on Millner and the surrounding suburbs. The conversation went basically like this: ‘Do you know that at Dick Ward Drive they ask young people for ID. And the ID is if they are under 18 they won’t sell them drugs and if you are over 18, well we will sell you the drugs’. And without thinking, I could not help myself, I just said, ‘Get off the grass’. I then went on to tell him, ‘I know the people who live at that place. I know the people who visit there. I have informed the police of this. They are not asking people for ID. They are selling to 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 year old kids and they are taking away their opportunity. I am happy to see that the pressure has been placed on those drug houses and the effects on those communities around them have been substantially positive’.
As you can imagine he was in shock because he looked me straight in the eye and he knew that I knew exactly what I was talking about and he could not fool me. I knew straight away that he had not been to that place and that he was just making it up for his own purposes. Later on what do we find? These people invade the parliament and they had protests outside on the floor. That is fine in a democracy to have protests but obviously to invade the Chamber is not on. Then we had the member for Drysdale trying to pretend like we are in connection with these characters. That we are in bed with them. As the member for Sanderson often says, the member for Drysdale never lets the truth get in the way of a good story. The member for Drysdale has shown his true colours again and he is an absolute joke.
I genuinely believe that we as a government or country will never fully eradicate drugs but we can minimise the effect on our communities. Drug houses should be driven underground. To me, the whole argument about drugs will go underground is a positive argument simply because it will minimise the opportunity for young children to come into contact with it. It will not eradicate it but it will minimise it. Another thing that we talk about in the three-point plan is assisting drug users to deal with their problems. These places were selling hydroponic cannabis, skunk and speed to anybody with money or stolen goods to trade. In my past life as a criminal lawyer, I was very aware of the direct relationship between drugs and my clients, and the criminal activities that they were involved in. What amazed me was the age of the drug users.
A summary in the Northern Territory Drug Trends 2001 - Findings from the Illicit Drugs Reporting System, O’Reilly (2002), supports my experiences. Ms O’Reilly talks about and reports on amphetamine and methamphetamine trends:
most likely to be the first drug injected, particularly by youths;
Well, in Darwin, yes, I can support that.
youth more likely to last inject amphetamine;
Yes, I agree with that, from my own personal experiences.
a diverse population of users and use patterns, with many recreational users;
intravenous use was the most common means of administration;
increasing numbers of youth and indigenous users;
That is correct and I will describe the reasons why I think that might be happening.
polydrug use was common and increasing;
four-fold increase from 2000 to 2001 (6% to 24%) in the proportion of PWID using crystal
methamphetamine (Ice) in the last six months.
It then goes on to talk about the costs, and obviously the higher cost to the communities:
cost per gram averaged $80 and stable, points of crystal methamphetamine sold for an average of $50;
easy to obtain and availability was stable.
Of course it was, you could just walk in off the street. There are 11 and 12 year old kids walking into these drug houses and buying it and the CLP knew about for it seven years and did nothing.
an increase in suppliers and local manufacturers.
Yes, I can support that.
cannabis use was common, often on a daily basis, and alcohol was consumed regularly.
Yes, I support that. She goes on to talk about cannabis trends. I will table this photocopied document that comes from the Internet. I seek leave to table the document
Leave granted.
Mr BONSON: I could talk on this issue all night. Unfortunately, I wish I did not have to. However, we have the Opposition Leader, purporting to be fiercely campaigning against property crime, in the Eighth Assembly on the 9 August 2000 on drug related crime in the Territory, stating, ‘There is no doubt about that, but compared to other jurisdictions it is minuscule’. The question needs to asked, what world does the Opposition Leader live in? Well, take it from me, Opposition Leader, a person who walks the streets of Millner, who works with the people of Millner, the person who fights for the people of Millner, the drug problem is not minuscule, the drug problem is real, the drug problem is taking away young people’s opportunities at an early age.
With all due respect to the older members of parliament, the younger members like me can attest, the culture change that has had a negative effect on youth on the streets in relation to drugs, crimes, music, sex and gangs, the so-called gangsta rap or hiphop. Hundreds of youths, black, white, green or purple, are attracted to the glossy anti-establishment message coming through from the United States. These people are seen as famously cool. One of the reasons, I believe, is because they relate a message to the local youth in Darwin, the message that black America somehow has something to offer, and they listen. That somehow their projection through MTV and other media makes them cool. It is not only indigenous Darwinites getting caught up in it, but it is definitely a trend right across the broader youth.
A well known resident in the Millner area, and well known larrikin as well, was recently telling me that it is a fact her sister puts drug dealers up as someone to look up to, somebody who is cool, and that is what they think. That is how these people are projecting an image. It is a cultural change, and urban youth feel they have been disenfranchised. We need to minimise their contact with such premises and illicit drugs. We need to increase their chances and opportunities, and that is why I commend this government’s approach towards drugs as a whole-of-government approach.
The health minister in the preamble to the Task Force on Illicit Drugs Darwin paper, adequately summarised our objectives:
- Every day we hear of families torn apart by harmful drug use, we know that it affects the whole community and
that drugs are often involved in juvenile offences and other criminal activities. The Task Force on Illicit Drugs
will advise the government on strategies to prevent the uptake and the harmful effects of drugs in our community,
to break the cycle of crime and to help users and their families on the road to better help. The task force will base
its recommendations on thorough consultation with community groups, service providers, individual Territorians
and their families, and other experts.
I will sum up on personal reasons of why I am concerned about illicit drugs. Many years ago, when I was studying second year law at the University of Western Australia, I had a friend of Aboriginal/Afghan descent. My friend was a Muslim. I was at a function and I noticed him drinking alcohol, and he had previously told me of cannabis tea in Baluchestan, a remote area of Afghanistan. I said to him: ‘Is drinking not against your religion?’ He replied that the Koran can be interpreted in many ways. ‘My family and my tribe believe that the Koran does not say you cannot drink alcohol. The Koran says the sin is the abuse of alcohol and the effect on your family and the community abuse of it causes’. So his family interpreted it as the abuse of illicit drugs or substances, whether it is gambling or whatever it might be. I found that very interesting.
It is often an argument put forward by drug users that they are in control of their life, and they are not abusing the drug or the substance. I am sick of seeing people I know and care for, smoke 20 cones of cannabis a day. The community is tired of dealing with people who have illicit drug problems and are abusing drugs. I always think back to that being the sin – the illicit drugs. In order to illustrate that I will tell you a story that is about eight years old. During this period of cultural change in the urban drug community, I had a conversation with a notorious thief, drug user and wanna-be black gangsta. We were both in our early 20s. He was describing to me how he wanted to get indigenous urban youth in organised gangs and push black power. He wanted to get organised and take on the Hells Angels. After hearing him out I laughed at him and said: ‘Do you think you will be doing a positive thing for your community, particularly your indigenous people?’ I told him that if he was serious then he needed to operate in a positive manner in his community.
This young man was a bit of a man around town and a so-called tough guy. He was in shock when I laughed in his face. I was able to help this young man for about three years to stay on the straight and narrow. Unfortunately, due to the accessibility of drugs, life on the street, and no employment, he was sucked back in. He is now serving time for thousands of dollars worth of property crime to feed a speed habit. These drug houses were supporting his problem. They have to go; accessibility must be limited. I sincerely believe we will never eradicate all drug issues, but we can limit their effects on the community and minimise it.
The other thing I found intriguing about the CLP’s lack of attempt to do anything about drug houses, was the message they were sending to the community. That message was: you can operate in ‘Foils in Moil’, you can operate the ‘House of Horrors’, you can operate at ‘Speeds Plus’ and you will not suffer any consequences. It was this undermining the police and all the institutions that we value.
There is another story is of a man I once represented who was in his mid 30s. I visited him in Berrimah prison. I had to get instructions from him. He was up on a number of theft charges and was being held on remand. After receiving the instructions from him, he informed me he had been a heroin addict for the past 20 years - 20 years and a criminal past as long as your arm. Good Darwin boy I was, I was in shock. I could not help myself, I had to ask: ‘If you have been using heroin for 20 years, how do you live?’ His reply was: ‘I manage my problems; I don’t overdose’. At that time I was young and impressionable. I thought that was an amazing explanation. Now I think back, this man had spent 12 years of the last 20 years in and out of custody, causing thousands of dollars of criminal damage to the community, and he believed he was managing his problem. This offender needed serious medical attention and counselling.
I definitely believe we will be taking a whole-of-government approach to this issue, and I look forward to all the different things that we will be trying over the next few years.
Another case was the case of a couple of art dealers who smuggled heroin for their personal use. Two days in prison, crying in pain. I was attempting to receive instructions from them on what they would be pleading and what their defence was. There I was watching human beings with their lips going purple, mood swings, crying, trembling, totally stressed out and desperate. As an experience, it was not a nice one, but I am happy I witnessed it because I saw what heavy abuse can do and I hope those people are getting some kind of relief.
Finally, the scary and shocking interview held with a street kid of 14 who had been on a speed-driven crime spree causing thousands of dollars worth of damage, and I realised that serious drugs and drug use were in my community and growing. Until this stage, I just did not operate in this circle and I did not know it existed, and then I started to see the change in my community and I was not happy about it.
I would ask all Territorians and all members in the House to give the new drug policy of the Northern Territory Labor government an opportunity to work for the benefit of the Territory. The legislation realistically is about minimising the negative effects of drugs on our community. This is a problem that is evident throughout civilisation; it will co-exist with human habitation. However, by minimising the effects on drugs in our community, maybe we have reached some answer to solving some of the problems. I commend this bill to the house.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Millner for some of his thoughts on the subject which I admit I am certainly not an expert on. If you ask me about raising poultry, growing vegetables or umpiring Aussie Rules, I probably could give you a far better run down than I could on drug problems in our society.
But I do not think that means that I should not comment on this matter because there are some issues that this drug legislation raises which I think need to be looked at. I also make the comment that the people for whom I am taking up some concerns, I do not regard them as people with vested interests nor am I particularly supportive of them. They have raised some issues which I think should be raised in parliament and I am hoping the Attorney-General will address those issues because I think that is what my job is: to raise some issues that perhaps I would not have known about until I had read some of these people’s comments and it is my job to bring those to parliament.
I feel that these bills have been too rushed. I know there has been a lot of discussion about this legislation in the media because the media had hold of it before the parliament had a hold of it. It is fairly complex; it is controversial and it is an important piece of legislation. I really feel that the community needed to look at this legislation over a longer period.
It is important to reduce the availability of drugs in our society. I want that too. But we need to make sure legislation that we introduce is good legislation and that it will achieve what it sets out to do; that it does not just replicate other legislation; protects the rights of the individual or individuals by having proper checks and balances; and has had adequate time for considered comments by the community. Regardless of that, I raise the following concerns so that the government has the opportunity to respond and, hopefully, change the legislation if appropriate.
The first group I noticed had some concerns about the bill was the Darwin Community Legal Service. It does not support the bill. I will read out a section of their response to the bill. They say
- A magistrate could make a drug premises order if satisfied that the evidence of indications of supply is
sufficient to establish on the balance of probabilities that a drug has been supplied from the premises.
The opportunities for a miscarriage of justice are great since only police evidence would be considered.
The persons affected will not have the chance to be heard or to defend themselves.
A member: Wrong.
Mr WOOD: Well, I hope there is a response to that. That is fair enough.
- There would not be the opportunity to properly test police evidence. Further, the bill removes the right of
appeal to the Supreme Court. Such court proceedings would amount to a denial of natural justice and a
breach of the obligations to provide a fair hearing under the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights. Given the serious consequences of a drug premises order, the denial of a fair hearing
and right of appeal are of even greater concern.
A drug premises order applies sanctions to everyone on the premises, not just the person suspected to have
supplied drugs. In fact, the person suspected to have supplied drugs may have moved out before an order
was made. This may include parents and grandparents. Without being convicted of any offence and without
the chance of a hearing, all the tenants of a declared drug premises may be evicted within 14 days of an
eviction notice being issued by the lessor. If the landlord does not evict the tenants, the other sanctions will
make sure that it is very hard to stay on.
The legislation leaves any users of drugs, or any person associated with a user of drugs, vulnerable to
homelessness and runs counter to any policies regarding the rehabilitation of drug users. The incursions
on the right to housing and privacy may also be in contravention of obligations under the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
In conclusion, they say:
- We are not convinced of the need of efficacy of drug premises legislation and are concerned at the potential for
abuse of human rights. We object to its passage. At a minimum the incursions on individual rights need to be
addressed and there should be a sunset clause and Ombudsman’s review after three years built into the legislation.
We have heard also from the Criminal Lawyers Association President, Mr John Lawrence. He also raises some issues - some of them have been raised previously, but I will just say that John Lawrence says:
- …if there is one thing that causes crime [in the Northern Territory] … it’s VB.
It’s a … waste of time[and] resources …
It is in the main window dressing and show. It will lead to increased litigation … and will have little effect
on the … problem [of property crime].
- If these households exist our police have more than ample powers and ability to deal with the crimes being
committed in them. Sit, watch, follow, get phone warrants if need be, assist, seize, you name it, our police have
the power to address the situation. The creation of this new procedure is pure cosmetic political nonsense.
- The aims of legislation other than the obvious political objectives: the government appears to have two broad
aims in introducing the much publicised drug house laws - to give wider search powers to police, and to increase
the awareness and responsibility of businesses and landlords to the activities on their properties. The AHA is in
full support of the government in these areas. In regards to search powers, police already have the ability to
search licensed premises without warrant under the Liquor Act so the industry would welcome any other powers
that may assist police in their investigations.
Likewise business must be responsible for the activities of staff, but this has to be within the bounds of what they
can be reasonably expected to control. Could the Attorney-General give a guarantee that no staff member of
his department has ever used or supplied drugs on government property? Surely this doesn’t make him complicit
in the activities.
- A hotel or club can be declared a drug house on the basis of activities of a member of staff, regardless of the
lack of knowledge of the licensee, of the activities or any steps that may be taken previously to guard against
these crimes, and the licensee has no right to defend him or herself in a drug house hearing.
A member: That is wrong. Where did you get that from?
Mr WOOD: This is at quarter to three this afternoon.
Dr Toyne: Yes, I know, and it is still wrong.
Mr WOOD: Well, on the first point, it is simply not realistic to pretend that every licensee or business person in the Territory - remember this applies to every NT business - can be aware of the activities of all staff all of the time. Legislation can even hold businesses liable for employees’ actions when not at work.
I should make a comment here. The difficulty is - forget that this is a hotel - but if one is to stop a drug premises order being placed on their premises, the business is then required to sack a person suspected of having drugs or dealing in drugs. There needs to be some clarification of how that would stand up under the unfair dismissal laws because …
Mr Stirling: Huh! Try it on. Convicted drugger?
Mr WOOD: No, well, no. The licensee has to have enough evidence to say …
Mr Stirling: You are making excuses for it, Gerry, it is very disappointing.
Mr WOOD: No, I am not. I am raising some practical issues that would apply even outside of this business, even if it was not drugs. If you accuse someone of doing something and sack them, then, under the unfair dismissal law, you would have to prove that they had done something wrong. I think that is a fair thing for an employee to ask. Nothing more about protecting them or anything, there are some practical issues that need to be looked at.
Secondly, the legislation prescribed that businesses cannot attend the hearing at which they are being
declared a drug house, and cannot defend themselves. That is what the legislation says. It is the
government’s claim that this secrecy is required to ensure that no notice is given to criminals so they
can dispose of evidence. If staff appear to be involved in illegal activities, then the application for
broader search powers by police is welcome. However, there needs to be a distinction drawn between
staff and owners. The fact that an offence was committed on a licensed premises does not mean that the
owner or licensee was complicit in the crime. We are responsible for staff and their duties while they are
working for us, but should not be held accountable for actions or crimes that we cannot be reasonably
expected to prevent.
There were concerns expressed today by a member of the Northern Territory government’s task force on illicit drugs, from the Australian Medical Association, David Meadows, and I quote from the ABC online site:
- A member of the Northern Territory government’s Task Force on Illicit Drugs says a recent announcement on
drug reforms have pre-empted the group’s findings. The Australian Medical Association’s David Meadows
says recommendations the task force has made to health minister, Jane Aagaard, have not yet been made public.
But the Justice Minister, Peter Toyne, has announced that by the end of today’s Assembly sittings, new legislation
on drug production and distribution should be in force. Dr Meadows says it seems the Justice department and
the Health department have not been communicating. ‘It just seems as though the Minister for Justice is going
ahead and making determinations that seem to preempt what the Illicit Drugs Task Force was all about,’ he said.
One wonders why it was actually set up if it was going to bring down some of the recommendations anyway. I use that as an argument to say that perhaps this was rushed, and we should have waited for the government’s task force to bring down its recommendations.
On a few more specific issues, there are some definitions that perhaps could lead to legal disputes and the possible abuse of power. Section 11C(2) states that ‘the court may take into account indications that do not occur on the premises but that relate to the premises’. The question is, what does that relate to? Also, how is the word ‘vicinity’ defined? You will find that in section 11 in relation to drug house premises. Is it a certain distance; is it kilometres or metres? What does that mean? Section 11D(2) states ‘a reasonable belief that within the twelve month period’. Who determines what a reasonable belief is?
There are other issues, for instance, not requiring a search warrant once a drug premises order has been made. Action can be taken in court to get a drug house order without the property owner being present. There is one other issue that was raised by the hoteliers and perhaps some people might laugh at the possibilities of this, but I am not so sure it is as silly as it sounds. What protection is there for licensees who may be targeted by a group or individual with a grudge, or a rival, sending in a stooge as a casual bouncer who will get themselves busted on the premises? In other words, could someone who believes they might be able to, for instance, purchase a hotel by setting a premises up? That is, they conduct a number of illegal drug matters, they get themselves employed, do this deliberately and then they find themselves with a drug premises order which could put the place out of business. Of course, the people who might have done that might have come straight back and bought the business. If you live in the rural area, I do not think it is a theory that does not have some basis.
I would also like to hear what the minister has to say about these concerns. Again, I believe the legislation is too rushed; not only because it has not had enough time for adequate analysis, but I would have liked to have heard what the new task force on illicit drugs has to say. The legislation should have waited until their findings were known. I am willing to see what effect this bill will have, and have the Ombudsman report on its effectiveness annually. I do not want drugs spreading in our community, but I do not want to be put in a box which says: ‘If you do not support this bill then you must be pro-drug’. I raise issues about this bill because that is my job.
Finally, I believe there should be more effort in attacking the biggest drug problem in the Territory - the one that John Lawrence highlighted - alcohol. Everyone is aware of the crime perpetrated by some drunks - the murders, the manslaughters, the assaults, sexual assaults and property damage. People under the influence also cause other harm. An Australian Institute of Health and Welfare national households survey found that last year, more than 4 million Australian were verbally abused by drunks, 2 million were put in fear by people under the influence, and half a million were actually physically abused by a drunk. The survey also showed that 82% of Australians over the age of 13 drink alcohol, while 17% use an illicit drug.
The government is putting effort into controlling drugs, and that is very good. However, on the above statistics, we should be putting six times the effort into the effects of alcohol. Would we close a licensed premises if it had three alcohol-related offences in the vicinity of that licensed premises? I do not want to be a cynic, but to some extent I hope this bill is not political; I really hope that it will work. I say again, I will support a trial of this bill, if there was an independent annual review. I hope the minister will respond to the concerns I have raised. I am hoping that the government will put the same effort that it has into this bill, into tackling the effects of alcohol in our community. The government should not just look at this law to solve this issue. More emphasis must be placed on art, music, sport, and employment. I have also said more emphasis should be placed on our education system; not just on the core subjects but on philosophical matters. We need to look at a holistic approach.
I realise today we are debating just this section about misuse of drugs, but it would be good to hear that parallel to this we are doing positive things to get kids away from drugs; to make sure people are employed - not only children but adults as well to think about themselves and what they are doing to their society and to themselves.
Lastly, the issue of the Public Order and Anti-Social Conduct Act Repeal Bill. I was not entirely happy with this bill. To some extent, it had political ramifications and that is why I asked whether this bill is basically the other side of that, and it has tried to do its political bit as well. As I mentioned before, we have to be very careful that ‘my law is not tougher than your law’. That is not the approach we use if we want good legislation
I would like to hear that if this bill is repealed, that there is a program run by the government to counteract the issues that were raised by the member for Drysdale. They are important issues. I have said before I do not blame Aboriginal people for many of the problems that occur. They are there – we see them face to face. Alcohol in our society is a big problem overall, and for a lot of non-indigenous people we do not see it unless you go to the football in the last quarter, or you go to a party in a street.
If we are to repeal this bill, the government should be telling us how we will tackle those problems and what sort of time frame is being looked at so we can evaluate what is occurring at this moment and compare that with what the government puts in place. I do not envy the government; I do not believe there is a simple solution. Sometimes legislation looks great on paper but, in reality, we are dealing with people. Sometimes we are dealing with the poorest or the sickest or the ones most affected by alcohol, and they are all very difficult issues. I would like to see what the government will put in place if the Public Order and Anti-Social Conduct Act is repealed.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, it is some time since I have read Balance, the magazine produced by the Law Society Northern Territory. It is some time since I have read that magazine because when I was Attorney-General it was a publication that came across my desk often. During the heady days of mandatory sentencing it was a publication that was quite scathing of the CLP’s actions. John Lawrence was a person I came to know. He is a nice bloke personally, but he certainly has very strong opinions on certain issues. In my period as Chief Minister and Attorney-General, on the issue of mandatory sentencing, John Lawrence was one who came out very strongly on every occasion against the CLP and against that legislation.
Similarly, when the Public Order and Anti-Social Conduct Act was introduced, he was very critical of the Northern Territory CLP government at the time and was backed up, of course, by Jon Tippett. So it is of no surprise to me, when I look through Balance, to see that John Lawrence, when he writes an article, does not resile from having a crack at the CLP. He writes about legislation being produced for political reasons. He says the CLP were great at it, of course, with words like ‘hanging is to good for them’, ‘throw away the key’, ‘mandatory sentencing’ and ‘life means life’ were their catchcries.
That’s fair enough. You expect that from John Lawrence. You expect that from the Law Society. What you do not expect is for them to then come out and criticise this new Labor government in the way they have been criticised in this issue of the magazine. Also, you do not expect the Deputy Chief Minister to say: ‘That is the Law Society; mob of rat bags; you don’t take any notice of that lot. This is the new, tough government’.
Mr Stirling: Nobody said that!
Mr BURKE: I heard you across the Chamber. ‘You don’t take any notice. That’s just the Law Society’.
Mr STIRLING: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I will not be misquoted and have Hansard misled by the Leader of the Opposition. Show me where I said it and I will stand by any comment I said, but I certainly never said it and he can withdraw it. He can withdraw it. He has no evidence for it; he can withdraw it.
Madam SPEAKER: Just calm down. Leader of the Opposition…
Mr BURKE: Madam Speaker, firstly rushes are not available and I do not intend to withdraw it until I see the rushes, but he definitely said ‘You expect that from the Law Society’.
Mr Baldwin: ‘What do you expect from the Law Society’. He said it to me.
Mr BURKE: ‘What do you expect from the Law Society’. Okay?
Mr Stirling: You do not know what I said.
Mr BURKE: ‘What do you expect from the Law Society’, Madam Speaker. He accepts them as his words. This is the Labor Party that on every occasion when they wanted an authoritative voice to criticise the mandatory sentencing legislation, when they wanted an authoritative voice to criticise the Public Order and Anti-Social Conduct Act, who did they have sitting up there next to them? Who did they have front the cameras? It was John Lawrence or it was Jon Tippett. These were the people who had the knowledge, the authority and the experience; these were the people who would say: ‘That legislation is unworkable; that legislation is trash. It won’t work for these reasons and we as opposition have the responsibility to bring those issues forward to you’.
Isn’t it amazing? Isn’t it amazing when the same people now look at this legislation that has been presented in this House and say things like – from John Lawrence – about these new drug laws:
- … but really in the main it’s a new body of law that isn’t worth the paper it’s written on. It’s a gigantic waste of
time, resources and discussion created by politicians manipulating the media which takes our community
absolutely nowhere as regards its problems with crime and dealing with it. It is in the main window dressing
and show. It will lead to increased litigation and more work for lawyers and will have little effect on the plain
problem it seeks to address (or is it invented?).
What’s wrong with John Lawrence? So poor old John Lawrence has fallen into the trap of Denis Burke now. So it is Denis Burke and John Lawrence now who think that the drug problem in the Northern Territory government may not be as great as the Labor party believes it to be. John Lawrence is now on the record as saying ‘or is it invented’.
He goes on:
Property crime will continue. Drug offences will continue and nothing in this legislation will reduce either.
The legislation is nothing more or less than a cynical political exercise. A demon has been created …
I think that I have said that on occasion, that you have reinvented the problem. You want to look tough. You say how do we look tough out there? You did it in Labor Party polling. What does the polling of the Labor Party say? ‘Soft on crime. Labor Party has more time for crims than it has for victims’. How do we change that perception? How do we change the perceptions out there that mandatory sentencing is popular and we got rid of it. So how do we do it? What do we do? We reinvent the problem. We will reinvent the problem and say, ‘property crime is actually a drug problem. If you attack drugs you will reduce property crime by 50%’. So we will run the argument out there that if we address drugs, you do not need mandatory sentencing, you do not need public order and antisocial behaviour legislation. All you need is drug laws and you will drop property crime by 50%.
He says:
- A demon has been created and then attacked and the problem which our society will continue to endure will
merely laugh up its sleeve as it surrenders its lease and moves its households elsewhere. Darwin is not
Brooklyn or Cabramatta. Nor is it Yuendemu or Port Keats.
Some striking similarities there and I have said you are trying to say that Darwin is like Cabramatta, and it is not.
Crime is high in the Territory. It always has been. Drug offences, like elsewhere, are increasing. It would be
good if our government genuinely wanted to reduce those aspects.
And he finishes:
This cynical exercise shows that our democracy produces governments who are intent on retaining
government rather than righting wrongs and problems.
Madam Speaker, as I have said, if John Lawrence was saying that about the CLP government you would say, ‘Well, that’s right. That’s par for the course. That’s John Lawrence’. He does not like the CLP, he does not like the way CLP does business. He does not like a CLP government that says, ‘You commit crime you go to gaol’. He does not like the CLP government that says, ‘You premeditate and deliberately murder someone you will stay in there for life’. He does not like that. But he expects his Labor government, he expects the party with the high moral ideals, the party that is going to bring a whole new era of rights and fairness …
Mr Stirling interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of Government Business, order.
Mr BURKE: …and equity for all into the Northern Territory, will bring forward legislation that will be something that he can look at as a member of the Law Society with his colleagues and say, ‘They are my boys and girls. Finally we have the stuff we wanted. Finally we have some real intellect in the legislation. Finally we have legislation that we as the Law Society can feel proud of our government and it brought forward this wonderful legislation’. And what does he say? ‘It’s trash. It’s garbage’. That is what he said.
Mr Stirling: So you are supporting trash. You are supporting garbage.
Mr BURKE: ‘It’s trash. It’s garbage’. We will get to that. We will get to that. Just hang on.
__________________________
Distinguished Visitors
Distinguished Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: Before you do go on, Leader of the Opposition, I interrupt you for one moment to draw members’ attention to the presence in the gallery of a number of ministers from other jurisdictions: the Honourable Jon Stanhope, MLA, Member for Ginninderra, ACT Legislative Assembly; the Honourable Faye Lo Po’, MP, Member for Penrith, NSW Legislative Assembly; the Honourable Wendy Edmond, MLA, Member for Mount Coot-tha, Queensland Legislative Assembly; the Honourable Stephanie Key, MHA, Member for Ashford, South Australian Legislative Assembly; and the Honourable Mary Delahunty, MLA, Member for Northcote, Victorian Legislative Assembly. On behalf of all members, I offer you a warm welcome. I am sure you are going to enjoy this debate. As you can see it has been very lively in the short time you have been with us; no doubt you are familiar with lively debate.
__________________________
Mr BURKE: Madam Speaker, whilst I welcome our visitors, I feel the numbers have now been loaded doubly against me. Are there any Coalition members over there? Stand please. We cannot win the vote, for sure. But I welcome you to the Northern Territory and I certainly hope you enjoy your stay here in our fine weather.
I would just continue, that that really must be the disappointment amongst your colleagues out there. The people who for 27 years have folded the letters, put them into envelopes, made the cups of tea, baked the scones, gone out there on election day and said, ‘One day, one day we will get there. And when we get there, when we finally make it into government, we will see legislation brought forward that we can sit back and say, gee whiz, it was all worth the effort’. And what do they get?
Mr Henderson: Repeal of mandatory sentencing, that is what they got. They got the repeal of mandatory sentencing.
Mr BURKE: They get this mob that says, we want to be tougher than the CLP. How do we look like we are tougher than the CLP? We have to find a way that we look tough. So what we will do is we will reinvent this problem of property crime, call it a drug problem, try to tell Territorians that the Northern Territory and Darwin is like Cabramatta and see if we can win the support that way. That is what you embarked upon, and in doing so, you have great delight in saying that Denis Burke always said that drugs were a minuscule problem in the Northern Territory.
Mr Henderson: You said that drugs and crime were minuscule.
Mr BURKE: Drug crime, that’s right. What I said, and I quote from the Hansard of Wednesday 9 August 2000: ‘There is drug related crime in the Northern Territory, there is no doubt about that, but compared to other jurisdictions, it is minuscule’. Compared to other jurisdictions it is minuscule, and I am sure some of our visitors here - you ask Faye Lo Po’ what she reckons about the drug problem in Darwin compared to Cabramatta, because that is what you are trying to say. You are trying to say that we have these Mr Bigs in Darwin who are peddling drugs the way they do it in Cabramatta. We have these drug houses operating that we need such laws that you need to drive a bulldozer through them in order to get at the problem. Go away!
Dr Burns: Haven’t you read Bridie O’Reilly’s report? You ignored it.
Mr BURKE: There is no doubt there are drugs in the Northern Territory, and there is no doubt that we have drug related crime. But let’s get it into perspective. What I say is, let’s get the drug problem and drug crime problem in perspective in relation to other crime and other causes of crime.
The Law Society says if you want to point to the cause of crime, it is called VB. It is called Victoria Bitter. That is the primary cause of crime in the Northern Territory - Victoria Bitter. It was attacking Victoria Bitter, attacking the high alcohol consumption in the Northern Territory that the CLP government over 10 years brought in what was called the Living with Alcohol campaign, brought in a special excise on heavy beer, brought in legislation to address the high consumption of alcohol in the Northern Territory. The aim of that program, after 10 years, was to get the level of consumption down to the national average, but I think that is an indication of how we got the health minister’s run-around there.
Dr Burns: Why did you pull it? Why did you dismantle it?
Mr BURKE: You know - because the excise changed. You should bring it back in, in fact I would support you if you bring it back in.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: A little less interjection, thank you.
Mr BURKE: In comparison, when we talk about drug related crime in the Northern Territory, I just pose this observation, and it is from the annual report of Correctional Services. It talks about our prisoner profile in the Northern Territory and it says: ‘The Territory prisoner health care profile differs significantly from southern jurisdictions where illicit drug use, including intravenous injecting, is at epidemic proportions in their prisons’. That is a sad fact in southern prisons. If the use of intravenous drugs by the criminal population were at those levels we would have an epidemic problem of intravenous drug use in our own Territory prisons, and we do not, and that is backed up by the research.
The Attorney-General comes into the House here and points to his qualitative and scientific data to prove that drug related crime is high in the Northern Territory, and points to nine cases, I believe, in the House, and 10 cases in his press release, of crimes that were drug related, and then generalises and says, therefore that proves we have a massive drug related crime problem in the Northern Territory. The data does not bear that out. If you look again at the Correctional Services Annual Report, table 20, for the period 2000-01, distinct juvenile detention episode commenced in supporting the most serious offence 2000-01, there were 115 juveniles in prison over the period for property offences: break and enter, 63; stealing, 13; unlawful use of motor vehicle, 24; and property damage, 15. That is a total of 115. If you then go to adult prisoners in gaol for property offences: break and enter, 58; fraud and misappropriation, three; stealing, receiving, other theft, 24; illegal use of motor vehicle, 18; and damaged property, 19. That is 132.
Of those two quanta, I would have thought you would need to demonstrate more than 10 cases to show that you had a problem. Why don’t you go to all those who are in prison? Go to all of those and find out how many of those crimes were caused because they were drug-related. You might then begin to convince us of the strength of your argument. However, you decided that you will re-invent the problem in the Northern Territory, that the real issue here is drugs. The Mr Bigs and drug crime you will attack with this new legislation of yours. No longer do you need any legislation to deal with what the CLP and I have always strongly believed is one of the major problems, caused in many respects by alcohol, of itinerant and antisocial behaviour that is endemic right across our community. No one can tell the business people in Alice Springs, no fool can tell the business people in Alice Springs who deal with this problem every day of the week -- who have the damage to their businesses - that their problems are drug related.
They know their problems there. Even the Attorney-General has now admitted the problem there. He said there were two groups of about 20 youths who are running around totally unsupervised. That is the major problem in Alice Springs, and these laws will not address that particular issue at all.
You have decided that drugs are going to be the way you will attack it. We will not oppose your drug legislation, because the CLP …
Mr Henderson: You have just spent 20 minutes bagging it!
Mr BURKE: Madam Speaker, picking up on the interjection from the member for Wanguri, who yesterday in this House said he knows politics, the way politics is played, the way you construct things, he can see through all these things. I can see through them too. You do not bring in these bills cognate in order to create a dilemma purposefully. If you were genuine in dealing with these issues you would have brought them in separately. However, you brought the bills in cognate, and you brought the bills in cognate to try to suggest that somehow, if we oppose the antisocial legislation, we should oppose all of it; if we do not oppose all of it we therefore support all of it.
What we can do is be honest with Territorians. We will be honest to Territorians and anyone who ...
Mr Kiely: You have never been honest with Territorians.
Mr BURKE: Well, you could begin by being honest and just listen to the debate, for a start.
Mr Kiely: You have never been honest with them. You deny there is a drug problem.
Mr BURKE: If you want to be honest and fair, listen to my words and I will tell you what the CLP position is. The CLP …
Mr Kiely: Rubbish words, rubbish words!
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr BURKE: … position is we unreservedly and determinedly oppose the repeal of the public order and antisocial legislation. It is legislation that we brought into this parliament. It is legislation that we enacted, and no weaselly words that you try to run will convince anyone out there that it is other than this government which has repealed that legislation. You are repealing it; this is your decisive action. You have brought it into the House, you have the numbers and, therefore, like mandatory sentencing, you have the responsibility.
When it comes to the legislation that you have to deal with the misuse of drugs, we believe that this legislation is flawed, but we also believe that it needs to be tested, because the real issue here is reduction in crime. The government now, with all the resources and all the data of government, has said it will reduce property crime by 50% through these strategies. I reckon it could be the way forward. The member for Millner says that within two years we will see the results of this legislation. We will see a reduction in property crime being reduced; we will see a reduction of antisocial behaviour in our streets; we will see a reduction in itinerant behaviour. All of these aberrant behaviours essentially stem from drugs, or at least 50% of them, since 50% of the crime committed in the Northern Territory is drug related. I welcome and/or support any legislation…
Mr KIELY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Nothing was ever quantified in percentages as 50%. This is what he keeps attributing. There were never any percentages of that nature given.
Madam SPEAKER: I do not think there is a point of order because it is a general, broad statement.
Mr KIELY: He is misleading the House!
Madam SPEAKER: If you think he is misleading the House, then you know what to do about it.
Mr BURKE: Madam Speaker, the statements are absolute. The Attorney-General has pointed to data throughout Australia – none of it in the Northern Territory except for the Bridie O’Reilly report which has fairly well been discounted, even by the police who did not have any faith in the qualitative or quantitative data in it. The Attorney-General has staked his reputation on 50% of property crime being drug related.
Dr Toyne: No, I did not. You are telling fibs, Denis.
Mr BURKE: You are stepping back from it, now? You are pretty good at quoting me in the Hansard. ‘50% of property crime is drug related. We have a major problem with drugs in the Northern Territory. I have the strategies that will reduce drugs, therefore those strategies will reduce property crime by 50%’. And I hope they work! John Lawrence thinks they are garbage! The Law Society think it is garbage. I have not heard Tippett for a while. He has his silk, so he is pretty happy now. I would be interested to hear what Mr Tippett’s opinion of it is.
Given all of that, as the member for Nelson said, there are differing views. You have the confidence of government; you have the confidence in your own legislation. We are not about to oppose you putting in place a strategy which you believe will work. All we say to you is: we are going to hold you on notice to ensure that it does work. You have staked yourself on reducing property crime and we want to see it reduced. We would also like to see some statistics rolled out rather than hidden which seems to be all that is happening in the Northern Territory at the moment with regards to the information that should be put out there.
The other thing is this: this Labor government will not face its own dilemma. This is that it cannot talk about Aborigines other than in a favourable light. It knows in its own heart that a predominant problem in the Northern Territory is aberrant behaviour by predominantly Aborigines, caused by itinerants, caused by alcohol abuse, causing distress in our urban communities in Palmerston, Darwin, and Alice Springs. The CLP addressed that problem, whether you like it or not, with the public order and antisocial conduct legislation. It was brought in just before the election. It was never given a chance to operate because this lot over here gave a clear indication they did not believe in it, they did not want it, they did not like the way it operated because the Law Society also did not like it, and when they got in they were going to get rid of it.
You have done that. You are fine. You are going to stake yourselves now on the Larrakia Nation policing our streets in Darwin. I wish you well. I hope it works. Marshall Perron, I recall, when he was Chief Minister, put a lot of effort into trying to get the Larrakia Nation to exert some authority in Darwin. There has been continual and successive CLP government efforts to get them to take more authority ever since.
You cannot say they have not been helped or given every encouragement to do that. You are now in power. You now reckon you have the association with them. You now reckon that you can solve all these problems. What I know, and what Territorians will know is this: the only thing you have done, apart from talk, is get rid of mandatory sentencing and get rid of the public order and antisocial legislation and very shortly, you are going to make sure that murderers are let out of gaol as soon as possible. These are the three areas that Territorians know you have and will act on. The rest of it is just woolly rhetoric – garbage, as Mr Lawrence has said.
But having said that, let me make…
Mr Henderson: Woolly rhetoric and garbage – we will support it.
Mr BURKE: Can you hear, or not? Let me make the Northern Territory Opposition’s position absolutely clear: we oppose the repeal of the Public Order and Anti-Social Conduct Act. We believe it has never been given a chance to work. We are sad and sorry that this Labor government is soft on the real issues that concern Territorians. It cannot get itself to face the real issues and will do everything by holding committees, reviews, enquiries, whatever you like, to go around those issues without actually coming to the source of the problem. We are disappointed that that legislation is going to be repealed.
With regards to the other cognate pieces of legislation, the drug laws, we do not believe that they will work, but we do believe that the government has the right to introduce legislation to attempt to address property crime. We hope it is not, as the Law Society believes, a sad and cynical exercise whereby this government is looking for mechanisms to fool the public rather than trying to address the real issues of crime. But that will be brought out in time, with reviews, as the member for Nelson requires, with statistics that are produced to show whether this legislation has any real life or substance in it or not.
The other point I would make, in closing, and just to emphasise and underscore the point that was laughed at by the Minister for Business, Industry and Resource Development. We will make sure that those businesses that are affected realise that he treats their concerns in such a laughable way, the old Territorian families, many of them the Colemans and MacNamees and those who own the different businesses, the people in Alice Springs who made comment about their concerns. There is a real issue that …
Mr Stirling: Then your local member has a responsibility to correct their misconceptions.
Mr BURKE: Am I having a conversation here, Madam Speaker, or a debate?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr BURKE: The owners of these licensed premises have a real concern themselves to keep drugs out of their premises. They do not want to see themselves as some sort of group apart from the general society, as has been painted by this Labor government. They are just as concerned to have responsible practices in every respect in their premises. They do not want druggies near them. But you must accept the fact that the ability to absolutely police drugs on these premises, some of these night-clubs, is extremely hard, if not impossible, to police absolutely. Yet this legislation, and the rhetoric that has come from the Attorney-General, the rhetoric about these Mr Bigs and the drug houses, by association, and by suggestion to the general public is indicating that these premises are actively involved, and therefore, by default, and by association are at best unconcerned about the problem.
Well the issue is this: they are concerned that legislation targets them in this way, and if they believe that they are being victimised by this legislation there is no doubt that they will sell out. There is an absolute truth that the people who then buy into those premises do profit from crime, do profit from these sorts of premises, by the use of drugs on those premises. It has happened in other jurisdictions and you want to be extremely careful, because the owners themselves, who deal in the association that they are in, with people, with these problems throughout Australia, all of the time, are sending you that warning. And if you flippantly, as the minister for industries and business, just toss it off as if they know nothing, if you laugh - the public servant over here who has had a secure job and never ever had to work for himself in his whole life, apart from in the Army and then he was a failure, flippantly suggests that these people do not know what they are talking about. ‘We have had a look at the legislation, it is okay.’ These are the people who work in this business all the time. These are the people who put their livelihoods into this. These are people who have associates right around Australia who have to deal with drugs on their premises all the time. They are sending you a warning, and the most you can do is just toss your shoulders and say, ‘We public servants, we lawyers know best’. You will be right, the legislation won’t hurt you if you are honest. But if you are not honest,’ the minister for industries and business said, ‘Not honest, we will get you.’
I will tell you, and I am happy to stand on the record, the licensees who run businesses in Mitchell Street and other urban areas, particularly in the inner city of Darwin, are good Territorians. They are good business people, they put a lot of money into this town, they control their premises in a very responsible way. They should be supported not targeted by this legislation. All you have done is made a great spiel where you are trying to set them apart somehow from the rest of society, and that is quite wrong.
Madam Speaker, I wish the government well with its drug legislation, they will be held to account for its outcomes. I am extremely disappointed that the public order and antisocial behaviour legislation has been repealed, but that was a decision of government. They have the numbers. There is nothing the opposition can do about it except to express our deep regret.
Mr HENDERSON (Business, Industry and Resource Development): Madam Speaker, I will deal with some of the comments that have been made by members of this parliament in my contribution. I am very proud today to stand here in this House with this legislation. Picking up on comments from the member for Nelson, I can give him my absolute assurance and guarantee, that this legislation has essentially been in the making, within our policy parameters in the Labor Party, for the last three years. It is not just this legislation that we have before us today, which we are moving as a government to implement. We are implementing our three-point plan to try to make a concerted effort, through public policy, to deal with the absolute devastation that drug use is causing in our community from a public policy position which had absolutely no recognition by the previous government at all.
The three-point plan which we are introducing progressively as a government has as its first point a law enforcement strategy of zero tolerance on drug production and distribution. This is part of that legislative response today. Also, part of that public policy response is our commitment that we are working through to double the number of drug squad officers in the Northern Territory to target this particular issue. We are introducing compulsory treatment of addicts arrested on drug related crimes; this is why we are moving to introduce the drug court legislation to the parliament in the next sittings. The third point is a properly resourced drug prevention strategy, including family support policies and education campaigns directed at our schools. That is why the minister for health has commissioned a task force to look at these issues and will be dealing with them in the August budget.
This is a whole-of-government approach in terms of having a legislative and a public policy response focussing on the devastation that drugs and drug users are causing on our community. I found it absolutely amazing to sit here for the last four or five hours of this debate, and listen to member after member opposite, basically flip flopping around, caught in a total wedge, and speaking against the policies that we are bringing through in this legislation, but then saying that they are going to support it. The only person on the other side of the House who has any credibility in this debate at all is the member for Macdonnell. I take my hat off to him. He has said that he does not support the repeal of the Public Order and Anti-Social Conduct Act, and that is fine. But he has said that he wishes us well and made some good comments in relation to the other bills. The rest of the members opposite really need to take a good, hard look at themselves in the mirror and avail their conscience. It will be interesting to hear the member for Greatorex’s position on this as well.
I will talk to the first point in our plan. The member for Goyder stated there is not a three-point drug plan. I have just indicated that there is. The first point is the law enforcement strategy of zero tolerance on drug production and distribution. The Leader of the Opposition has his head in the sand, totally buried in the sand, when he attested that much of the property crime that occurs in Darwin is not related to drug use. It is related to VB, according to the Leader of the Opposition. I cannot believe, despite all the evidence that has been put before this parliament, all of the international evidence available, the evidence that is coming through government now that we are in government, he supports this notion. I ask members opposite where they think those 460 000 needles went in the period when they were in government from 1994-95 through to 1999-2000, a period of five years. There was a 414% increase in the number of needles distributed, and those are the ones that we knew about. 460 000 in one year for a town of a population of 100 000 people. The member for Greatorex thought many of them were diabetics.
They have had two years to answer this question about where these needles were going and, therefore, if there is not a drug problem in this town, what were people using these needles for? They have not been able to come up with any answer at all.
My colleague, the member for Johnston …
Dr Burns: Erectile problems, I think someone said. Wasn’t that right?
Mr HENDERSON: Average age of the population being 29, I think not. The member for Johnston did the maths, and I give credit to him. When we were working out our public policy position on this two years ago, he was a great help. As he pointed out, over the period 1998-99 there was about $10m estimated – estimated …
Dr Burns: Per annum.
Mr HENDERSON: Per annum of diverted morphine - morphine that was being prescribed in the Darwin and Palmerston area that ended up hitting the streets. Again, where do members opposite think that people who have a drug habit that is costing them between $100 and $200 a day - who are not in employment and are on the streets - get the money from to support a $200-a-day drug habit to consume 460 000 needles? Where do they think that people get this money from? Do they win it down at the Casino; they win it on the horses? Of course not. They commit crime to feed their habits. They break into people’s houses; they steal their goods; they sell their goods to feed their drug habits.
Every other jurisdiction in the western world acknowledges this problem, and acknowledges this link between drugs and property crime - apart from the members of the CLP opposition and the then CLP government. I do not know why it is so hard for those members opposite to acknowledge the bleeding obvious - that there is a very strong and significant link between drug use and property crime. To say that somehow, against all the evidence in Australia, against all the international evidence, in spite of the fact that we are consuming 460 000 needles being distributed to a population of 100 000, we had nine times the prescription rate of morphine per capita hitting the streets. There is either a hell of a lot of pain out there - and we have been through this debate before – or it is being traded at $50 a tab on the street, which is much more likely, estimated to be $10m worth of diverted morphine. In spite of all that evidence, they still say that property crime is minuscule in comparison to other states’ drug-related property crime, and the real problem is VB.
I acknowledge that VB is causing a huge problem in the Northern Territory. Absolutely. We will do everything possible we can to start turning that tide around. However, we are not turning our backs on this particular issue and, for the first time, the people of the Northern Territory who elected us and wanted us to do something about this, will see a public policy response. We will make sure that it is implemented. Nobody can guarantee any outcomes but, my god, we will not die trying. Those members opposite certainly turn their backs on this particular issue.
If we go to the comments from John Lawrence and the Criminal Lawyers Association. Look, I admire John Lawrence. He is a man of integrity and, as my colleague, the member for Nhulunbuy, pointed out, he would not be so hypocritical as to come in here and hold that position and that view, and then vote to support that legislation. He is a man of principle; he is a man of integrity who calls it as he sees it, and we have a point of difference with him on this particular issue. At least he would have his own integrity intact and would vote against this legislation if he was here in this place.
To counter the comments that John has put, the links are demonstrated very solidly through the Australian Institute of Criminology May 2000 report, an initiative of the Commonwealth Liberal National Party government. I will give credit to the Commonwealth government - at least they funded a tough on drugs strategy. Part of that strategy was this AIC trial:
- The results confirm that there is a very strong link between opiate use and property crimes: intravenous
needles, morphine …
Mr Kiely: Except for the Territory.
Mr HENDERSON: Except for the Territory.
- Of those detainees whose most serious charge was a property offence, 43% have tested positive for opiates.
The link between illicit drugs and criminal offending is very strong for all crimes.
Except in the Northern Territory, members opposite would have us believe, where it has nothing to do with the 460 000 needles, the $10m worth of diverted morphine, but it has everything to do with VB that is sold in the Territory. I think Territorians are a much smarter bunch than those members sitting opposite.
The member for Goyder talked about the member for Mackellar, Bronwyn Bishop, heading up some Commonwealth program to look at the linkages between drugs and crime. I would like to point out that the Coalition government, as of the time when our policy was handed down, had a number of programs designed to tackle the drug-crime problem. $57m in grants have been distributed to non-government organisations under advice from the National Council on Drugs. Not one dollar of that money was applied for, nor one community group in the Northern Territory was assisted by the previous government to apply for funding under that $57m program. The member for Goyder was not in the parliamentary wing at the time, but they turn around and say that we should be working with the Commonwealth on this. Their track record is not very strong. $57m on the table to tackle this problem and, again, members opposite had their heads so far in the sand that they did not seek to apply for a single dollar to try to get across this issue and fund some public programs. We certainly will be applying for that money.
The Leader of the Opposition commented that my colleague the Attorney-General could only point to eight to 10 cases - these are the press clippings from the Northern Territory News since 28 February this year – this volume. I am not going to read all of these into Hansard, but they are all press articles and letters to the editor regarding the linkages between property crime and drug use. I am sure that any study of statistics through the Justice Department would turn up many more. I will give one case here – I could talk ad infinitum about this – in terms of the types of problems that we are trying to address, not only through this legislation, but through the three-point plan and other complementary legislation: Case 1. May 2001. It was in about May 2001 that the Leader of the Opposition came up with his infamous comment that the links in the Northern Territory between drugs and property crime were minuscule compared with other states. About the same period, an offender was sentenced for 10 counts of aggravated unlawful entry and nine counts of stealing from commercial premises between 27 November 2000 and 3 January 2001. The court commented to the offender that: ‘Your problems seem to be the result of your abuse and use of drugs and alcohol’. The offender was a very heavy user of cannabis and an intravenous amphetamine user. The court found the offences were committed to fund the offender’s drug and alcohol habits.
There is case after case after case after case that will be referred to and people can study the court transcripts and sentencing comments in the Northern Territory. Again, total denial from those opposite in terms of the links between drugs and property crime.
Madam Speaker, I have to say that our main public policy position on this is one of protection: protection of our community; protecting our kids and society. I have a passion for this. I have spoken many times in this place about the absolute need to have a public policy position and to enact legislation and funding programs to deal with this issue. Fundamentally, that is what this legislation is about: protecting our community and doing everything we can by way of public policies to discourage our kids from taking up illicit drugs.
I quote from a couple of articles from the Northern Territory News, going back a few years now and at random. On 25 November 1998, the headline was ‘NT drug shock – they’re rife amongst pupils’. This was a report from the Cancer Council of the Northern Territory, Susan Bertram and Dr Bridie O’Reilly, March 1998, and that particular report was apparently leaked by the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre; it was funded in part by the Territory government at the time, but they did not want the results leaked. Let’s look at these results:
- About 50% of 15 and 16 year olds and 17 year old females had said that they’d tried cannabis. The survey also
found like the rest of Australia, Territory students aged 12 to 17 were big users of painkillers; half of 16 and
17 year old females had used painkillers in the past week. The study also found one-third of Territory students
aged between 16 and 17 had tried LSD with 16% trying speed. Health minister, Dennis Burke, said he was
concerned about statistics which found any higher use of drugs by Territory youth.
What was the public policy response to that? Absolutely nothing. We now move to 8 March 1998 response to this:
- Darwin families in crisis because of drug use by their teenage children now have a place to get help.
- We were very upset and in fear that our child was in danger. We did try to talk about it but it was difficult
because we were upset and afraid. They weren’t able to stop him using drugs but realised they needed more
information so that they could be knowledgeable on other issues. Another Darwin mother, a single parent,
said she was caught in a power struggle with her 14 year old son when his alcohol, speed and marijuana
cocktail habit was revealed. ‘I set out to stop him no matter what, using emotional blackmail, even driving
around the streets looking for him. It was very disruptive to other children and caused harm in the family
and I lost my credibility with him as I seemed to be a fool and he was the expert on drugs. I was under a lot
of stress and then I got professional help which lowered the anxiety.’ The mother said she ‘tried to force her
values on the son; none of this helped’ and the system kicked in.
I would like to talk for a few moments about the contribution by the member for Araluen regarding some correspondence she received and tabled in the parliament. I am very disappointed in the member for Araluen because as members of parliament we have an absolute responsibility to our constituents to interpret their concerns and get to the bottom of the issues that they are concerned about, and provide them with advice that is factual and honest so that their concerns can be allayed. If there are problems with government legislation, or government programs, or the intentions of government, then obviously the opposition and members of parliament have an absolute responsibility on behalf of their constituents to raise those issues with the government of the day.
I will quote from the letter signed by Mr David Hunt, general manager and license nominee from the Alice Springs Memorial Club regarding the Northern Territory government’s Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill 2002:
- Not only is it possible under the proposed legislation for a licensed premise to be declared a ‘drug house’ on
the basis of circumstantial evidence relating to the conduct of staff or contractors, but as the hearing is to be
conducted in private and no notice is given, it is conceivable that the first time that a licensee will know
that the authorities have any concern in relation to their venue is when the drug premise order is served.
With strict penalties currently in place and police already having powers in regard to licensed premises
unprecedented elsewhere in the community, licensed premises are asking why they should be subjected
to laws that declare them as a ‘drug house’ without their knowledge and without proof of any crime being
committed.
I can understand Mr David Hunt’s concern if that was factual. But, unfortunately, it is not. The legislation is very clear that the police on each of the three occasions where they actually find people dealing drugs from a licensed premise have an absolute responsibility on each of those occasions to notify the licensee that X person on their staff has been found dealing drugs and they have to notify the licensee. I quote from the legislation, section 11L(3):
- An order may only be made under subsection (1) or (2) if the court is satisfied that –
(a) records have been made under sections 11E, 11F and 11G of the finding of a dangerous drug on
the premises on not less than 3 separate occasions; and
(b) the notices required under those sections to be served on each owner, landlord and tenant of the
premises were served on those persons.
No order to declare a licensed premise as a drug premise can be made without the licensee being advised on each of three separate occasions that people on their premises have been caught dealing drugs.
I will let my colleague, the Attorney-General pick up that point, but I just want to make the point that it is very easy for members to trapeze in here pretending to support this legislation, allowing people in the community to become concerned, when the facts in terms of the concerns that people have are not reflected in the legislation. Other issues raised by the member for Nelson, that there is no right of licensees to appeal to the Supreme Court - again, totally wrong, it is dealt with in the legislation.
We have another letter here to the honourable Jodeen Carney, member for Araluen - I think her honour is starting to slip a bit, Madam Speaker - again, from a number of licensees with the same types of concerns. If the member had any integrity whatsoever as a member of parliament representing her constituents, she should have got back to those constituents and could have said something like, ‘Look, the general tenor of this legislation I don’t support’. I believe she could say that the government is unfairly targeting licensed premises. ‘However, the facts in terms of what you are concerned about are not being reflected in this legislation. I just need to put your mind at rest’. Instead of fuelling the fire and trapezing in here, this member with a legal background, thus knowing that these concerns are not justified in regards to this legislation that is before the House, shows that she has absolutely no integrity whatsoever. I thought a lot more highly of the member for Araluen than I did, well, two hours ago. She has gone down a long way in my estimation.
We have copies of these letters. We have the signatures on here. If members opposite think that they can have it both ways, if they think that they can come in here and speak vociferously against the legislation that is before this House, and then turn around and support it, and believe that they can then peddle their Hansard back to their constituents and say, ‘Look, I fought the good fight. I did everything I could, but that mean, miserable Labor government went in and enacted the legislation anyway. We did everything we could’, and then sit back and think well that’s great, my constituents will think I did a great job, well they have got another thing coming. Because each and every person who has signed this letter will get a copy of the Hansard.
This is the acid test for these people this afternoon, Madam Speaker. They have to show the strength of their convictions, the integrity of their position and vote against this legislation. Because if they do not vote against the legislation, they are supporting the legislation. We cannot have the weasel words of the member for Drysdale, and the member for Brennan, saying that ‘We support the right for the government to do this’. There is a point of principle here, and we are elected as members of parliament to represent our constituents and represent the policy positions of the political parties that put us here. The responsibility we have when there is legislation before the House is to either support, reject, or seek to amend that legislation on behalf of our constituents, on behalf of the political party we represent.
We cannot sit here and say: ‘Well, you are the government; you have the numbers; I am going to speak here for five hours; and we are going to roll everybody out so we can get the Hansard out to our constituents saying we fought the good fight. We can speak for six hours on a very important piece of public policy but then we are not going to oppose it and get away with it’. Well, I am sorry, you are not going to get away with it. We will be absolutely making sure - and I will do it personally – we will write back and say - I can accept this as a very contentious piece of legislation and I can accept that some people in the community are not going to be happy with it, but I am not going to let these members opposite get away with filling up the Hansard for six hours, vociferously condemning the government for implementing this legislation, and then not opposing it when they have the acid test to oppose it.
Each of these bills will be voted on separately. There are committee stage amendments that can be made, and they have the opportunity not to vote on this as cognate piece of legislation, but to take each piece as it comes. They can stand here and vote against the repeal of the Public Order and Anti-Social Conduct Bill if they want; there are mechanisms to allow them to do this. Then they can either support or not support the other bills, the Misuse of Drugs Amendments Bill and the Misuse of Drugs (Consequential Amendments) Bill. This is a point that they are going to be tested on. They either support this legislation or they do not; they cannot have it both ways. I am disappointed in members opposite. I know that what we are trying to do here is to enact public policy, rightly or wrongly; will it work; won’t it work. But it is with all the good intention and goodwill of this government acknowledging the harm, and the escalating harm, that illicit drug use is causing to our society and our community. The fact that we have people out there making massive profits from the manufacture, distribution and sale of drugs in our community; the harm that it is causing our constituents; the drug houses - thankfully at this point in time I do not think that I have a drug house in my electorate, but I certainly drive past that ‘Foils for Moil’ on Lee Point Road most nights of the week, and look in there and think: my goodness, those poor buggers who live next to that particular premise! What about their property prices, what about the values of their property? Absolutely falling through the floor!
Mr Bonson: What did the CLP do about it?
Mr HENDERSON: What did the CLP do? Absolutely nothing. I remember the evening in here when the then member for Jingili, Mr Balch, stood up and acknowledged the ‘Foils for Moil’ and basically said: ‘It is all too hard and there is nothing that we can do’. His constituents let him know that they wanted him to do something or at least pretend to do something. What did they do? Absolutely nothing.
We will be implementing this legislation. I will be very proud to see this legislation enacted tonight, not only this legislation but the other legislation that we are implementing in terms of our zero tolerance approach, including the witness intimidation legislation and money laundering. We are the only state in Australia that does not have money laundering legislation, and one has to ask why? One has to ask why, and one day we may get to the bottom of it. There is the Crimes (Forfeiture of Proceeds) Act and a whole raft of legislation to crack down - at least the Labor government will live or die trying. The CLP government certainly buried their heads in the sand and did not lift one finger to turn this tide of drug abuse around. If Territorians could hear the whole attitude and tone of members opposite in this debate tonight - if we had the ability to broadcast this debate to the mums and dads in the northern suburbs of Darwin, Palmerston, and Alice Springs - I am absolutely certain that these people would be out on their ear for many years to come, because the attitude that they have taken tonight is totally irresponsible. I do not know what constituency they are seeking to represent, but I think they have it totally wrong.
There is a fundamental point of integrity and a point of no return for the current Leader of the Opposition. He is really on trial here tonight. Otherwise, he really needs to go because he has absolutely no integrity. He is elected by his constituents to represent their concerns in this place. His party, which has endorsed him, has policy positions and they have to consider each piece of legislation as it comes before this House to either support, oppose or seek to amend. They cannot sit here and say that government has a right to do it, therefore we will let them go ahead and do it. They either have to support or oppose. Now, if they are going to support us, that is fine and we welcome their support. But they cannot have it both ways. They cannot sit here and talk down and bag this legislation for six hours, and then sit there, mute, and support the legislation because they know that if they oppose this legislation, the press release that will be out first thing tomorrow morning will say that the opposition voted against drug house legislation, voted against the crack down of drugs in our community and politically, they could not stand the heat. There is a point of principle and there is a point of integrity for the Leader of the Opposition tonight. He has his opportunity in the third reading and in the committee stages and we will wait to see the position that the opposition takes when this legislation comes back before us.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I was not going to speak to this, but after hearing the many speakers here today, I thought I should add some comments from the Central Australian perspective. The minister for Industries and Business is very clever with his words, trying to tease the opposition into a position where we are between a rock and a hard place. But really, the issue is that this government has been very deceitful in its actions by combining all this different legislation into a cognate bill. That is where the deceit is. Had the government been honest, we would have dealt with each item of legislation one piece at a time.
Mr Bonson: We had all the support in the world. Where are your team mates?
Dr LIM: This so called lawyer here has delusions of adequacy and, unfortunately for him, his adequacy is not adequate.
Let’s look at this legislation. Following the debate today, it appears to me that Darwin must have a very bad drug problem. It must have. That is how it appears to be me. When you look at it in a national context, how significant is the drug problem here? Nobody has produced any statistics apart from the one discredited research paper quoted by the member for Johnston.
If the minister were back in Alice Springs a bit more often, he would start to see for himself what the problem is in the streets. The problem in the streets is not drugs – not the drugs that he means; the drug that causes the problem in Alice Springs is alcohol. That is the drug. That is the problem. Alcohol is responsible for the antisocial problems that cause all the angst in Alice Springs. We have heard about the alcohol trial in Alice Springs. The minister was very adamant that it was going to go through and he was going to provide supportive measures to ensure that the trial becomes a success. The trial was needed because the minister realised that alcohol is a major issue in Alice Springs. The CLP, when in government, introduced the Public Order and Anti-Social Conduct Act for precisely that reason: to ensure that we move drunks off our streets, from places where they congregate and to ensure that our streets can be safe. That is what is important in Alice Springs.
But with the drug problem, the reality is that it is not a significant issue in Alice Springs, and the minister would know that. This morning the minister was being interviewed on radio about what Eddie Taylor suggested: that all identified drunks be made to wear an identification bracelet so that the licensees can identify them easily and not serve them alcohol. That is a very direct way of identifying who the drunks are, the ones who are causing the antisocial problems in Alice Springs. The minister in his interview this morning, said no, that’s not a good idea, he doesn’t like that, that Eddie Taylor was on the wrong track. I suggest to you that Eddie Taylor will probably know more about that sort of issue than the minister. The minister suggested that these drunks now be taken into DASA and DASA will now deal with the issue. DASA, while it attempts to look after the drunks by providing a sobering up shelter, really provides very much of a revolving door service, and they do that; somebody goes in drunk, they come out sober and they go back drunk again. It just goes on and on and on. That in itself does not provide any benefit for the drunk, nor does it provide any benefit for the community. The minister said that he might send some of the drunks to a rehabilitation centre. You can take as many drunks as you like to a rehabilitation centre, but until the drunk himself or herself admits to the problem and seeks rehabilitation, any forced rehabilitation or forced attendance at a rehabilitation centre is unlikely to work.
Recently, at the Sadadeen Shopping Centre which is in my electorate, one of the proprietors of a shop there complained bitterly about young vandals. They were there, right in his face, damaging his property with the full knowledge that they were not going to be punished for doing what they were doing. This poor man was helpless, absolutely helpless, seething in his anger, seeing his property being damaged right in front of his eyes and he was helpless to do anything about it. Had the public order and antisocial conduct legislation been enforced by this government something could have been done. The vandals could have been kicked out of the shopping complex. That would at least have ensured that customers to this shopping centre and proprietors of shops there would have a safe environment in which to work. But no, they decide not to do that, and now with these cognate bills they are going to knock out the public order and antisocial conduct legislation, which I believe this government is not right in doing. It should not remove this piece of legislation.
The Minister for Local Government recently reported on the itinerant study. That gave some indications as to how things can go. I would like to see some of those recommendations being implemented but I suppose it is a little bit too early to try to bring anything about at this stage.
Several years ago when Madam Speaker was the Minister for Local Government and also Minister for Central Australia, the member for Macdonnell and I were at a briefing with the commander of southern region of the NT police department. We discussed the value of having some form of legislation which would allow police to move people away from situations of potential antisocial behaviour. Through that discussion, some two years ago, the legislation evolved and it was during last year, prior to the election, that the Public Order and Anti-Social Conduct Act was then enacted. People looked forward to that piece of legislation. They thought it would be given a trial before any government would amend it, to make sure that it became an even better piece of legislation. When I spoke to people about it …
Mr Stirling: It was on the books for nearly a year. It was never used.
Dr LIM: I pick up the interjection from the Deputy Chief Minister, that legislation was in place for a year. In a year that was under his government, where his government had said quite clearly to the police, we are not in favour of this.
Mr STIRLING: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. If he wants to insinuate that I have directed the police to enforce or not enforce the law, I would think that he would need to do so by way of substantive motion. He has no evidence because simply it is not true. I do not direct the police as to what laws they should enforce or not enforce. I ask him to withdraw that insinuation.
Dr LIM: Speaking to the point of order, I never insinuated anything. I said that the police, knowing the Labor government’s policy on this issue, would not have implemented it.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I do not think there is a point of order. The member for Greatorex will continue, please.
Dr LIM: The Deputy Chief Minister is being particularly sensitive tonight. I do not know why but he is particularly sensitive and very touchy tonight.
The issue is that Territorians looked forward to the implementation of the Public Order and Anti-Social Conduct Act. It was never given a chance. How then can anybody say that this piece of legislation would not work, would not provide an avenue where antisocial behaviour can be controlled in our communities? I suggest to you that this piece of legislation would have made a significant impact on the difficulties that we see in our streets every day.
The minister chuckles. If would go to Alice Springs a bit more, he would see for himself what the problems are. When I spoke to the shop owners at the Saddadeen Shopping Centre, they were of one mind. They wanted to see that the vandals did not continue to occupy the shopping centre thus being given the opportunity to cause more destruction and property damage. That is what they wanted. That was the core issue that they wanted me to address. That is why I say the Public Order and Anti-Social Conduct Act will work, but now that this is going to be knocked out, obviously it does not have a chance whatsoever.
With regard to drugs, I have heard and debated this issue over and over again in this Chamber for the last eight years. No-one denies that illicit drugs cause a lot of problems. Alcohol is one, and illicit drugs do cause a lot of problems. And, yes, we must deal with not only the social and medical aspects of illicit drug use, but also the associated crime that goes with illicit drug use. I am certain that the government and the opposition are both of the same mind, that we want to reduce the level of crime and the level of illicit drug use in our communities. Nobody denies that, and I think it is a very noble aim to try to reduce illicit drug use in our community. Maybe the difference is how we go about doing it. If the government was serious about doing this, then it would do it separately from the Public Order and Anti-Social Conduct Act.
As I said earlier, it is a cynical exercise by this government. The government knew that the CLP had a very strong position on law and order, and in order for the Labor Party to position itself to sell the image that it is also tough on law and order in the Northern Territory, it has defined a mechanism to do that, and how does it do it? It does it by taking on the illicit drugs issue, and saying, ‘ We will be tough on drugs.’
You can sell that. There are enough people in the community who would believe that the government is trying to be tough in the law and order aspects of government. But the reality is, and we heard the Leader of the Opposition say that earlier, that when the issue relates to Aboriginal people, this government runs a mile. When an Aboriginal member of parliament speaks about Aboriginal people, it is seen as statesman-like, but when members here in the opposition speak about Aboriginal people, we are all labelled racist. That is the double standard that really irks me no end.
Mr Kiely: I thought it was pretty accurate; the most accurate thing you have said.
Dr LIM: The member for Sanderson continues to interject, without making any sense. I do not know why. It is impossible to believe that the sperm that created him beat two million others. It is just unbelievable.
Mr Kiely: What? Two million?
Dr LIM: I said that it is unbelievable that the sperm that created you beat two million others. That is what I said, if you want to hear it properly.
Mr Kiely: Well, I would hate to get one of those needles that you reckon are for erectile problems.
Dr LIM: There he goes again. Maybe he has been using illicit drugs himself, or sniffing a bit too much glue.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Let us keep to the debate, please.
Dr LIM: Well, then tell him to stop interjecting, because he has been continuous …
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Let the member proceed.
Dr LIM: Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, you have been very lax with him lately, haven’t you?
I will conclude my remarks shortly. I believe that the Public Order and Anti-Social Conduct Act is a very good act, and this government should give it a chance. By repealing this public order legislation as part of a cognate package of bills relating to the misuse of drugs is throwing the baby out with the bath water, and that is a real pity. With your drugs policy, there are methods that you have chosen that I might not agree with. The aim is good: we should reduce illicit drug use; we should do everything we can to improve our community. By doing this together like this, you are throwing the good out as well, and that is a real pity. I suggest to the minister that he reconsiders this, and maybe break it up so that we can still retain our Public Order and Anti-Social Conduct Act, and give it a real trial. Then we can decide whether it is going to be worthwhile retaining or strengthening it.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, first of all, I thank the opposition for their fulsome support of our new bills. It is good to see that they have acknowledged that, as a government, we do have the right to move forward on these things. I commiserate with you for the loss of the other act, to show the spirit of goodwill here. I thank the Independent member for Nelson for his support also.
You could say that the last four-and-a-half hours have been largely a political debate about the politics of crime and punishment, and the politics of antisocial behaviour in our communities. It is disappointing that very few of the speakers engaged the actual substance of the bills before us today. I am assuming, if anything of a more detailed nature is on your minds, you will raise the issues in the committee stages. Given that there have been many assertions made about the appropriateness or otherwise of the course that the government is intending to take on these matters, I will deal with some of the assertions that we have heard through the debate today, and put away some of the ill-founded things that have been said.
I will respond to issues regarding the overall effect of the legislation that we have before us today and, indeed, our whole drug package. We have heard assertion after assertion from the opposition that we are now locked into a 50% drop in property crime. We certainly have been prosecuting the existence of a very clear link between drugs and property crime. I can say beyond the anecdotal or other evidence we have been able to put forward to date, we will in the future be putting forward statistical information on these areas of crime. This will be part of the statistical information put out by the Office of Crime Prevention on a regular basis once that information package is finalised. We have never said, at any stage, that there is a simplistic relationship between the use of drugs in the community and the level of property crime. It is one of the factors - it is a very significant factor - contributing to property crime. We are working towards a significant drop in property crime. That is our aim in terms of the public policies we are proposing.
The three-point plan on drugs has a large number of elements in terms of legislative reform, the rehabilitation programs that are available in the Northern Territory, reforming the referral processes of addicts into rehabilitation, and the prevention measures that we would want to see in the Northern Territory including some of the areas that have been mentioned during the debate to provide our young people an alternative to a drug-using lifestyle.
That is why we have moved through our legislative program. We are moving on, as I have announced recently, to establish drug courts. Those drug courts will link into the recommendations of the Misuse of Drugs Task Force which will be mainly concerned with the present state and the future state of rehabilitation and treatment programs. Once all those programs are in place, we will have a very powerful and complete set of measures addressing the issue of drugs in our community.
We have heard lots about ‘Oh, yes, it’s not drugs; it’s VB. That is the big cause of all the problems in the community’. Our government, in the short period that it has been in existence, has already put forward in a very tangible way the types of things that we are going to do about related problems within the community. The Alice Springs grog measures, the grog restrictions supported by the community, has resulted in more action in the first three months of our government than had happened in the previous five years of the CLP government. We got in there; we got something going. We know that it will need to be refined and extended as we go along. I know the people in Alice Springs are very sure that they now have a government that is prepared to take consistent action to alleviate the problems that are connected with grog abuse. Those problems are largely in the area of violence and ill health. They are not as strongly, as far as we can see, connected to the problem of property crime as is drug addiction.
The other program areas that we have outlined and are starting to institute are youth patrols, night patrols, areas of regional and local initiatives mediated through the Office of Crime Prevention. These are the measures that are going to be targeted and specifically address areas such as antisocial behavior and crime prone areas in our communities. They will be far more effective than the measures that were included in the legislation that we are due to repeal today.
When the Public Order and Anti-Social Conduct Bill was introduced, I remember very clearly the structure of that debate. Right from the start, our side could see no merit in the antisocial behaviour in public places aspects of that legislation. It was simply a case of moving people from one spot to the other. The member for Greatorex might say that everyone’s clamoring for all these drunks to be moved out of a shopping centre in Alice Springs. Well, that’s okay. You move them out of there. So, who is going to be clamoring next when they turn up at their next meeting place around the town? It is simply ludicrous to think that if you move a group of people engaging in antisocial behaviour from one location in a town to another that they will just disappear into thin air. They are still going to be there. They will still be looking for a place to carry on their lives, even if those lives badly impact on the community around them. They are not going to go away. They are simply going to be moved around and around a community causing upheaval wherever they happen to be moved on to.
In the original debate, we saw that process as being completely futile. I believe the total lack of effect of that legislation since it was passed and came into forced just simply indicates that it has had no impact, whether it was because the police found it unworkable or ineffective when they went about their duties. But to suggest that the police themselves have made some judgement of that area of law because of the change of the government of the day is absolutely insulting to them as a profession. The police are a fine profession in the Northern Territory who uphold the law without fear or favour. To suggest that they are picking out laws that they want to enforce and laws that they do not want to enforce on the basis of some sort of judgement about the political flavour of the government, or some perception of what their minister might think about it, is absolutely demeaning of them as a profession. I hope they get to hear about these comments made by the opposition.
The member for Nelson I must say, apart from members on the government side, did engage some significant issues within the legislation. I will deal now with the impact on publicans. We will have a look at some of these things. One of the indicators that a commercial or licensed premises is a drug house is that employees have drugs in their possession. The member asked, through the returns he had from stakeholders he discussed this with, if it was unfair to impose this obligation on licensed or commercial premises. The possession of drugs by an employee or by an owner, licensee or tenant of a premises is not sufficient evidence on its own to support an application for a drug premises order. It is only one of the indicators that the court must be satisfied exists in relation to these premises. The member for Nelson would see the particular indicators for a licensed premises are contained in the amendments that we will be looking at in the committee stage of this bill. In addition, before making a declaration the court must be satisfied that premises are being used for the purposes of supply. The possession of drugs by an employee would not be sufficient evidence in itself of supply. You have to prove that it is actually being traded in the context of that particular premises.
The obligation with respect to employees possessing drugs, already exists under the Liquor Act. I will read out the salient part of the Liquor Act. Under the existing Liquor Act, section 72(6) which deals with cancellation of a licence states:
- For the purposes of subsection (5) … a licensee is not a fit and proper person to hold a licence where –
(b) subject to subsection (7), in a period of 12 months not less than 3 persons are found guilty of offences
committed on the licensed premises to which the licence relates relating to the possession or supply of a
drug and the licensee fails to satisfy the Commission that all reasonable steps were taken by the licensee to
prevent those offences from taking place.
That is a very harsh provision. It basically says that if three people are caught in possession on a licensed premises, the licensee can be judged to be unfit to hold the licence and could lose the licence altogether. That is a far more stringent requirement than we are looking at in the current legislation. You might ask, why would we bring in a new set of laws applied to licensees or owners of these establishments. With the Liquor Act, they are looking at the person holding the licence. We are looking at the location where dealing has habitually been carried out. It would be possible to conceive a case where a licensee, because they have abetted the act of trading by one of their employees, might lose their licence but that premises could be then taken on by some other owner or manager and continue as a drug dealing venue. So it does not provide a permanent stay on that particular location being used for drug dealing.
That is why there are two different approaches to it. The laws with us today are aimed at locations, not at individual people in terms of the notices that could be placed on a premises. We have seen in many cases with the drug houses that people have been charged for drug offences and taken into custody and dealt with in the courts, but new people are recruited into the same location. That is why a lot of the drug houses here have been fairly resilient, despite the attentions of police. That is an attempt to straighten out some of the issues you had.
In response to the AHA; you mentioned that there have been discussions between us and the AHA. I point out that the amendments that we are bringing at committee stage are largely as a result of our negotiations with the AHA. I put on record the issues that were raised with us and our responses to them. A representative of AHA, Greg Weller, has made a series of statements about the drug premises legislation in the press this afternoon. A number of these statements were not accurate, and it is important we straighten them out.
It was stated that hotels can be held liable for the actions of any one single member of staff. The misuse of drugs amendments does not hold anyone liable. The provisions that make individuals or organisations liable for criminal action are contained in the Criminal Code and in other areas of the Misuse of Drugs Act. The scheme set up in the misuse of drugs amendments is a civil scheme. It imposes no liability, and involves no findings of guilt or innocence. It gives police extended powers of search, a move which is welcomed and supported in their own words by the association. Secondly, it was stated that the whole venue can be closed down simply because of the action of one staff member - it is simply not true. The amendments do not operate to close down licensed or commercial premises. They operate to close down drug supply and dealing operations. A licensee or owner of a legitimate business will be able to demonstrate to a court that their premises are not being used for the purposes of supply, and that appropriate steps have been taken to ensure that such activities do not take place. This is no more onerous than the obligation I have already pointed out under the Liquor Act, where a licence holder can be held directly responsible if their patrons are convicted of possession.
The interviewee went on to say that a further repercussion is that once a venue has been branded a drug house, the Liquor Commission is then required to hand a two week penalty down of closure. This is, again, untrue. The amendments provide that a licensee, after she or he has had the opportunity, at a full hearing, to have the drug premises order revoked, they may have their licence suspended by the Liquor Commissioner. The commission has full discretion in making that decision.
He also said that the government has shut up shop and refused to answer calls from the AHA. I would just like to set this straight because we have been very approachable to AHA, and we have tried to work through their issues with them. I met with the hotels association, staff in my office met with the hotels association, representatives from the Department of Justice met with the hotels association, and members of the Chief Minister’s office met with the hotels association. We have had a series of meetings. As a result of these discussions, significant amendments were made to the bill. We listened to the association and took on board their concerns. In fact, the six pages that the member for Goyder referred to is exactly the output of those discussions..
Mr Maley: Well, you do not go far enough. The one thing they wanted, you did not do.
Dr TOYNE: We could not go completely to the position being put by them, because it would have fundamentally affected the integrity and workability of the scheme by allowing a licensee/manager/owner, who was actually wanting to deal in drugs, to use their staff members as the vehicle for that activity, with some impunity if the provisions they were proposing had been built into this act.
A number of other issues were raised by the member for Nelson tonight in relation to the concerns of hoteliers. First of all, that the power to search licensed premises is already contained under the Liquor Act. These powers under the Liquor Act are limited. They are powers to enter and inspect, not to search. They are primarily directed at the detection of offences against the Liquor Act such as selling liquor to minors, or detecting breaches of licence conditions.
It was argued that the obligation imposed on employers, particularly those in the hospitality industry, is too harsh as employers are unable to take action against employees if found in possession of drugs. In the course of the consultation with relevant groups we gave consideration to the issues related to employers, and the ability of employers to take action against employees who were found in possession of drugs, but against whom no charges are laid. Some employers have expressed the concern that the Commonwealth Workplace Relations Act would constrain the ability of employers to take appropriate action. There are two important points in relation to these comments. One is that there are a variety of ways that employers already act to make clear to employees the standards of conduct expected in the work place, and consequences that flow from a breach of these standards. Many work places, if not most work places, will have policies and procedures in place to guide the conduct of employees. In addition, contracts of employment may specify expected conduct or grounds for dismissal. In these ways, employers can clearly indicate to employees the standards of conduct that are expected.
Also, there are certain employees to whom the provisions of the Workplace Relations Act do not apply. Particularly, I draw attention to the members of the regulation 30(b) which provides that the following kind of employees are excluded from the operation of certain subdivisions of the act: (1) those under short-term contracts or probation; and (2) casual employees engaged for a short period, with the short period being less than 12 months. I suggest that the vast majority of employees we are talking about in these establishments are in that category, and they would not be able to lodge a strong action under the Workplace Relations Act against a wrongful dismissal.
To complete my point about the relationship of these new laws to the original debate over the Public Order and Anti-Social Conduct Act, our position on it at the time was that the move-on provisions for itinerants or street drinkers seemed to us to be nonsensical. At the time, the member for Nhulunbuy said that there could be some virtue in the declaration of a place of antisocial behaviour – such as a house or a premises - if it was applied to more serious behaviour than simply noisy or drunken parties within a house which were annoying the neighbours. We began to look, almost immediately at that time as part of our own policy development, to modify that concept to looking at serious crimes such as drug dealing. We felt that yes, it would be good for the police to be able to get a declaration over a building to prevent a particular activity being repeated in that premises. To a large extent, the genesis of the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill tonight has come from the declaration part of the Public Order and Anti-Social Conduct Act.
I will make it very clear what the new elements are in the legislation that will give some additional force to action against drug dealing. The Misuse of Drugs Act already says a person takes part in the production of a dangerous drug if the person takes or participates in a step or causes a step to be taken in the process of that production. So, what is new in this legislation to increase the scope of the current act? The act currently provides for an offence of ‘produce, manufacture dangerous drug’. The amendments introduce new offences of: possession of a precursor, document or instructions for production in combination with equipment used or possible for use in the manufacture of dangerous drugs or articles of equipment used or may be used in production of a dangerous drug. These offences of themselves carry a sentence of up to seven years imprisonment. As this act stands, taking a step in production may not be wide enough to cover the situations we have addressed. The legislation makes it perfectly clear that having the means to produce illicit drugs may result in a prosecution under the new offences without requiring that any further activity in relation to production has occurred, such as the assembly of equipment, the combining of ingredients or the establishment of hydroponics.
It is now an indictable offence to possess a precursor and the equipment or the means to produce illicit drugs, and that is a new provision. It is also an offence to supply a precursor intended for use in the manufacture of illicit drugs. That is also new. Police can obtain an order for searching a person suspected of secreting illicit substances on their person prior to charge in order to obtain evidence. That is also new.
The provisions under the legislation today certainly give greater power to police once a declaration is made on a premises. The police can then search that without warrant. As far as that location is concerned, that is the equivalent of an ongoing warrant which can be used until such time that a premise is delisted as a drug house.
Madam Speaker, I have tried to deal as best I can with the areas of the debate that did impact on the actual content of these bills. We will leave any further comment to committee.
Motion agreed to; bills read a second time.
In committee:
Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (Serial 53):
Clauses 1 to 5, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 6:
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 18.1 standing in my name. This amendment omits section 11C and substitutes 11C(1), 11C(2) and 11C(3). The amendment is necessary to provide separate and distinct indications of drug supply in relation to commercial and licensed premises. The activities of commercial and licensed premises are significantly different from those of private premises. The extent to which an owner/licensee of commercial premises can control individuals behaviour on those premises differs from that of an owner, landlord, tenant of a residential premises. For reasons of fairness, a separate but not exclusive set of indicators have been provided for those premises.
Amendment agreed to.
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 18.2 standing in my name. This amendment inserts into the clause 11J(2) a requirement that an application for a drug premises order be held in camera and that an applicant may at a hearing of an application under 11D disclose to the court all matters that are within the applicant’s knowledge, that the applicant on reasonable grounds believes would support an argument against the granting of the application.
The amendment is necessary to ensure that the court is presented with a comprehensive application and that should the order be granted, the person to whom the order relates has an opportunity to apply for the order to be set aside prior to any public awareness of the matter by way of the notice affixed to the premises.
Amendment agreed to.
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 18.3 standing in my name. This amendment provides that a drug premises order remains in force from the date on which the order is made unless it is revoked. The amendment is necessary to ensure that orders do not remain in place indefinitely.
Amendment agreed to.
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 18.4 standing in my name. This amendment provides that when a person is served with a drug premises order and copy of the drug premises notice, the notice must specify that unless application for revocation is made, the notice will be affixed and that without the notice in place, only the search powers and breach of peace powers are in force. This amendment is necessary to ensure that the person who is served with a drug premises order is made aware of the right to apply for an order to be revoked. It puts the person on notice that without such application, a notice will be affixed to the premises. The amendment prevents any of the powers relating to eviction, deemed possession and possible loss of liquor licence from being in force until the person to whom the order relates has had an opportunity to respond.
Amendment agreed to.
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 18.5 standing in my name. This amendment omits clause 11P(1) and substitutes a provision to the effect that a notice cannot be affixed to premises until seven days after a drug premises order is served on the person to whom it relates. It prohibits the affixing of the notice until seven days after the order has been served, and if an application for revocation is served on the Commissioner within those seven days, prohibits the affixing of the notice until the determination of the application. The amendment is required to ensure that a person to whom the order relates has an opportunity to apply to the court for the order to be set aside prior to notice to the public of the order and the possible consequences which flow from the affixing of the notice.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 7 to 23, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 24:
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 18.6 standing in my name. This amendment omits the words ‘reasonable grounds for the belief’ from clause 35A(2), and inserts the words, ‘reasonable suspicion’. The amendment is made to ensure consistency in the language used in the subclauses of clause 35A.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Bill be reported with amendments.
Misuse of Drugs (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2002 (Serial 54):
Bill, by leave, taken as whole and agreed to
Bill to be reported without amendment.
Public Order and Anti-Social Conduct Act Repeal Bill (Serial 50):
Bill taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill to be reported without amendment.
Bills reported, report adopted.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bills be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bills read a third time.
TABLED PAPERS
Draft Members’ Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards and
Draft Amendments to the Legislative Assembly (Register of Members’ Interests) Act
Draft Members’ Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards and
Draft Amendments to the Legislative Assembly (Register of Members’ Interests) Act
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I lay on the Table the draft Members’ Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards; and the draft Amendments to the Legislative Assembly (Register of Members’ Interests) Act. I am very pleased to be able to table these two draft documents. I intend to seek referral of them to the Standing Orders Committee for consideration and report back to the Assembly in the October sittings of parliament.
This draft Members’ Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards delivers on a key election promise of the government. Members on this side of the House have long supported a code of conduct for members and an improved register of members’ interests. Codes of conduct for elected and appointed public officials define acceptable and unacceptable conduct in office, and provide for disciplinary and other action cases of non-compliance. In general, the proposed code provides guidance to members of the Assembly on conflicts of interest arising from their function as an elected official, the obligation to recognise the need for accountable and responsible conduct in office by members, and the overall duty of a member to seek to advance the public interest.
It is proposed that this code will be created by the enactment of a new law, the Legislative Assembly (Members’ Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards) Act. The code is based generally on established Australian and Territory practice, and also draws on models of codification from New Zealand, Canada, the United States and the United Kingdom. While the code sets standards which are ultimately enforceable, it also sets aspirational standards for members’ conduct in office, which reflect current best practice internationally. The code does not provide sanctions for breaches of acquired standards. Instead, the act will provide, in line with current Assembly practice, that the Privileges Committee of the Assembly will be able to deal with failure to observe the principles set out in the act and the standards prescribed by the code.
Traditionally, codes of conduct provide accountability arrangements which emphasise dealing with wrongdoing after the event. This code will allow a proactive approach to ethics management designed to reduce the incidents of ethical breaches which have the potential to cause embarrassment to the member, the government or the Assembly, and which may require costly investigations. Examples are, poor management of conflict of interests, and improper involvement in tendering procedures for contracts generally. It also provides a clear basis for community expectations of members’ conduct in office, potentially reducing the scope for unwarranted or trivial complaints about the way in which members conduct themselves.
The new act will strengthen existing requirements for members of the Assembly to declare and register relevant pecuniary interests and those of their immediate family. In the interests of providing independent, expert and non-partisan investigation of allegations that a member has failed to declare a significant interest as required, the Office of the Auditor-General will be given the task of investigating the factual basis of any complaint and reporting findings of fact to the Assembly’s Privileges Committee.
Looking specifically at the Members’ Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards: the preamble outlines the fundamental objective of the act, which is to foster enhance public confidence in the integrity of the Legislative Assembly and its members. The act declares that minimal compliance with the letter of the law and the code will not be necessarily sufficient to meet the standard of conduct envisaged by the code.
Part 1 is General Principles. Clause 1 of the Legislative Assembly (Members’ Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards) Act establishes general principles of ethical conduct relevant to the duties, functions and obligations of members in the Legislative Assembly, and requires each member of the Assembly to ensure that their conduct in office conforms generally to the principles and the specific standards of the code. Clause 3 sets out the four principles established by the act which are: integrity, accountability, responsibility and the public interest.
Clauses 6 and 7 are to assist members and the general community. Each section of the code provides a commentary which explains the major reasons and the objectives which underpin each principle, and gives examples of appropriate conduct in particular circumstances. The standards set out specific procedures and forms of conduct in public office which are required to be observed by members of the Legislative Assembly. In cases of doubt, a member is required to make a judgment about what conduct or action is reasonable and responsible.
Part 2 of the code relates to commentary and standards. Principle 1, Integrity: clauses 1 to 3, integrity is required of members in the form of the lawful, honest exercise of the duties and responsibilities of a member uninfluenced by conflicts of interest. This principle is recognised in all Westminster style systems of government. Clause 4, Declaration and Registration of Interests, is currently provided for by standing orders and, in some respect, by the Legislative Assembly (Register of Members’ Interests) Act. The code, based on provisions to be included in the new act, will clarify and strengthen the public integrity requirements in relation to private interests which might be thought likely to affect the member’s advocacy or decision making.
Clause 7: this part of the code requires a member to make an oral declaration of a personal interest whenever they propose to speak in a debate or vote on a matter before the Assembly to which their interest is relevant. This form of declaration is currently only required in relation to contracts in which the member concerned has an interest. Conflicts of interest: clauses 8 to 11 require that members are required generally to avoid conflicts between their private interests and the official functions and responsibilities which they have as members, by managing the interest or disposing of it so as to ensure that no actual or apparent conflict of interest arises or continues.
Clause 12 deals with declaration of interest. This part of the code requires that a member shall not vote in any division upon a question in which the member is aware of an interest that he or she is required to register, unless the member has first declared the interest to the Assembly, irrespective of whether the interest has already been formally registered. Clause 13 deals with acting as a consultant advisor or advocate for any company or business interest, whether paid or unpaid, and is to be regarded as a declarable interest.
Clause 14 deals with members who engage in no other employment or business activity involving them in significant management responsibility or professional effort while they serve as a member of the Assembly. Honesty. Clause 15: members are expected to act honestly in all their official dealings and to correct significantly misleading or incorrect information given by them. Self-dealing, which is clause 16: this clause provides that a member is required not to misuse or to allow others to misuse any confidential or privileged information which has come to them through their official functions as a member for any private purpose, including for their personal advantage.
Clause 17: members are to be restricted by provisions of the proposed Legislative Assembly (Members’ Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards) Act from certain forms of private capacity employment for a period of one year after ceasing to be a member. Such post-service restrictions are widely imposed internationally, either by law - for example, in the USA - or by convention - in the United Kingdom. Former members of the Assembly will not be able to represent or take up employment or a directorship with, nor act as an advisor or consultant to, any company, organisation or other private interest with which they have direct and significant involvement in their capacity as a member of the Assembly in their last 12 months of office. An exception will be made in the case of appointments of former members to Northern Territory Public Sector agencies or government bodies. A breach of this requirement will attract prosecution under the act and a range of penalties according to the seriousness of the breach.
Clause 18 indicates former members are also to be prohibited from taking improper personal advantage of information provided to, or generated by, the Assembly to which they had privileged access as a member by the proposed legislation. A breach of this requirement will attract prosecution under the act and a range of penalties according to the seriousness of the breach.
Gifts are dealt with in clause 19. This clause provides that members in their official capacity may accept customary official gifts in accordance with normal social custom but are required not to seek or encourage any form of gift or benefit in their personal capacity.
Clauses 20 and 21 deal with contracts and other business relationships. These clauses require that a member shall not hold or continue to hold in their own capacity or through a third party a contract or like business arrangement for the provision of services to government bodies of the Assembly. Restrictions on members of the Assembly holding contracts or like business arrangements with the executive government are justified by the need to ensure the independence of members and the Assembly itself. Members are required to ensure that they have no financial dealings in their personal capacity either as a contractor, defaulter or consultant with the Assembly or the government. This constraint is not intended to exclude a member’s spouse or partner or a related person, as defined, from having such contracts or like business arrangements with the government, but such dealings will constitute a declarable interest and will be required to be registered and declared by a member in the prescribed circumstances. A breach of this requirement will attract prosecution under the proposed Legislative Assembly (Members’ Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards) Act and a range of penalties according to the seriousness of the breach.
Principle 2 of this act is accountability. Clause 22 requires that members observe the principle of accountability in relation to the functions of a member of the Assembly, and this principle is recognised in all Westminster style systems of government. Clauses 23 to 25 deal with accountability in terms of public office being a public trust. Clause 26 deals with public scrutiny and highlights that members are required to accept public scrutiny of their decisions. Clauses 27 and 28 deal with openness. Members are required in general to be as open as possible about the decisions that they take in their official capacity.
Principle 3 deals with responsibility. Clauses 29 and 30: members are required to ensure that their decisions conform with the principle of responsibility, that is, that they be not reckless or negligent but reflect the proper consideration of all relevant matters including the reasonably foreseeable consequences for those likely to be affected by them.
Clause 31: members are required to act responsibly in upholding the laws of the Northern Territory and Australia including this code, and to demonstrates standards of official conduct acceptable to the community at large. These obligations are not fully discharged merely by compliance with the letter of the law or this code.
Clauses 32 to 35: responsibility is discussed in terms of democratic principles and freedoms, good governance and leadership by example. Clause 36: members are required to recognise that the public service is expected to function as a non-partisan public resource to be treated in accordance with established conventions of public service neutrality. Clause 37: members are to take the initiative to discourage or prevent corruption and misconduct.
Principle 4, which is the fourth and final principle of the code, deals with the public interest. Clauses 38 and 39: the code requires members to contribute to good government by seeking to advance the public interest based on an honest, reasonable and properly informed judgement about what will best advance the common good of the people of the Northern Territory.
Part 3 of the bill relates to implementation. Clauses 1 to 3: the code acknowledges the supremacy of the Legislative Assembly in a democratic system of government and recognises that members are not employees in the usual sense, but are primarily responsible and accountable to the Assembly and their electorates. Accordingly, the Members’ Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards is to be created by the proposed new Legislative Assembly (Members’ Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards) Act which will create offences and penalties in relation to prohibition or restricted conduct by members of the Assembly including certain conduct arising after a member has left public office. In particular, certain forms of employment in the private sector within a period of a year after leaving public office, and misuse of privileged information by a former member will be prohibited and will be made the subject of prosecution and penalties according to the severity of the offence.
The existing Legislative Assembly (Register of Members’ Interests) Act, established the requirements for registration of pecuniary and other interests by serving members. The act is to be amended by the insertion of proposed new provisions that will significantly strengthen the requirements for annual registration and ad hoc declaration of members’ interests. The new act will also provide for claimed breaches of the requirements to be the subject of independent investigation by the Auditor-General, as an officer of the Legislative Assembly. Any penalty for a proven breach of the registration of interest requirements by a serving member is to be decided by the Assembly following investigation by the Auditor-General, whose role is to be limited to making inquiries, reaching findings of facts and providing a report to the Assembly in accordance with the requirements of procedural fairness. All other breaches of the members’ code of conduct and ethical standards will remain within the competence of the Legislative Assembly to investigate and decide as it sees fit.
The measures I have outlined will provide the Territory parliament with a rigorous and disciplined framework to deliver improved standards of transparency and accountability for all members. The introduction of the Territory’s first overarching legislation aimed at delivering open and accountable government, coupled with a rigorous code of conduct, strengthened registration of members’ interests and an increased role for the Auditor-General should be embraced by all members of this House. I call on all members of this House to support these measures, and I look forward to the Standing Orders Committee report in the October sittings.
MOTION
Standing Orders Committee – Referral of Members’ Code of Conduct and
Amendments to the Legislative Assembly (Register of Members’ Interests) Act
Standing Orders Committee – Referral of Members’ Code of Conduct and
Amendments to the Legislative Assembly (Register of Members’ Interests) Act
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister)(by leave): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the following papers be referred to the Standing Orders Committee for inquiry and report during the October sittings 2002: The draft members’ code of conduct and ethical standards and the draft amendments to the Legislative Assembly (Register of Members’ Interests) Act.
Motion agreed to.
TABLED PAPER
Public Accounts Committee – Report on the Establishment of an Estimates Committee Process
within the Northern Territory Parliament
Public Accounts Committee – Report on the Establishment of an Estimates Committee Process
within the Northern Territory Parliament
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Mr Deputy Speaker, I lay on the Table, the Public Accounts Committee Report on the establishment of an estimates committee process within the Northern Territory parliament.
MOTION
Print paper - Public Accounts Committee – Report on the Establishment of an Estimates Committee Process within the
Northern Territory Parliament
Print paper - Public Accounts Committee – Report on the Establishment of an Estimates Committee Process within the
Northern Territory Parliament
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the report be printed.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Note Paper - Public Accounts Committee – Report on the Establishment of an Estimates Committee Process
within the Northern Territory Parliament
Note Paper - Public Accounts Committee – Report on the Establishment of an Estimates Committee Process
within the Northern Territory Parliament
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the paper.
I had not planned to make any comments tonight, but the opposition have requested that they be given speaking rights, so I would just like to speak briefly to the report and reserve my right of reply later and give the opposition and possibly yourself if someone takes your place in the chair, an opportunity to comment.
As the Assembly knows, the Public Accounts Committee was charged with investigating the establishment of an estimates committee within the Northern Territory parliament, which is a great step forward, I believe, in transparency and openness in government, particularly regarding the budgetary process. There was a focus in what we were given to look at, on the Tasmanian model, but also other models including the Queensland model. A delegation went to Tasmania. Unfortunately, the member for Barkly had some very sad duties with funerals and was unable to travel, but the rest of the committee travelled to Tasmania and were privileged to observe their estimates committee in early June.
We were there for approximately three days. Subsequent to that, the member for Greatorex travelled to South Australia and had a look at the South Australian parliament estimates committee, and the member for Drysdale travelled to Queensland.
In the report we go outline what we observed, particularly in Tasmania, but I am also indebted to the members for Greatorex and Drysdale for their reports on what they saw in Queensland and in South Australia and those reports are appended. The long and the short of it is, you can see it in my foreword, in general terms the committee commends the Tasmanian model to the parliament. Nevertheless in reaching this decision, committee members were also of the opinion that it would be inappropriate to attempt to provide recommendations within this report, as there were a number of broad issues, and we have some issues of concern in there that are referred to, arising from the draft terms of reference tabled by the Leader of Government Business. These broad issues will require measured debate in the Legislative Assembly, and it is this process which will eventually influence the specific terms of reference for the first Estimates Committee of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly.
In no way are those words a criticism of the terms of reference that you handed to us, Leader of Government Business, but issues did arise. We are looking for a model that will fit the Northern Territory legislature, and it is only right that we should look at it all in a flexible way. I think we have done a fairly good job in identifying the major issues that will need to be resolved, and at the top of the list is whether there should be one committee or two committees. We saw in Tasmania, there were two committees, of the Lower House anyway, that were meeting concurrently. There has to be consideration here, if we went forward with one committee it would probably take - doing justice to each minister and portfolio - two working weeks to get through that. That is one issue that has to be considered, whether we would have one committee or two committees.
Following on from that is an issue of membership, because if you have two committees, obviously the membership has to be considered, and there has to be flexibility in terms of the membership because of the logistics of it. So the membership is another issue that needs to be addressed. The whole issue of sitting times, in the Lower House, at any rate, the sitting times, I think they were sitting for a maximum of about nine hours per day, and that is quite a lot of time, but we have to consider how long we are prepared to sit and whether we can do our business in the time that is allotted to us.
Hearing procedure - we observed quite a lot there in terms of the hearing procedure. Some of it seemed quite productive, some of it seemed a little less productive. I believe there has to be some consideration given to the regulations which govern the hearing procedures of these estimates committees. That includes opening statements and whether we have overviews and such as they had in Tasmania, which was on an informal basis because their regulations did not really cater for what they called an overview.
The committee is in general agreement in terms of written questions. That was not a feature of the Tasmanian model, but I think there is broad agreement that there should be written questions that are appropriate, and that would help the estimates committee process in the Northern Territory.
In relation to disorder, the committee is not anticipating any disorder whatsoever, but it does raise issue if there is a point of order that has to be ruled upon, it puts a load on the Speaker and the Clerk. We also considered the reporting format for the estimates committee, and that issue is also addressed within our report.
An additional issue that was not contained within the original terms of reference that was given to us, was that it was made known to us that the Tasmanian estimates committee, or a variation of it, scrutinised government business divisions. That is an important thing that probably estimates committees should be doing, and that is something that we need to consider.
All in all, I guess there are resource implications of what we are proposing here for the parliament and the staff of the parliament, not least of all for the hardworking Hansard staff, if there were two committees, in terms of recording and transcribing Hansard; and also support for the committees.
An estimates committee process presents a great challenge for ministerial staff and the public service. It is going to be a step forward. As we move forward to that, certainly government departments should be probably looking towards a Tasmanian model and what happens there, and trying to get some ideas about what the commitments are in terms of staffing and providing information to ministers.
At this stage, I have covered most of what I would like to say. I would like to reserve my reply to another time. In that, I will certainly be thanking the Tasmanians for the great hospitality they showed us, irrespective of political colour. People were willing to share with us and give us ideas, particularly, the Speaker of the House, Mr Michael Polley, who has been in parliament in Tasmania for 32 years. He was elected, he told us, when he was 21. He is a very experienced politician and he has a lot of wisdom. He is certainly a very nice man. Also, Don Wing, who is President of the Upper House, the Legislative Council. He and his staff showed us a great deal of hospitality. To be honest, I was particularly impressed with the way that the Upper House dealt with their Estimates Committees. It was very civilised, and they extracted quite a lot of information. However, I suppose when it comes to Lower House matters there is a lot of politics involved in that …
Mr Burke: Perish the thought.
Dr BURNS: Perish the thought. The Upper House and I know the member for Nelson - I cannot speak for him - was impressed also. They are very nice people, all of them, Upper House and Lower House. We certainly saw some star performers there, such as Premier Jim Bacon, who I thought was great. I certainly appreciated Mr Michael Hodgman, who is still a member of the Legislative Assembly - a very experienced politician and I enjoyed watching and hearing him and seeing his approach. That is all that I have to say at this stage, and I will hand over to others.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Mr Deputy Speaker, I shall be brief and I will start with ‘thank yous’. I thank the Clerk and his staff for preparing this trip in a very short time. The goodwill that obviously has been invested in visitors to the Territory over the years was reciprocated. As the previous member, the Chairman said, we were treated ‘royally’ in Tasmania and, likewise, when I went to Queensland. They went out of their way to brief me and that is a tribute to you, Mr Clerk, because not only did you set those meetings up, but the Territory is fondly remembered by anyone who has ever visited here. I would like to also thank Terry and Ros, who have prepared this report, and the Chairman and the members. It has been a fairly short time between the sittings and I think all members will find this report handy in informing them of the debate.
I thank the Leader of Government Business also because, in short time, not only was the trip organised and funded and whatever, but it was done as a genuine fact finding mission. It augers well for the Estimates Committee and how it will perform its duties.
I thank the Deputy Clerk of the Queensland parliament, who provided me with a brief. It is not my intention to talk much about the separate trip that the member for Greatorex and I did. Suffice to say that the model that is being chosen here, pretty much by the Leader of Government Business - the terms of reference were to look at Tasmania and see how it might fit here with modification - that has been a pretty good choice. When members read this they will realise that that was indeed a wise move to look at this particular jurisdiction.
What I learned in Queensland is there are some things that could be done differently and better and worse; but certainly the model is there. Members will find some familiarity with the model that is been enshrined in this document. Members who have been in the House for some time will remember that we sat as a committee of the whole, so there were 25 or so of us sitting in here. Certainly, this allows for a much speedier and interactive style of debate. In Tasmania, they say that the Hansard is twice as thick in the time, meaning that twice as much verbiage can be got through in the time that it takes the formal sittings of this House.
I also should state my intention with the bill that is currently still on the Notice Paper, that was put forward by the opposition on the last General Business Day. That bill will obviously be withdrawn on the next General Business Day. I am mindful that this is still an evolving process and we agree with the government that, if we do pick this model, it might be subject to modification at some later time. But the fundamentals are there and we can find that if we move forward some of the issues of consequence like whether we have two committees or one, and what that means for you and Madam Speaker as Independents, and the media in terms of their capacity to cover two, are things that we can rationally work out.
The fundamental quest is a quest for information and if that can be done through this process, I will give that accolade to the government, that it is a better way to go. The information that will be thus derived will be beneficial to the people who put us here. It is a quest for more openness and transparency, if you like. This is a vehicle that is quite able to take us there in the years to come. With few modifications, it will serve us well into the future.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to echo the words of my colleague in extending my appreciation to all concerned for organising the trip to Tasmania. I went with mixed feelings about the visit. I was not particularly sure that we were going to get any benefit from going to Hobart to see a system there, but I was pleasantly surprised. I learned much in the two and a half days that we observed the proceedings of the full Estimates Committee in progress; the argy-bargy of the Lower House Estimates Committees versus the very conciliatory and fact-finding environment of the Upper House Estimates Committee.
Both committees had their own political environment through which they were seeking information, and that was good. I came away from Hobart feeling that here was a system that could work very much within what the Deputy Chief Minister introduced as draft terms of reference. I support the report in general and look forward to the evolution of the estimates process in the Northern Territory.
I went to Adelaide and met with several people; I met with Gay Thompson, a Labor member and chair of the PAC. They have not yet appointed an Estimates Committee because their budget cycle is not in place yet. I also met with Mr Graham Gunn, a former Speaker of the House and also former Chairman of one of the Estimates Committees. He and I had lengthy discussion about what not to do in an Estimates Committee. Further, I had a very brief meeting with David Bridges, the Acting Clerk for the South Australian Legislative Assembly and the two Secretaries of their two Estimates Committees. Rick Crump and Malcolm Lehman spent a lot of time with me explaining their process.
The unanimous opinion of the members I spoke to in South Australia is that their process is not one to follow. They are in fact reviewing their own Estimates Committee to see how they can further improve what they are doing. In all, I was pleased to have been exposed to an Estimates process and it appears to be a good way to go about doing business. I look forward to hearing and debating further on what can come out of the report. I also look forward to an Estimates process once the budget is handed down.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I concur with the three members of the Public Accounts Committee who have spoken. It was an excellent trip. I would also like to thank the Clerk, Terry Hanley and Ros Vogeli for all the work they have done in arranging that trip. It was very well organised, considering the short time that we had to visit Hobart.
I know there have been a couple of comments made about committees. There certainly is a difference between the two committees. The Lower House for those who do not know is run on a party political basis and therefore its estimates committee tends to be run on a party political basis. It is slightly noisier than the Upper House which happens to have a majority of Independent members and that is where civility reigns. I just mention that the library over there once was set aside for an Upper House. That would be a most civil place to work, I think.
I am glad I have learnt something down there besides civility. I must admit it was certainly interesting to see how it operated. I would certainly say, on both sides, it is a wearisome procedure. Ministers are there for sometimes nine hours getting questioned continually. I do like the idea that ministers’ staff are available to respond to questions even if it has to go through the minister. That is good because it also keeps the department on the go and on the ball.
As for how a committee would work here, speaking from a biased point of view, I think one committee would be great; I would not have to swap between two. But there are some practical considerations both ways because by having two committees you therefore require more people to be on those committees, and being a relatively small parliament and people do have distances to travel within the Territory, we have to look at the practicalities of that.
A good issue was raised about the committees covering the government business divisions. It is important that this does happen since we now have Power and Water as a corporation. It would be good to be able to interrogate that department about how they are travelling. The important thing is that it does show you that government becomes more open and transparent. The people I spoke to said that compared to what used to happen, certainly government now is far more accountable. Yes, there is a certain amount of political use of the Estimates Committee for sure, and when we were there the cameras are all loaded up and there are microphones all over the desk. Obviously, there is a chance in this case for the opposition to try to make some mileage out of the government. My feeling is that the government can also work the other way. They can get mileage out of it as well. I hope the government does not get scared of that process because I think regardless of whether - my feeling is that the opposition tended to get probably a bit more – I will think of the word in a minute – news …
Dr Lim: Exposure.
Mr WOOD: Exposure - thank you, member for Greatorex - than perhaps the government. I did notice that the local newspaper made quite a number of pages available for what was happening in the Estimates Committee so people were being informed. There were also little stories here and there through the paper as well. It was informing the public about what was going on and that is one of the merits of the whole process.
Once again I thank the Clerk and the other people who helped us, especially the staff in the Tasmanian Upper and Lower Houses. I also thank my fellow members of parliament for a most enjoyable time.
Dr Burns: You won’t tell us what you brought back from Tasmania?
Mr WOOD: Three oogy doogy birds actually. They are sitting on my desk. Yes, that is what I brought back. Oh, sorry.
A member: Salmon.
Mr WOOD: Salmon? No, no, I brought a poster from the chicken feed supermarket. It is out being framed for my office.
But thank you very much to the fellow members who went down with us. It was certainly enjoyable.
Dr Lim: Was there no bonding?
Mr WOOD: We need some bonding in this House sometimes. I thank the Leader of Government Business for setting us on this path which I think will be good for the Northern Territory.
Did I thank the Clerk? Well, this is the third time. I thank you, Clerk, again.
Mr STIRLING (Leader of Government Business): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank members for their positive comments and move that the debate be adjourned.
Debate adjourned.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr STIRLING (Leader of Government Business): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise tonight in relation to the Vice Chancellor of the Northern Territory University, Professor Ron McKay. It is probably known by honourable members that Professor McKay will not be seeking to renew his current contract, which expires in August 2003. As Deputy Chief Minister and Minister for Employment, Education and Training, I felt it appropriate to put on the Parliamentary Record an acknowledgement of the contribution Professor McKay has made to the university, both as Deputy Vice Chancellor and as Vice Chancellor. Although he is not leaving the university in the near future, I feel it is important that his achievements be recorded now so that honourable members can reflect on the contribution he has made thus far.
Professor McKay was appointed Deputy Vice Chancellor of the university on 4 February 1991. He was appointed Vice Chancellor of the university on 10 August 1996. During this period, Professor McKay has been responsible for implementing many important initiatives within the university. He is the first to acknowledge that these projects have utilised the initiative and talent of others within the university. However, it is Professor McKay’s leadership which has established the environment for the Northern Territory University to flourish as it has. I will go through a summary of some of Professor McKay’s more important achievements.
During his term as Deputy Vice Chancellor, he was responsible for preparing research and development strategies which focussed on the strength of this region in Northern Australia. This included developing partnerships to enable cooperative research. Examples of the success of the strategies are the Tropical Wildlife Management Centre, and the Tropical Savanna Management Cooperative Research Centre; the last mentioned having attracted $36m in research funds over two funding periods. On a per capita basis, the NTU rates within the top third of universities in Australia attracting research funds.
During Professor McKay’s term as Chair of the Northern Territory Research and Development Advisory Council, a Territory-wide view of research and development practice and opportunity was established. The proposed Cooperative Research Centre in Desert Knowledge was an initiative of the Council. A partnership with Flinders University during the last two years has resulted in the Centre for Remote Health in Alice Springs. A business program has been developed in Alice Springs through the Centralian College for nearly 10 years. Recently, a nurses program has been developed in conjunction with Alice Springs Hospital. These initiatives increase the presence of the NTU in Alice Springs and help make this a university for the whole of the Northern Territory.
Quality management was initiated by Professor McKay almost 10 years ago. Since that time, the NTU has been officially recognised for its excellence in quality management. In 1998, the Northern Territory University was recognised with the Progress Towards Business Excellence Award by the Australian Quality Council, the first university to receive such an award.
The mission statement for the university includes a provision to support and advance the social, cultural, intellectual and economic development of the Northern Territory. One example is the development of the School of Music, which is the home of the Darwin Symphony Orchestra. It has contributed significantly to the cultural life of the Territory. Other significant developments have been the staging of the International Guitar Festival at NTU under the auspices of the School of Music. This event attracts leading guitarists from all over the world and has now become a bi-annual event.
In 2000, the Northern Territory University took over responsibility for the management of the Katherine Rural College and turned it around into a successful institution for the provision of training in the rural area.
Under Professor McKay’s leadership, and with his support, staff at NTU developed new modes of delivering education, including online delivery. Through Open Learning Australia and its own resources, NTU is able to offer a range of units externally. In addition to this, NTU has developed partnerships with other universities to provide courses which might not otherwise be available at the university itself, for example, with Charles Sturt University to deliver a psychology program.
During the last few years, links have been established with many universities overseas. The Northern Territory University participates in the study abroad program in the United States and Europe. A significant connection has been established with Tshing Hua University in Beijing, one of China’s most prestigious universities. As a result of these and other activities, there has been an increase in the number of international students studying at NTU.
During his term as Deputy Vice Chancellor, Professor McKay was Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Strehlow Centre. His contribution was a major factor in the satisfactory resolution of disputes about the ownership of important documents and artefacts in the Strehlow Collection.
As Deputy Vice Chancellor, Professor McKay was instrumental in introducing what is termed Common Units. The purpose of this was to have every student entering the university study some units beyond the focus of their chosen discipline. These compulsory units, studied at the commencement of every student’s study at NTU include philosophy, library, computer skills, and the knowledge of Northern Australia and cultural studies.
The Foundation of NTU was established in 1993. The Foundation now has over 140 corporate and 80 individual members drawn from all sectors of the Territory community. It has attracted over $14m in cash and kind contributions to the university. It has enabled many of the citizens of the Territory to become involved in their university and to be part of its development.
Professor McKay has been responsible for improving the quality of the university experience for students. Improvements include development of common course rules to facilitate students’ ability to study in different areas and combine the subjects of their choice across differing faculties. Equity and access have become strong features of the university. It has always operated within its budget and exercised financial responsibility by ensuring expenditure did not exceed income. This is not true of all universities. As Vice Chancellor, Professor McKay successfully secured funds from the Northern Territory government to replace the shortfall in funds from the Commonwealth.
Development of Information Technology support for administration and development assistance: the recent installation of Callista software system will lead to increasing improvements in the area of student administration.
Professor McKay was responsible for the development of the student charter. He has always maintained a keen interest in his students as the university’s greatest resource. Under his leadership, the student population of the Northern Territory University continues to grow and now has over 14 000 students attending in the year 2002. This includes providing an extensive range of programs for indigenous students both on campus and in remote communities. There are regular surveys of graduates’ satisfaction with their courses. The most recent survey revealed an average of 89% satisfaction among Northern Territory University graduates. Student enrolments have steadily increased, which ultimately must be the greatest indicator of the success of the Northern Territory University.
We know the difficulties that small and regional universities such as ours in the Northern Territory suffer. It is a credit to Professor McKay that he has held stewardship over all of these years and continues to, as I speak. We certainly wish him well in his time and tenure in his role as Vice Chancellor.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise to place on the Parliamentary Record a tribute to Helen Skewes, or Ma Skewes or Nelly Skewes as she was affectionately known by many rural people. Ma Skewes passed away last week, and I, along with many hundreds of other rural people, attended a moving tribute at the St Francis of Assisi Church. The entire rural area was saddened to hear of the passing of Helen Skewes, one of the pioneers of Humpty Doo. I put on the record my family’s most sincere sympathy to the entire Skewes family on that sad occasion.
If there was one value which Ma Skewes stood for it was a sense of family. The Skewes family have worked in a number of different industries, from earth moving to cattle, and at the same time raised a small army of children: Peter, Patrick, Joanne, Mary, Danny and Cecilia. The Skewes family moved into the rural area in 1967 when Ma Skewes invested in some rural property - firstly at Acacia and then later at Humpty Doo. The family owned and operated the Humpty Doo Store, whilst Mr Skewes began a fledgling farming operation. Later, Neville Skewes started the famous - and the world famous, I would say - Humpty Doo Pub.
My father was particularly close to Ma Skewes and, indeed, our families have known each other for over 40 years. My dad was on the first Litchfield Shire Council and served with Ma Skewes. When I told my father that Ma Skewes had passed away, he said he was going to devote a couple of chapters in his book to her. That will make interesting reading, I have absolutely no doubt. Ma Skewes will be sadly missed by many people for years to come.
The other matter I wish to place on the Parliamentary Record is the fantastic work done in the rural area by the St John volunteers. There is a growing number of young people, young adults and some adults who are actively involved in the brigade which is growing and operates and trains from Taminmin High School. As a demonstration of the work these volunteers do, I raced the Kamfari recently and a young man had fallen off his motor bike. He was laying on the side of the track. He had broken his hip or his leg fairly badly and there were the St John people in the mud, in the slosh helping this young man who was obviously in a fair bit of pain. They stayed there for hours tending him, stabilising him and eventually he was placed in the back of a 4WD and slowly driven out, all the time with these St John people and a paramedic helping him.
Mrs AAGAARD (Nightcliff): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise this evening to speak briefly about the sad death last week of a delightful young woman, Mary Moylan. Mary died from complications following what was thought to be a fairly simple surgical procedure. Mary was born on 29 May 1964 at Walsall in the north of England. In 1966, her parents brought Mary and her five older brothers to live in Adelaide. All of her schooling was undertaken in Adelaide. She went on to Flinders University, graduating in Social Work in 1993. Mary moved to Darwin in 1994 to take up a position as a social worker with what was then the Commonwealth Department of Social Security, now Centrelink. Her work with the Commonwealth saw her serving in the Casuarina and Palmerston Centrelink offices, and more recently she took on the challenge of being the first Centrelink social worker focussed on remote communities in the Top End.
Like the true professional that she was, Mary had strong links with the community sector and with staff in the Department of Health and Community Services. She was an integral part of social work in the Northern Territory. She worked in Katherine following the floods in January 1998 and at the tent city during the East Timor emergency in 1999. In addition to her practical work as a social worker, she was also dedicated to maintaining and expanding her profession in the Territory. A part of this was the work that she undertook as an office holder in the Northern Territory branch of the Australian Association of Social Workers.
Mary was a young woman with very many talents. She was good at so many things: book lover, movie buff, music lover, sports woman; she had a raft of knowledge, skills and talents which they tell me she took to many quiz nights. Mary Moylan was a gem of a woman who in her too short life touched the lives of many people. I take this opportunity to place on the record my sincerest condolences to her family, her friends and her colleagues.
I also recognise tonight some very special young people in my electorate. Earlier this year, I established a series of awards for school children in my electorate which I call the ‘Member for Nightcliff Awards’. These awards recognise young people for excellence in community service and outstanding citizenship. It has to be noted that too infrequently, young people are perhaps only recognised for being troublesome, also perhaps for sport and occasionally for excellence in academic areas. It is very important that as members of the community and particularly as politicians, we try to recognise young people in areas such as community service so that we can encourage them throughout their lives to become excellent members of the community.
Tonight I place on the record the names of some young people who have received this Member for Nightcliff Award for outstanding citizenship. From Nightcliff Primary School, I recognise Tracey Foster and Clancy O’Donnell; from the Essington School: Pela Vereakula and Jana Tumulu; from St Paul’s Primary School: Michael Lavery and Katie Morris; and from Nightcliff High School: Tammy Lee Aberdeen. They are fantastic young people who auger very well for the Northern Territory in the future.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise tonight to speak on two issues. Firstly, I am here to fill a promise to a fellow by the name of Joe De Groot. Mr De Groot had cause to collar me in the Memo Club not that long ago in Alice Springs. He is an old pensioner from the Alice Springs area and he let me know what he thought of a few things in the political scene here in the Northern Territory. He said, ‘You tell that Clare Martin from me what I think’. And so to fulfil my promise to Mr De Groot that night I will indeed tell the Chief Minister what Mr De Groot thinks and we can have it entrenched on the public record. Mr De Groot was quite passionate about a few of the issues that he spoke to me about and he would be well pleased to see his opinions lodged on the public record of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly forever.
The message to the Chief Minister from Mr De Groot is basically that he is very very unsatisfied as a pensioner in the Northern Territory that the taxes and charges of the now highest taxing government that this Territory has ever had have been brought to bear upon him as well as other Territorians. He does not believe at all the story of the black hole. In fact, Mr De Groot told me without any prompting at all that he thought the black hole was a fabrication to make the CLP or the former government look bad. He finds the Chief Minister’s black hole offensive. That is the message from Mr De Groot to the Chief Minister. He is copping the brunt of these taxes. He knows it when he goes to the Motor Vehicle Registry to register his car and he knows it so many other areas. He is resenting the impositions on him deeply and he wants to put the Chief Minister on notice that he is not at all in the least bit impressed with the shenanigans, as he believed them to be, in relation to the black hole that the Chief Minister claims she found one morning.
The fact is, the Chief Minister’s black hole in Mr De Groot’s estimation is indeed an offensive thing because he thinks that it is a deception upon him and other Territorians. So, for the Chief Minister’s record, and for the Chief Minister’s understanding and for her attention, that is the opinion of one pensioner who lives in Alice Springs. He is particularly unhappy with the new Labor government because of the way they have conducted themselves since the last election. I am pleased to be the conduit by which Mr De Groot can find some voice in this Chamber.
I also rise to deal with another issue, a telephone call I received from a fellow by the name of Tim Blyth. Tim is also an Alice Springs resident. He is a small businessman and he needed to talk to me about his driving to Yulara. On driving to Yulara, Mr Blyth had to go along the Lasseter Highway in poor light. The Lasseter Highway is a difficult road to drive. Many tourists have trouble with it and they have had trouble with it in the past. Indeed, that is the reason the current government has decided to put a speed limit on the Lasseter Highway of 110 km an hour, in the interests of safety. If we accept that, then the issue of how the Lasseter Highway is maintained is something that is obviously close to the government’s heart because they do have an interest in public safety.
However, Mr Blyth’s complaint was the same complaint I brought to this House on 6 March 2002. That complaint was in the form of a question, and the question that I asked the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure Development, who has care of the roads, was why the sides of the Lasseter Highway were not being slashed. The minister assured me that he was concerned about what happened on the Lasseter Highway. He told me he was happy to put a 110 km an hour speed limit on the highway. However, he did not answer the question at that time, to my satisfaction at least, as to when the road sides were going to be slashed. The fact is that the government has been not letting the period contracts to the slashers, certainly not to the degree where they have to be let. As a consequence of this, those slashers are not operating on roads.
If this road is considered to be so dangerous by the minister, then he should make sure that he puts a 110 km an hour speed limit on it, and then he should make sure it is kept safe by other means. The problem with tall grass on the side of the road, especially if you were driving at night or in poor light, is that there are all sorts of beasts who hide in that tall grass, and when a car comes along, they tend to walk out in front of the car. The standard wisdom is that they tend to walk where they can see, which is unfortunately straight in the headlights of where the car is going, which is why kangaroos apparently tend to jump across the road rather than away from us as a general rule. In my experience, this has happened quite regularly. The tall grass should be slashed at least three or four cuts away from the edge of the road. But what happens is that they have been reduced to two cuts only when they can get out and do these cuts. The problem for people like Mr Blyth is that he has to work in Yulara, where he is involved in some construction work, and he has to travel between Alice Springs and Yulara. He would like to do so safely.
I have raised this issue with the minister in the past, but he has failed to attend to that matter. I would like to be able to go back to Mr Blyth and reassure him that the minister is going to have the sides of the road properly slashed on the Lasseter Highway, so people can safely travel on that road. If the minister is concerned about safety on the Lasseter Highway, then the minister should be concerned about safety when it costs him as well as when it does not. If the issue is money for him, then the question I ask the minister is, what is more important to him? Is it the money that he keeps in his accounts, or the lives of Territorians and people who visit the Territory, who travel along the Lasseter Highway?
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I am very proud of children of the Karama electorate who, today, put on a demonstration in front of Parliament House in State Square. The students from Manunda Terrace Primary School’s Jump Rope for Heart team, called the Rope Ragers, performed a skipping demonstration in front of Parliament House. They demonstrated their prowess to members of Parliament, members of the legal fraternity who were heading out at lunch time from the Supreme Court, tourists and a crowd of on-lookers gathered in front of Parliament House. Everyone applauded the incredible skills of the Rope Ragers. The Chief Minister, Clare Martin, very generously helped kick off the Manunda Terrace Primary School Rope Ragers bid to attend a skipping competition in NSW by handing over a $200 cheque to the team today.
I am happy to say that, as the local member, I will be matching this donation with a donation of $200 from my good self. The team has been performing skipping for some time now, under the very wonderful tuition and guidance of an incredibly committed teacher at the school, Jan Marie Cooper. I extend my community thanks to Jan for the hard work she has done over the years. Jan started off promoting Jump Rope for Heart in the school. She saw the enthusiasm with which the students embraced the skipping, and has created an after school program. It has attracted a core team of nine very highly skilled skippers. They use ropes, balls, hoops and music and are a wonderful advertisement for the importance of exercise and healthy living.
The Rope Ragers have been working hard with their fundraising. Today’s showcase was a part of that fundraising effort. They have been invited to participate in the annual New South Wales demonstration team competition, that will be held at Fox Studios in Sydney on 28 November 2002.
The Karama community is very proud of these Manunda Terrace Primary School students. The girls are terrific. The enthusiasm and skills they show are to be highly commended. Our Labor government is very proud to support their endeavours, and we wish them the best of luck in achieving their goals in New South Wales.
I will also list the achievements of school communities resulting from the recent Darwin Eisteddfod. The Eisteddfod was again held at the Darwin Performing Arts Centre, and this very popular annual event attracted a large number of participants, as well as people going along to watch the display of Territory talent.
I extend my congratulations the following students from O’Loughlin College: Paola Ciarla and Casey Harrison in Year 11; Tiffany Cornell, Year 10; and Erin Gleeson, Year 8. Between them, these girls achieved six first prizes and two highly commended awards in the various vocal sections. The Year 4, 5, 6 and 7 recorder students gained first prize and highly commended with many of the students playing in the combined Holy Family and O’Loughlin Concert Band. Patrick Goda from Year 11, Trevor Schultz from Year 10, and former student, Thomas Brennan, achieved highly commended awards in their rock band performances. To Kelli Clark, Tahnee Roe, Erin and Karlie Belletty, Amy Dienhoff and Cassandra Hall, congratulations on your outstanding efforts and participation in the dance sections.
The Holy Family School, the junior sister school of O’Loughlin College, also scooped up some first prizes and I congratulate the effort of both the teachers and the students in competing in the Eisteddfod. It is a very tough competition. Holy Family School won first prize in the recorder concert band; first prize in the recorder group, Year 5 and under; highly commended in the recorder group, Year 7 and under; first prize in the percussion band, Year 3 and under; first prize percussion band, Year 5 and under; first prize percussion band, open section; and highly commended, percussion band, Year 7 and under.
I congratulate the individual students who performed and did extremely well. Whether it is first prize or highly commended, it demonstrates what a great deal of talent we have out in our Catholic school community in the heart of Karama.
I congratulate Manunda Terrace School again. Congratulations go to Manunda Terrace students from Rooms 7, 10, 11 and 12, for their performance in the verse speaking choir section of the Eisteddfod. All classes performed with distinction, and two of the classes were runners-up, receiving highly commended adjudications. Dr Hines, the adjudicator, commented particularly on the ability of the Manunda Terrace students to perform without the aid of a conductor standing in front of them. The Manunda Terrace School and the school community are very proud of their students’ contribution and the high standard of their performance. All of our children were congratulated and they showed other schools every courtesy by listening attentively and politely.
The Malak School choir came second to the university choir and received a highly commended award. The senior choir performed beautifully, singing in fine voice with strength and harmony. The school was very proud of their efforts. Congratulations and thanks must be extended to Ms Veel for all the hard work she puts in to the training of the school’s junior and senior choirs.
The North Australian Eisteddfod Council is a dedicated group of experienced volunteers who spend an extreme amount of time and energy putting together the Eisteddfod’s comprehensive 10-day program. I would like to congratulate the 2002 council members: Jenny Rivett, Aggie Phipps, Pat Palmer, David Martin, Henry Gray, Shauna Ricardo, Cecil Nielson, Mavis Blackadder and Lyla Wills, with administrative and secretarial assistance from Beth Martin. It is this hardworking team of council members who bring the Eisteddfod to us. I know that the community joins me in congratulating the council on the rewards they bring us through another terrific Eisteddfod this year.
I would like to quote from Mr Henry Gray, who I have been working very closely with on the Leanyer Water Park task force. He is the Eisteddfod’s publicity officer:
- The Eisteddfod reminds me of the fact that a complete education includes cultural appreciation. In the original
form an Eisteddfod was ‘an annual gathering of Welsh Bards’ but globally, regionally and locally it is now defined
as ‘a gathering for competition in music and other performing arts’.
To be able to participate in a program of this nature, develops within students an appreciation for artistic and
expressive elements of social development. It builds confidence and gives them an opportunity to develop
skills in expression and communication, that will forever stand them in good stead.
I am glad we have children involved in the Eisteddfod.
Well, Henry, to you and your team on the 2002 Eisteddfod Council, I congratulate you for yet another tremendous year. I am very proud of the achievements that the Karama electorate have brought home through O’Loughlin College, Holy Family School, Manunda Terrace Primary, and Malak Primary.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016