2001-10-18
Madam Speaker Braham took the Chair at 10 am.
Mr STIRLING (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 185 petitioners praying that there be a perimeter fence erected around the school grounds of Bakewell Primary School. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms with the requirements of Standing orders and I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read.
To the honorable the Minister for Education and members of the Legislative Assembly
of the Northern Territory
We the undersigned respectfully say Bakewell Primary School currently has no fencing to
prevent school children leaving school grounds and entering the road. Similarly, there is no
fencing to prevent unwanted persons going onto the school property. The CLP government has
been negligent in not erecting a fence around the perimeter of the Bakewell Primary School
grounds particularly as the road is designated as a major arterial road linking Palmerston to
the Stuart Highway.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that there be an immediate perimeter fence erected
around the school grounds of Bakewell Primary School and your petitioners as in duty bound
will ever pray.
Mr STIRLING (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 10 petitioners praying that there be an immediate provision of additional classrooms at Woodroffe Primary School, an assessment made without delay as to the classroom needs of Woodroffe Primary School for the immediate future in the long term and adequate classrooms to provide for the immediate future and the long term according to that assessment.
The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms with the requirements of Standing orders. Madam Speaker, I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read.
To the honourable the Minister for Education and members of the Legislative Assembly of
the Northern Territory
We the undersigned respectfully say there is a totally inadequate provision of classrooms and
facilities for our children attending Woodroffe Primary School in Palmerston. Some classes are
being held in the library and some classes are being moved from room to room within the day due
to lack of classroom space. This has been the situation now for over 18 months. Woodroffe Primary
School has declined to accept 24 pre- primary class students in the July 2001 intake due to lack of
classroom space. The CLP government has been negligent in not providing adequately for the children
and teaching staff at Woodroffe Primary School.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that there be an immediate provision of additional classrooms at
Woodroffe Primary School, there be an assessment made without delay as to classroom needs of Woodroffe
Primary School for the immediate future and the long term, there be an adequate classroom provided for the
immediate future and the long term according to that assessment and your petitioners as in duty bound will
ever pray.
Mr STIRLING (Nhulunbuy)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 445 petitioners relating to a quality education system. Madam Speaker, I to move that the petition be read.
We the undersigned members of the AEU-NT wish to express our extreme disappointment at the
attitude of your government to resolving the education dispute. Teachers had trusted the Labor Party’s
commitment to make education a priority. To date the performance of the Minister for Education has produced
a complete lack of confidence by the teaching profession in his ability to understand the issues involved
in the current education crisis. Teachers cannot allow the education of Territory students to become the
sacrificial lamb to the budget deficit. We will continue, at our personal expense, to fight for a quality education
system. We believe in it. The lack of commitment displayed by your government leaves us no alternative. We call
on you to stand by your election promise.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I lay on the table my warrant for Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Legislative Assembly.
Mr AH KIT (Transport and Infrastructure Development): Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Mr Burke: You have had five hours of briefing, Jack, have you?
Mr KIELY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Yesterday you directed that we would not refer to the honourable members in the Chamber by name.
Madam SPEAKER: You are quite correct. Leader of the Opposition, withdraw that remark.
Mr BURKE: Madam Speaker, I withdraw the fact that I called Mr Jack Ah Kit, Jack Ah Kit.
Madam SPEAKER: Be careful, be careful. Leader of the Opposition, that was unnecessary. All members, I mention that to you to make sure you do it.
Mr AH KIT: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Yesterday the opposition asked a number of questions in regard to the progress of some capital works that have been put to tender but not yet let. The member for Katherine stated that the government cannot tender jobs unless the money is ready to be spent. That is certainly the view of this government. Obviously it was not the view of the previous government when Territorians were unfortunately exposed to the mismanagement of the member for Katherine and his colleagues. In the CLP’s last budget, the budget for the current financial year, the budget papers state that the expected cost of the works in progress and approved for the Department of Transport and Works was $152.2m. But how much cash did the former CLP government actually allocate to the department’s capital works program? Just $123.5m.
In simple terms, the cash funding for the department’s capital works program was nearly $30m less than the cost of projects that had already been announced in previous years. Despite this, in their last budget, the former CLP government announced with great fanfare an additional $64m of major new capital works. Where was the money coming from?
Compare this year’s budget to the previous year’s budget, the budget for 2000-01. In the previous year - perhaps we will accept that it was just coincidence that it was not an election year - the budgeted cash for capital works was 32% more than the cost of approved works and works in progress. That is, in the previous year’s budget, cash was actually available for new works. When the CEO of the Department of Transport and Works was advised of the cash funding that was being provided by the former CLP government for capital works in this year’s budget, the CEO advised Treasury that the program was unsustainable. This leaves the question hanging as to how the former CLP government planned to implement the capital works program announced in last year’s budget if Territorians had been so unfortunate to actually have them re-elected. One is left to speculate then that the former CLP government either planned to cut the capital works program announced in its last budget or borrow ever more cash to implement the program.
They have been caught out, Madam Speaker. It is clear that the former CLP government hoped to mislead Territorians through the election campaign and fudge their way through to another razor gang exercise, as has been their practice in previous elections. This government now has to clean up the mess left behind by the former CLP government. We will deal with this through the mini-budget process.
Despite the financial black hole that the former CLP government has left this government, I wish to finish on a positive note. The government has inherited …
Mr REED: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The honourable member, and it occurred yesterday, is reading from a report. That is to say that these ministerial reports are written reports. I ask if it written reports are going to be the practice that these reports be tabled rather than the opposition having to wait for them to appear in Hansard the following day. If not, could the honourable minister table the document from which he is reading.
Mr AH KIT: Madam Speaker, this report is speaking notes that I have in front of me.
Mr Reed: Yes, and you are reading from them.
Madam SPEAKER: There is actually no point of order but there is a need to have clarification about these ministerial reports. I will talk to the Leader of Government Business about that later and clarify it. We need to discuss the format of how we will go about it.
Mr AH KIT: Madam Speaker, as I said, I wish to finish on a positive note. We have inherited this financial black hole and, as I said, we will attack it in a responsible manner. I would like to inform this Assembly that the actual hard cash that our government will spend on the capital works program this current financial year will be bigger and greater than it was in the last year of the Country Liberal Party government. At this stage in our budgetary cycle, our government is planning to spend some $20.7m more than what the Country Liberal Party government did in its final year. This increase in capital works expenditure by the Martin government will occur despite the terrible state of budget disrepair handed over to us by the former CLP government. I am pleased to report to the House that the government is on target to achieve this objective.
These amounts are recurrent and are required to meet current operational requirements and expenditure every year. They were clearly foreseeable.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Let’s have some order, thank you. And remember if you do not want to have retaliation, then do not be provocative.
Mr STIRLING: Absolutely, but I won’t have contemptuous smirks from the people responsible for this. These costs were clearly foreseeable and ongoing costs required by contractual arrangements. Now, the Police Commissioner also advises that further additional funding requirements are needed to cover the investigation in the Barrow Creek incident. The cost of the investigation sits currently between $900 000 and $1m. The Commissioner advises me that he will endeavour to absorb $350 000 of this cost from other internal operating provisions, thus requiring supplementary funding of $650 000. Changes to vehicle fleet costs are estimated to be in the order of a further $800 000 recurrent, and the Commissioner has advised me that he will endeavour to absorb this amount but cannot rule out a need for further funding.
There are a number of other matters including decisions taken by the previous Cabinet relating to capital purchases and employment costs totalling $1.5m. These items include officer safety equipment, forensic equipment and other expenses committed to in the last financial year but for which no cash was allocated in the current financial year. So committed to, but no cash allocated.
I bring these matters to the attention of the Assembly as a further example of the totally inappropriate, totally inappropriate and irresponsible approach of the former government to budgetary and fiscal management, particularly the former Treasurer and minister responsible for this agency.
Mr VATSKALIS (Lands, Planning and Environment): Madam Speaker, I rise to make a ministerial report on the Planning Act. In opposition, Labor said we would review the Planning Act. In government, we are implementing that policy. This in an internal review. The outcomes and recommendations of the review will be made public and subject to consultation with business, planning groups, local government and the community generally.
The core issues we are examining are: the introduction of limited third party appeal rights; a transparent role for local stakeholders, particularly the minister; a committee to consult all stakeholders; timeliness and certainty in the processes; and strong consideration of matters such as crime prevention principles when assessing the merits of development proposals.
I advised the Local Government Association Annual General Meeting yesterday that the Territory government will retain planning under its control. I said they would be disappointed, but I believe that our size and the fact that most Territory land is unincorporated into local government means that we need to retain that control. I also said that we would be examining their role in planning and looking at ways to provide a greater and clearer role.
The introduction of the Consolidated Northern Territory Planning Scheme has been placed before government. The scheme was envisaged at the time of the introduction of the Planning Act in 1999 and is an important mechanism in making a more streamlined and Territory-wide approach to planning. However, at the same time local distinctions will be accommodated. This proposed scheme will be subjected to wide public consultation before it is finally introduced. As provided in the Planning Act, the scheme will include policy and the land use objectives guidelines in the incorporated documents and zoning controls in the development provisions. All of these issues are designed to facilitate development and make the process clear and transparent. There will be time limits built into the Act so that development is not held up. Business people are very aware that this is a pro-development government. The difference between us and the previous government is that we will be doing it properly, accountably and with clear guidelines for everyone.
Business wants clarity; they want these issues to be settled. They will build and develop within those parameters. That’s what they told me; that’s what I have taken on board in my thinking. I have met with planning groups, local government officials and representatives, some business groups, professional organisations and many other groups. I have canvassed the issue with many people. I am convinced that the policy directions we laid down prior to the election are the appropriate ones and we are looking at exactly how this can be done.
Mr STIRLING (Tourism): Madam Speaker, one of the areas that the former government did leave, I think, in reasonably good shape and did a good job in was in the area of tourism. As Minister for Tourism I am keen to follow on from mostly the very good work that they achieved. I am pleased to be able to report that today, as Minister for Tourism I will launch Explore the Territory, an intra-Territory tourism marketing campaign designed to get Territorians to explore the Northern Territory for themselves and to recognise that there is plenty to do right here where we live.
We are launching the campaign aboard a restored pearling lugger down at Cullen Bay because that in itself is a great example of the type of experience that many of us here take for granted. The Territory does have some of the most sensational places to see and experience and many of us too often don’t think about going to them. There is no better nor more important time for Territorians to explore the Territory than now because the tourism industry out there is hurting.
Because of the importance of the aviation sector to tourism, our government has thrown every resource available at getting the air capacity back to the Northern Territory and we continue to work on new aviation developments daily. In the meantime, through the Tourist Commission, the government has explored other options to stimulate activity needed in the industry both here in the Top End and in Central Australia. We have met with the peak motoring associations, targeting the high yield self-drive market. We are scrutinising our drive market campaigns to look at how best to get younger travellers and families on the road to the Territory and we have committed $100 000 to this intra-Territory marketing campaign.
While it may be that interstate or international visitors will be staying at home this Christmas, locals are perhaps likely to stay home as well and the Territory’s holiday packages provide the perfect opportunity to stay at home and have a holiday. We will continue to do everything we can to support the tourism industry. The Explore Your Territory campaign features packaged accommodation, tours and attractions targeted at Territory residents and visiting friends and relatives, developed by a joint government and industry working group following the Ansett airlines collapse and aims to stimulate extra activity, both in the Top End and Central Australia. During the last financial year, more than 1.4 million visitors came to see the Territory. Territorians need to make time what is in their own back yard.
The tourism industry, as I said, is hurting. It does need the support of us, the locals. This $100 000 committed to fund the project will be administered by the regional tourism associations. The holiday packages have been developed by Territory Discoveries, the NT Tourist Commission’s wholesale division, and are advertised in brochures which will be inserted in regional newspapers next week. Here are some examples:
Madam Speaker, it is a great initiative. I pay tribute to both the Northern Territory Tourist Commission and its Chief Executive Officer, Tony Mayell, and I urge all Territorians to get behind this campaign and support our local tourism operators.
Reports noted pursuant to Sessional Order.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Dr TOYNE (Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to give police the power to arrest, without a warrant, an offender who is suspected on reasonable grounds of having breached a condition of a bond or a suspended sentence or of an undertaking. When a court imposes a bond or suspended sentence, it is often a condition of the sentence that the offender be under the supervision of a delegate of the Director of Correctional Services and be required to obey all reasonable directions as to reporting, residence, associates and employment. The conditions are determined on an individual basis, taking into account the offender’s personal circumstances. They are aimed at protecting society or a particular individual, usually the victim, and at the rehabilitation of the offender. Conditions that are frequently imposed are that the offender not consume alcohol or that they either reside or do not reside in a particular locality.
If an offender breaches a condition, it is important that the police have the power to arrest the offender immediately and bring him or her before a court. At present, this cannot be done. A similar situation exists in respect of a breach of a condition of an undertaking given by a prisoner on release by the Administrator in an exercise of prerogative and mercy power. Currently, if the police see, suspect or are informed that an offender has breached a condition of a bond or suspended sentence or of an undertaking, they must make an application to the court and, if it is possible, the offender must be notified of the application. This process can take a long time, particularly in communities where the court may only sit once a month. This can result in a potential threat to the safety of an individual or the general public.
Madam Speaker, this is unacceptable. The Criminal Law (Conditional Release of Offenders) Act had such a power of arrest but that act was repealed when the Sentencing Act came into operation in 1996. The failure to include such a power in the Sentencing Act appears to have been an oversight. The police already have the power to arrest without warrant in similar circumstances where they believe an offender has failed to comply with a condition of a Parole Order. Likewise where an offender has breached an undertaking or agreement to a bail condition or a Home Detention Order. This amendment was recommended by the Coroner, Mr Warren Donald SM, following his inquest into the death of Rosemary McIntyre.
Madam Speaker, it is important that potentially dangerous situations are avoided. This bill ensures that the police will be able to act quickly in circumstances where a breach might result in a threat to the safety of the community.
I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
Dr TOYNE (Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of Standing orders be suspended as would prevent bills entitled Local Court Amendment Bill 2001 (Serial 12) and Small Claims Amendment Bill 2001 (Serial 11): (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.
Bills presented and read a first time.
Dr TOYNE (Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bills be now read a second time.
The purpose of the bills is to clarify that appeals from decisions of registrars in small claims proceedings including final decisions go to magistrates and not to the Supreme Court under Section 19 of the Local Court Act. The Local Court Amendment Bill amends section 19 of the Local Court Act so that it no longer applies to appeals in small claims matters. Such appeal provisions have been transferred to the Small Claims Act.
Housekeeping amendments are also made to section 36A of the Local Court Act to ensure matters specified in the Local Court Regulations are specifically covered by the regulation-making power. An appeals structure for small claims matters will now be found in the Small Claims Act, with appeals from decisions of registrars going to magistrates, and from decisions of magistrates to Supreme Court judges. An appeal from a magistrate’s decision can only be made after a final order is made by the magistrate.
Other minor amendments to the Small Claims Act include amendments to section 19 to omit the words ‘that a judgment of the Court is final and conclusive’ whilst retaining the statement that ‘a party may not commence or continue other proceedings for the same cause or matter’; the repeal of section 49, which requires the registrar to publish details of small claims; and the removal of the matter of fees to regulations, as occurs in the Supreme Court Act and Local Court Act, by repealing section 45 and inserting a new section 51, being a regulation-making power. Section 20 of the Small Claims Act has also been redrafted to ensure the act provides the basis for an application for rehearing.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bills to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Dr TOYNE (Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move the bill be now read a second time.
The main purpose of this bill is to amend the Legal Practitioners Act so as to improve and clarify the operations of the Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee. The bill also provides for the appointment of managers of legal practices. The Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee is a body created by section 48 of the Legal Practitioners Act for the purposes of dealing with various disciplinary matters concerning legal practitioners.
Most disciplinary matters are handled by the Law Society of the Northern Territory. However, the Complaints Committee has the power to deal with appeals from decisions of the Society and to directly handle some complaints. The decisions of the committee are subject to review by the Supreme Court. Additionally, the Supreme Court has both statutory powers and an inherent jurisdiction in respect of the discipline of legal practitioners. The committee, the Ombudsman and the Law Society have raised a number of concerns about the legislation that supports the operation of the Committee. This bill seeks to allay those concerns.
I shall now outline each of the concerns together with the government’s proposals. The first problem is that it is often difficult to obtain a quorum for the Complaints Committee - currently a quorum is four of the seven members. We propose that the quorum be reduced to three.
Additionally, most of the members of the committee are volunteers. This means that the time they are able to spend on committee hearings is relatively limited because they need to devote time to the earning of an income. We propose that the legislation be amended so that members can be paid an appropriate amount. This should mean that the members do not suffer severe financial penalty of the kind that can potentially occur if a hearing were to last more than two or three days. This amendment will make it more practical for barristers, sole practitioners or legal practitioners from small firms to accept positions on the committee.
However, these changes will not overcome all the quorum problems. The relatively small size of the Northern Territory legal profession can mean that it is difficult to obtain sufficient disinterested members who have no close business or personal connection with a lawyer who is the subject of disciplinary proceedings. To overcome this problem, we propose to create a panel of 13 persons from whom a quorum can be selected by the chairperson of the Complaints Committee. The panel will comprise:
For any particular hearing, the committee would comprise at least one legal practitioner from the group nominated by the Law Society, and at least one person who is either a lay person or the Ombudsman or the Ombudsman’s alternate.
The generality of the proposals have been considered by the Law Society and the Complaints Committee. I understand that they are both satisfied that the changes will alleviate the problems in the operation of the current provisions.
The second problem is that the legislation does not provide the committee with many procedural powers that such a committee would ordinarily be expected to possess. We propose that the committee be given the power to give directions for the expeditious and efficient conduct of proceedings. It is also proposed that the persons who commence proceedings also be given the power to withdraw from them.
A third problem is that the act is unclear as to whether the committee dealing with a charge against a legal practitioner is under a duty to inquire into the whole of the professional conduct of the legal practitioner or just the matter raised in the charge. We propose that the act be amended so that the committee can only consider the allegations raised in the charge. However, the act will now oblige the committee to refer to the Law Society for further investigation any additional matters that arise in the course of the investigation or hearing.
A fourth problem is that the committee is ill-equipped to handle complaints that may not have any possibility of a successful outcome for the complainant. Currently, the act permits the committee to dismiss a complaint if the complaint is frivolous or vexatious. However, it is possible for a complaint to be serious from the point of view of a complainant, but unfounded in terms of the disciplinary provisions in the legislation. In order to deal with this problem, we propose that section 50 of the act be amended so that the committee may summarily dismiss a charge if it is of the view that a charge would not, despite being proven, give rise to a finding of professional misconduct. Section 51B(1)(a) of the act is to provide that any decision to either dismiss such a charge or not to dismiss a charge is not to be the subject of any kind of review by the Supreme Court.
A fifth problem is that the act is unclear about the penalties that may be imposed by the Complaints Committee. The range of penalties includes fines, suspensions for a limited time, admonition, and imposition of practice restrictions. Section 50(4) of the act is written so that it appears that only one kind of penalty may be imposed. Thus, for example, the committee may impose either a fine or a suspension. The Complaints Committee has advised that it would like to be able to impose a penalty that may be comprised of one or more of the penalties listed in the act. For example, it would like to be able to impose a fine or warning linked with practising restrictions or suspension. As this request is reasonable, we propose that there is an appropriate amendment to section 50 of the act. The Law Society supports this proposal.
There is a further problem in respect of penalties. It arises from the fact that only the Supreme Court may impose the highest level of sanctions, namely removal of the name from the Roll of Legal Practitioners maintained by the Supreme Court, or disqualification from practice. It is not proposed that this position be altered. The problem is that such penalties may only be imposed after a fresh hearing by the Supreme Court. Such a hearing may duplicate matters heard by the Complaints Committee.
We propose that the act be amended so that the committee may refer to the court certain findings of misconduct. These are findings for which, in addition to any penalties the committee may have imposed, it might be appropriate that the highest level of sanctions be imposed. Section 52 is to be amended so that the court may, on referral of the matter to it by the committee, impose such higher level penalties based on the findings of the committee. The court has the option of further inquiry, but is not obliged to do so.
A sixth problem is that of the basis of appeals from the Complaints Committee to the Supreme Court. Currently such an appeal involves a rehearing of the matter by the court. This means that the court duplicates the fact-finding conducted by the Committee. Given that the committee will always be comprised of senior members of the profession, we are satisfied that it can be relied on to establish the relevant facts on which decisions can be made. Accordingly, the bill provides that section 51B be amended so that appeals can only be made on the basis of mistakes of fact or of law. We understand that both the Complaints Committee and the Law Society support this change. The proposal has also been referred to the Chief Justice.
The final problem in respect to the Complaints Committee is one identified by the Law Society. It has the effect that the legislation is not sufficiently clear concerning the matter of costs, particularly costs that may be payable in circumstances where the Complaints Committee appoints a legal practitioner to assist the complainant. Such costs are met from the Fidelity Fund established for the main purpose of compensating clients for thefts of trust money and property. The concern is that the payment of such costs with no apparent right of recovery may be wasteful if the complaint is ill-based. We propose that section 51A be amended so the committee may order that the complainant pay the costs. Additionally, it is proposed that the committee should only be entitled to appoint a legal practitioner to assist a complainant if the person is entitled to assistance in accordance with the rules prescribed by regulation. The intention is that the regulations be amended so that the rules mimic the kinds of grounds upon which legal aid may be granted by the Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission.
The bill also provides for transitional matters relative to the various changes concerning the committee. These are designed to retain current appointments to the committee, but also to provide for the application of the new provisions of matters before the committee.
I must emphasise that these amendments and reforms are of an interim nature. They focus on making corrections and improvements to the current disciplinary scheme. However, there is a general view that the disciplinary system for legal practitioners both in the Northern Territory and many other parts of Australia is in need of some more basic overhaul. These are fundamental problems arising from the complexity of the process and the respective roles of the profession and various arms of government.
The government understands that the Law Society has been, for some considerable time, putting together detailed proposals for reform. Additionally, major reforms have been developed in Queensland and Victoria, and national competition policy reviews are occurring in the Northern Territory and throughout the rest of Australia. Finally, the issue is to be considered by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General. All of these developments are considered with a view to major reform as soon as practically possible.
The bill also provides for one other matter that is distinct from disciplinary provisions. The proposed Part 8A provides for the appointment by the Law Society of managers of the practices of legal practitioners. Such appointments are necessary when a legal practitioner is unable to continue managing his or her practice. This may occur if the practitioner has died or become ill or has decamped or has been suspended or disqualified. The provisions are closely modelled on those in place in New South Wales. In brief, they permit the Law Society to make an appointment. The manager takes on all the rights and responsibilities of the legal practitioners but there is a personal protection from the liabilities incurred.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Dr TOYNE (Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to amend various Northern Territory laws, none of which reflect substantive changes in policy. I now outline some of the changes to be brought about this bill.
The Pastoral Leases (Rental) Act is repealed. This Act relates to a rental increase on pastoral leases during the 1991-92 financial year and is no longer relevant. The State Bank of South Australia (Transfer of Undertaking) Act is also repealed as the transfer period has now expired. There are also various amendments to the Firearms Amendment Act (No 2) 2000 to correct errors that occurred in that Act. The Gaming Machine Act is amended to insert a penalty in section 77(10) to correct the use of ‘and’ instead of ‘or’ in section 116. Both of these amendments are to correct inadvertent omissions in the Gaming Machine Amendment Act (No 2) 2001.
The Law Society Public Purposes Trust Act has been amended to incorporate amendments to section 7 of the Legal Practitioners Act which provides that the Law Society of the Northern Territory is a body corporate by the name ‘Law Society Northern Territory’. The amendment is necessary to reflect this change.
A further amendment is made to Marine and Pollution Act. MARPOL 73/78 is the International Convention on which the act is based. As currently defined, MARPOL is fixed in time as the convention was adopted in 1978. This amendment is required to allow for the incorporation of amendments and additions to the convention that have been made since 1978. Such amendments will have no effect until the minister gives notice of the amendments in the Gazette.
The Public Notaries Act is amended to allow for the Registrar of the Supreme Court to be the local registration authority in respect of applications for appointment as a public notary pursuant to the Commonwealth Mutual Recognition Act (1992).
The Unit Titles Amendment Act 2001 and the Unit Titles (Consequential Amendments - Building Developments) Act 2001 are amended to correct grammatical errors and incorrect section references.
Section 15 of the Wills Act currently deals with the effect of divorce on wills. As there may be some uncertainty in interpreting this section, an amendment has been made to clarify that section 15 applies to wills where annulment or divorce occurs on or after the commencement of the Wills Act.
Various other acts and regulations are amended in a minor way, and are set out in schedules 1 and 2 of the bill. These amendments correct typographical errors within existing legislation.
Madam Speaker, I commend the Statute Law Revision Bill (No.2) 2001 to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
Continued from 17 October 2001.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Madam Speaker, from the outset, can I state that yesterday I foreshadowed the possibility of some amendments. Fortunately, I have reviewed the situation and discussed it with my colleagues and we are of the view that it is not possible to resurrect the legislation with an amendment, it is so flawed. What we are going to do is, during the committee stage, we may make some suggestions to amend by repealing certain provisions of the proposed bill.
Mr STIRLING (Leader of Government Business): It is not really a point of order, Madam Speaker, but could I suggest if there is a serious intent for amendment that it would be very helpful from the government’s point of view if we had prior notice, had the amendment in our hand …
Members interjecting.
Mr STIRLING: Well, if we have it, fine.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Goyder, you do as you think best.
Mr MALEY: Madam Speaker, I stand to demonstrate to honourable members and also the Territory public that there is an enormous gulf between what has been said by the Chief Minister and the Attorney-General when compared to the real and practical effect of the amendments. To do that, I just want to remind honourable members of what has been said by both the Chief Minister and the Attorney-General in recent times.
On 10 October, there was a press release from the Chief Minister, Clare Martin MLA, member for Fannie Bay, where she in unison with Dr Toyne said:
Ms Martin and Dr Toyne said the new legislation reflected the principle that serious crime means
serious time.
The press release goes on to create the impression that that this new scheme is going to be tough on crime and that this is certainly no soft option. Now, in recent times in this very Chamber, the Attorney-General, on 17 October during a Dorothy Dix question from one of his programmed backbenchers to which he responded dutifully, said that the new scheme was going to be tough on crime. He talked about targeting offences and reiterated really much of the propaganda which has been fed to the press and the Northern Territory public over the past two weeks.
Ms Martin: Fifteen months might do it better.
Mr MALEY: Indeed, certainly over a fairly lengthy period of time. In any event, prior to this legislation of being drafted.
The Chief Minister, in her reply to the address by the Administrator, in a well spoken and deliberate fashion described the proposed changes using a fairly broad motherhood statement of serious crime means serious time. Both the Attorney-General and the Chief Minister have, in my view, deliberately created an expectation that the new legislation was going to be tough on crime. I was fortunate enough and indeed and I was grateful last Thursday to receive a briefing from employees of the Attorney-General’s department. Any comments I am going to make now do not reflect in any way upon their professionalism. They are merely, of course, following instructions of their new Labor clientele.
The Labor government has the trust of Territorians and Territory people and most people in our community won’t have the opportunity to examine closely the new legislation. It is not unreasonable for those people in the Northern Territory to rely upon the representations made by our Chief Minister and the Attorney-General.
Mr Stirling: How do you think my constituents felt when you bought mandatory sentencing in? You never told anyone!
Mr Burke: Got you rattled, has he, Syd? Already! He’s only been here two days.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! The member for Goyder has the floor.
Mr MALEY: Indeed, it is fair to say that members of the press would not have the opportunity to closely examine the real mischief of this legislation. They, too, are entitled to rely upon the representations made by the Chief Minister and the Attorney-General. I am going to explain to the House, to honourable members and also the people of the Territory that what the Attorney-General, and probably more significantly the Chief Minister, has said was in fact incorrect and misleading and that some sections of the proposed bill are superfluous and irrelevant.
Madam Speaker, if I can draw your attention to probably the bill which contains the very mischief of this amendment, that is the Sentencing Amendment Bill (No.3) of 2001. This piece of legislation contains the usual repeal provisions repealing a portion of the Sentencing Act and replacing the repeal portion of the Sentencing Act with a new division under the heading: Division 6 Aggravated Property Offences. Section 78(a) of this new scheme, the new legislation, provides:
The purpose of this division is to ensure that community disapproval of persons committing aggravated
property offences is adequately reflected in the sentences imposed on those persons.
In my view, this particular section does not assist in any way the sentencing process. The sentencing train has a number of carriages. They include things like general deterrence, personal deterrence, rehabilitation and, of course, the view of the community, the prevalence of the offence. To restate such a general and fundamental principle of our sentencing regime in an act of parliament is unusual and indeed serves no purpose but to justify perhaps a meaningless press release from the government.
Even this piece of legislation goes on further to insult the intelligence of the people of the Northern Territory and certainly the legal practitioners that practice within the criminal jurisdiction. It goes on to state another inevitable factor which is taken into account in the sentencing process. It says:
As I just said, the purpose is to ensure that the community’s disapproval of persons committing aggravated property offences is adequately reflected in the sentences imposed on these persons. It is really reinventing the wheel. So far, in the first two paragraphs of the new scheme, there has been absolutely no progress. There is no new scheme. There is certainly no assistance offered to the courts in exercising their sentencing discretion.
You would think that is off to a fairly bad start. Well, it actually gets worse. I suppose the operative provision from the Labor Party’s perspective is section 78B(2). It talks about:
blah, blah, blah.
Dr Toyne: No, don’t say the blah, blah, blah. Come on, read it out.
Mr MALEY: Well, I am going to get to that. I am going to get to that.
Mr Stirling: What about informing the journalists up here?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr MALEY: So the very first hurdle which this new tough sentencing regime, this new scheme has …
Mr Stirling: Well, tell us how mandatory sentencing worked so effectively!
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Allow the member to have his say.
Mr MALEY:
As you will probably be aware, and I am certainly aware from my practice, there are numerous cases where a defendant before the court isn’t convicted. Indeed, there are many, many matters which are dealt with in the magistrates court and serious matters which are dealt with by way of some sort of fine or bond without proceeding to a conviction. So your scheme doesn’t even come into effect, has no effect at all unless a person is convicted. So a finding of guilt is not enough. He has got to be convicted. If you look at the Sentencing Act, these are the types of considerations a court is indeed obliged to consider when determining whether or not to convict a person. It is Section 8 of the Sentencing Act. It says: ‘In deciding whether or not to record a conviction’ - this is before we even get to your wondrous scheme, serious crime, serious time blah, blah, blah, it says:
Now, these are disjunctive limbs, so if a lawyer can stand before a court and persuade a magistrate or a judge that one of these limbs is satisfied, then the court, quite justifiably so, has the option of not recording a conviction. Now, perhaps I can give you an example a bit closer to home and you might understand. If a member of your back bench, the government’s back bench, committed a property offence and we’ll say hypothetically stealing parliamentary property, a microwave, and that person came to me …
Members interjecting.
Mr MALEY: If you will just listen.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Sanderson.
Mr MALEY: … and that person came to me with a worried look on his face and said: ‘Look, Mr Maley, I want you to represent me’ in my previous life. ‘I’ve got some real concerns about the property I’ve just stolen from parliament. I am a member of parliament, I am in the Labor Party.’
Mr Kiely interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Sanderson!
Mr MALEY: I would say to him: ‘You have nothing to worry about. The chances of you getting convicted I suspect are fairly slim. Do not worry about this new scheme. You’ll be right.’ I could certainly put his concerns to rest by the very first limb of your new scheme. ‘A court that records a conviction.’ Well, there are a lot of instances where you won’t even get to that very first limb. There won’t be a conviction recorded and people who commit serious property offences will be at large.
Now, it gets worse and I’m going to go to the first limb of 2(a). If a person is convicted, then the court must order the offender to serve a term of imprisonment. Compelling stuff. That’s tough on crime. Or order the offender to participate in an approved project under a community work order. Members of the public, when you read that to them, would think: ‘That sounds pretty serious’. Indeed, members of the press and the various press releases that you have produced, would be led to believe - and once they have looked at this in a cursory fashion - they would think: ‘That sounds serious; there’s a term of imprisonment’. The only thing that’s not here is that you haven’t specified the duration of any term of imprisonment.
I will give you an example of some other legislation. In the Misuse of Drugs Act, section 37(2) specifies a period of imprisonment of 28 days unless there are particular circumstances of the offence or the offender. Well, you don’t even have to run the gauntlet of establishing exceptional circumstances here because there is absolutely no period of time which the person can expect to receive in terms of a term of imprisonment. It’s certainly been the case in our magistrates court up here that people have been told: ‘Oh, look, you’re in prison until I adjourn. You are to sit there until the court rises’ and that’s it. So, effectively, to impose this scheme on the sentencing discretion which all magistrates and judges possess does not fetter, does not affect their powers, their obligations to sentence someone in accordance with the law.
The third limb of your supposed new scheme will certainly, and I use the word ‘scheme’ very loosely because it doesn’t resemble a scheme, but the third get-out, I suppose, is that a court doesn’t have to order a person to serve a term of imprisonment albeit if it’s for one second, or order that person to participate in an approved community work order if there are exceptional circumstances. As the Attorney-General quite properly said in his second reading speech, that phrase will fall to be interpreted according to the plain, literal and English meaning of the word. Unfortunately, from a practical perspective that will invariably involve several appeals to the appellate courts, perhaps to a single judge of the Supreme Court, and then they will probably decide what the parameters are of what this phrase ‘exceptional circumstances’ really means. Then, in the meantime, there will be several matters adjourned, they will be making applications to adjourn pending the outcome of an appeal, and then in six months’ time when the appeal is determined the matters come back before the magistrates court, we’ve got some sort of guidance as to what ‘exceptional circumstances’ means and those matters can then proceed.
The instructions you have given your solicitors to draft this particular piece of legislation do not reflect what has been told by both the Chief Minister and the Attorney-General to the honourable members of this House, nor does it reflect accurately what indeed is contained in their press releases and distributed to members of the Press Gallery. In my view, both the Chief Minister and the Attorney-General have been deliberately misleading in their public statements. The proof of this is in the legislation for anyone to read ...
Mr STIRLING: A point of order, Madam Speaker. I accept he used ‘misleading’ earlier, but when he talks about ‘deliberately misleading’ it becomes a question of substantive motion. So I would ask him to withdraw ‘deliberately misleading’.
Madam SPEAKER: He may use the term misleading, but what the Leader of Government Business is talking about is ‘deliberately misleading’, so if you just withdraw the ‘deliberately’ and leave it ‘misleading’.
Mr MALEY: Madam Speaker, I withdraw.
Perhaps I can put it this way: the Chief Minister and the Attorney-General have been less than honest with the Territory people. The drafting of this legislation, if you are relying upon what’s been said certainly in the press and in this House over the past two days, falls somewhere between being recklessly negligent, or a lie, or close to a lie ...
Mr STIRLING: A point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Well, I don’t think you said it was a lie. There is no point of order.
Mr STIRLING: He alleged. It’s one or the other. He alleged.
Members interjecting.
Mr MALEY: I touched upon that at the beginning but I just want to revisit it because I think it’s an important point. Of particular concern to me in terms of trying to ensure that only good law comes before this parliament…
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr MALEY: …and, indeed, is enacted, this precedent, the idea that in our very sacrosanct acts of parliament that the current Labor government is going to enshrine in some meaningless motherhood statements is unfortunate, and I am referring to section 78A and also 78B(1). The responsibility for this legislation and the way that it has been drafted must fall upon the shoulders of the Attorney-General.
If I can make this general comment: the legislation which is being considered, particularly the amendment to the Sentencing Act, call it the Sentencing Amendment Act No 3 of 2001, not only, in my view, returns the discretion to the magistrate or to the sentencing judge at large, it probably creates some further ambiguities, so it’s even worse than just going back to the position that we have been. There is no scheme, it’s probably a step behind that ...
Mr Stirling: Peter Maley, QC.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Leader of Government Business.
Mr MALEY: There are three other portions of legislation which are also being considered at this moment. I have dealt with the most substantive.
The Juvenile Justice Amendment Bill (No 2) of 2001 certainly does not reflect any notion that the sentencing process is tough on crime in respect of juveniles. The sentencing discretion has been returned to a magistrate or a judge, and that discretion is at large.
The other two bills which are currently being considered, the Juvenile Justice (Consequential Amendments) Bill, also the Sentencing (Consequential Amendments) Bill, are just that: they are consequential amendments, and I don’t wish to speak to either of those two bills at this stage.
Madam Speaker, accordingly, the opposition cannot and indeed does not support these bills.
Dr TOYNE (Attorney-General)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of Standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Juvenile Justice Amendment Bill (No 2) 2001 (Serial 5), Juvenile Justice (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2001 (Serial 6), Sentencing Amendment Bill (No 3) 2001 (Serial 7) and Sentencing (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2001 (Serial 8), passing through all stages at this sittings.
Motion agreed to.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, these are important pieces of legislation for this new government and they will put into place a commitment we gave at least 18 months ago very clearly to the Territory community that Labor did not support mandatory sentencing. We spelled out the reasons we did not support mandatory sentencing. We gave them a very clear outline over the next 18 months and today is the day that after extensive consultation in developing our alternative, this is our alternative. Today we are putting in place the elements of Labor’s six point plan on crime. So any sense that this is being done in a hasty manner cannot be corroborated by the facts, not at all. This is a very important piece of legislation for the Territory.
The opposition spokesperson on these matters is new to the House and I thought it was good to see him participate, but he really needs to take a bit more detail onboard because to sit there and simply say ‘the government was full of lots of rhetoric about serious crime means serious time’, he still has to do a lot more work to prove that rather than just hold onto the rhetoric of the Country Liberal Party. We had spelled out very clearly…
Mr Dunham: No, you have to tell us what serious time means. Does it mean going to gaol?
Ms MARTIN: For the member for Drysdale who loves to get things down from the Internet, I am disappointed that you have not yet been able to get Labor’s six point property crime down because it spells out very clearly what we are going to do - 18 months - very, very clearly. I think it is remiss not to have absorbed the information there, because I know the member for Drysdale is very keen to absorb every aspect of Labor Party position papers in the past and now Labor Party government policy.
We spelled out in a very detailed document why mandatory sentencing did not work and why our six point plan, which was developed with wide community consultation, will work. I am confident it will work. To have the member for Goyder simply say ‘rhetoric’ is wrong - I was going to say superficial, but it is better to say it is just simply wrong - because Labor’s six point plan is underpinned by ‘serious crime means serious time’. This is tough on crime as opposed to the regime on property crime the Territory had to wear for the last four years which was simply a stunt; a stunt by every way you could interpret it; a stunt from the Country Liberal Party that they clung to year after year despite the fact that the crime levels were increasing, despite the fact that it was not tough on crime. But we heard the rhetoric year after year.
I would like to refer to some of the statements that were made initially by previous Chief Ministers about why we needed mandatory sentencing. To quote the now Leader of the Opposition - and he was then the Attorney-General - on the reason we needed mandatory sentencing. This is from 1996: ‘We will do everything to ensure that they’ that is, Territorians:
When last year’s statistics came out from the annual police report that crime had risen by 22% across the Territory, the blinkers went on. The facts were there, staring the then government - now the opposition - in the face, and our community that property crime - he tried to bodgie up the figures. We know how good the current shadow spokesman on Treasury matters is at bodgying up figures. But he tried to bodgie up the figures in the annual police report by saying: ‘Oh, property crime had not increased’. It was the shiftiest exercise I have seen in a long time. The fact was that property crime had increased dramatically by 22% …
Mr Elferink: Is that a criticism of the Commissioner?
Ms MARTIN: The member for Macdonnell has been here long enough that he knows he does not make comments whilst he is sitting in his seat. Thank you.
So this previous government stuck to mandatory sentencing despite the patently obvious facts that it was not deterring property crime. In fact, it was doing nothing to deter property crime, and in fact we had seen property crime increase. So we know that in terms of how much you embraced it, that you were never going to let it go. But in a very open and honest way, the Labor Party set about to spell out what our alternatives were. There was wide community consultation. We held forums right across the Territory. We put out a substantial discussion paper. None of those kind of discussion papers came out from the then government, even in the run-up to the election. Talk about a policy-free zone. We put it out. Territorians knew what we stood for.
In June last year, we had an electronic campaign saying: ‘We have an alternative; it will do better. It is tough. It is: “serious crime means serious time”, and these are the ways we will do it’. So we spelt out this alternative. We gave Territorians every chance for feedback and we saw in the run-up to the election that the only issue left for the then CLP government was saying: ‘If you vote for Labor, they will scrap mandatory sentencing’. So it has been very clearly out there.
The mandate that we carry in here today is a very strong one from the Territory community because every election booth around the Territory had those big red and white signs - nothing else after 26 years in government; that is all you could say after 26 years in government: ‘Don’t vote Labor because they will scrap mandatory sentencing’. Don’t you sometimes wonder where you had got to? Don’t you sometimes wonder? Not a policy in sight. Not an initiative, not a positive plan in sight, only: ‘Don’t vote Labor because they will scrap mandatory sentencing’.
We told Territorians why we were going to scrap mandatory sentencing, and the bottom line was it did not work. It was unfair, it was inappropriate, it was ineffective, but the bottom line was that mandatory sentencing for property crime just did not work. Territorians realised that which is why - and it is a great privilege to have it happen - we are on this side and the former government is now the opposition. I think it is very important for the former government to appreciate that. You tried very hard in the run-up to the election to define yourselves as being different from the Labor Party by just that one element, by that one element of mandatory sentencing. The swing against the previous government was for more than mandatory sentencing, but let me say very clearly that was a strong component of it, a very strong component of it.
Lord knows the dollars that were spent by the CLP on advertising the fact that Labor will get rid of mandatory sentencing. It must have been a big component of the budget running up to the election. But the scare campaign was not enough because Territorians know that this new government is committed to dealing with all the elements that create property crime and the problems associated with property crime in our community. We have spelled them out and already, within 53 days of being elected to office, we have that legislation in the parliament and we are proudly standing by it.
It is about serious crime resulting in serious time. It is not a soft option like we saw with mandatory sentencing. It is not a soft option. We will have effective programs in place; we will have effective laws in place so that - I am very confident – we will proudly be able to look at the next set of statistics and say: ‘We are getting results’. Even though there was a Crime Statistics Unit set up, did we ever see any product from it? Not a skerrick, not a skerrick. Yet we will have a Crime Prevention Office. We will have a Crime Statistics Unit, and they will be reporting so we will know how this legislation is being put into effect, and we will know the impact that we are having across our community because the bottom line for this government is that we want to tackle the problem. We are not about stunts; we are about solutions.
The package that we are debating today includes the repeal of mandatory sentencing for property offences and it establishes the new crimes of home invasion and the invasion of a business premise. There is a new sentencing regime for adult offenders convicted of aggravated property offences. The era of inappropriate sentences and the distraction created by mandatory sentencing - and don’t let that be taken too lightly- the distraction created by mandatory sentencing had an enormous impact on the Territory. It had an enormous impact on the Territory and if we really want to look at one of the reasons where the previous administration took their eye off what was happening in the economy of the Territory, it was the fact that you spent months and months, now Opposition Leader, travelling the country defending mandatory sentencing and at the same time our construction sector was going to its knees, our unemployment rate was rising and the initiatives that should have been put in place were not happening. So it was a very serious distraction.
In this legislation, for the first time the seriousness of trashing of homes, businesses and cars will be recognised appropriately by criminal law. That is very different from mandatory sentencing for property crime. This is what we said: rather than having every single property crime caught up in the mandatory sentencing regime, we are targeting the offences that cause the greatest concern, the greatest grief in our community in terms of property crime. That is breaking into your home and trashing it; breaking into your business and trashing it, and damaging your car and in many cases trashing it and even burning it. They are the offences in the property crime regime that cause the most grief and they are the ones we are targeting.
Everyone in this House who has had their house broken into knows the damage it causes. Let me just talk about that because it is very important to understand that this is what we are targeting. You have your house broken into and it does undermine your confidence in going home. If you have children, it undermines their confidence in going home. When somebody has gone through your house, they might not have done a lot of damage but they have gone through your drawers. They have gone through every room in your house. They have invaded your privacy. In many cases they have invaded and trashed that privacy. That is what we are targeting: the real hurt that is done in our community where somebody breaks through a door, or breaks through a window and goes into your house, the undermining of that basic premise that home should be safe. So we are targeting that. We are targeting the trashing of homes, businesses and cars. Of course, with businesses, where you make your living, to have that invaded and trashed as well causes enormous damage.
The current laws focus on the monetary value of goods stolen or the damage caused, but those laws have failed to recognise that trashing a home, a business or a car can have a huge impact, even if the monetary value of the disturbance is relatively minor. That is something that was never recognised under mandatory sentencing. It is recognised with these new laws.
The other measures in the bills in front of us are in line with our six point property crime plan, and included are new powers for police to issue on the spot notices to appear in court and, importantly, scope for victims to express their views on sentencing through Victim Impact Statements. We will be upping the ability for victims to be able to contribute there. Again, mandatory sentencing cared nothing for victims. For all the rhetoric we heard from the previous government about ‘we are caring for victims’, there was nothing to underpin this. Yet this legislation from us recognises that, and we will move, together with other elements of our six point crime plan which look at how you can assist those who have been broken into, to fix up their house; to be able to get the best advice on what security they need, but to also restore the order, to get assistance, particularly when you are elderly, or you have a young family, to get the kind of help you need to make sure that your property is back and you can live there comfortably.
I congratulate the Attorney-General on this legislation. The Attorney-General and his department have worked very hard and very quickly to be able to get this legislation into place. I thank everyone involved with its preparation.
Madam Speaker, this government is tough on crime. The principle of serious crime equals serious time is our guiding principle when it comes to sentencing. We will be monitoring that and we will be making sure that the intention in this legislation is carried out in our courts and, if it is not, we will be wanting to know why. This is the end of mandatory sentencing on property crimes and the start of tough but fair and appropriate sentencing for Territorians who commit property crimes. It will effectively - and this is the bottom line - build a safer Territory community.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, during the previous election I was asked my views on mandatory sentencing, and I said I oppose it. It was not always clear from the election campaign that was stated against me, but all the time I said that I believe that when people trash a house, I regard that as a serious crime and they should go to gaol. I think the fault with the previous legislation was that there were still no alternatives for minor crimes. For instance, there was the case of somebody pouring water onto a cash register. To me, the alternative there would have been restitution or perhaps a community work order. In the case of someone just stealing a small item, a can of beer or a can of soft drink, there was no alternative but to send those people to gaol for 14 days.
This legislation has at least moved away from that and does allow the judicial system to put alternative forms of punishment. At the same time, I listened to the member for Goyder and I believe he has raised some serious concerns as well. If we are to believe that the gaol sentence is to reflect serious time for serious crime, then I think there has to be some way that when people are sentenced to gaol, notwithstanding that at least the judiciary now can give alternative sentences besides gaol, then there has to be some way that the gaol term is not frivolous, like half a day or something. It has to really reflect that.
My feeling is that I would be happy to see this legislation pass, but I think that we need to review it after six months to see if it is actually effective. To see if it effective, I think we need to produce a set of statistics. The Chief Minister has already spoken about setting up some criminal statistics to look at what the effect of the new legislation has. We need to not only look at what effect this new legislation has to make sure, as is stated in the notes here, that this will make the system more effective in combating the increasing crime rates, the statistics have to start now and in six months time we have to see if this is actually the case. We also have to see statistics corresponding to the clause ‘order the offender to serve a term of imprisonment’, that there is a record of what terms of imprisonment are being handed out by the courts. I think that needs to come back to this House to be reviewed. Perhaps the Auditor-General is the person who should also look at what goals the government wants from this act and sees whether in six months time they are being achieved.
My other concern is about the community work order. I must admit as a newcomer, trying to find out the definition of a community work order is fairly difficult. There are miles of legislation. The community needs to be satisfied as to exactly what a community work order is. We have had talk about Punitive Work Orders and community service orders being scrapped. Perhaps we need to clearly define what they were and what they are being replaced with.
I also think the community wants to know what happens if community orders are not carried out, not only if people do not turn up to do them, but if they turn up and then they just sort of have a nice day. What will happen to those people who do not carry out their community work orders? That needs to be clearly defined because if people are going to think that this new legislation is going to be serious about crime and that community work orders are an alternative to gaol, which I agree with, we need to clearly state exactly what community work orders are.
‘Exceptional circumstances’ does worry me. I do not quite fully understand the explanation that that will fit under common law. Again, people would like to know what exactly that means so that they can be satisfied that ‘exceptional circumstances’ are exactly that: exceptional circumstances.
Finally, I know we’re passing legislation which is all about sentencing people to gaol or not sentencing them to gaol, but I we always should keep in mind that this is at the tail end of a problem that we have in society. I mean, not all juveniles are bad people and most kids and most adults are terrific people. But I think that in all this discussion, we’re talking about sentencing people. We also have to look at focussing on support for families, looking after children and putting more things up, especially for young people, to do: sport, recreation, music. We have to encourage the positive side as well as looking at the far end of the system.
Madam Speaker, I hope that in all of this debate we don’t lose sight of some positive initiatives that should perhaps come from this Assembly.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I rise to comment on these cognate bills. The Sentencing Amendment Bill (No.3) and the Juvenile Justice Amendment Bill (No.2) are the two bills in question. The rest are consequential amendments, essentially, to those two bills. I rise also to confirm the comments of the Shadow Attorney-General that the opposition will oppose these bills in a number of ways, but certainly the substance of the opposition’s concern was reflected by the member for Goyder’s comments. It is one thing to have a philosophical argument which essentially was what the Chief Minister dribbled on about as to whether you believe in mandatory sentencing or you don’t. That is one issue. We know the Labor Party’s position since 1997 on that. They went in to the 1997 election with a belief in mandatory sentencing and then changed that when they lost the 1997 election, have since adopted a position of opposition to mandatory sentencing and I respect that position. I respect that position and I respect the fact that they are now in government.
But today, we are debating the actual legislation they have brought into this House and debating it in the context of the statements and the rhetoric that have been surrounding their supposed policies for some time. The member for Goyder, I believe, is the best placed person in this House - he was a practising defence lawyer, a person noted for his skill in that area - and whether you agree with the philosophical position or not, the member for Goyder’s comments are essentially this: what you have brought into this Chamber is simply rhetoric and in a defence lawyer’s hands, it will be disregarded. and the legislation that’s been brought forward to be passed will have no practical effect on the actions of defence lawyers and those who practice in the judicial system. Now, whether you agree with that or not is for people to consider, but his position is something that needs to be listened to in terms of the substance of the legislation that they have produced.
The other issue I would like to comment on briefly before I go into the bills themselves is this: we are in the third day of the first parliamentary session of the Ninth Assembly and this is a government that came forward with a policy of open, honest, accountable and transparent government. We are debating in the third day a very important bill, a very important bill that makes major amendments to the Criminal Code in the Northern Territory. We have 10 members of this Assembly who went to the election on a strong platform of supporting mandatory sentencing. We no longer hold government, but what we do have is a reflection in our electorates - and in the case of certainly three of them it’s almost 70% of the vote - that strongly supports mandatory sentencing. If the government decides to take a position to change the whole process, that is their right. If the government decides to change that process with some urgency, that is their right. We don’t deny that. All we ask for is the opportunity to peruse the legislation, the opportunity to have some capacity to examine the detail of the legislation and see whether or not the legislation is such that we can comment adequately on behalf of our own electorates.
Dr Toyne: Your shadow got it last Thursday. Last Thursday. He’s had plenty of time. It’s more time than you gave us. Does he sleep all day?
Mr BURKE: That is the parliamentary process, and that is something that no matter what you say about a previous CLP government, how arrogant you say a previous CLP government was, when we brought bills on urgency we might have put them through on urgency in one session, but I can’t recall a time except for immediate bills such as the railway that we’ve tried to run those bills through in 24 hours. Madam Speaker, that’s an abuse of the parliamentary process in anyone’s language. In anyone’s language, it’s an abuse of the process. It gives no capacity for the opposition as a group to consider the legislation and to be briefed.
The Attorney-General said that the shadow was briefed last Thursday and embargoed in what he could say, let’s be honest, embargoed in what he could say to himself, not share it with his colleagues and practically, you know, there is no capacity, there was no capacity to share that with his colleagues. The draft legislation that you brought forward to him last Thursday, he made a comment in the conference and the comment he made in the conference was that one of the clauses were such that a judge could suspend a sentence completely without any reference to any community work order.
Dr Toyne: Fixed.
Mr BURKE: You went away the next day and cobbled up an amendment and brought it through in your legislation. This is what happened last Thursday: the newest member of this parliament at a briefing says to all of your experts including the Solicitor-General of the Northern Territory ‘I’ve got a problem with a clause here’ and you cobbled that amendment through in 24 hours and you are suggesting to this Assembly today that everything is perfect. Everything is perfect for debate; we have had every opportunity to consider this legislation within 24 hours.
Mr Stirling: You brought more urgent motions than anyone.
Mr BURKE: You cannot point to an example except, I believe, the railway funding which you agreed with entirely, on one issue as to whether we brought legislation through within 24 hours of urgency. I ask a simple question: if you are not arrogant, if you are interested in honest, accountable, transparent, consultative government, if the new members of this Assembly who waxed so lyrically in the last two days about representing their electorates in a democratic way and it’s a whole new period for the Northern Territory, why don’t you give your colleagues here, some of whom have been in the House, you know…
Ms Lawrie: It will be a welcome change, won’t it? A welcome change.
Mr Kiely: You’re losing it, Denis.
Mr BURKE: The member for Sanderson, the new member for Karama, why don’t you have some consideration for your own colleagues who have been in the House the same time as you, have had no opportunity, one of whom was a practising lawyer, have had no opportunity to consider this legislation at all?
Mr Kiely: I am a citizen of this Territory. I know what my responsibilities are.
Mr BURKE: You’re not interested? Right. As long as we get down on the record that this honest, open, transparent, accountable, consultative government has no interest in the opposition having any capacity to interrogate legislation, to respond to the legislation. If you took the advice that you want to be an arrogant government, well Territorians will judge you for that. Territorians are expecting the sorts of things you said you would do and the first three days of this Assembly, what have we seen? We’ve seen PR statements in the first part of the day, PR statements which I believe, sadly, allow, and I hope you consider it, allow the government to fling without any recourse of the opposition to answer, allegations such as fraud which can then appear on the evening news.
Now, the fact that they can say them is one thing. If Madam Speaker gives you the right to say them, that’s one thing, the news has got no opportunity but to run it. But surely, if we’re talking about a House of debate, the opposition has some opportunity to respond. I mean, you can’t have a parliamentary system, you can’t have a forum of supposed debate if it doesn’t pass that set of tests. You have to be able to respond otherwise we don’t have a system at all. I ask you to consider that. We will oppose this legislation. We wouldn’t agree on lots of aspects but certainly, if you want real cooperation on the things that we can agree with, I would have thought that the member for Nelson is being extremely cooperative. That’s his right but, frankly, to expect him or any of us - to expect them to be across the details…
Dr Toyne: He got a briefing. So did Madam Speaker.
Mr BURKE: He got a briefing? The Attorney-General said he got a briefing. What about his ability to listen to the debate that comes from the Chamber? What about his ability to listen to other members such as such as the member for Araluen, also a lawyer, her capacity to interrogate the legislation, her capacity to contribute to this Chamber? I’m sure some of her comments will be just as enlightening as the new member for Goyder.
This is what the Chamber is about. If we are talking about passing serious legislation, let’s, please, have the opportunity to debate.
I would say to you this, also: Territorians and Australians, as I have said before, are looking for some cooperation and some concern for the fact that they are extremely worried about the sort of environment they are in at the moment. I would have thought that an issue such as this could have at least been the subject of some greater consultation, for example, a draft bill could have been laid on the Table. We would probably have preferred that the draft bill be passed in the November session, but, at the very least, it could have been debated in the next week of this sittings. It would have given some opportunity for consultation by my colleagues and myself to interest groups, and also to particular interest groups in our own electorates. None of that has happened. This is a divisive indulgence. It is an indulgence by the government because they now have the trappings of power and they want to exercise it, that is one thing. But it is also divisive to the community because the best part of 50% of, I believe, the Territory community, and I would actually say more, don’t agree with mandatory sentencing being overturned, and certainly are looking for anything that replaces it to have some meat.
The garbage you have brought in here today, as the member for Goyder has pointed out, is nothing but rhetorical crap, and that is the fact of it. It will have no effect, Madam Speaker, it will have no effect on the actions of …
Dr Toyne: That’s quality debate.
Members interjecting.
Mr STIRLING: A point of order, Madam Speaker! There is a point of quality of debate and terminology used and I don’t think that is acceptable. I would ask him to withdraw it.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, I think you should withdraw that term.
Mr BURKE: Madam Speaker, speaking to the point of order, it is not as serious a word as fraud.
Madam SPEAKER: But I have just asked you to withdraw it.
Mr BURKE: I withdraw it, but I ask you to consider some of the other words that are used in this Chamber.
Madam Speaker, let’s not mistake this simple fact. These bills allow criminals to go free. The Labor government is the criminal’s friend. That’s what this legislation will do, that’s what will be the result. In their policy statements, the Labor Party said that their amendments to the Sentencing Act, and I quote:
And how have these seemingly strong words been translated in these bills? I will quote the new clause 78A headed ‘Purpose’. It says:
Now, that is the so-called strong message this parliament is sending to the courts. There is no mention of sending offenders to gaol if they commit these crimes. They can’t even get their rhetoric right. They say that serious crime means serious time and that is certainly not the case with these bills.
Let’s not forget, under the present legislation, if a court found an adult guilty, it had to proceed to conviction and impose a minimum gaol sentence that had to be served. There were limited exceptional circumstances the courts could take into account, but these were detailed by this parliament and placed in the Act. This new regime says there is no requirement for a court to proceed from a guilty finding to a conviction. No requirement. The offender can go perfectly free. This new regime says if an offender is convicted of an aggravated property offence, he or she must go to gaol unless the court suspends the sentence or unless the court imposes a community work order or unless the court can find extenuating circumstances. Otherwise, free. Off you go. No worries. And this is what my colleague, an experienced defence lawyer, was trying to point out to you. What are the exceptional circumstances? That’s a good question because the government doesn’t know and they hope someone will figure it out through the appellate court over time.
This government will let the courts decide why someone who trashes a Territorian’s home or steals their property should go free because of some exceptional circumstance that the court has found. And let’s not overlook some of the recent ones. For example, perhaps drinking too much caffeine could be an exceptional circumstance. Perhaps drinking some of those strange soft drinks that kids get into nowadays could be an exceptional circumstance. Will being a drug addict be an exceptional circumstance? Will having previously being gaoled under a mandatory sentencing law be an exceptional circumstance? We don’t know and nor does the government. Perhaps being fined and convicted for contempt could be an exceptional circumstance in a plea of mercy.
What we do know is that the people who commit these crimes will not be going to gaol, and what we do know is that the people who commit an offence against section 210 of the Criminal Code, that is, any person who steals is no longer to be considered to be part of this laughingly new tough regime of ‘serious crime means serious time’ because you’ve got rid of that schedule. What we do know is that someone who just breaks into a Territorian’s home is no longer covered by this regime. Worth looking at. If you just break in, have a look, maybe do some defecation or something - certainly don’t create an aggravation because it has got to be more than $5000 to be an aggravation; tell that to the average Territorian - you’re fined. You’re fined. Have a look around, bit of a peruse, see what the place is like, case it out, maybe come back some other day. Not a crime under your new tough serious time legislation.
What we do know from this legislation is that someone taking your car, someone stealing your tinny or caravan or trailer and illegally using it, will not be covered. Check your legislation. Nor will damaging a Territorian’s property. This is the classic: under this new tough regime, damaging a Territorian’s property is only a serious crime if it is damaged above $5000. Now, so much for the battlers. So much for the battlers. The joke of the tough regime is you’ve got to be pretty wealthy before this sort of aggravation kicks in or any of this legislation has any effect. The threshold, I will remind you, in the past, was $500 and above that we considered it a serious crime and I would suggest to you that Territorians out there consider it serious, never mind the Territorian who scrimps and saves to get a new TV for the family and sees that trashed - not a problem - or those who come home and find their homes violated and the play station, or the kid’s bike or scooter trashed. That is a minor problem. Sorry, that is not serious crime according to this government, and not only are they not going to insist the person who did it should go to gaol, they are not even going to suggest to the courts that the offender should go to gaol.
The Attorney-General yesterday spoke about offences that have a high impact on victims. Does he not understand that when someone breaks into your home, irrespective of what they steal or damage or not steal or damage, that is a high impact and that is the position we have always taken in the past, and that’s been reflected in our legislation in the past. It’s now gone. Mothers, fathers, children, they don’t feel safe. They don’t feel secure in their homes after a simple break-in and that’s the fact of it. We can all recount those stories around the place. That’s what we tried to address in our legislation. You, however, are saying it isn’t really important unless $5000 worth of damage has been inflicted. You are wrong. I cannot understand how the Chief Minister, who has told us she has been a victim of a number of crimes, has allowed you to describe such break-ins as trivial.
However, the list of these so-called trivial crimes goes on. For example, the life blood of criminal enterprise, the receiver of stolen goods - the person who pays the thief, the burglar - they are no longer to be regarded as serious criminals by this new government. All of that is gone in their new legislation. Do you not realise if this criminal element is allowed to get off scot free, then there will always be an outlet for stolen goods? Not picked up at all in your legislation.
Dr Toyne: What about receiving stolen goods? That’s still an offence.
Mr BURKE: Madam Speaker, we have said, and said constantly, that Labor was soft on crime; it was politics, it was campaign rhetoric. What we see now is that the Labor government is the criminal’s friend. That is what we have seen with this legislation. Unfortunately for Territorians, what these bills show…
Mr Stirling: Says the bloke who wanted to build a new prison. You wanted to give them a Taj Mahal to live in, you goose. You idiot!
Madam SPEAKER: The Member for Nhulunbuy, order!
Mr BURKE: Settle him down. He gets more money now. You new blokes, settle him down, he does not have to get this excited any more. He has got all the trappings of power and everything. Settle down, Syd.
Mr Kiely: He’s not depressed, that’s for sure.
Mr BURKE: Do you want to move a point of order?
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr BURKE: Unfortunately for Territorians, this government is …
Mr Stirling: The prisoners are sorry you got chucked out. They were looking forward to their new prison, their Taj Mahal. They won’t be getting it under us.
Mr BURKE: Prisoners will not need any more extensions to Berrimah Prison. You have cut that off the capital works program. You know why? There will be no more prisoners, that is why. Why do you need money to build extensions to Berrimah gaol when you won’t have any prisoners? You are not only soft on crime, you are positively supportive of crime!
Mr Stirling: We’ll put a demountable down there if we need it. You wanted to give them new, luxurious accommodation.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The Chief Minister herself pointed out the decorum in this Chamber might be a problem. I now point to the Deputy Chief Minister and …
Madam SPEAKER: I suggest that both sides of the House should remember that. There is no point of order.
Mr BURKE: Look at the comments of the Attorney-General in his second reading speech yesterday. He said that his government rejects a regime that operates unjustly and inappropriately just for the sake of appearing to be tough on crime. But what has he done? He introduces a regime that is not only not tough on crime, it does not even appear to be tough on crime. He said he is introducing a much fairer scheme, but that begs the question: fairer to whom; fairer to criminals or fairer to Territorians who are victims?
The only people who benefit from this new scheme are the criminals who enter Territorians’ homes, who trash Territorians’ homes, and who steal Territorians’ property. Is that what the Attorney-General now means, that he has introduced a scheme that is fairer for these criminals? It certainly is not fairer to the victims whose homes have been violated. He does, of course, make a token gesture to the victims by allowing them to tell the court what sentence should be handed down in their Victim Impact Statement. Well, that is a good move, but I fear the outcome might not be to your liking because what the victim will do and what the Attorney-General will do and what the government will do when victims urge the courts to gaol the offender who has done harm to them in their home and the court, in its wisdom, decides otherwise remains to be seen.
Does being able to put your view in the formal Victim Impact Statement presented to the court create an expectation that it just may have an impact on the court? The rest of this regime suggests otherwise, and just may make the victim feel that they have been done over again. Again, I point to the comments of the member for Goyder who pointed squarely to that fact. As the Attorney said in his second reading speech, the court can have regard to any factor it considers exceptional.
I believe the Attorney-General and this government have totally failed to understand the very powerful emotions that exist in all of us for justice delivered. In government, we on this side of the House believed one of our most important roles was to reflect the ambitions and desires of Territorians. We believed that there was a strong desire in the community for harsh punishment for those who attack the sanctity of a Territorian’s home. We understood that Territorians had lost faith in the courts to impose adequate punishment without clear direction from their government. That is why we introduced mandatory sentencing.
This government comes from a completely different philosophical point of view, and that is the fact. They take the stance that they know best, and they will tell the community what is best for them. They will educate the community so that political correctness reigns in the Northern Territory. I believe they are wrong.
Despite the efforts of those now in government to rewrite history, mandatory sentencing was introduced to meet the demands of the community for real justice, and it was introduced to punish criminals. It was introduced to punish criminals. Full stop. End of story. Any suggestion that it may reduce crime was a hoped-for consequence and not the prime reason for its introduction, and you only have to look at the Hansard to see that.
Just on that point, with regards to the effect of mandatory sentencing, I have a presentation prepared by the Criminal Justice Statistics Group of the Attorney-General’s Department, the group that the Chief Minister just said had never put out any information. From that Attorney-General’s Department group, it stated that the fall in annual property offences reported, pre-mandatory sentencing average, 12 700 per 100 000 of population; post-mandatory sentencing average, 11 000 per 100 000 of population. The Chief Minister and those who have been in the House said…
Ms Martin: 22% was the increase in crime.
Mr BURKE: I never once pointed to the fact that mandatory sentencing was the cause, but the fact that property offences went down is a simple fact.
Ms Martin: They didn’t go down.
Mr BURKE: And if you don’t believe that …
Mr Stirling: They did not go down. You are misleading the House. 22%.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr BURKE: The member for Nhulunbuy says I am misleading the House. This brief is prepared by the Attorney-General’s Department. Now, the allegation is now - swing to your left and tell her that she has been deliberately misleading…
Ms Martin: I beg your pardon? A point of order…
Mr BURKE: …because it has got Attorney-General’s Department Crime Statistics Units. I table that for the benefit of honourable members.
Ms MARTIN: A point of order, Madam Speaker! There is a long-established precedent in this House that you do not even indicate that advisors are here, and you do not point to them. I think that is something that the Opposition Leader should remember.
Madam SPEAKER: I take note of your comments and it is true. Leader of the Opposition, continue your remarks.
Mr BURKE: It is certainly a response to the allegations that were made that I was making this up. It is signed by the Attorney-General’s Department. I table the document. I suggest to the Attorney-General that if he needs an explanation, he should ask his own independent advisors, because that is where I got it from.
The Attorney-General, in his introduction of these bills, said they will:
Under the old legislation you knew exactly what would happen. You would go to gaol, and if you did it again, you would go to gaol for a longer time.
I am going to run out of time. I have some more comments. I will probably use one of my colleagues to present these comments. But I ask the question: where in this new regime are Territorians to find the greater level of personal protection that the Attorney-General points out? He attacks the present regime because it offered no scope for discretion - and what discretion is needed when you are dealing with someone who has defiled your home is something that I do not see in terms of protecting the victim in this legislation. All I see is discretion for the criminal to ensure the criminal has every opportunity to escape any punishment, or any worthwhile punishment absolutely.
The Attorney-General says the present regime has failed because:
The discretion we put into our legislation was in the discretion between minimum and maximum. What we have at the moment is absolute discretion. That is your philosophical position, that is your right as government, but do not try and run a line in this House that somehow you are being tough on crime because it is unadulterated garbage.
It is a deceit of Territorians. It is an abuse of the system and responsibilities of this House to run that legislation through so quickly. I look forward to the opinion of my electorate when I explain to them in some detail what exactly this new government proposes with this awful legislation.
Debate adjourned.
Continued from 18 October 2001.
Mr STIRLING (Police, Fire and Emergency Services): Madam Speaker, I thought, listening to the debate before we rose for lunch, that it was very sad to see the opposition seemingly locked in time and unable to move away from a position that was set for them, and a course that was set for them, in relation to mandatory sentencing by former Chief Minister Shane Stone who was probably in 1997 at about the ascendancy of his Chief Ministership and his leadership of the Country Liberal Party and the Northern Territory government at that time.
Well, times move on, as do players. Suzanne Cavanagh no doubt was a strong supporter of mandatory sentencing. Not there today. Shane Stone has not been there for a long time and yet we still have a Country Liberal Party locked, locked like they are in a vice, and wedded to this ideal of mandatory sentencing whose time, if there ever was a time for it, has simply come and gone. We do not believe there ever was time for it but Territorians delivered on 18 August this year, a decision to reject the CLP and their policies. What the Country Liberal Party need to do if they are going to provide an effective opposition in the Northern Territory is have a good look at themselves. Have a good look at the policies that they went to the Northern Territory with on 18 August and begin to revisit some of those policies and some of those tired old ideas because they were rejected by the people of the Northern Territory. I daresay they will be rejected again at a future election by the Northern Territory unless they get their heads around the table and start to listen to people and start to appreciate that people do not want those tired, stale ideas.
They had an opportunity this morning, I thought, to show that they had moved on and left the past behind them, at least show some willingness to listen and to move on and to reinvent themselves and present themselves as a fresh and new CLP.
I can appreciate that the same leader is there. I do not have a problem with that because I always believed this about the member for Brennan: I do not believe mandatory sentencing was ever his idea. I do not believe he was ever wedded to it in the same way that the former Chief Minister Shane Stone was because he saw great political appeal in it in heading to an election. I do not believe this current Leader of the Opposition ever was that married to mandatory sentencing. He was stuck with it because he was Attorney-General in the Cabinet that made these decisions and he delivered on behalf of the CLP government in his role as Attorney-General. But I have seen at different times, both in here and outside this Chamber, streaks of decency, dare I say streaks of compassion, in the member for Brennan. Not often seen, but on occasions you do see it and ideals like that, if you hold them dearly, do not sit well with mandatory sentencing. He had an opportunity this morning to stand free of Shane Stone, free of Suzanne Cavanagh and the lead in the saddle that weighed the CLP down. He had an opportunity to take the party a step forward and I was disappointed that he was unable to do that.
The purpose, of course, of all of these bills is to repeal the mandatory sentencing regime for property offences. The government, as I said, went to the people of the Territory last August saying clearly that the mandatory sentencing regime was not working and it was having no effect on crime rates. If we look at the Attorney-General’s Department Criminal Justice Statistics Group, just on the last couple of years’ figures, in 1998-99 property offences were 22 546. In 1999-2000 it did drop to 19 060 but in 2000-01, the last year on this chart for which the figures are available, back up to 22 240 offences. That is what we were saying was occurring; there was no reduction; the prime reason for bringing mandatory sentencing into the sentencing regime was to deter these types of offences and it simply was not working. It had been in place in any case in our view for far too long. There was no review mechanism built into it; something that the Independent member this morning was talking about, the need for review. There was no review process. The only review process that had any effect on mandatory sentencing was of course the electoral cycle itself with the Country Liberal Party being turfed out.
The victims got nothing out of mandatory sentencing and the judiciary, of course, had no room for discretion which we believe is the cornerstone of a legal system that separates the judiciary and makes it independent of government. Those imprisoned under the mandatory sentencing regime were often subject to unjust and inappropriate sentencing. At the election we also went to the people of the Territory with a plan to build a better Territory, a plan that included the six point plan on crime prevention and that plan, we believe, will make the criminal justice system more effective and ensure that Territorians have a greater sense of security and protection.
These bills, despite what the Leader of the Opposition and the new shadow Attorney-General were saying this morning, are the culmination of a long period of consultation and discussion with Territorians. We got out there, we talked to people, we tossed these ideas around and we listened to their views. Of course, many of these people were the very same people who the previous Country Liberal Party government had stopped listening to and stopped talking to. As Senator Grant Tambling said last week, when talking about the new Leader of the Opposition and the new deputy leader, he said they made the mistake that the enemy was anyone who criticised, competed, intervened or whinged about what they were doing. Now, Senator Tambling is a perceptive politician and I believe he is a great loss to the conservative side of politics in the Northern Territory. But who was the enemy of the new leadership of the opposition that Senator Tambling was referring to? Well, there were lots of them. Not just the judiciary and the legal profession who were saying that mandatory sentencing did not work. It was not just the police saying it was having no impact on crime rates and that their jobs were being unnecessarily made more difficult. It was not just social workers who were saying juveniles had been denied the possibility of realising their full potential by being imprisoned for often trivial offences. It was not federal parliamentary committees that were questioning the mandatory sentencing regime. I will tell you who it was: it was hundreds and thousands of ordinary Territorians who the Leader of the Opposition made his enemy.
We saw the Country Liberal Party come to this election trumpeting this mandatory sentencing regime, particularly in the last week or so before the election itself. Hundreds and thousands of dollars spent on an advertising campaign warning Territorians that a vote for Labor was a vote to throw out mandatory sentencing. Well, they got it right. They got it right. That is exactly what it was and many of the people that they had stopped listening to had been telling them themselves that mandatory sentencing wasn’t the answer. And they wouldn’t listen.
It wasn’t the enemy talking, as I’ve explained; it was the thousands of Territorians who lined up on Saturday 18 August and told them what they thought of the Country Liberal Party and their mandatory sentencing regime. When it came to the election I think they looked back rather than forward and said: ‘Hey, mandatory sentencing got us home in 1997. It’s our one shot in the locker; let’s try it again. It was a winner four years ago and it can be again’.
They had stopped listening, as I said. They believed it would deliver them another four years even though everyone was saying that it simply wasn’t going to work, that it is unjust and it makes the difficult job of police even more difficult. They ran the election late in the campaign as a referendum on mandatory sentencing and, as I said, thousands of reasonable Territorians accepted that challenge and they lined up and cast their judgment on both the Country Liberal Party government and the mandatory sentencing regime. We see the culmination of that arrogance, of that failure to listen and the culmination, I think, of the type of paranoia that led the CLP to distrust the judgment of ordinary, decent Territorians and their insane adoption of, as Senator Tambling noted last week and I quote: ‘a we-know-what’s-best approach to government’.
As the government, we are delighted to be able to repeal the current mandatory sentencing regime for property offences. There was a time when I thought and looked forward to being the Attorney-General to deliver that. That is not the case. It does not lessen my pride one inch to stand here alongside the Attorney-General of the Northern Territory in full support of the bills that he is putting in the House today. It is with enormous pride that we do this because it does acknowledge that we listen to Territorians. We went to the election with a strong six point plan to target crime, not for the sake of appearing tough on crime but because we listened to what Territorians wanted and we delivered a plan that we believe will work because it is just and it properly attacks the sorts of offences that ordinary Territorians are worried about.
Territorians know that under our plan, those who should go to prison will go to prison. Territorians should know that the Police Administration Amendment Bill 2001 will provide police with more efficient processes to bring alleged offenders to court. It should be noted that it will reduce costs and the use of police and court resources by creating what essentially will become a one-step process. The purpose of the bill is to provide police with the power to issue a Notice to Appear that will require the alleged offender, other than a juvenile, to attend court to answer a charge for an offence. Justice (Consequential Amendments) Bill (No.2) 2001 provides that if a person does not attend court as required by notice, the court may issue a Warrant to Arrest.
One aspect of the juvenile sentencing regime will remain: the court will maintain the option to order participation by a juvenile offender in a diversionary program. It is important to note that with the repeal of the juvenile mandatory sentencing regime, all juvenile sentencing will be at the complete discretion of the court, as all fair minded Territorians would want it to be. There is provision in both the Sentencing Act and the Juvenile Justice Act for Victim Impact Statements that may contain a statement of the victim’s wishes in respect of sentencing.
These bills are the result of listening to ordinary Territorians in workshops. When I was for that time shadow Attorney-General, I participated in many of those workshops and those discussion groups that got us to where we are and helped get us to where we are today. This was one of our major election promises. It is particularly pleasing to me that it does come down as one of our first legislative initiatives.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bills to honourable members and I do ask - I do genuinely ask - of the opposition that they do have a good look at where they stand on issues such as this because time moves on and if they are going to be a credible opposition and be in a position to offer a credible alternative next time round, the people will be looking for a party that reflects 2005 attitudes, views and aspirations of Territorians, not those that so convincingly won in 1997 but failed in 2001.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I find it astonishing that the Leader of Government Business comes in here and says to the people of the Northern Territory: ‘Look, we’re bringing a new, fresh look at our system of government. We got the people’s mandate to put together the policies, to bring forward the policies that we said we were going to bring forward to the people of the Northern Territory’. I listened to the Leader of Government Business with some astonishment, because this was the same Leader of Government Business yesterday who entered the parliament after making these promises - his leader’s face appears on the Labor in the Northern Territory position paper on good government. This is the Labor Party that came in here on the promise to Territorians that Labor believes it requires vigilance by the parliament and the people to ensure that democracy is protected, not whittled away, and that institutions are strengthened, not weakened, by the power of the Executive.
This position paper goes on and on describing how they are going to change good government in the Northern Territory and to restore the parliament’s power here in the Northern Territory. Yet what is the first thing they do when they came in here on Tuesday when debate was started? We started setting up our committee system and the Leader of Government Business, on those promises that he made to Territorians, started gagging debate. We hear the honourable members’ noble speeches about the power of the parliament, and specifically the member for Johnston whose maiden speech I listened to very carefully, start saying how important it is to be a member of parliament and how wonderful it is to be here in this powerful institution and then three times before he even delivers his maiden speech, three times votes to gag the opposition. I invite the member for Johnston to think about this. Three times. Three times they gagged debate. Even when he was in 1997 going through the outrageous process of trying to undermine your dignity absolutely, he was allowed to speak as well as another member from the opposition on that very first day of the eighth parliamentary term, and he was allowed to speak at some length. Now, what do we hear from the members opposite? We are interested in good government, we are interested in open government, we are interested in all these things that the parliament has to do and yet when they get the very first opportunity…
Mr KIELY: A point of order, Madam Speaker. I am wondering what the relevance of this to mandatory sentencing is.
Mr ELFERINK: Speaking to the point…
Madam SPEAKER: Excuse me. We must keep our comments relevant to the subject. I am sure the member for Macdonnell, you are entitled to have some leeway, will get back to the subject.
Mr ELFERINK: Absolutely, Madam Speaker. This comes down to their credibility. The Leader of Government Business has the audacity to walk in here and say: ‘Oh, we are so credible. We are credibility personified’ and we hear from the new members how they’re going to be terrific parliamentarians. The members opposite, all of them, are slaves to the party process and it is still going to be pursuing their system of executive parliament here in the Northern Territory. Welcome to the new members of parliament of the Northern Territory.
Mandatory sentencing was designed to do a job in its time. I listened very carefully to the Leader of Government Business and his comments in relation to this. It was designed to do a job and that job was to restore the public’s belief that they were going to get some sort of response out of the court system after their houses were being broken into. That was the job of mandatory sentencing. I cannot recall how often I have heard, prior to 1997, how desperately disappointed people were with the court system in terms of the sentencing practices. That is what mandatory sentencing was designed to do. It was designed to put villains in gaol. People who had gone through a criminal justice system and, dare I say, the fairest criminal justice system in the world, and then if they were found guilty, they were then sentenced. The problem with the sentencing regimes, or the lack of a sentencing regime, the use of courts at the time in relation to the Sentencing Act, was that the courts were failing to satisfy public opinion.
The government of the day was very, very sensitive to those issues and so they introduced mandatory sentencing. Certainly the courts must have been aware of the public pressure that was being brought to bear, but then again the courts don’t face an electorate every four years or so, and therefore the courts are not as responsive to public concerns in the areas of sentencing. That was the principle behind mandatory sentencing.
Mr Kiely: Separation of powers.
Mr ELFERINK: I am glad you said that. I’m coming to that. What I heard at the time from the members opposite is that mandatory sentencing will fill our prisons to overflowing. Juvenile detention centres would have people sleeping on the floor. After mandatory sentencing was introduced, Wildman River Juvenile Detention Centre was shut down because there were not enough people to put in it. The Don Dale Centre was never full during the period of mandatory sentencing.
This point that we were going to fill the gaols with people never eventuated. So we hear today that people aren’t afraid of facing the mandatory sentencing processes; we hear today from the Attorney-General that it had no effect. It had no effect on people and villains whatsoever. I ask the Attorney-General, and I invite him to clarify this point to me in his address in reply: why are so many people currently seeking adjournments to avoid facing the current regime? Obviously it is having some impact on them. It does work on their psyche and it has created some fear in their mind. I find it curious that the courts are already signaling that they are looking forward to working under the Labor Party’s new sentencing regime, the weaker sentencing regime, so that they can engage in sentencing practices that they want to engage in.
So the message from the courts is quite clear to the community of the Northern Territory: we are not going to put people in gaol.
Dr Toyne: The separation of powers. Have you heard about that?
Mr ELFERINK: We are not going to put people in gaol.
Dr Toyne: No, we haven’t said that.
Mr Wood: Not for minor offences.
Mr ELFERINK: We are not going to put people in gaol at all.
Mr Wood: One can of beer is not a reason to go to gaol.
Mr ELFERINK: I will pick up on the interjection from the member from Nelson. That particular incident to which you were referring, the one that was run by the Labor Party at the time, the one can of beer is no reason to put somebody in gaol. It is when you are standing in someone else’s property at the time, at night time. It is when you are standing in someone else’s property at the time.
Occasionally you hear it from people around the traps that mandatory sentencing was designed as a racist policy. I do not accept that. Nowhere in the Sentencing Act is any person identified by their race at all. It is not identified at any point in the Act. If the members opposite can identify anywhere in the Sentencing Act where a person is identified by their race, I will support their amendment to remove that from the Sentencing Act. The point is that the mandatory sentencing process assumes that a person, no matter who they are, who comes before the courts …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Would the member please resume his seat for one moment. Now, I need to remind you that you need to direct your comments to me, not across to that side of the House and the people on that side of the House need to remember that they should not be responding across at the member. If you would like to continue.
Mr Mills: They are only new.
Madam SPEAKER: Did you hear me? Well, take note.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, thank you for your counsel. Nowhere in the legislation is there any reference to race, and the assumption by any court, any court where a person comes before it on a criminal matter, is that that court will deal with that person individually and that person is responsible, if found guilty, for the actions that have brought them before that court.
The other issues to which other people refer and then try, through some fallacy, to build a systemic race issue into it, is an issue that deals often with the socioeconomic background of the people and other issues that affect that person over their lifetime, but it does not abrogate them from their responsibilities in specific criminal acts which bring them before the court and for which guilty verdicts are returned upon them.
I have also heard around the traps and the debates about the separation of powers. This is an astonishing accusation and it shows an astonishing lack of understanding about what the separation of powers was, why it was created and how it has evolved over time. It was created or penned down as a philosophy by a French fellow by the name of Montesquieu as far back as prior to the French Revolution where he said that the Executive and the parliament had to be two separate entities. He didn’t refer to the judiciary at the time. That’s something that has been factored in as it, as a philosophy, over time has developed. There are three tiers to our system of civil society. They are separated but they are also inextricably linked. Why did Montesquieu separate the powers? I will tell you why Montesquieu separated the powers: so that when one of those powers failed, another could intervene to keep the civil order and to maintain the society in which they lived.
Prior to 1997, before the introduction of mandatory sentencing laws, there was an expectation in our society that the courts were going to do a job which they were not doing. It was incumbent upon the parliament to interfere because of the expectations of the people in the community at the time. That is not a breach of the separation of powers; it is how the separation of powers is designed to work.
Secondly, we breach the separation of powers, if you accept that argument, every single time we pass a bit of legislation in here which affects the operation of the courts. Today we have heard the Attorney-General set maximum penalties in relation to particular offences, and he is hoping to push those through. Is he breaching a court’s discretion? Is he breaching a court’s discretion in relation to sentencing? Absolutely, he is. Absolutely he is interfering with that court’s discretion. A court, by law, may not under any circumstances sentence a person to greater than the period outlined in the Code. A person who commits a common assault faces a maximum penalty of two years. That doesn’t mean that a court can sentence them to 48 years imprisonment.
Mr Bonson: You don’t understand the separation of powers, do you?
Mr ELFERINK: It means that the interference of the parliament in the court system occurs on a regular basis. It is how our system works. We are also a superior court, for the information of the member for Millner.
I listened also with some dismay to the Chief Minister’s comments a little bit earlier in relation to what she had to say about the figures that were published by the Police Commissioner in his annual report. She suggested that in some way the government had interfered with the Police Commissioner when putting together his annual report. I am horrified at the suggestion. The minister for Police very recently suggested that the Commissioner had worked with distinction, and I believe he has. But to suggest that that Commissioner, a man who has worked with distinction, has allowed himself and his position to be used to create an annual report, a report to which he puts his signature prior to publication, and suggests that he in some way has allowed himself to be used in a political sense is an indictment upon him.
If that is the Chief Minister’s position in relation to the Commissioner of Police, then she has appropriate actions which she should take. If that is not her position, she should certainly not come into this parliamentary Chamber and make those sorts of inferences about the Commissioner of Police. That is an astonishing allegation to make. It is an astonishing thing for the Chief Minister to say. I look forward to the Attorney-General, in relation to his comments about that particular matter, because I think it is incumbent upon the Attorney-General to say so.
At the outset, I realised that this particular piece of legislation was going to be turned over. I accept that the people of the Northern Territory have given the Labor Party a mandate to govern the Northern Territory, and I congratulate them for it wholeheartedly. I look forward to being a robust parliamentarian and challenging them on when they fail. But they offer us nothing in terms of what they are going to replace. I listened carefully to the second reading speech by the Attorney-General. He says: ‘We have a six point plan to fix crime in the Northern Territory’. I am interested to notice that he announces in the opening couple of paragraphs of his speech is that police officers can issue Notices to Appear. Now, this is a blinder. We are going to fight crime in the Northern Territory by getting the police to fill out a form. That is an absolutely incredible assertion by the Attorney-General, and I would like to seek some clarification that that is one of the six points: ‘Freeze, mate! Drop the crowbar or I’ll fill out a form!’. That is basically what is being suggested in the second reading speech. I would love to hear from the Attorney-General in relation to that particular issue.
Dr Toyne: Where do I say that? Nothing about a crowbar.
Mr ELFERINK: Actually I will quote the Attorney-General, now that he has interjected:
and he goes on to say:
I am interested also in relation to some other comments that the Attorney-General had when he said:
That is true, but as I pointed out earlier, the problem was that those unjust and inappropriate sentences which have appeared under the mandatory sentencing regime - and they have from time to time - were not as profoundly unjust as some of the sentences that were being dished out prior to the introduction of the mandatory sentencing process.
I am curious also about the comments that the Attorney-General made in relation to the inadequate sentences applied to more serious offences such as housebreaking.
How? Mandatory minimum sentencing did not put a cap on the sentencing process whatsoever. The legislation places a cap on it, and it is a substantial cap in terms of the length of time that somebody could be spending in gaol, but how has the mandatory sentencing regime enforced a system of sentencing which has provided inadequate sentences for housebreaking? I would love to hear how the Attorney-General justifies the particular remark. I am quite surprised by that.
The Attorney-General also goes on to say that the regime was subject of a complaint to the United Nations Human Rights Committee. So? If I am charged with drink driving, I am still innocent until proven guilty. Have we got a result from that particular committee process? Were we convicted by them, or is it simply the lodging of the complaint which justifies a condemnation by the Attorney-General? If so, is that the orientation that he is going to bring to his role as Attorney-General in relation to criminal law here in the Northern Territory?
I am also surprised about the comments he makes in his second reading speech about including new offences of aggravated home and business invasion, car trashing as well as robbery, unlawful entry, assault with attempt to steal, aggravated criminal damage. Having looked at the amendments - and I am sure that we will debate those out when we get to the Criminal Code amendment – I am still having trouble trying to differentiate between those particular offences. However, that is for a later debate.
The process of the separation of powers - returning to it very quickly - also comes up in the Attorney-General’s comments. The Attorney-General says:
The courts have indicated so far, from what I can make out, that they are looking forward to the removal of the mandatory sentencing regime so that they can return to their traditional sentencing practices. These are the sentencing practices that caused such grave dissatisfaction in the community in the past. What you are doing is watering down the ability for people to put pressure on the courts to have sentences which are reflective of their expectations.
You say: ‘Yes, well, they can fill out a Victim Impact Statement and in that Victim Impact Statement they can actually say what they would like to see happen to the offender once he has been found guilty’. But the truth of the matter is that that is creating an expectation that will not be met by the courts unless there is some mechanism or model in which you can force the courts to take due notice of those sorts of statements. But even a Victim Impact Statement in its own right, I would suggest to the Attorney-General, is a guide; it is something that may influence the judge if he chooses to allow it to influence him.
I find it difficult to talk about the exceptional circumstances to which the Attorney-General referred because in this new age of open and accountable government, the Attorney-General has allowed us 24 hours since he delivered his speech to find out what the common law definition of ‘exceptional circumstances’ are. I am afraid that I have not had the time to study the case law which surrounds exceptional circumstances at common law, and I imagine that it would not be an insubstantial body of law, not an insubstantial body of law at all. I think that the courts are going to have to spend quite a bit of time turning their attention to this particular part of the law. But to come into this Chamber and say: ‘We are a fair, open, accountable, honest government, but we are just going to ram this piece of legislation through in 24 hours’ does not ring true. It certainly does not ring true with the good government statement which the then Leader of the Opposition, Clare Martin, put out prior to gaining government, a promise upon which she was given the trust of Territorians.
I also turn my attention to the comments in relation to victim-offender conferencing, and I support the Attorney-General in what he has got to say in relation to that. I think it is a good program, and I would hope to see that the process keeps going. But I would like an assurance from the Attorney-General, if he is able to do so, that the victim is still part of the process inasmuch as they acquiesce to the process prior to the process being entered into.
I also notice that the courts have been given sentencing powers by the Attorney-General, and I quote:
which means that basically, the court has complete sentencing powers in relation to juveniles which this parliament will not encroach upon at all. I would ask Attorney-General in relation the juveniles who have, in some instances in the past in the Northern Territory, specifically around the northern suburbs of Darwin, how he is going to reassure the people at home that those juveniles who are now at liberty and break into people’s homes and steal their video cassette recorders and trash their houses and all those sorts of other things are going to receive appropriate sentences. If the sentencing is completely at the discretion of the court - and by all means, the Attorney-General can say: ‘Yes we are happy to give full discretion to the court’ - but if he is prepared to give full discretion to the court, he cannot go out there and say the parliament and the government will look after your interests, Mr and Mrs Northern Suburbs. You can’t say that because it is only the courts that can say that. They can say that through their sentencing processes. So, what the Attorney-General is trying to do is create a hope, an expectation, in the people in the northern suburbs, but he is completely disempowering himself of the ability to do so.
Madam Speaker, I have been a supporter of mandatory sentencing . I think that it has had its faults over time. I am the first to admit that and it has created from time to time unjust outcomes. Unfortunately, the regime which preceded it also created unjust outcomes - in my opinion, far more profoundly unjust outcomes. The fact of the matter is that the government will get their way here today and as a result of getting their way here today, the mandatory sentencing regime will be removed. However, I hope that the watering down of the sentencing provisions will not lead the courts to shirking from their responsibilities of protecting Northern Territory citizens. I am at a loss to know how the Attorney-General can influence the courts, but that is the decision that will probably be passed in this parliament. But Mr and Mrs Northern Suburbs will be looking closely at this government and I think that this government will pay dearly if they have failed the people in the northern suburbs.
Mr HENDERSON (Industries and Business): Madam Speaker, I would like to start my contribution to this debate by talking about a constituent of mine whose son was the first person in the Northern Territory to be sentenced under the mandatory sentencing legislation that the previous government brought in to this parliament.
There is a fundamental principle for all legislation and penalties that the punishment fit the crime. That is the fundamental principle that we should be adhering to. My constituent advised me during the campaign - came to speak to me about my position on mandatory sentencing in light of his son, Matthew Bradley - I have had confirmation: I can talk about Matthew in this parliament today - who was 17 years old when he was sentenced to 14 days goal at Berrimah. Matthew’s crime was that he broke into the Toyworld shop at the Jape complex in Coconut Grove and stole fairly insignificant, in terms of monetary value, property. When he got home and his father found out about it, he was forced back - and he wasn’t actually forced; it was his own decision. He went to Berrimah Police Station and of his own volition made a full statement.
In addition, he went to the owners of the business and made a full apology for the action he undertook and he paid them the money for the damage that he caused and for the items that he had taken. He did this off his own bat. Despite that, despite this young man recognising that what he had done was wrong, making full restitution and voluntarily going to the police and volunteering a statement, he still spent 14 days in Berrimah gaol. Consequently, he has to wait for 10 years until this criminal record is actually expunged from file. There are a number of employment opportunities that Matthew is now restricted from as a result of this criminal conviction that he received at 17 years of age: 14 days imprisonment in Berrimah gaol.
I would find it unbelievable that of the 25 members of this parliament, unless there are some saints in here, each and every one of us could not look back in terms of our youth and identify a time that we took something that was not ours, whether it was from our parents, from the neighbours or shop lifting. I am sure each and every one of us could indicate a time when they took something that was not theirs. The principle that the punishment fit the crime, I would argue, does not fit in Matthew’s case or the fact that he is now carrying this conviction for 10 years which is restricting his employment opportunities.
Just after I was elected to this parliament, I was approached by another constituent whose son was studying interstate, looking to gain qualifications to give him an opportunity for a career as a commissioned officer in the defence forces. This constituent came to me absolutely distraught. His son had come back to Darwin at the age of 18, studying interstate, big night out in town, as we all did when we had our 18th birthdays, had far too much to drink and got involved in a rumble in Mitchell Street somewhere and a car window was broken. He didn’t remember fully how this came to be, but anyway, he was charged and prosecuted. Again, he offered to make full restitution but there was no facility under the legislation as it stood at this time for any other penalty to be imposed but a 14 day gaol sentence. Again, this young man lost his lifetime ambition to serve with the defence forces as a commissioned officer because of his criminal record.
So I would argue that in these instances, the punishment does not fit the crime. Our responsibility as legislators has to be to put in place good public policy by way of legislation that actually works in terms of the policy objectives. What were the policy objectives as stated by the previous CLP government that led to this legislation being framed in the first place? Again, I will go back to the Opposition Leader’s comments in terms of the legislation that was introduced in 1996. The objectives were:
Laudable. None of us here want crime occurring in the first place. That is the bottom line in terms of public policy: we do not want a climate that creates crime and encourages criminal acts to exist in the first place.
Then again, on 17 October 1996, the Opposition Leader stated that one of the benefits of mandatory sentencing was that imprisonment is a deterrent to offending and that it is also the government’s hope - very vain it turned out to be - that the legislation will lead in time to a reduction in the crime rate of property offences and a reduction in rate of crime generally, leading to an increase in community safety. So this was the hope of the government. This was the policy objective that the government had for this legislation. This was the legislation that was introduced in 1996.
So, having determined what the policy objectives were, that were on the record at the time, where did these laudable objectives come from? We have always said on this side of the parliament that mandatory sentencing was not the solution; it was a political stunt. To demonstrate this political stunt, there was a gentlemen by the name of David Gibson, who was a criminal lawyer with 15 years experience and who was a senior solicitor of the NT Attorney-General’s Policy Division from 1994 to 1997. David Gibson went public on ABC radio on Tuesday 25 July 2000 about exactly how the previous government’s mandatory sentencing regime came about. I am quoting from the public comments that Mr Gibson made:
Initially it started out actually as a campaign promise for the 1994 election and certainly wasn’t developed
with the input of the department at the time.
So this is a political policy that was determined by the CLP.
It was something that was internal to the CLP. The thinking was a generally - a fairly sort of simplistic
proposition that the tougher the sentence, the greater the deterrent effect and the less likelihood of offending.
So here was the simplistic thought process that went into this. It was then activated, I think, when Shane Stone came into office and it was then, basically, that the proposal was developed internal to the department.
The interviewer said: ‘It wasn’t developed with good, rounded advice then?’ and Gibson says: ‘No. The great concern at the time was that it would lead to an…’ - and these were the issues, these were the drafting issues that were given to the department. The idea was not canvassed out in the public in terms of would this be good public policy, and one of the great concerns that the governments of the day had at the time was, and I quote:
The great concern at the time was that it would lead to an explosion of the prison population and perhaps
necessitate the building of a new prison. And that was the objective they wanted to avoid.
This was the rider that went to the Attorney-General’s department: ‘Well, we’ve got this public policy. We think it will be very popular but if we catch all of these people and put them in gaol, it’s going to cost us a hell of a lot of money and we’re going to have to build new gaols. So how do we actually frame some legislation that’s going to look tough but not actually cost us any money because we certainly don’t want an explosion in the prison population?’ Despite the rhetoric if you do the crime you’ll do the time, in terms of the legislation they were saying: ‘Oh, oh. We don’t actually want that; we want to avoid an explosion in the prison population and the need to build a new gaol’.
He went on to say that:
So that was the brief that went from the government of the day to the Attorney-General’s department who quite properly and rightly have to advise government on legal matters and draft legislation.
The interview goes on in a lot of detail and the interviewer asked:
And he said:
We’ve had the member for Macdonnell in his usual flamboyant language talk about the appalling sentencing practices of the judiciary of the day and community outrage in terms of all of the sentences they were handing down. He waxed lyrically about nobody is going to go to gaol under this new legislative regime we’re talking about today. He went on to say:
I mean, no studies were made at the time as to what the actual level of sentencing was. What was happening
is that, say, three, four or five cases would get on to the front page of the NT News per year and this would
sort of lead people - ringing and developing a general sort of public perception that this was a problem but
there was in fact no empirical evidence that was necessary to support this case and really, the only way that
you can assess that is to really sort of sit down and conduct a survey if you like on these particular offences
because you really have to look at when an offender goes before the court that they get a sentence but at the
same time work out whether that sentence is adequate or not on general principles and there are a whole lot
of factors.
So there was no attempt at all in terms of developing public policy, in terms of developing legislation where the government of the day actually sought to statistically analyse and understand what was occurring via the sentencing regimes as opposed to the public perception that people were getting away scot free and nobody was going to gaol. He went on to say:
But it seemed to me that the policy was based more on a general perception that was borne out of media
coverage, out of chats around the backyard barbecue, that sort of thing. It certainly didn’t have any
statistical foundation.
So here we have public policy, legislation on the run that is not based in fact whatsoever, and that actually came from somebody who was working in the Attorney-General’s department at the time. People on the other side of the House should be ashamed that that is the policy basis that they used; that is the empirical, statistical evidence that they used to create a sentencing regime that I would argue in many cases the punishment didn’t fit the crime and many people went to gaol. It was nothing other than a political stunt.
It was a two part interview and he went on the next day to say that briefings went up to the Attorney-General that sort of listed a range of objections to the particular policy, being mandatory sentencing, that went up from the Attorney-General’s department to the Attorney General at the time.
I think in fairness to Burke, he wasn’t in control of the policy and he was really just obviously acting on
the instructions of the Chief Minister and because he was sort of new to the position at the time, I don’t
think he had any strong views on the policy.
Here we have the Attorney-General of the time getting advice from his department with objections based on legal assessment in terms of the legislation they were trying to draw up and Burke, the Attorney General at the time, the current Leader of the Opposition: ‘Oh, well, I don’t care. I’m only the Attorney General. My Chief’s telling me what to do’. So the interviewer asked:
and David Gibson says:
Well, yes. I think almost uniformly it was regarded as a bad and dangerous policy simply because it was
so ill conceived. It was implemented in such a sort of simplistic fashion and I think it has sort of being
borne out in the time that it’s been here as a policy…
Dr LIM: A point or order Madam Speaker. I bring your attention to the state of the House.
Madam SPEAKER: We do not have a quorum. Ring the bells. We have numbers now. Continue, minister.
Mr HENDERSON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. He went on to say:
It was implemented in such a sort of simplistic fashion, though I think it’s been borne out in time it is a
policy that certainly obviously could have dramatic effects on the lives of certain individuals.
So again, here we have confirmation that the Attorney-General’s department at the time regarded the legislation that the previous government was framing as bad and dangerous policy because it was so ill conceived and there was no factual basis to it whatsoever. He went on to say:
The danger of the policy primarily is that it could well have the sort of opposite effect of what is intended.
I mean, most studies have shown that if you incarcerate particularly young offenders for long periods of
time, it is somewhat akin to setting up a graduate school in crime and if, for example, you’re putting someone
away for three months or a year, that’s on their record. It decreases, obviously, dramatically their employment
prospects.
as young Matthew Bradley has found out in his case.
They’re associating with more seasoned criminals. I mean, you’re effectively breeding, if you like, a new
sort of class of criminals. This is aside from the question of the simple injustice of locking someone away for
relatively minor crimes for a year or so or for three months - longer than people who commit sort of violent
offences and sexual offences. Often that, of course, does great injury to the general perception of the legal
system being fair.
I believe that each and every one of us can look at the imbalances in terms of what is here today, prior to this legislation going through, where people get away for serious assaults and offences and often serve much less than a three month or a one year sentence. The principle that the previous government put in place was that we should be legislating mandatory minimum sentences for every type of offence. Let’s bring people before this parliament and sentence them here in the parliament is essentially the principle that was behind mandatory sentencing.
I would argue that there is empirical evidence here from David Gibson, who was working in the department at the time, that certainly all the advice was that it was bad and dangerous policy. There was no statistical basis to support the perception that the judiciary was being soft on people who were committing property offences. What we are seeking to do is put in place a regime that has a whole-of-government crime prevention approach. We are the only jurisdiction in Australia that doesn’t have a central office for crime prevention, and that’s what we’re putting in place.
The crime prevention policy is more than just this legislation that we are debating today, and the purpose of the agency that we will be establishing for crime prevention is a whole-of-government approach to crime prevention across all levels, to actually evaluate the success or failure of crime prevention strategies, something the previous government failed to do. It was politics; it wasn’t public policy. It wasn’t a serious attempt at reducing the crime rate. It was a political decision to make the previous government appear tough on crime that wasn’t based on any statistical evidence at all and certainly wasn’t reviewed in that light. To provide policy advice about crime reduction initiatives to the whole of government and, very importantly, independently collect, analyse and publish crime statistics - something that we, when we were on the other side of this parliament, found akin to pulling hen’s teeth, was to actually drag statistics out of the government of the day to actually support their public policy position that mandatory sentencing was working in terms of reducing crime.
So what this government is about is a crime prevention strategy and a sentencing regime that is tough, that will send people to gaol who deserve to go to gaol, and to provide an element of discretion to ensure that the punishment fits the crime.
I will go to the Leader of the Opposition’s words, when he made a contribution to this debate, about ‘divisive indulgence’. That’s what he called this legislation. Well, if ever there was legislation that was divisive and indulgent, it was certainly the previous mandatory sentencing regime which, as I have outlined today, was manifestly ill conceived, was not based in fact and certainly did nothing to reduce the crime rates. In terms of the crime rates, we have debated in this House, on many occasions over the last two years, exactly what was happening. What was the profile in terms of the criminal activity that was occurring across the Territory, particularly here in Darwin, and what were the drivers of the causes of crime?
We produced statistical evidence taken from the Australian Institute of Criminology that showed that one of the major contributors to property crime was drug abuse and misuse of illicit drugs. We debated this up hill and down dale, produced the statistics from the Australian Institute of Criminology, the statistics from the Health Insurance Commission that showed that in the Northern Territory, we had nine times the per capita prescription rates for morphine, for methadone - the word that the previous government would never mention - twice the per capita prescription rates, 460 000 needles being distributed, Australian Institute of Criminology statistics that showed that 46% of all property crime was committed by people who tested positive for opiates.
What did we have the previous Chief Minister, the now Leader of the Opposition, say in this parliament? Drug related crime was minuscule. Minuscule! So not only was the previous government averse to statistical analysis in terms of their ill-conceived mandatory sentencing regime, they failed, even when the statistics were placed before this House, to understand that if we were serious, and as a legislative body, in terms of putting in place legislation that was going to underpin the policy position, which was to prevent crime, that we should look at drug crime and drug use in our community. Oh, no. it was all too hard. It was minuscule. It is certainly something that we on this side of the House will be having a very strong position on and in the coming sessions of parliament, we will be introducing legislation to address the issue of drugs in our community and drug crimes.
One of the first things that we will be doing is doubling the size of the Drug Squad so we can actually get the people - and they barely deserve the tag of ‘people’, but I will defer to parliamentary protocol - who prey on our population, who prey on our kids by manufacturing, distributing and profiting from illicit drugs and giving our Drug Squad the manpower to actually get out and close these people down, bring them before the courts and lock them away for a very, very long time. That is what we are on about, actually tackling the causes of crime, where the real drivers of crime are coming from, as opposed to the previous government who had a political stunt, and even when the facts were presented before them, put their heads in the sand. So don’t come in here talking about ‘divisive indulgence’. We are on about actually getting to the causes of the crime and reducing crime in our community.
In terms of the legacy of mandatory sentencing, we need to go no further than the 1999-2000 annual report from Police, Fire and Emergency Services that showed how failed the previous government’s policy position was. The policy position, never forget, was that this legislation was brought into this parliament with the stated objective of reducing crime. We have figures from the Police, Fire and Emergency Services Annual Report that show that in the last year, 1998-99–1999-2000, there was a 22% increase in reported crime across the Territory. It was a failed legislative regime. It failed in its public policy objectives in terms of reducing crime. It was ill conceived. It wasn’t based on any statistical evidence and the previous government stands condemned.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bills to honourable members.
Mr REED (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I, on behalf of my constituents, want to record my opposition to these amendments and the demise, as it will be, of mandatory sentencing. The position simply is that no value is placed by the government on the fact that a lot of Territorians - especially those who were victims of crime whereby those who undertook that crime were treated under the mandatory sentencing regime - thought it appropriate that if people so acted that they would be punished and they quite liked the idea that who anyone who broke into their home would be punished or if that hadn’t happened - if it did in the future - that they could at least be satisfied that there would be an appropriate punishment for trashing their belongings that they worked long and hard to accrue and that they had gathered perhaps over a lifetime, and as you would, Madam Speaker, treasure those items and not want to see them dealt with in a way that those people who break into homes do.
It is important for us to reflect on the fact that many Territorians saw value in the punishment aspects of the legislation and also, of course, in the fact of the deterrence value of the legislation.
Now things have changed, and in terms of the member for Wanguri, the last contributor to this debate, who seemed to be affronted by the fact that this was CLP policy that was used to bring about this legislation and that he was terribly concerned about that - that is, it didn’t come from within the public service - well, I would have thought, as a politician, he would be aware that - and it’s happening in front of his very eyes, so to speak, at the moment with the federal election - political parties espouse to the populace and to their constituencies policies. Governments are elected or not, on many occasions, in relation to their policies.
Such was the case in 1994 when the CLP had a policy which said: ‘Introduce compulsory imprisonment of 28 days for repeat offenders, including juveniles, for crimes such as unlawful entry, unlawfully on the premises, stolen motor vehicle, interfere with motor vehicle, shop lifting and criminal damage’. That was the CLP Law, Order and Public Safety policy put to Territorians before the 1994 general election.
The member for Wanguri shouldn’t be concerned about policies of a political nature. That’s very much what political parties are all about. For him to suggest that no one knew of these policies, well, as I recall, they were spoken about very widely and promoted very strongly. Indeed, the only people who failed to put up a law and order policy, as I recall, in that election was the Labor Party of the day who promised to put up many policies in the lead up to that election and failed to do so. To set the record straight in relation to how policies are formulated by political parties and how then they can be adopted by a government, serves a useful purpose.
The Chief Minister made reference this morning, which was rather unfortunate, suggesting that the Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Services Annual Report was influenced by myself as the minister and that I was the cause of, as she put it, inappropriate or misrepresented figures being published in the Police, Fire and Emergency Services Annual Report. That is a terrible thing for a Chief Minister to say about a government agency. Government agencies’ annual reports are based on facts, the operations of their agency, and they report those facts and operations in their annual report. They are not, and cannot be influenced by ministers; they are simply factual data. For her as Chief Minister to suggest that the Commissioner of Police erroneously - for whatever reason, through influence or other means - corrupted the figures in past Police, Fire and Emergency Services annual reports …
Members interjecting.
Mr REED: Madam Speaker, I believe that the former speakers on the other side of the House had their contributions made in silence. I think it appropriate on this occasion that …
Madam SPEAKER: I think so, too. Members of the government, order!
Mr REED: So for the Chief Minister to suggest that the Police Commissioner would publish false figures and statistics is a very sad reflection on her as Chief Minister, and indeed the new government, if that is how they believe that their government agencies operate.
The lot of victims is going to be worth close scrutiny over the coming term of parliament. I know many Territorians will be looking at what happens as a result of the repeal of the mandatory sentencing legislation, because what we are about to experience is a step back to the old regime that Territorians were most unhappy with. I remind members that this legislation came about because the public, the voters, were of the view that the sentences being handed down by the courts were inadequate; they were not addressing the needs or meeting the expectations of the public. On many occasions, the government suggested to the courts that the sentencing should be more appropriate. The response did not come in relation to property offences, and as a consequence of that, policies were developed and laws introduced that ensured that there would be mandatory minimum sentences for property crimes.
Now, it is a fait accompli, I believe, that over the next few years we will see a recurrence of the courts handing down a slap over the wrist for property offences. It is going to very interesting to see how Territorians accept that because we have the history of their concerns about inadequate sentences, and those concerns are going to be re-ignited as we see this legislation passed today. That re-ignition will become more and more evident as the years pass and as the courts go back to their old process, and that is on too many occasions they will be accepting: ‘Oh, this fellow who broke into a house did not really mean to do it, had a bad upbringing, was under the influence of alcohol at the time, really did not know what he was doing, cannot take responsibility for his actions’. So, notwithstanding that he may, under this legislation be found guilty, the matter may not proceed to a conviction.
Well, those people who have their houses or premises or property entered and damaged and find that the courts start applying outcomes of that kind are going to be very, very aggrieved. It is going to be most interesting to see how Territorians cope with that, and how indeed the government copes with it because cope with it they will have to. It is inevitable that that will be the consequence of this legislation and it is inevitable that Territorians will regale against it, because they did in the past. They will do it with some venom in the future because they will have experienced and be aware of what happened formerly. You, Madam Speaker, would recall the Letters to the Editor in the NT News and other newspapers across the Northern Territory from Territorians expressing concerned about the inadequacy of sentences in relation to property crime.
That built up to the fact that legislation was introduced to make sure that there were appropriate sentences handed down to those people who trashed people’s property. Now, having had the protection of that - or at least the reassurance that if someone did trash their property or broke into their homes and stole their treasured belongings that they collected over a period of perhaps a lifetime - they now find themselves unprotected in that regard and unable to be assured that anyone who does commit crimes of that kind will at least be punished. That is going to see us, as we go back now to the old hand-slapping and accepting almost, perhaps, any excuse for having someone commit a crime, that Territorians will be much stronger in their opposition to those sorts of decisions. I hope the courts do not start handing down decisions of that kind.
I am, frankly, not confident that they will not, because this legislation will enable them to do so. It provides now full discretion back to the courts. We have seen where that has not satisfied the needs of the community - not the needs of politicians or political parties’ needs - but it has not fulfilled the needs and expectations of the people of the Territory. We will see those circumstances arise again in the future. It will be interesting to see both what the public reaction is and what the government reaction is. They will have to respond to it as a government, because there is nothing more certain than the fact that it will occur.
We have seen it, in fact, since mandatory sentencing was introduced, in other areas of court decisions. There has been public outcry in relation to the public’s concerns about the inadequacy of a particular sentence. Now, I think one of the risks that we face here is that those sorts of more lenient sentences will now become perhaps more prevalent, because mandatory sentencing played also another role. That role was that it demonstrated to the legal system on behalf of the community that the community wanted tough sentencing and the community wanted, if someone had broken the law, for those people to be appropriately punished in relation to the public’s views. The mandatory sentencing legislation, by projecting those views, emanated across the legal system to one extent or another.
Other people, of course, would disagree with me. I think perhaps it did have an influence more broadly. There is potential for us now to experience a withdrawal of that influence and to see, because of the government’s position in relation to their softness on crime, a re-emergence of what the public may perceive to be inadequate sentencing in relation to offences that are committed against the law abiding majority section of constituents and Territorians.
So I strongly, on behalf of my constituents, my electorate, and I know many other Territorians, oppose these pieces of legislation. For an open, honest and transparent government it is absolutely extraordinary that legislation of this scope and impact is introduced into this House on one day and passed on another. This is a government that went to the people on the basis that they would consult, that there was a need for people, for Territorians, to be able to have their say in relation to these matters. Clearly, it is not an issue in relation to this particular piece of legislation and it is curious how choosy the government is now being shown to be in relation to what they say and then, of course, what they put into practice. Territorians will see a lot more of this also, I expect, demonstrating that they are being very duplicitous in this regard, and I think Territorians will get very tired of that as well.
So, on behalf of the electorate of Katherine, where I know that this mandatory sentencing legislation was very strongly supported, I oppose the removal of the mandatory sentencing legislation from the statutes. As I say, as a keen observer of these matters, I will watch with great interest the decisions brought down by the courts, not only in property offence cases in the future, but in all cases. I will watch with even more interest the reaction from Territorians when there are what they perceive to be inadequate sentences and in turn, of course, watch then the reaction of this government as to how they will answer to Territorians for having taken this protective legislation from them.
Ms CARTER (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, as far as I am concerned, and I am sure many, many of my constituents, this is a sad day for Territorians and in particular for the victims of crime, a group that we tend, I gather here today, to be looking to forget. Well, we certainly do not forget them and we are going to stand up for them.
The Labor government really misses the point on the whole issue of mandatory sentencing. You repeat over and over and over again ad nauseum that the purpose of mandatory sentencing was to reduce crime. We did not say that. What we say is that mandatory sentencing is here for justice. For justice. I personally do not have any problem with the concept of punishment, even for somebody who is 15 years of age. These people know what they are doing. When they break into somebody’s home and trash it, when they go in there and pinch things, when they break in through the roofs of businesses and steal things and wreck things, they know very, very well what they are doing and they know why they are doing it. It does not matter to me that they are 15 years of age. They know exactly what they are doing and when they do it, they hurt other people. They hurt people who have saved, they hurt people who have been responsible, they come in and do their business and what is the end result for them now? Nothing. Nothing at all will be the result for them because of your soft policies that are now going to come in.
What we want is justice for the victims of crime and it is not going to happen now. The aim of this legislation that you are now going to put in is to look after the perpetrators of crime, not the victims of crime. You are bringing in this thing where you are upping the amount of damage that needs to be done before it is called serious from $500 to $5000. Well, that is marvellous, but it is not a good thing in my electorate where I have many, many people - and I wouldn’t be smirking too much over there if I were you because you also have many constituents who don’t own much - who don’t own much. If somebody goes into one of the Housing Commission units in my electorate, they will have a very, very hard time doing $5000 worth of damage because the people do not own goods to that value. They might own a couple of thousand dollars worth of stuff all together if you add in the fridge, the TV and the video recorder. Somebody goes in, a nice little tyke at the age of 16 or 17, trashes it all up. End result: nothing, because it did not hit the $5000 mark. Not serious enough for you guys now. Might be all right in certain areas where people own $4000-$5000 TVs, easy to do. I am very, very concerned about the victims who are not well off and who do not own a lot. Their hearts will be broken by this when they see yet and yet again the revolving door, the famous revolving door of the magistrates court: in you come and out you go, quick as you like, no problem at all. And that is what we are going to see here.
So, I ask a couple of questions. I will be really interested to see the definition of what constitutes ‘serious’, ‘serious crime’, because this is what you are harking back to all the time. Serious crime is going to get you serious time. Well, what on earth will be ‘serious crime’ and what on earth will be ‘serious time’? An hour sitting in the chair? Serious time? I doubt it very, very much. I also have to say that I am disappointed to hear from the new government that our Territory police force is incompetent. They claim our police do not, cannot, do not try to catch the criminals who break into the homes of Territorians. The Attorney-General said it again today. I quote: ‘Nearly 90% of offenders in urban areas continue to get away with property offences undetected’. Look at that statement any way you like and it still says: ‘This government believes our police force is slack; our police force does not catch offenders; our police men and women are inefficient and cannot do the job’.
The member for Sanderson said today: ‘You just didn’t catch 'em’, he cried from his chair. We just didn’t catch 'em. Well, I totally disagree with that argument, but I wish the Labor Party would for once stand up and bluntly say that is what they believe. They should go to Commissioner Bates; they should go to the Police Association and say: ‘We think you lot cannot do the job’. But they will not. They will continue to hide behind their spurious argument that says mandatory sentencing does not work because the vast majority of offenders are not caught by the police. Both aspects of that argument are false. You cannot equate the number of offences with the number of offenders. Ironically, most of them are hard working little buggers who manage to commit many, many offences. The capture and consequent sentencing of one offender may deal with 80 or more offences. You do the figures the way the way the Labor Party does and that same offender has just wiped the slate clean for one offence and they are still looking for another 79 offenders. It is a false argument and one that is most offensive to our hard working and dedicated police men and women.
The new government, with these bills, is totally repealing the mandatory sentence provisions in relation to juveniles. They have persisted in their argument that children are being locked up for trivial offences. Worse, they say it is Aboriginal children who are being locked up in large numbers. Again, I would refer the Attorney-General to the presentation prepared by the Criminal Justice Statistics Group of his own department.
I seek leave, Madam Speaker, to table the following document from the group headed Rate of Juvenile Detention – Juvenile Property Offender Summary I, Juvenile Property Offender Summary II, Juvenile Property Offender Summary III.
Leave granted.
Ms CARTER: Basically, they show that the rate of detention of young, Aboriginal Territorians is one third of that of the rest of Australia and that the rate of imprisonment for Aboriginal juveniles detained has not changed since the introduction of mandatory sentencing. Further, they state that on average in any one week, less than one juvenile, and that means Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal, receives a mandatory sentence. I would suggest he ask his department for the figures or consult his colleague, the Minister for Correctional Services, for a full breakdown of the figures. Instead of just relying on the rhetoric, why not look up the figures and the facts before rushing to judgment?
Obviously the opposition is not going to support these bills, but we recognise that the Labor Party is now the government and has the right to implement its policy, however misguided and based on myths that policy may be.
Before concluding, I wish to point out to this House and to Territorians the hypocrisy of this action by the government. Their colleagues in Western Australia strongly support mandatory sentencing. Their colleagues in the federal parliament, including the Territory’s Labor godfather, Warren Snowdon, have supported mandatory sentencing for people smugglers. Lastly, they themselves have left in the Sentencing Act the mandatory minimum sentencing provisions for sexual and violent offences.
Madam Speaker, We will oppose these changes because they simply pander to the legal lobby and reject the view of the majority of the community. We oppose these changes because they are based on mistruths, myths and political correctness rather than justice for Territorians. We will oppose these bills because they rely totally on our courts to administer justice rather than exercise the right of this parliament to impose minimum as well as maximum sentences.
We oppose these bills because they fail Territorians and offer no retribution nor adequate punishment for those who enter Territorians’ homes and businesses, trashing them and stealing their property. We certainly oppose this legislation and I personally will watch with great interest to see how the sentences start to come out. As I said yesterday, I believe a year or so from now we will start to see the watering down of sentences and I think you people need to think very carefully about your stance on this because we will be going to the polls again in the next three to four years.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I thought it was very important to speak in this debate because I think a time will come when Territorians will want to know where we stood on this very important issue. For that reason I’d like to put my great support for minimum mandatory sentencing on the public record. It has been debated in this parliament a number of times. There were position papers put out including by the now government prior to the election that made an attempt to convince people that in the absence of the mandatory sentencing regime that is currently in place up until probably tonight, the then opposition had this reputed tough-on-crime stance and that those who did the crime would do the time.
By interjection, the Chief Minister yelled across the parliament that I should get a hold of the copy of the position paper that Labor put out in the election, and I should have a read of it. I can inform the House that I actually did. I do have this paper and I have had a read of it and it is still very difficult as a legislator to look at what ‘serious crime means serious time’ means in fact.
The debate thus far has had a variety of interjections about the Westminster system, the separation of powers, confidence in the judiciary and the magistracy, etcetera. I think perhaps we should read a couple of things into parliament including from Labor’s position paper and its six point plan, particularly point one: Serious Crime Means Serious Time. One sentence says that: ‘Labor will amend the Sentencing Act’ which is what we are talking about here today ‘to state expressly that it is the intention of the parliament that people who commit the crime of housebreaking, burglary, entry and damage to homes, cars or business premises will go to gaol’ – comma – ‘unless extenuating circumstances exist’.
So essentially, what the public was told in the lead up to the election was: we will keep sending them to gaol; they will go to gaol. It will still be a mandatory sentence with the one exception that we’re going to have to look at extenuating circumstances. They have now built that into the act.
The difficulty in trying to describe this as legislators, and I hope that it would provide some guidance to the judiciary who have to grapple with what an extenuating circumstance is, is that it is ill-defined. In fact, invisible. It is not covered adequately in either the minister’s second reading speech or in any of the debates thus far. So as legislators, we are passing the problem off to the courts to say extenuating circumstances is the loophole.
I guess they would want to know how that loophole is prescribed because it means the difference between someone going to gaol and someone not going to gaol. So for starters, we, as legislators, have given them a blurry set of circumstances with which they have to contend and it is a set of circumstances that they will seek some delineation. Some speakers have been a bit derogatory about the magistracy, and I would say that they would be looking for this loophole to be as large as possible to give them as much discretion as possible. You can understand that. I would probably do the same in their position. The balance is that:
The insertion of a clause setting out the intention of parliament’s wishes to see serious criminals go to gaol
will be a new and the first benchmark that judges and magistrates will have to comply with. This initiative will
address the community’s concern about judges being soft on crime.
Well, it’s not going to work. The legislation fails at that very first hurdle. So the pivotal issue here, the keynote issue, is: will you go to gaol or not? Under Labor there is a loophole about extenuating circumstances. I think they have been very well described by my colleague, the Shadow Attorney-General, and I think you could probably also go to some of the other papers in Labor’s position papers to see the sorts of extenuating circumstances that the judiciary may wish to look at.
In the paper, which is quite an extensive one, I go to page nine:
The evidence is clear that many factors leading to crime appear in early life.
So we are on a road that does not take us back to where we were and where we had immense dissatisfaction from the community. It takes us back to a worse point. That will become evident to commentators pretty quickly, and particularly those who are the victims of crime. I, too, know the gentleman that was door knocked by the member for Wanguri and I, too, door knocked him. We are in the position also where our family knew his child. We could all bring stories in here, Madam Speaker. One of the stories that often gets trotted out is about the minute nature of the economic costs of this particular good; a can of beer, a this or that, a towel off the clothes line with which a man…
Dr Burns: A loaf of bread.
Mr DUNHAM: A loaf of bread, perhaps. The issue is that sometimes it’s not economic issues that attend on it and that’s where we get to Labor’s proposition that we talk to the victims. So if somebody breaks into the house of an elderly person living alone, it has a massive impact on them and it’s very difficult, in fact, to describe in the quantifying terms of economics. It is an issue that goes to their confidence in living alone. It is an issue often that goes to them having a greater sense of apprehension than is probably real, but nonetheless it is a sense of apprehension that could cause them to move into other accommodation, supported accommodation, leave the Territory. Those are really important factors. The person may pinch something that’s very small. They may pinch a silver frame on a photo. The photo may be something of immense emotional, sentimental value to them.
In a debate like this where we talk about small amounts of money, I think we forget the social dynamic and that is really unfortunate. I would have hoped that that would have been at the forefront of my colleagues on the government’s minds given that they purport to have great social consciences. I would have thought to set a mere monetary calibrator on matters relating to theft and destruction is pretty foolish because you can destroy someone’s confidence, their capacity to live alone, their enjoyment of the community unfettered, and these are really important things.
So, we have another problem for the Labor party in that they have said to people: ‘We will count what you say. We will take it into account and we’ll go to the judges and say: “that is a terrible thing and it should be reflected in his sentencing”.’ We know that not to be the case. We know that some people will be seeking retribution far and beyond that which our courts can mete out in any event, but I would suspect that it would be: ‘Don’t you worry; I’m the judge. I do this stuff and, yes, you’re a bit upset and I can see you’re a bit florid about this particular issue, but bad luck’. So, I think that is a terrible thing for victims of crime because they are toying with their emotions at a time when they’re vulnerable. They are holding out to them that there is the capacity for their circumstances to be featured in the sentence and we know that that will not be the case. That will bring great disappointment.
There were some speakers who talked about mandates, and we support mandatory sentencing; we lost, you don’t support it; you won, therefore the people spoke. I am a bit surprised at that simple formula and I am surprised on a couple of accounts because I listened to all the maiden speeches, and I thought they were pretty good in the main, and I noted that many of them talked about our quality of life and security and those sorts of lifestyle issues. One of them I will quote from where this particular person talked about the big issues, out they went:
Crime and punishment. Now, I think you’ll find that if we really look at what the people want, not only did we hear it loud and clear - and I can’t believe that an electoral line on a map would delineate opinion as radically as those opposite would have us believe - I believe they have had people come to them strenuously talking about the need for courts to be tougher on criminals, the status of victims and their circumstances be recognised, and that the inevitability of prison be at the forefront of criminals’ minds before they embark on their behaviours, and I would be absolutely surprised if they can tell me they doorknocked without those issues featuring largely.
I note, too, that the Opposition Leader tabled some data that showed, coincidentally with the introduction of mandatory sentencing, there had been a reduction in crime, particularly housebreaks. The Opposition Leader showed there’d been a reduction in crime, so while we don’t wave a flag and say there’s an exact nexus between the cause and effect of reducing crime in this particular area, housebreaks, we would say that we were trending towards a reduction in crime, and we’re pretty proud of that. I think you can always trend toward zero and never, ever get there, but the valiant hope for governments is that these terrible issues that are hard to grapple with will trend in the right direction.
In sharp contrast with those opposite, I quote from the NT News of 26 September, and it is an article dealing with TIO premiums. I was aghast to read the grabs from Mr Henderson, who sees himself as the minister responsible for the TIO, and he talks about why there’s going to be a 30% rise in premiums and he attributes it to a number of things, but the thing that really worries me, I suppose, is that he says:
Now, I don’t know why they are trending those figures up, but I guess it’s largely because if you were foolish enough to introduce laws of this type, you should be frank enough, and I admire him for his frankness, I think that’s a pretty gutsy thing for a minister to do, to come in and say: ‘You’ve just elected a Labor government and household premiums will go up because you’re going to get more housebreaks’. That is a particularly brave thing for the minister in charge of the TIO to do. I applaud his courage and I point out for people who may be researchers to this debate that the prognosis for this legislation is particularly poor. This is not something we don’t know about; this is something that we had a long heritage of magistrates with sentences that the community found to be offensive. We tried to remedy that. We’re now going back not to that state, but as my colleague, the Shadow Attorney-General pointed out, to a worse point. It will become very evident, very clear and very quickly that this legislation will not achieve what it set out to do.
I note, too, that in their 10 point plan they have a variety of audit mechanisms and I look forward to seeing those, particularly a before and after one. That audit mechanism should work on a situation that exists now and perhaps at quarterly intervals because a significant amount of data has to be put in. It’s very difficult to cleanse this type of data when you realise that often one person can commit a variety of crimes and recidivism and other issues, but I would think that if this data was collected and adequately benchmarked and cleansed, it should provide a trend of the like that the brave minister pointed out.
The other couple of points I will touch on is what we did for victims. One of the first things victims want is that the perpetrator be caught and brought to justice, and we put a lot of effort into that. We were a jurisdiction that led the way in Australia, for instance, with our DNA science. We were able to demonstrate pretty quickly that we had the capacity to chase the criminals and to get them, even if it took a while. Some millions of dollars was spent on the lab, and I would hope that this is a priority for this incoming government notwithstanding that having caught them we’re going to let them go, I still think it’s really important that perpetrators be identified and brought to justice such as it is.
VOCAL, for instance, the Victims of Crime Assistance League, we funded that. There are a number of initiatives through my previous department of Health and Community Services where there were counselling and other initiatives that were available, and to talk about this government’s attitude to victims of crime, one would only have to do a very short excursion into Hansard to see a particular debate where Labor stood up and pilloried us for, I think it was this particular subject, and as the clock wound down, the then Deputy Chief Minister kept saying talk about victims, let’s get on to victims, and the entire speech was taken up with perpetrators.
There is some commentary that this is a racist piece of legislation. I reject that entirely on a couple of counts. First, it’s patently untrue if you look at the wording that’s in there. If the argument is a statistical one that Aboriginal people are over represented in crime stats, that is unfortunately true. But it should be remembered by those opposite that would seek to use this in some way to portray us as anti-Aboriginal to look at the statistics that capture victims also, because the unfortunate sad truth is that while there are many Aboriginal perpetrators of crime, there are many Aboriginal victims of crime, and we think that they deserve the full force of the law also. We believe that Aboriginal people should be able to live in peace and harmony and have their goods protected by the law in the same way as people living in the leafy northern suburbs. Those who would put that argument are the same sort of people that would run the case about, for instance, domestic violence being a cultural phenomena that we should accept. I don’t believe we should accept it. I believe that Aboriginal victims of crime should have the full force of the law to protect them.
I will finish on does the punishment fit the crime, and it came out of the member for Wanguri’s speech where he talked about a particular case. Well, we can talk about a lot more; there are lots of cases we can all trot out where a gentleman was kicked and subsequently died and although the nexus was not clear, he got $1000 bond and a taxi driver was slashed in the face and $176 was awarded because it was the cost of the window that was broken, and we could go on. I believe that in many cases the sentences are not fitting the crime. I do not believe they dissuade those who would seek to take our laws on; I do not believe that the circumstances at the moment are such that the community is comfortable with the sentences being handed down by the government. If we look at the separation of powers in the Westminster system, we can’t expect the magistracy or the judiciary to do the polling of the type we have done. We’ve walked the streets and knocked the doors, we’ve talked to people and put out newsletters and position papers and you can’t expect that the magistracy or judiciary will do the same.
If you are pure about the Westminster system, you have to have a notion that the people will call on governments to do certain things. You must have a notion also that in this House we will debate those issues fully. We will have processes in here that allow us to look at the pros and cons, to look at other options, to have words described to us that are perhaps confusing or curious, and that’s why I think due process is really important because while we’ve heard the message from the community - and I’m sure you have, too - it is necessary now for us as legislators to put that into a piece of legislation that is readable, understandable and transparently translates from what the community is asking into a statute. This has not done that, and it has not done it because despite the rhetoric about open and honest government and how you produced this paper 18 months ago, this bill has been produced in a very short time.
I pay great tribute to my colleague, the shadow Attorney-General who could have stood up and bleated about how many days it has been since the election, like some ministers have. He not only took great time to read this stuff, he took it to the party room, he brought pieces of legislation from other jurisdictions, he gave us the vast benefit of his experience in the court setting notwithstanding his youth. It was interesting to see him stand as our first speaker and to take the Attorney-General on in such a way that left him floundering because it was quite evident there are some specious, nonsensical and pieces of whimsy that have been put into the legislation in an attempt to dress it up as a harsh piece of government work taking on criminals. I was very proud to see him standing here so new in this parliament and taking on the inept Attorney-General.
I noticed that one of the interjections from somebody on the other side was: ‘Oh yeah, I suppose you will want a QC’. Well, I think this bloke would be a good QC …
Mr Stirling: Well, make him one! Make him one. Shane gave himself one. Why not Peter? You give them to yourselves every time you get a new leader. Every new leader should be a QC.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr DUNHAM: … but as a person who is republican by disposition, I do not really adhere to the notions of Queen’s Counsel, although I notice that even those people who are avowed republicans and staunch Labor people like this little accolade. They do not mind this hanging off the back of the name because somehow it does have an impact on one’s income.
If we go back to the interjection I belatedly picked up that was made earlier this morning about this gentleman being a QC, whether it is a QC or an Attorney-General or a very valuable member of the opposition who is able to interrogate the government in such a way that they realise just how stupid this legislation is, I think he will make his mark on the Territory. As someone who has a heritage here and who will stay here, we will hear a lot more from this young man. As the first piece of legislation is dealt with in this House, I am sure it will also come back to this House. I am sure that the clamour will come from a variety of quarters once those pennies have dropped, and once the audit of our procedures are in place, and once people realise that the words that were in here about ‘you will go to gaol’ were actually a falsehood, and that it was a fraud perpetrated on the electorate. Once people realise that, they will be saying: ‘Well, we think we like the old stuff; we think we like mandatory sentencing and we like the idea of people who do wrong and offend our laws being punished and going to gaol’. I look forward to that debate also because there will not be any Mereenie loopholes or black holes or any of that stuff, and the excuses they parade out will have to rest entirely upon their own ineptitude, which has been amply demonstrated here today. The idea that…
Mr Stirling: You blokes ran out of questions, that is how well you did.
Mr DUNHAM: ‘You blokes ran out of questions, that is how well you did’. Okay, I suppose I could pick that up, too. That is a great interjection to pick up because I really have not had much of an occasion to speak in this parliament because the processes in place somehow seem to disallow debate. I am very happy to pick up that interjection from the Leader of the Government Business that ‘You blokes ran out of questions, that is how good you are’.
I can tell you that I have a number of questions I would be willing to ask. In fact, in the spirit of cooperation that I believe should exist in these early days, most of them I have put in writing and those letters are unanswered. They are unanswered. So, we have several documents we can go from. We can go from the Percy Allan Report No 1 which has largely been discounted. Certainly, Percy has talked about raising taxes and they do not want to do that. There is a $68m black hole in Percy’s report for starters, before you start on anything else. Percy Allan No 2 we could go on. We can go on the fabled Access Economics stamp of approval report. We could go on these specious and frivolous documents that were provided to the punters before the election…
Dr TOYNE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I really do not know what that has to do with the debate.
Mr Dunham: I am picking up an interjection. Take your seat.
Dr TOYNE: Sit down. I have a point of order.
Mr Dunham: Sit down.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, thank you! That is enough of that!
Dr TOYNE: Madam Speaker, I am raising relevance here. This has absolutely nothing to do with the debate.
Madam SPEAKER: All of the debates have been far-reaching on both sides of the House.
Mr DUNHAM: Thank you, Madam Speaker. There should probably be some other opportunities for debate and it would allow us to canvass these wider issues in other forums that may be more appropriate and may be more satisfactory to the member for Stuart. I look forward to those other forums. The little charade of ministerial statements without questions in the morning is something that this parliament has to look to and be frank about. If this really is a Chamber of debate, if this really is a parliament - and the word derives from the French where people speak - it is inappropriate that we should be gagged in the way that seems evident over the last couple of days.
Returning to mandatory sentencing, these bills are something that will be shown very quickly to be as inept as they have been demonstrated. With the Sentencing Act, magistrates will be very quickly looking for some guidance relating to the big loophole. As was demonstrated by my colleague, I think you will find that fewer and fewer people are getting there anyway because there are several loopholes that enable them to jump ship before then.
Dr TOYNE (Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I have listened attentively to some 2 hours of debate, and I thank the honorable members for their contributions, generally speaking.
I have to discount the considerable body of unsubstantiated opinion, pure sour grapes and dead ignorance in some of the presentations that we have had. Taking that aside, there are some issues I would like to take up and try to further clarify for members.
First of all, the Leader of the Opposition raised the matter of urgency and why we are using urgency and whether it is a fair thing to be using urgency. In the Eighth Assembly, there were a total of 58 bills passed on suspension of Standing orders. On this basis, there were a total of 58 bills passed on the same day of urgency; bills passed in the same week of urgency, 22; bills passed on urgency and passed on the second week of sittings, 35. So, do not talk to us about it not being justified to bring legislation into this House on urgency.
I refer to Hansard of 28 April 1998 as an example of some of those bills going through. There were six bills brought to the House on that day of sittings - six important bills, in fact, only one of which the opposition had been consulted on. John Bailey, the member for Wanguri at the time, said:
We gave your shadow a briefing last Thursday. We provided him with the draft legislation and he indicated to us that he was appreciative of the fact that we did that. I circulated the second reading speeches and explanatory memoranda to all members of this House yesterday. Now, if you cannot prepare yourselves for legislation with that sort of lead in, then you are being lazy and you are being incompetent.
In regard to the concerns by one speaker about whether the courts could convict or not convict, we are not going to get into the game of forcing courts to convict in every case because that is mandatory; it is a mandatory arrangement for the courts. The courts have to have the discretion as to whether to convict. We have heard evidence here today of the impact of a conviction …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker. The Attorney-General should well know that we did not at any stage force the courts to convict anybody.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Mr Elferink: You can’t force a conviction, you dill, only the sentence. It’s two separate things, you wally.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr TOYNE: Madam Speaker, the member for Macdonnell has already had his go and he seems to be wanting to turn this into a secondary debate.
Madam SPEAKER: I am sorry, I cannot hear the minister speaking because of the rumbling and grumbling.
Mr Elferink: He’s the Attorney-General and he can’t tell the difference between a conviction and a sentence.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Macdonnell! Just be quiet!
Dr TOYNE: To return to my point, we have heard today of the impact a conviction makes on a person’s life and I believe that it is absolutely imperative that the courts do have the right, on judging the circumstances of the case, to choose whether to convict or not to convict. That is inherent in the bill.
The heart of what we are saying about discretion is that the courts have the detail of each case before them; the courts have to have some discretion in arranging the sentencing to fully reflect that detail. We have seen, since mandatory sentencing was introduced in March 1997, many cases that have become famous or, more importantly, infamous for being patently out of odds between the seriousness of the crime and the seriousness of the sentence that was imposed under mandatory sentencing provisions. Minimum mandatory sentencing is picking up crimes that, even by any commonsense around the community, is patently unjust to have imposed the sentences that those people received.
In terms of the claims that we are not building serious time into this legislation, all of the speakers opposite have been very careful to avoid mentioning what is currently in the Sentencing Act and what is in the Criminal Code Amendment Bill. When you look at the scale of sentences and offences that are taken up in our aggravated crimes, we have aggravated crimes of robbery, section 211; assault with attempt to rob, section 212; unlawful entry, section 213, which covers burglary, housebreaking and breaking into businesses; persons found armed with the intent to unlawfully enter a building, section 215; aggravated unlawful use of a motor vehicle, section 218(2) which covers breaking into cars where there is damage to the vehicle; aggravated criminal damage, section 251(2) which applies to damage over $5000; vehicles added as a particular damage equivalent to one half of the value of the vehicle; and the new offences of home and business invasion under section 226(b)(3) which covers violation of house and property. Now the things that are not in our aggravated category are simple unlawful use of motor vehicles, section 218(1); simple criminal damage, section 251(1), simple offence which will cover criminal damage less than $5000; stealing, section 210; receiving, section 229.
When we look at the sentencing maximums that apply to the sentences that will be in the Sentencing Act after these bills go through, we start with simple offences of maximum of two years in gaol; intent to commit crime for which a punishment not greater than a maximum of three years; a building that is a dwelling house, maximum of five years; if a building is occupied at time of entry, maximum of seven years. That maximum of seven years equates with unlawful entry of a dwelling house or business premises, and unlawful damage which also carries a maximum of seven years which is part of the new provisions. If intent to commit any other crime therein in a dwelling house, maximum of seven years; intent to commit any other crime therein in a dwelling house, maximum of 10 years; serious damage or damage greater than $5000 equates, under our business and home invasions, to a maximum of 10 years; commits offence at night time, twice the punishment prescribed for that offence; firearm, dangerous or offensive weapon in the possession of the intruder, maximum 20 years; firearm, dangerous or offensive weapon in a dwelling house, maximum of life.
How many years should people stay in gaol? Are we going to lock everyone up for life for everything? Those maximums are adequate in the view of this government to cover the ‘seriousness’ of the crime.
With the Sentencing Amendment Bill, we have a spill through after conviction through the courts being asked to, first of all and in most cases, in fact in the overwhelming number of cases, consider a period of gaol matching the seriousness of the crime. We then have a community work order option, and then we have exceptional circumstances. There has been some talk about the meaning of ‘exceptional circumstances’ as it is used in this bill. As stated in my second reading speech, the term ‘exceptional circumstances’ as used in the mandatory sentencing regime is repealed and no longer applies. The term as it exists under the new scheme is to be interpreted and applied by the courts using accepted rules of interpretation. It is expected, therefore, that a common law definition will evolve. For example, in New South Wales for over 10 years the Supreme Court has applied the rule that where there is trafficking in illicit drugs there is a presumption of imprisonment except in exceptional circumstances. Although this is not a statutory rule, the New South Wales Supreme Court has been called upon on various occasions to determine whether exceptional circumstances exist in specific matters.
In New South Wales they have defined exceptional circumstances to be quite narrow. In a leading New South Wales Supreme Court case which was R v Cacciola [1998] NSWSC 531, Priestley JA stated that:
In that case, the court felt, due to a very wide range of mitigating factors surrounding the circumstances of the offender, that exceptional circumstances existed. The Northern Territory Supreme Court is not bound by decisions of the New South Wales Supreme Court. As courts in other jurisdictions have developed a definition so, too, will our courts.
We believe that by putting this principle of exceptional circumstances to our courts, they will evolve through precedent the framework by which exceptional circumstances will be determined and that is right and proper. The courts are the ones dealing with the detail of the cases as we go through.
In terms of the points that were raised about the intent of sentencing provisions within the act itself, we have two important definitions that are in the Sentencing Amendment Bill. First of all, community work orders which were queried by, I think, the member for Nelson. The purpose of making a community work order is to reflect the public interest in ensuring that a person who commits an offence makes amends to the community for the offence by performing work that is of benefit to the community. That new definition of community work orders is very much in line with the consultations we have had regarding the most appropriate form that these types of punishments can take. It is very much in line with recompensing the victim of crime through some action of the offender, whether that victim is an individual or whether that victim is a household or whether that victim is a community such as a remote community in parts of the Territory. That allows the community work order to be tailored to the terms of the crime and to the recompensing of the victim, so it’s another aspect of our intention to provide further support for the victims.
Now, in terms of community work orders and equating them with imprisonment, it is not the intention that these two options be interchangeable or to have the same status. In section 78B, imprisonment is clearly placed above community work orders, making it clear that it is the most serious penalty of the two. The purpose of having these two options available is to acknowledge that although in most cases an aggravated property offence will deserve a serious sentence, the level of seriousness may vary. In some cases imprisonment will be appropriate, but where mitigating factors are evident, a community work order may be more appropriate. It was decided against drafting section 78B of the Sentencing Act to only provide for the presumption of imprisonment for aggravated property offences. In a case where mitigating but not exceptional circumstances existed, the lack of an alternative sentencing option may have resulted in the court being obliged to impose a disproportionate penalty in the circumstances.
It is up to the court to determine which of the sentences are appropriate in each specific case. So you can see there that we are not expecting that courts will use community work orders as their first or most common option. They are very much a lower level of penalty and they very much have to be justified within the sentence handed down by a court as to why a community work order was ordered rather than a term of imprisonment.
Some members have called attention to our changing of the threshold for aggravated offences carrying the 10 year maximum penalty to $5000. There are two reasons for that in the discussions we have had. The first is that the $500 penalty was put into our legislation in 1984. What is 500 1984 dollars worth today? To one degree, we are bringing the monetary value of that threshold forward so that it matches today’s dollar values. A more important aspect to this is that we are very much, within this legislation, trying to target the crimes that we have put forward in what we have said publicly, that is serious attacks on households, serious attacks on businesses and serious and damaging attacks on motor vehicles.
To the extent that $5000 in today’s value, given some of the vehicles and households and the belongings that are involved, is still not a particularly high value. In fact, alongside the $5000 area, if I can take members to the Criminal Code Amendment Bill which we will be considering today as well, there are two ways in which an aggravated crime can be defined. One is through the dollar values that we have put forward. The other is in section 2 of the Criminal Code Amendment Act for the purposes of section 226B(3):
(a) the following matters are relevant in determining whether damage is of a serious nature:
(i) any physical, psychological or emotional harm suffered by a person as a result of the damage;
(ii) any apprehension, fear, distress or revulsion caused to the person as a result of the damage; and
(b) the amount of loss is determined by adding the following amounts:
(i) the loss that results directly from the damage;
I believe that those provisions within the Criminal Code Amendment Bill do pick up some of the points that the member for Port Darwin was raising about households that may not have $5000 worth of belongings in them, but under those provisions it could be judged by a court that there is non-material damage of sufficient extent that the crime would be considered serious. Aggravation will be very widely applied, and certainly can be applied under these new provisions.
I finish my remarks with the point that the bills we have before us today are part of a Crime Prevention Reform package which we are bringing in as a government. Apart from the legislative changes that we are considering today in this House, we will be looking at quite significant reforms in the operational arrangements of police and, in fact, the two final bills that we will consider today, the Justices Amendment Bill and the Police Administration Amendment Bill, feed directly into the reforms in police work that the Minister for Police will be promulgating through his department. We want to create much greater police presence in terms of the investigation of household and business property theft. We want to see a much greater police presence around the neighbourhoods in which people live so that a policeman or a policewoman is available much more readily when someone has had a crime committed at their household.
Now, to give the police the additional power to link the offenders into the court system once an offence has been alleged or discovered adds weight to the legislative framework that we are putting in place today. The bills that we are considering today should be read in the context of being part of an overall package and we will be following up a later date in the parliament with legislation specifically aimed at drug dealing and drug manufacture in the Northern Territory and the rehabilitation of drug offenders. We believe, on advice that we have had from the police and others, that the bulk of property crimes are committed by relatively small numbers of people. I mean, some suggestions are that 80% of these property crimes are committed by as low a number as maybe 150 people in Darwin and maybe 50 people in Alice Springs. They are multiple offenders and they have some very clear antecedents as to why they have taken up that type of lifestyle. Many of them, as we heard earlier from the member for Wanguri, have drug habits that are then leading into repeat property crime and property offences.
We believe that targeted action on drugs and on those particular families and individuals that have taken up these activities in a big way is going to make greater inroads than an untargeted strategy like mandatory sentencing. So our Crime Prevention package will be very strongly implemented around the legislation that we that are talking about today.
I will pass finally to the issue of review which the member for Nelson raised in his contribution, and I thank him for that. We have already heard from the member for Wanguri that a Crime Statistics Unit will be established in a much stronger way under our government and that information will not only be available to this parliament on an ongoing basis to inform debate, but it will also be distributed to the households of the Northern Territory so that if you want to make the point ‘What are the people in the Northern Territory going to think about our strategies and the way we are implementing them?’, we are going to give them the information, accurate information, so they can make up their own minds about this. We are not going to be sitting here second guessing. They will be told how the crime trends are going: how many offences; how many are cleared up; what sort of sentences and court proceedings followed; how many people re-offend; and what the overall cash value of property crimes in their area are. We used to have that in Neighbourhood Watch, at least in a limited way. We are going to expand that and take that out to the general population so we have an informed community and we have informed debate in this House. The Crime Prevention Unit will analyse, on behalf of government, the trends that are apparent in the statistics that are being collected and we will certainly make sure that parliamentarians, among others, have full access to that information.
In response to the member for Nelson’s query about whether we could have a review in six months, I can make an undertaking today: we will bring this back as a ministerial statement in six months time, or thereabouts, and we’ll throw that open for debate. We, as a parliament, can decide how things are going.
Madam Speaker, with those few comments, I would again like to thank the honourable members for their contributions. It has been a very fulsome debate, as it should be because this is a very significant piece of legislation. With those remarks, I will conclude.
Madam SPEAKER: The question is that the bills be now read a second time.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 14 Noes 10
Mrs Aagaard Mr Baldwin
Mr Ah Kit Mr Burke
Mr Bonson Ms Carney
Dr Burns Ms Carter
Mr Henderson Mr Dunham
Mr Kiely Mr Elferink
Ms Lawrie Dr Lim
Mr McAdam Mr Maley
Ms Martin Mr Mills
Ms Scrymgour Mr Reed
Mr Stirling
Dr Toyne
Mr Vatskalis
Mr Wood
Motion agreed to; bills read a second time.
In committee:
Sentencing Amendment Bill (No 3) (Serial 7):
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole.
Mr BURKE: Mr Chairman, I understand that in terms of debate, there is one issue the shadow Attorney-General would like to comment on. Perhaps we could take that first and move through the rest.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Does the shadow Attorney-General want to do it clause by clause until we get there?
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, I suggest that we go clause by clause until we come to the appropriate clause that needs to be addressed, and we address it.
Mr CHAIRMAN: I invite the shadow Attorney-General to raise any issues that he wishes to under the question of the whole.
Clause 6:
Mr MALEY: Mr Chairman, there are a couple of points that I wish to raise and seek clarification from the Attorney-General, and they relate to clause 6, which is section 78A of the substantive act, being the Sentencing Act. I am going to seek some clarification and ask some questions of the Attorney-General in respect of section 78B(2)(a) and (b) and the construction which he had read into this piece of legislation.
The first query is in relation to section 78A, that is clause 6 in 78A of the substantive act. This is the clause which reads:
I am not going to repeat what I said earlier, but this is a purposive provision. I am wondering why did the Attorney-General instruct his solicitors to include this purposive provision which is, as I said, is a fundamental sentencing prerequisite in any event as opposed to all the other competing sentencing criteria? Why did the Attorney-General instruct his lawyers to include this particular provision when (a) it is already something which is utilised by the sentencing court, and (b) it is only one of about five competing sentencing discretions, and it adds nothing to the interpretation of the balance of the legislation which follows it?
Dr TOYNE: That section of the bill is simply to underline the intent of our policy. We made it very clear through our six point plan on crime prevention that we wanted to indicate to the courts the level of seriousness that the community as a whole feels about certain offences. Dealing with aggravated property offences, when it is read in conjunction with the Criminal Code Act as it will exist, that is simply saying to the courts that the spill of sentence types in the Criminal Code is an indication of popular opinion about the seriousness of those crimes.
Mr MALEY: This particular clause, you would expect, reads as if it is a preamble. It does not read as part of a constructive step-by-step piece of legislation. Despite what you said, that does not explain the unusual approach that you have adopted in inserting this piece of policy in the substantive part of the Sentencing Act.
Dr TOYNE: I can only say that it is quite common practice in putting legislation out that the intent of the parliament is written into the act. In fact, that was the practice of the previous CLP government on many occasions. I have probably got a quote on the desk there, I will just get it for you. Yes, a quote from the Criminal Code Amendment Act of 2001, which was brought here by the previous government. Section 149(a), Right to Safety from Attack by Intruders. This was your legislation for self-protection:
It is expressly declared that it is the public policy of the Territory that occupants of dwelling houses and
commercial premises, and persons invited into those premises, have a right to enjoy absolute safety in
the premises from attack by intruders.
Mr Stirling: That was out of the New South Wales legislation.
Dr TOYNE: Absolutely the same principle that we are using in our legislation. That is we are indicating to the courts the view of the parliament expressly through the legislation.
Mr MALEY: In respect of section 78A - and perhaps you should take some advice on this - the effect of section 78A in its current form and its current position is effectively zero as an interpretive tool for the following section which is section 78B. If it serves no constructive and proactive purpose in the interpretation of the legislation. Why is it, then, that you have instructed your solicitors to insert this particular piece of drafting, which is in the form of a preamble, in section 78A of this proposed bill?
Dr TOYNE: Well, if you look at 78B(1):
So it is basically feeding into that provision in the next section of the bill.
Mr ELFERINK: Further on to the issue raised by the shadow Attorney-General, he outlined that there were numerous and competing reasons and philosophies behind the sentencing process. You have outlined one. Why this one to the exclusion of the others and, secondly, are you sending a clear message to the courts that it is the intention of the parliament only for the courts to concentrate on this one aspect?
Dr TOYNE: The member for Macdonnell needs to look at the Sentencing Act itself. The sentencing guidelines are quite numerous and I probably would not want to read them all out here. But Part 2, section 5 deals with sentencing guidelines:
The only purposes for which sentences may be imposed on an offender are …
and then there is probably a whole alphabet of different reasons that already exist in the legislation. We are bringing in this other criteria which just adds the dimension that is in our policies in addition to what is already in the Sentencing Act.
Mr ELFERINK: This is where I am having my problem with it. Under Division 6, Aggravated Property Offences, which is quite specific - and throughout the second reading process, the Attorney-General has been quite specific about outlining aggravated property offences. Does he expect the court to turn its attention to solely the position outlined in section 78A - because it is located specifically, or headed specifically in relation to aggravated property offences? Why can’t the court simply allow the guidelines outlined in the Sentencing Act to apply to these offences as well? Why, specifically, do we change the intention of the legislation at section 78A?
Dr TOYNE: We are not saying that they should solely consider section 78A. We are saying that it is an important new criteria that we as a government, on behalf of the community, are saying should be considered in sentencing. But it supplements what is already in the Sentencing Act and can be used alongside the other criteria.
Mr ELFERINK: So this brings me back to my point in all of this: why are we outlining this? Under the Attorney-General’s own words, this has now become a superfluous section.
Dr TOYNE: It is bringing to prominence the areas of offence that we are describing as aggravated offences. I went through those aggravated offences during my Address-in-Reply. They are the offences that we believe the general public are particularly concerned about. We are saying, through this purpose, insertion into the legislation and the description of the aggravated offences that are in the Criminal Code Amendment Bill, that these are the offences that the court should pay particular attention to when they are considering the level of punishment during sentencing.
Mr MALEY: Section 78A, you just touched upon a point I was going to raise. If the reason for the existence of this section is to make sure it is at the forefront of the sentencing judge or magistrate’s mind, then why didn’t you make it clear or articulate that intention by using words such as ‘give this particular sentencing consideration more weight’? All you have done here is flag it. You did not have to flag it. Whether it was flagged or not, it would make no difference. When you talk about its reason being to justify the existence of section 78B(1), that really goes to the very nub of my argument.
The sentencing consideration which you refer to in section 78A exists, has always been applied, and probably will always continue to be applied. For you to articulate it, not direct a court to give it any further weight, and then to have in the following section to remind a court to keep this in mind, really achieves absolutely nothing.
Dr TOYNE: You are playing with words there. Mr Chairman, let’s read the words:
In other words, they must go back and say:
We are not saying you should think about it or give this a little bit of thought, we are saying you have to take it into account.
Mr DUNHAM: Mr Chairman, my question is that the words ‘community disapproval’ are a fairly nebulous description because the community approves and disapproves of things right throughout the place and that disapproval waxes and wanes on community attitude. It would be a very difficult thing to judge. My assumption is that the magistrates and judges will find some difficulty with gauging what that is and I am hopeful that this debate will be available to them so that they can take some guidance from the parliament. On that basis, I would propose that ‘community disapproval’ of persons committing aggravated offence is a very serious crime and it is something that this parliament would, in all likelihood, see people progressing to gaol unless there were very, very rare circumstances, so that the community disapproval is then evident to the sentencing judge and it is evident that we would see that this in all likelihood would progress to a sentence to gaol and in the event that it does not, it would be an anomalous circumstance rather than a normal circumstance.
Dr TOYNE: I do not agree that ‘community disapproval’ is a nebulous thing because it got you out of government. It can very much be measured and followed. I believe that when a judge is handing down a sentence for any of these aggravated offences, section 78B makes it pretty clear that there is a spill of sentencing options for a court and, taken in conjunction with 78A which is saying to a court: ‘Look, you are dealing with crimes here that are viewed very seriously by the general public, and therefore you must take that attitude of the general public into account when you are sentencing’, I do not think there would be too many courts that would just go straight to what you call a soft option. What we are very much indicating through this is that gaol is the most common outcome in these cases by far. By far. We are not going to have too much of a percentage of exceptional circumstances or community work orders. Gaol will be the most common sentence. Further to that, read in conjunction with the spill of different crimes of seriousness in the Criminal Code as it will be, there is a very clear indication there to courts as to significant terms of gaol is what we are expecting.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chairman, this goes to the heart of what I said during the second reading debate and this is that the Attorney-General is trying to, on the one hand, absolve his position or remove the parliament’s influence in the sentencing process entirely and, on the other hand, he is trying to say: ‘Well, parliament and the public expect you to do this’. What he has come up with as a result is a fairly flaccid and facile motherhood statement about how much the community approves. I don’t doubt that the community disapproves of home invasion, as they care to term it. In fact, I certainly do not approve of it, but when a judge or a magistrate for that matter is turning their attention to this issue, how much does the community disapprove? Mmm. A lot. Heaps. Maybe a little bit. I don’t know. This is the problem. The Attorney-General is trying to develop something here that he can go out in the public arena and say: ‘Oh well, I have something here in which I can rest upon and say, you see, we are giving a clear instruction to the courts that we have a certain level of expectation but then we are going to do nothing to actually bind those courts to fulfilling that expectation’. So the Attorney-General here should be quite clear about what he expects the courts to do.
He either expects them to imprison people or he expects them to exercise their full discretion. But this sort of motherhood statement is just a flaccid, facile attempt to enshrine a political purpose in a piece of legislation. And it is going to be an extremely clumsy tool for the courts to use because it is going to actually muddy the waters in the sentencing process rather than make those waters clearer. There are sentencing guidelines, as the Attorney-General has just demonstrated, and those sentencing guidelines are quite clear. Why are we creating ourselves a new section 78A which says that the community’s expectation should be reflected? That is what this whole debate is about. The whole mandatory sentencing debate has been about community expectations being reflected. That is what it was about in 1997. This is a section that is meaningless in intent and it is going to be an awful and clumsy tool which will give, when are going through the appeals process, any appellate court a headache to deal with.
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, certainly the balance we are trying to strike here is to return discretionary abilities to the courts and it is our very clear policy position that courts are the professional bodies that can best make decisions about the particulars of cases that come before them and the circumstances of both the offender and the victim. In the case of the framework that we are putting forward, we are particularly drawing attention to the new areas of offence and sentencing options that are set up under these amended provisions. We are reinforcing, within that context, the general context that already exists within the Sentencing Act. The Sentencing Act, the Sentencing Guidelines, section 5(d) says:
Now, that is very similar in intent but what we are bringing into the Criminal Code is the new offences of home invasion and business invasion. We are bringing into the Criminal Code enhanced sentencing action against car theft and trashing of cars. Those offences are very high in the public mind as being serious offences and by putting that provision into the bill, we basically said: ‘Here is a new area and a new focal point within the overall sentencing provisions that we want the courts to pay particular attention to in addition to the general provisions that already exist within the act’.
Mr MALEY: In relation to the construction of section 78B(2), that is clause 6 of the bill, the section says: ‘a court that records a conviction…’ I have already highlighted the discretion which is exercised in terms of deciding whether or not there is going to be a conviction once there is a finding of guilt. It does not necessarily follow that there is going to be a conviction. I have already highlighted and explained to the House that the finding of a conviction does not necessarily follow a finding of guilt and I have taken you and honourable members to the section which allows and gives a sentencing magistrate or court a discretion to convict or not convict. You have adopted a very principled approach by saying that the burden of a conviction is perhaps unfair having regard to the particular circumstances of a given case and there have been some examples talked about today. I am just wondering why the government adopted such a principled position in respect of section 78B(2) when, if you look at other portions of the Sentencing Act, just by way of example section 78BA and section 78BB, where you talk about where a court finds an offender guilty, the court must record a conviction.
So why, then, has the government adopted a different approach in determining whether or not there is going to be a conviction after a finding of guilt in respect of section 78B(2), and what type of message is the government sending out to the community?
Dr TOYNE: Can you restate what you said? We’ve had, as you can see, a conference and we really can’t tease out the point you’re trying to make. Can you just try and restate it in another way?
Mr MALEY: I will put it this way: you talked, in your Address-in-Reply, about having a principled position, giving the court discretion to not convict or convict and that principled position which the government has adopted has manifested itself in this provision and that’s why you have deliberately drafted it to read that it only comes into force if the court records a conviction.
Dr TOYNE: Yes.
Mr MALEY: Now, my query to you - and I gave an example of other provisions which exist in the Act, and I just remind you of that: there are other provisions, section 78BA and section 78BB, where once there’s a finding of guilt, a court must record a conviction. Why is there a different approach taken in respect of property crime such as home invasions, and what type of message are you sending out to the community?
Dr TOYNE: I think those sections you are referring to deal with rape and assaults, the sort of serious crimes of assault. We don’t feel that the offences that we are talking about here, aggravated property crime equate to the sentencing provisions there. I will further clarify it from here. The retention of the regime of sexual and violent assaults committed by adults reflects the seriousness with which the government views crimes against the person. Now, that’s a category of crimes against the person. We’re talking about crimes against property in the current legislation. The mandatory sentencing regime for sexual and violent offences is more in keeping with community concerns. It is more properly targeted at appropriate offences and involves a great level of judicial discretion. The regime requires that where an offender is found guilty of a second or subsequent assault involving violence, he or she must be given an actual sentence of imprisonment. For sexual offences such as paedophilia, the requirement to serve an actual term of imprisonment applies for first time offences as well. So we make a very clear distinction between property crimes and crimes against persons, particularly of the destructive kind that we’re talking about with sexual offences.
I will just further say that this legislation has come out of our six point plan which is not dealing in any way with sexual offences and assault. There are other areas that we’ll develop in policy as we go forward with reform that may well go into those other areas.
Ms CARNEY: Mr Chairman, does the Attorney-General acknowledge the absolute inconsistency in his statement of principle? That is, on the one hand that the court should have discretion for one set of offences and should not have discretion for another set of offences?
Dr TOYNE: No, I don’t.
Ms CARNEY: Is that a no?
Dr TOYNE: It’s a no.
Mr BURKE. It’s a follow-up in a similar line. That is, on the one hand you haven’t dealt at all with the mandatory sentencing provisions as regarding sexual offences and aggravated assault, yet at the same time you’ve stood in this Chamber and said on a point of principle this government does not intend to influence the court. Now, that’s the question. The question is: in pure logic and principle, on the one hand you’re prepared to arbitrarily direct the court with regard to aggravated assault and sexual offences so that they have no flexibility other than a sentence of imprisonment; on the other hand you stand on a point of principle and supposedly say you will not influence the court on principle on other charges.
Mr Stirling: In relation to property offences, Mr Chairman. We were always very clear on that.
Mr BURKE: The question, Mr Chairman, was to the Attorney-General.
Mr Stirling: We were always very clear on that. We never for once suggested…
Mr Burke: A point of order, Mr Chairman.
Mr CHAIRMAN: I think the question was to the Attorney-General.
Mr Stirling: Mr Chairman, any one can jump in at the Committee stage of the debate and address the point before the floor. It’s not Question Time.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Order! The Leader of Government Business has the floor.
Mr STIRLING: Thank you, Mr Chairman. This is not Question Time. If I jump, first risen, recognised by the Chair, I have the floor.
Mr Burke: You weren’t recognised!
Mr STIRLING: I had the floor.
Mr Burke: You weren’t recognised. Admit that.
Mr STIRLING: I was, thank you very much.
Just by way of illustration of this point, Mr Chairman, we never said, for example, that in relation to DUI offences - where it is mandatory that you lose your licence for so long, given the level of intoxication at the time of the offence, you do six months, 12 months, 18 months depending on the priors that you have - that we’d be doing away with that. Is that not a form of mandatory sentencing? Yes, it is a form of mandatory sentencing. Never once when we were in opposition did we argue with the principle that the courts apply those sorts of sentences in relation to the DUI offences.
Now, if that is somehow crossing your message, you are simply playing with this point of principle, whether we stand on this point of mandatory sentencing or not. We have always agreed and always supported the previous government’s approach in sentencing in relation to DUI. It’s a form of mandatory sentencing. We agree with that. Many people ask in debate and in question and ask me as an individual: ‘Where do you stand on issues like that if you are opposed to mandatory sentencing?’ Opposed to mandatory sentencing in relation to property offences was always our view.
Dr TOYNE: Can I make the further point, Mr Chairman, that in the case of crimes against the person: there is no minimum mandatory sentencing for those crimes. So if you want to talk about consistency, the point that we’re building up here is that there are domains of crime and there are domains of public policy regarding crime. There doesn’t have to be the one approach applied to every single type and species of crime. Often, the more serious the crime and the more complex the crime, the more the court’s discretion may have to be brought into play. But if you’re talking about crimes of such serious nature that they can attract life imprisonment or some very severe sentences, all the more reason for some discretion to be built into the court’s action. Yet we see with property crimes there is a minimum provision put in. With these serious crimes against the person, no minimum provision. So I don’t think consistency is an issue here. I think that crimes are in domains. There are areas and domains of crime where it’s appropriate to have some mandatory provisions; there are areas of crime where it is inappropriate, and it’s patently inappropriate from the outcomes of the courts.
Mr MALEY: Attorney-General, just moving on to the following two subparagraphs, that is, if there is a conviction then the court must order the offender to serve a term of imprisonment or order the offender to participate in an approved project under a community work order. Are you seriously suggesting that as a matter of construction, because the reference to a term of imprisonment appears on the page above the reference to an approved community work order, that a court is required to firstly consider a term of imprisonment? If you are seriously suggesting that that is the construction that you expect this legislation to reflect, then can you explain why you have a disjunctive ‘or’ at the end of the first sentence? A clear ‘or’. There is no reference to the court will first consider this option and if it is not suitable, then it goes onto subparagraph 2. Why have you got that disjunctive ‘or’ there if that first limb is the term of imprisonment and that’s supposed to be considered first?
Dr TOYNE: I was just trying to find out what a ‘disjunctive or’ was, but we have figured that one out. Aggravated crimes, under what will be the act, are very serious crimes. They are indicated to be very serious crimes and they carry quite severe maximum penalties. Although the disjunctive ‘or’ is there, we don’t believe that there will be many occasions where a court would depart from a period of imprisonment. I can certainly say that I am basing my scrutiny of court outcomes on the assumption that we will not be having very large numbers of cases where imprisonment is not taken up by a court because I am bound to go to the DPP and get them to review cases that are not in common with the intent this law.
Mr Burke: The separation of powers, don’t forget that. Ask them nicely.
Dr TOYNE: Have you learnt about it now, Denis?
Clause 8:
Mr MALEY: In this proposed piece of legislation, Clause 8, you have an amendment to Section 106B of the principal act. The new amendment, 5A, reads that there is now a capacity for a Victim Impact Statement to include some sort of reference to what the victim sees as an appropriate penalty. Why haven’t you gone a step further and directed that a court should place some weight upon what the victim requests, if there is any request, in the Victim Impact Statement?
Dr TOYNE: The purpose of Victim Impact Statements as they stand is to give the court access to the victim’s wishes in terms of the carriage of that case. It is inherent in Victim Impact Statements that the court will consider them in sentencing. But if I could make a further point about this: when we looked at the practicalities of including victims wishes in sentencing in a court, the main constraint on that at the moment is not the legislation which already does enshrine Victim Impact Statements, but the actual resourcing of the Victim Support Unit and VOCAL in providing victims with sufficient support so that they can actually get the confidence and the framework to be able to put forward a statement in an empowered way. There will be issues, and this is what brings me to the point I was making earlier: we are talking about a reform package here and the legislation has to be placed in that context. We will be certainly trying to bring forward a greater capacity for victims, whether they are in remote courts and happen to be Aboriginal people or whether they are in courts in our urban centres, to actually produce a meaningful and effective Victim Impact Statement for consideration by the courts.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chairman, this highlights the point I was trying to make earlier, and I will bring the Attorney-General’s attention to 78B(1):
The purpose, of course, is stated in section 78A:
That excludes, by it’s very nature in section 78A, the Victim Impact Statement and the wishes of the victim. How can the Attorney-General, by the exclusive nature of section 78A, guarantee that the courts will take notice of Victim Impact Statements, and the victim’s wishes?
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I really think the point is nonsensical. There is absolutely nothing to stop a court considering the background opinion of the public as expressed through this legislation, through its parliament, and the wishes of individual victims in terms of reaching a verdict and a sentencing arrangement in a case. There is absolutely nothing to stop those two things existing side by side.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chairman, I am struggling with this a bit. A court that finds a person guilty of an aggravated property offence must take into account the purpose of the division, the purpose being community expectations. How does what he has just said relate to Victim Impact Statements? He just simply says: ‘Oh we’ll expect the courts to do it’. Why do you have to have a purpose of the division which clearly states one particular expectation to the exclusion of others?
Dr TOYNE: Because in the opinion of the general public it is very important for the victim’s wishes to be taken into account in sentencing. So we are actually enacting what we’ve heard through pretty wide consultation, doorknocking and so on. We now have a mechanism which will allow public wishes, as regards the inclusion of the victim in the court and sentencing procedures, to be enacted. They are completely consistent.
Mr ELFERINK: But as the shadow Attorney-General pointed out before, there are sentencing guidelines for that purpose. Once again, it explains or demonstrates the facile and useless nature of section 78A.
Bill agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
Sentencing (Consequential Amendments) Bill (Serial 8):
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
Juvenile Justice Amendment Bill (No 2) (Serial 5):
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
Juvenile Justice (Consequential Amendments) Bill (Serial 6):
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
Reports adopted.
Dr TOYNE (Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bills be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bills read a third time.
Continued from 17 October 2001.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Madam Speaker, once again, I was briefed last Thursday in respect of this proposed legislation and I am indebted for that. There are a number of provisions contained in the Criminal Code Amendment Bill (No 4) 2001. I was interested to hear what the Attorney-General had to say in his second reading speech and in particular at page 3 of that speech when he was articulating some of the great benefits and some of the important planks behind this new legislation. He went on to say - and I will just remind honourable members of what he said:
He is talking about, of course, as he describes it, the new provisions of home invasion and invasion of business premises and he is relying upon this assertion that there is a difficulty with the current legislation.
If I could perhaps ask the Attorney-General to take some advice. If he turns the page and has a look at section 214 of the current Northern Territory Criminal Code at (3) it says - and this applies to the unlawful entry provisions in section 213:
So we have an evidential provision which addresses, certainly in part, the question of intent. The proposed bill - remembering that it was all done in the framework of ‘serious crime means serious time’ and is a tough new approach - goes on to provide an expanded definition of the term ‘damage’. Remember that the substantive new offence talks about ‘any person unlawfully enters a dwelling house and unlawfully damages property…’ blah, blah, blah. There is an amplified definition of the term ‘damage’ contained in the draft section 226A(1) and (2). The draft bill in its current form, talks about taking into account a number of matters in determining whether damage is of a serious nature - there is an aggravating circumstances contained within that section 226B itself - and it talks about any physical, psychological or emotional harm suffered by a person as a result of the damage; any apprehension, fear, distress or revulsion caused by a person as a result of the damage.
Let me tell you from a practical perspective, provisions like that are not useful. That is, to use the words of a senior barrister I spoke to over lunch time: ‘It is waffle’. It is not going to assist; it is a feel-good statement which does not advance the interest of justice at all. You have to remember that in a practical context, anyone who falls to be dealt with under section 226B, this new home invasion provision, probably 98% of the time the matter will be heard and determined in the magistrate’s court. Whilst the maximum penalty certainly reflects how serious our community views this particular act, the court is of course bound by section 122 of the Sentencing Act in that it cannot impose a sentence of imprisonment in excess of five years.
So, no matter what you say, unless it is going to be taken to the Supreme Court, in reality almost all matters are dealt with summarily – not all, 98% of matters are dealt with summarily. Then really, what you have in terms of a maximum penalty, whether it be seven or so years, if it is in excess of five, it is impossible for a magistrate to impose a penalty beyond those five years.
Whilst it might, of course, form the basis of fairly compelling press release, the real and practical effect is that there is an enormous amount of overlap between this new provision - in fact, between the provision as it currently exists for unlawful entry as contained in section 213, and if you look at section 226, apart from the slightly extended and amplified version ‘definition of damage’, they really cover very much the same conduct. If the government is under the mistaken belief that if you have two sections which cover ostensibly the same type of conduct, then that’s going to have an effect on crime, than the government is sadly mistaken. Apart from the political mileage of the term ‘home invasion’ and ‘invasion of business premises’ which is contained in the heading of the new provision, it once again does not advance justice.
If the government is serious about catching the types of damage which they have decided to have an internal definition and refer to, then the sensible and logical approach would be to include that amplified and broadened definition of damage in the current provision which is section 211 of the Criminal Code dealing with specifically unlawful entry of buildings and dwelling houses. It also includes a number of aggravating circumstances which, quite frankly, should be included in this section. For example, in the current provision we talk about if a defendant commits an offence and it occurs at night time then he is liable to twice the punishment. It is difficult and there are scenarios which, if you take a given set of facts, the maximum penalty available to a court would be slightly higher under section 226B but there are also hypotheticals that if a person committed a certain offence, although he could be charged with either section 226B or section 213, he would actually be liable to receive a greater term of imprisonment under the old legislation. There is no consistency.
Most of the legislation contained in this proposed bill is surplusage and, really, if the government is serious about having a succinct and readable Criminal Code, then any amplification or broadening of the definition of ‘damage’ should be contained in the current provision of unlawful entry at section 213.
There is another very interesting and serious anomaly which I want to bring to the Chamber’s attention. The Attorney-General, reading from his second reading speech, read into Hansard, and he was very passionate about this, the other change which is clause 5, the change to section 251 of the Criminal Code, the criminal damage aspect of the Northern Territory Criminal Code. He was commending the bill to the House. He was talking about the bill will amend the Criminal Code to provide an increased penalty of seven years imprisonment for cases where serious damage is done to a motor vehicle. He goes on to explain that there are some anomalies relating to how, if there is a motor vehicle and 50% of it is damaged, then there can be some changes. But he says:
I do not want to parrot what I said earlier today, but there are many members of our community who will not have an opportunity to peruse the legislation and they are quite entitled to rely upon what our Attorney-General says in parliament and indeed, what appears in Hansard, and for him to say that there is an increased penalty of seven years for offences under section 251 is incorrect.
If I could just remind honourable members that if you look at section 251 of the current Criminal Code, and that is the offence of criminal damage, it says that if you commit an act of criminal damage and it is less than $500, then you are liable to imprisonment for two years; if the loss caused is over $500 then you run the gauntlet of being dealt with and the maximum penalty is seven years. Under this proposed amendment which the Attorney-General endorsed to this House as increasing the penalty, if the loss is under $5000 then a defendant only faces a maximum penalty of two years. Now there is a rider on that, of course. He talks about, in a new sub-section, which is sub-paragraph (c)(a), he talks about, and has commended this to the House, that if the motor vehicle is worth less than $5000 but the damage is to 50% or more of the motor vehicle, then that can amount to serious and it is elevated and falls within the scope of a matter that could be dealt with by a maximum term of imprisonment of seven years.
Not only has the Attorney-General misled parliament by saying that there is an increased penalty, it really is the situation where there is actually a decreased penalty. We have taken three steps backwards and one step forward.
The instructions which he gave to his counsel are clearly inconsistent with what he has put on the public record. Indeed, both the Chief Minister and the Attorney-General reiterated the same words. The proof of the pudding is in the legislation. There is certainly no plan and there is no scheme and whilst I accept the proposition that the government certainly has, and it has been said by some of my colleagues today, the mandate to repeal mandatory sentencing, they do not have a mandate to reduce the penalty for some very serious conduct that gets caught under our Criminal Code.
Madam Speaker, for those reasons, I cannot support the bill.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I will just speak briefly to this particular Criminal Code Amendment Bill essentially to put on the record that I consider the new crimes of home invasion and invasion of business premises to be nothing new, nothing that isn’t already fully provided for in the Criminal Code. I would also emphasise the fact that under the current Criminal Code intent is shown by the mere fact that the person is there. Under this new legislation the word ‘intent’ has been removed. I ask the question of the Attorney-General why that word purposely has been removed under his amendments. I surmise then that the Attorney-General is of the view that if a person enters your home or your business premises, in a general sense they are probably thrill seekers or out for a good time and therefore should not be dealt with severely. If they are looking around but do not have any intent to steal anything when they walk in but decide whilst they are there they will take the opportunity and trash the place, that therefore should be seen as a mitigation to the fact that it was not their intent at the outset to cause that damage and therefore they should be dealt with, with some leniency.
That is the way I interpret the way he has given instructions. That is the way I interpret the fact that the intent has been removed and as my colleague, the shadow Attorney-General, has said, to our mind unless you can provide further explanation, you have weakened the current legislation in terms of demonstrating the seriousness of a person entering a dwelling, whether it be a personal home or commercial premises, and damaging that in any shape or form. Essentially meaningless waffle in terms of the language and certainly a weakening of the provisions that currently exist for those who do enter a dwelling, whether it be commercial or domestic, because by mere fact that they are there under the current legislation, that shows intent in itself.
The other question I would ask the Attorney-General is - and it wasn’t adequately answered to me before - there are two questions. One is why the issue of motor vehicles has been separated out. Is that again just political waffle? Currently under the Criminal Code, under Section 251 Criminal Damage in General, 251(1)(c): ‘the loss caused or intended to be caused by such damage is greater than $500…’. That clause alone picks up the issue of motor vehicles. Those motor vehicles that are less than $500 can be demonstrated through that current schedule or that current clause and I ask the question why the issue of motor vehicles have been separated out.
The last question is the simple question as to why the issue of aggravation and seriousness has now being raised to $5000. You made the point that times have moved on, anything that is less than $5000 now is essentially not serious and therefore shouldn’t be captured in this sort of legislation. I will give you an example that came to me recently of a house that was broken into, trashed and goods stolen. I will go through some of those goods:
All of those together, I indicate to the Attorney-General, total $3340. Now, that is nowhere near your demonstration of what is a serious crime to the average Territorian and all I simply say to you is you go out there and peddle that to the average Territorian because we certainly will be, and reminding the average Territorian that your idea of a serious break in to a home is only that that exceeds $5000 in costs, and you run your lines and we will run ours. We will see what Territorians think of it. We don’t agree with this legislation. The language is waffle, but certainly the moving of aggravation to the point of $5000, I believe, is an insult to Territorians.
Madam SPEAKER: Attorney-General, before you go on, you have failed again to move your motion to suspend Standing orders, so could you go back and do that?
Dr TOYNE (Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of Standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Criminal Code Amendment Bill (No 4), (Serial 4) passing through all stages at these Sittings.
Motion agreed to.
Dr TOYNE (Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, the first thing that we need to make really clear in this bill is that we are placing two new areas of offence into an existing structure of sentencing guidelines within the Criminal Code, so the example that the Leader of the Opposition just indicated would definitely come under other areas of the stealing provisions in the existing Code. So it is not like they don’t make the threshold for aggravation under the offences that we are talking about in this bill, therefore they go off scot free and to go and do it again. They will still be in court; they will still be punished under the existing provisions and they will probably cop a fairly decent sentence for that level of theft.
What we are indicating through this amendment is that we want to introduce and calibrate areas of trashing of businesses, trashing of homes and trashing of vehicles. There is an element here that isn’t present in the current Criminal Code. It is an element of invasion, of contravention of privacy which is beyond the mere material transaction of the crime, so that is why we are turning to provisions which do abandon the intent of the crime in the strict terms of the intent to steal or the intent to wilfully damage. We are basically saying, in line with very strong opinion around the households, that some people go into homes with the express purpose of trashing those homes. Some people take motor cars away, not just to use them and park them somewhere so that the owner can get them back, but to trash them. Some people go into businesses and they go there not necessarily to steal the contents of the business, but to trash the business. This is the element of criminal behaviour that we are trying to capture in these new provisions.
In terms of calibration, we have gone to the unlawful entry provisions in the current Criminal Code and we have calibrated the seriousness of these new offences against the existing framework of sentencing to indicate the level of seriousness that is being placed within the overall legislation which will represent the amended Act.
I will indicate again, as I did in the earlier debate, that for the purposes of section 226B, clause 3 of the amending bill, the following matters are relevant in determining whether damage is of a serious nature: it is not simply the cash value of the materials that have been taken or damaged beyond use; it is also the impact of the crime on the household or on the business, the business people, in terms of physical, psychological, emotional harm as a result of the damage done and any apprehension, fear, distress or revulsion that are caused to the victim of the crime as a result of the activities of the offender. It extends the amount of loss beyond the actual value of the goods taken or damaged or displaced; it extends the concept of loss to what is required to repair and replace the dwelling or the business into the original working order that it was in before the offence occurred. So we are looking at quite a different focus to this legislation than the existing offences within the Criminal Code.
We are looking at trashing as a separate and a differently motivated offence than the offences of unlawful entry in themselves, criminal damage in themselves or theft in themselves. This is a different dimension. It is a dimension of a combination of vandalising tendencies and invasive tendencies, the invading of other people’s privacy.
In terms of the offences where the shadow Attorney-General claimed that I had misled the House, I will just clarify that. If I have indicated that there is an increase in the penalty when there isn’t, that may come out if I clarify it. The Criminal Code provides currently for three offences of criminal damage. There’s simple criminal damage under section 251(1), and its aggravated forms, section 251(2). Damage of less than $500 is the simple form; more than $500 becomes an aggravated form attracting seven years gaol maximum; and a further aggravation of over $50 000 where the offender is looking at 14 years gaol. So you have a three-tier system in the existing Code. I will just make a point about what we have done: the simple criminal damage now becomes up to $5000 in damage instead of $500 for reasons I gave earlier, and that is the two year maximum offence for sentencing; aggravated becomes over $5000, and that attracts seven years of imprisonment, equivalent to the category at the moment; further aggravation is up to $50 000. So, in effect, what we have done is to retain the length of sentences; we have recalibrated the dollar amounts that divide those categories of offence for the reasons that I’ve given.
Eighteen years have passed since the $500 level was put into our law. The value of the dollar has changed out of recognition in that 18 years, and we have brought this up to the equivalent level of seriousness of material damage that would have been close to what that would have represented in 1984, so that is the only change to it.
Now, if I have claimed somewhere that we have increased to seven years, well, I’ll certainly say no, we’ve retained it at seven years just to be clear about it. We have simply recalibrated the dollar amounts that divide the categories.
Stealing is not a part of this. I have made the point before that we are trying to specifically target a new type of activity as a criminal activity. The activity of trashing is all of the above; it can involve stealing, it can involve vandalism, criminal damage, it can involve unlawful entry, it can involve the use or non-use of weapons, so all of that. But the thing we are trying to capture here, and it’s something that we have taken from public concerns, is that in contemporary life, there are people going around deliberately attacking the material base and the privacy and the security of businesses and homes. We believe that there needs to be a specific response in our laws to take account of that type of activity.
Madam Speaker, with those comments I will leave the process to go to Committee.
Madam SPEAKER: The question is the bill be now read a second time.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 13 Noes 11
Mrs Aagaard Mr Baldwin
Mr Ah Kit Mr Burke
Mr Bonson Ms Carney
Dr Burns Ms Carter
Mr Henderson Mr Dunham
Mr Kiely Mr Elferink
Ms Lawrie Dr Lim
Mr McAdam Mr Maley
Ms Martin Mr Mills
Ms Scrymgour Mr Reed
Mr Stirling Mr Wood
Dr Toyne
Mr Vatskalis
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Dr TOYNE (Attorney General)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Dr TOYNE (Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of Standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Police Administration Amendment Bill (Serial 2), and Justices Amendment Bill (No 2) (Serial 3) passing through all stages at this Sitting.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, although I support the content of these bills, because I support anything that can reduce the paperwork of the police, I don’t particularly feel that these two bills need to be treated as a matter of urgency. While I have agreed with the other bills going through because I felt that there was a good argument for them being passed as a matter of urgency, and that related to a log jam of cases in the courts, I think in this case there is no such argument. We should use urgency only as written in Standing Order 179 which states:
I believe that this bill could lay on the Table for a month without any hardship and would allow time for public comment, and I think that is very important. I know it is a relatively minor issue, but it would be good in this case to let the people know that we are looking at some changes to the way people are summonsed. As I said, I will support the bill when it comes through, but I think we need to keep the process as transparent and accountable as possible.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 13 Noes 11
Mrs Aagaard Mr Baldwin
Mr Ah Kit Mr Burke
Mr Bonson Ms Carney
Dr Burns Ms Carter
Mr Henderson Mr Dunham
Mr Kiely Mr Elferink
Ms Lawrie Dr Lim
Mr McAdam Mr Maley
Ms Martin Mr Mills
Ms Scrymgour Mr Reed
Mr Stirling Mr Wood
Dr Toyne
Mr Vatskalis
Motion agreed to.
Continued from 17 October 2001.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I have not had an opportunity to properly consider this legislation, so I cannot give a detailed and considered response. What I can say is that there certainly is qualified support from the opposition, and we have no problem with the very concept of reducing the paperwork, so our initial response is certainly positive.
However, the concerns raised by the Independent member for Nelson are really the cornerstone of our concerns, as well as the fact that the shadow police minister has not yet been briefed, let alone briefed on this particular piece of legislation which will have a direct effect on that organisation. There is no need to rush these two pieces of legislation through. They do not form any part of this so-called scheme which the government have been referring to during the course of today. We have not had an opportunity to properly consult the very people that will be affected by these changes, namely the Northern Territory Police, their Association and the courts and the staff of the Office of Courts Administration.
Whilst the legislation is, on the face of it, adopting a successful practice which exists in other jurisdictions and it will lessen the burden of paperwork on police at the front line, it is nevertheless incumbent, in fact a duty of the opposition to properly vet such legislation to ensure that it is fair and just law. In the circumstances, we are not in a position to support the legislation, but I have a rider on that: we do have qualified support in that we agree with the general principle; we just are not in a position to give a considered response and properly carry out our duties having regard to the haste in which it has been brought before this parliament.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, while we are here, I just wanted to pick up on the points made by the shadow Attorney-General. The shadow Attorney-General is quite right. From the Labor leader, Clare Martin, her position paper on good government, I would like to read the following:
The hypocrisy is self-evident. The member for Nelson is absolutely correct in his position, and I support his call. I think that the Labor party and the parliamentary wing of the Labor party should be looking very, very hard at your position paper.
Mr Ah Kit: Call us the government. We are the government.
Mr ELFERINK: We have heard the attitude from the member for Arnhem, and his attitude is ‘get used to it’. They have the audacity to say that we were arrogant in government and yet they come in here and try to take over the parliament in the way that they found so contemptible in the past. You are legends, guys. You are absolute legends!
Dr TOYNE (Attorney-General): Madam Chairman, a short debate but a lively one. I want to explain why urgency is sought on these two bills. We see it as integral to the package of reform that we are bringing forward at this time. We believe that with the police minister’s activities in reshaping the police work that will be involved in instigating or enforcing the law that we brought in today that we want to see the police being able to quickly produce a strong connection back to court action and sentencing for offenders that are caught in the context of these new offences that we have brought in, the offences of home invasion and business invasion particularly.
These were good bills to start with. They do take a lot of dross out of the life of our police and save the public purse considerably in terms of the resources and the time that police are putting into chasing alleged offenders for appearances in court. I can give, as a small example, a case where a young man from Lajamanu had been arraigned to appear in court and it took about three weeks of police time to actually finally get that person in front of a court, not because the young man was being particularly elusive - although in actual fact he was proving to be very elusive - but he was simply doing what young Walpiri blokes do all the time, and that is move around. People could not find out where he was at the times that the courts were available to actually hear his case.
This is sensible law. It does cut out the dross. I can give my personal undertaking as Attorney-General that there were particular reasons why we brought this package forward in a relatively short timeframe. I have explained the reasons for urgency of the core bills. We want to have enough weight to the legislation and the new law that is in place to make inroads on these crimes. We are very serious about the police backing up the intent of these laws and our courts backing up the intent of these laws, but we do need to work across the domains of crime prevention if we are going to make any impact on the current crime rates.
I think the members opposite would be the first to agree that particularly property crime is a very intractable problem and we have to take a very wide-based action on it. It will involve the courts; it will involve the police; and it will involve our social services, education system and a lot of other things as well. We want to get started on that and we want to have a broad enough base to launch into these initiatives and hence we have brought a fairly broad package to the parliament today.
While we are on the point of urgency, I just want to put members on notice that we again will be forced to bring one more bill on urgency to this Sittings and that is the Chief Magistrate validation for exactly the same reasons that we have had to bring forward the mandatory sentencing repeals today. If that validation bill is not passed by this parliament in time for the Federal Court decision coming down, our court system could be in total chaos, so we will be bringing that forward. But from this bad start, if you like, in terms of the number of bills that have come through under urgency, I can assure you that my intent as Attorney-General will be to give the parliament the normal periods of scrutinising the vast majority of bills. In fact, I would hope at the end of the Ninth Assembly that we can have a look at the score card and we can say: ‘Well, we didn’t get 58 urgency bills through this House’. It is not our intention at all. This is a particular circumstance early in our term. All the other bills that are on the Notice Paper are as a result of this week and next week, you will be seeing in November.
Motion agreed to; bills read a second time.
Dr TOYNE (Attorney-General)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bills be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bills read a third time.
Mr STIRLING (Education, Employment and Training): Madam Speaker, I rise to make a statement as Minister for Education, Employment and Training. My portfolio covers pre-school, primary, secondary, post-secondary and tertiary sectors. That is from pre-school to retirement in terms of preparing children and adults for employment and fitting them for the learning and re-learning required for the rapidly changing 21st century world of work.
The extraordinarily rapid pace of social, technological, economic, legal, demographic, environmental and cultural change throughout the modern world is known to us all. The Northern Territory now competes on an international level to attract investment and create jobs. We want these jobs to go to Territorians, not to ‘fly in, fly out’ experts brought in for the short term by their companies. For this, the Territory needs government with vision. We need to be on the front foot. We must strengthen our capacity to forecast and analyse business opportunities and to identify Northern Territory areas of competitive advantage and Northern Territory niche areas. We need a jobs strategy to deliver these opportunities to our home-grown workforce. We must work to position the Territory as an attractive location for international business with a competent, skilled workforce able to train and re-train to match emerging business opportunities.
It is with this in mind that this government had the common sense and foresight to combine into one the portfolios of education, training and employment. Through collaboration, this Labor government will develop a Northern Territory Employment Strategy. To do this, the government will work closely with the community, business and education sectors Territory-wide and at regional level. An employment strategy is only as good as the education and training which underpin it. So as Minister for Education, Employment and Training, I want to turn to each of those areas.
School education is a top priority. Our children must be equipped to meet the challenges of a rapidly changing world. Everybody knows that good teachers are the essential ingredient of good education. As the government, we have a strong commitment to working with teachers and a deep respect for the commitment Northern Territory teachers have to their students. I want to emphasise this given the recently concluded Enterprising Bargaining Agreement: that process was a difficult one. Responsible fiscal management is essential as a precondition of reform. Given this, and the very difficult budgetary context this new government has inherited from it predecessor, the task was made more challenging. I believe the resolution of teachers’ concerns to keep salary levels competitive is excellent. By reducing the time of the agreement we have allowed for further consideration of this issue well before Northern Territory teachers were at risk of falling behind.
But I am concerned that the Enterprise Bargaining Agreement process did give a rocky start to the relationship between this government and teachers. Government does recognise and respect the very real concerns teachers have to improve the quality of education. We share those concerns. In accordance with our election commitment, this government will add 100 teachers to the teaching force over the life of this government. We will work with teachers over issues they have identified in the bargaining process such as relief teacher arrangements in the regions, non-contact time for primary teachers and professional development. Government recognises the role that teachers play in working to equip our young people to take their place as contributors to the Territory’s future.
I look forward to implementing this government’s reform agenda in public education. We will do this in close collaboration with our teachers. Teachers want and deserve respect as professionals. I have asked the department to consult fully with all stakeholders in developing the model for a Northern Territory Teachers’ Registration Board. Such a body can bring teachers to the centre in setting standards and appropriate professional development strategies for teachers.
This government has a real commitment to public education and alongside this commitment, we support the vital contribution that the independent schools sector makes to our education system and the important additional choice it offers for families in providing for the education of their children.
Our reform agenda in public education includes building basic skills in literacy, numeracy, and information technology skills; forging effective working partnerships with parents and the wider community; and a greater emphasis on school to work transition. Students will be able to commence Vocational Education Training programs earlier in Year 9 to better prepare them for employment. These programs will have a strong regional focus aimed at developing firm partnerships between schools, training providers and employers, and looking in particular at how vocational education in schools might more effectively add to employment options for remote indigenous students, improving the retention and performance of our Year 11 and 12 students and urgently tackling the unacceptable outcomes in indigenous education which will be a key focus.
The Collins report, Learning Lessons, provides a blueprint outlining the actions needed to improve indigenous education. In opposition, we supported the recommendations of the Collins review. Specifically, this government will work to implement the five key elements identified in the indigenous education strategic plan:
We are not just talking about building three secondary schools in the bush as offered by the previous government. We are not interest in ad hocery here. We will do things properly. I think the comment was made yesterday in relation to us not following through on the three secondary schools in remote communities. I could not think, next to the $4 million for the new minimum security prison, of a bigger waste of public money at the moment. We have Aboriginal kids in these communities coming out with a Year 2, 3 or 4 if they’re lucky level of literacy and numeracy. What would you do with a high school? What would you do with a high school when they are attaining levels of Year 2, 3 or 4 literacy?
This is how out of touch our predecessors were. The former Chief Minister remains completely out of touch. We will work to get the basics right and the delivery right in these Aboriginal communities so that the literacy and numeracy levels and standards rise to a point where it would be appropriate to have high schools in these communities.
As Collins pointed out, a number of reforms are required at the systems level. This government, for example, is committed to the introduction of a student tracking system and to a business information system that allows all students’ outcomes to be recorded and monitored for improvements and for better reporting to all parents. Again, it is an indictment of the predecessors that they were 27 years in charge of education in the Northern Territory and never once in that 27 years did they bother to have a tracking system for kids in indigenous communities to know basically whether they were going to school or not or what the outcomes or what their literacy and numeracy levels were. It would be subject, I daresay, to a Royal Commission if that sort of omission was allowed in an urban situation, yet for 27 years they didn’t care enough about indigenous education not to put in place a proper student tracking system so that we had any idea at all about what was occurring with these students in rural and remote communities.
This government will implement recommendation 144 of the Collins Report to replace the Indigenous Education Council of the Northern Territory with a forum of senior indigenous people who can advise government on education. Improvements in indigenous education cannot happen unless indigenous people are driving the agenda and accepting the agenda and the commitment required for change.
We will establish a Collins Review Implementation Steering Committee to be co-chaired by the former Senator Bob Collins himself and a senior indigenous educator. The majority of this Committee’s membership will be made up of senior indigenous people from ATSIC, the land councils, indigenous remote school principals, indigenous health and the public sector. We must maximise the resources available to address the declining attendance and educational outcomes for indigenous students. Already the government has cleared the 12 month blockage between the Commonwealth and the previous Northern Territory government to reach an agreement with the Commonwealth to provide funds over four years under the IESIP and NIELNS programs. This is proof positive that this government will work collaboratively with any and all parties to improve indigenous student outcomes.
It wasn’t very difficult at all, Madam Speaker. Dr Kemp, the Commonwealth Minister for Education, rang me on one day early in my term as Minister for Education. I simply arranged through the department and within a relative short time, we had things going from our end and Dr Kemp was able to get the paperwork through almost immediately following the calling of the Commonwealth election. That probably pushed things along from their end as well. But again, a matter of weeks where our predecessors had said: ‘No, no. We don’t need that $19 or $20m’ or whatever was on offer. ‘We can go it alone because we don’t like the terms that you are offering it to us on’. Now that, again, underlines the commitment that our predecessors had to indigenous education.
Collins identified the need for government departments to work together. This government will move beyond the rhetoric of inter-agency cooperation. The key task is to clear the way for practical cooperation between government agencies on the ground. My Cabinet colleagues and I will actively pursue this.
In the post-secondary and tertiary sectors, today’s school students can expect to have several career changes in their lifetime and some of the jobs they will have do not yet exist. We must ensure that Northern Territory students come out of school equipped as learners for the future. Equally, we must ensure the post-secondary sector can ensure streamlined, responsive and timely training provision. We need training providers who can move in ahead of the employment opportunities offering just-in-time skills and qualifications upgrades so our people can reskill quickly in areas of future opportunity. A strong, respected and independent tertiary education sector is essential to the future of the Northern Territory. Our higher education institutions have a significant role to play in the development through the provision of high quality post-secondary and tertiary education, research and training to meet the social, economic and environmental needs of the Northern Territory community.
This government is committed to building a smarter Territory. We must develop a strong knowledge base and capacity, and to do this, we must train and retain local graduates. We must grow our own expertise. Our university has been starved of funding under the Howard government’s arrangements. The Northern Territory government is committed to making the Northern Territory University and the Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education more viable institutions. We will underpin their role in our community by redirecting up to $7m annually to them for consultancies, research and professional development of public sector staff. The vehicle for this redirection will be a partnership arrangement between each institution and the government setting out the obligations and commitment of both parties. These agreements will recognise that the university and Batchelor Institute are committed to making important, distinctive and excellent contributions to learning in fields of study of particular relevance to the Territory such as energy research, defence, indigenous studies, desert knowledge and tropical knowledge. The application of these additional resources will strengthen the viability of the university and Batchelor. At the same time, we will be making the Northern Territory tertiary sector more competitive by expecting excellence. A commitment to explicit standards will be built into the agreement.
In the lead up to the election, Labor promised to put kids first and build better Territory schools, to skill our youth and to skill our economy and to build a smarter Territory. Through the new combined portfolios of Education, Training and Employment, by working with the community and with business, we will build a better Territory where all Territorians can contribute to a strong, vibrant, social, environmental and economic future.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, I initially preface my comments in commending the minister for the statement. I genuinely do so, minister. This statement outlines a wonderful vision. My role in opposition will not be to oppose, but to analyse aspects of it to ensure that it progresses responsibly. I can tell you from the outset, my role in opposition will be to participate in the progression or the progressing of educational issues in the Northern Territory. I also would like to place on the record my appreciation for the phone call that I received, just to touch base early on, in terms of preparing for the role that we have ahead of us, from the minister, but I would also quickly add that I do need a briefing. I have asked for a briefing. I have written requesting briefings. I am yet to receive them. Nonetheless, I do appreciate the phone call initially and it is good hear that Minister Kemp has also made contact.
The combining of the portfolios Education, Employment and Training is one that I understand and respect and it really is an honour for me to be given the portfolio in the shadow capacity with responsibility for my side. I understand the combining of those aspects of these portfolios. I will certainly be working - I trust it is perceived in a positive way - to ensure that this statement receives some legs and makes a difference.
Once again, though - it has been mentioned a couple of times - I have to say that this document here, in terms of good governance, has caused me some genuine concern because we have seen, even today, as has been mentioned by the member for MacDonnell, I really had this sense of, you know, hope that we are moving into a new era. I am participating, albeit from the opposition side, in a new era, a new phase for the Northern Territory, and honestly, I am telling you that the tone and resonance of this position paper and good governance, even when we had the Independent member make such sensible and considered comments in terms of the progressing of issues for the welfare of the Northern Territory, I can’t understand why the government was locked into a position of urgency.
I digress from the substantive issue but nonetheless, why I mention that is that there is this sense of a golden era, that we are moving down the track into some great new time for the Northern Territory, but the way that things have transpired in the last couple of days, caused that sense of hope just to be tarnished, just slightly. I will remain ever confident and ever positive and play a part to make sure that we do keep this thread moving forward.
I have this picture that we have got a wagon loaded up and we’re ready to go off into a completely new territory and open up places that have never been open before. Untap resources. Now, the statement in a sense, gives you that sense that we are going to release the wonderful resources of the Northern Territory and conquer places that have been unexplored. I hope that we can do it. As I say, from the opposition’s side, I will not be standing in front of this great wagon as it goes off to explore this great country. I won’t be trying to pull the wheels off it.
A member: Terry Bonanza.
Mr MILLS: Bonanza, yes, that sort of picture! You can hear the music, can’t you? But embedded in this is that element. I can understand it; we are all people, but embedded in this is going to be that little proviso that sadly, we have been put into a difficult position by the previous regime. Perhaps it’s like you carefully put one wheel on to this wagon that’s a little bit faulty and you’ll say ‘Oh, well we were given this wheel by the other mob, so if we can’t make it, don’t look at us’. I played football once with a pair of boots that didn’t have sprigs on them; I let everybody know that I didn’t have sprigs on my boots so if I happened to not be able to turn sharp enough and get the ball, then they’d understand it’s because of my sprigs, there is nothing wrong with me. But if I happened to excel, despite the fact that I had no sprigs, they’d think I was a remarkable player.
So I guess there’s that little element in there that I would like to just put the spotlight on just slightly because, once again, great vision; we are moving in a direction, and I just hope that we can get there, and I will play my part, as I said a number of times.
It is almost rhetoric to say that our children and those in training, those who are seeking to be gainfully employed, are really our greatest resource. We have talked at great length about oil and gas and trains and all kinds of infrasturcture, and that’s good. Sometimes it seems that those who are looking after infrastructure development or mining and so on seem to have a higher profile in the scheme of things. The Treasury seems to be have a higher position in the scheme of things, or perhaps Attorney-General’s and the like, but I have always felt proud of the profession of those who work with people, and develop the talent, the resource of people and develop them. I respect that. I would have to say that being given shadow responsibility for education, employment and training, I reckon we are dealing with the most valuable resource genuinely that the Northern Territory has. So I will make sure that we don’t compromise that in any respect.
I also appreciate that the ministerial statement acknowledges the changing times. The teaching profession - just as a comment - is a profession that really is under a certain amount of pressure and I think it is a profession that we really do need to start to seriously think about. I will have to mention the EBA negotiations but to go to a higher level, rather than talk about the enterprise agreement that was reached, at this point, I read something of interest recently. They said that in terms of professions, if you took the medical profession and the teaching profession, and took them back just over 100 years, so we’re in the 1890s, and you had the doctor in the place that the doctor would work 100 years back, and took them forward a hundred years, their place of work would have been changed in a way that they just can’t recognise in terms of the technology that is around them, the technology that is available. But if you took a teacher back 100 years, into a classroom 100 years ago, then brought them forward a hundred years, they could very easily recognise the place in which they work. It hasn’t really changed a lot; it is still the same medium. We’re still working with children and the technology in many respects hasn’t interfaced so much with teaching.
I really think that the profession of teaching, we do need to focus on it because it plays an absolute critical role in delivering the very things that we espouse. One aspect that I will be playing in this is that I really do want us as a community - and I’m sure I will see bipartisan support - in the notion of scrutinising the profession of teachers, of teaching. Not so much to say ‘Let’s all like teachers now’, but the whole issue of the status of teachers as we view it and as teachers themselves view it, must be addressed.
There has been a Senate committee, the report is called A Class Act, and they spent a considerable amount of time putting out a report and analysing the issue of the status of the teaching profession, the status of the profession in the general community, amongst parents, amongst students and amongst teachers themselves. We can see, particularly through the EBA - you look at the press or the letters that were written, there was no letter in the middle. There were those who were very derogatory about the teaching profession and there were those who praised teachers no end. In fact, the Senate committee report, Class Act, at chapter four found, quite interestingly, that those who have a close association with teachers, who actually know a teacher and actually understand what they go through, have the highest regard for the profession. But strangely, they will say: ‘What do you think of teachers?’ and they will speak of the teaching profession in derogatory terms. Then ‘What do you think of your own child’s teacher?’, and they’ll speak and wax lyrical about the wonderful teacher that their child has, but it doesn’t seem to translate to teaching generally. A great sadness.
I think this is compounded - we can talk about it in terms of a community sense - but it is compounded in a very serious and concerning way with teachers themselves. I have found teachers who are ashamed to say that they are teachers. When they go out socially, they would prefer not to admit that they are teachers. I hope that we can do some things - and I will be injecting comments into this area - to hope that we can move forward because I had this confirmed to me last week when I went to a rugby league presentation. I won’t mention this guy’s name, but he is a teacher who I really respect, and I respect the work that he does outside the classroom in terms of looking after the development of rugby league in Palmerston. I have probably named him now, if anybody wants to know or find out who he is. He admitted to me that he prefers not to be known as a teacher. I found that was really quite sad because the contribution that he has made is immeasurable. But the tone of our community seems to be one that doesn’t allow a teacher to stand with their head up high. I would like to see that addressed and I will be doing more on that.
Now, it goes without saying, from the conservative side of politics, that we are very, very interested in the economy because the economy is the issue that will enable the vision, largely, to be made real. The line of questioning in the last couple of days - I am sure you understand; I know we play the political game here - that really was where we were coming at. We are wanting to have that issue securely addressed, and please don’t regard for a moment that that side of the House has the monopoly on care and compassion and understanding and the progressing of social issues. You don’t have the monopoly on it; it is also evident on this side, and we will work together. But it may be manifested in a way that perhaps you don’t understand.
Mr Stirling: We see it in you, Terry. We don’t see it in many of your colleagues.
Mr MILLS: Sorry, I’m not too good with interjections. I didn’t understand you.
Mr MILLS: He was? Okay. Anyway, the strong commitment to working together, and I’d have to say, I did pick up, minister, in some of the transcripts that you had expressed a lack of respect for teachers, and I trust that that will be rectified and addressed. I also recognise that at present, the teaching profession in the Northern Territory is seriously hurting as a result of the EBA and I just hope that we can build some bridges, because really it’s not about teachers feeling good; it’s about the students who are being taught by those teachers. So I trust it will receive your due attention. I know things are very busy at the moment, but that is an absolutely critical issue and it must be addressed.
I have inquired - I am having some difficulty in getting a clear view on this - but I did have a number of teachers express their grievances to me with regards to the pay dockings, and there were teachers that I understand who were away teaching hockey, or on hockey exchanges, those who were at swimming pools and running swimming lessons down at the pool, who, when they received their pay, found that they had next to nothing left but they participated in no way at all. I trust that that pay has been reimbursed. I haven’t found that it hasn’t been, but it came to my attention on a number of occasions that there were those who were quite unjustly docked in their pay though they didn’t actually participate in work bans.
The whole community must be involved in this and I do appreciate the intention to engage all aspects of our community in moving forward in education. The issue of building bridges, I was addressing that with regard to the teaching profession just a moment ago. If we are going to make progress, the bridges must be built in order for us to transact business. In the case of the teaching profession at this time, I would have to say that the bridge is damaged and it will receive some attention, I am sure.
If I could just go to NTETA, I am interested in the training options that are available to Aboriginal communities. For someone who has done cross-cultural training, I would ask the minister to please ensure that the assessment strategies that are involved in training programs in indigenous communities, which are largely generated from Canberra, reflect what is actually able to be accommodated in the Aboriginal community. I do not want to be involved in a situation where we can have reports here in this parliament that give the impression that a lot is happening because the bureaucracy is engaged in the delivering of training, when that training is not making much of an impact out in the community itself. It is right at that interface that we must have some attention paid because the training mechanisms, or the mechanisms to discern and to qualify that the training has been completed, is sometimes right out of kilter with what the communities, say at Daly River or Maningrida, can actually achieve. I ask if attention could be paid to make sure that there is a closer interface between what is being asked and what is being achieved so that there is real progress, not bureaucratic progress, not the sense that we have made some kind of impact on this. It has to be real progress and on that very point, genuine listening to what is required by those in the Aboriginal communities. You probably think it strange coming from me, but I can tell you that I know that that is occurring. You can have the bureaucracy very satisfied with its own sense of achievement, and it may not actually be translating out there where the service is actually designed to deliver a response and an improvement.
Now, I prefaced this by this sense of hope that we have that there is a new era. That hope, as you well know, was dampened quite considerably by the EBA negotiations where the teachers had this profound hope and it was securely dashed in a matter of days.
Mr Stirling: No, it was not.
Mr MILLS: Yes, it was. I trust that that hope can be restored and that sense of sparkle can be reinstated back into the teaching profession. Also, I have to say, minister - I am not going to take my time slanging - but there was a sense of hope, and are you aware that at Raintree Park on Saturday there was the launch of a CD? The hope was that you would be there. I was there. I MCd and you did not come, mate. Kakadu Studios have a CD that was launched. It’s an NTETA program and you might need to let them know that you apologise for not being there, or there was some explanation? I do not know, but they did expect you there.
Finally, as I started, I do need a briefing. I would compliment the minister and support this statement. I will be sticking with you and making sure that we can make progress.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to respond to the minister’s statement. As I outlined in my maiden speech, I have a long standing commitment to education, and personally I have reaped the benefits of a first grade education including the research and university sector within the Territory. Like the honourable member opposite, I want the best opportunities in education, employment and training for Territorians. I just digress from my printed notes here. I did not get a chance in my maiden speech, but I, too, have been a teacher at tertiary level. When I was at the University of New England, I had a lot to do with curriculum development, teaching in science, mainly physiology and pharmacology, and developing courses that were professionally accredited. So, I have experience as a teacher at the tertiary level and I think I have an understanding of education issues particularly at that level.
I am proud to affirm all elements of the minister’s statement on education, training and employment. His statement reinforces, once again, the way in which this Labor government values education. Through combining the portfolios of education, training and employment, there is a strong and practical link there which I believe was probably missing to a large degree under the previous government because all of these things fit together. Education, training and employment are crucial elements to the development of the Territory.
What the minister’s statement has done is to detail our strategies to build these areas up after 26 years of lack of understanding and neglect by the CLP. This lack of understanding became very clear to me during a meeting that I attended last year. The meeting was convened by the then Education Minister, Mr Lugg who is no longer with us, but he was representing the government. The meeting was to try and allay the very real concerns of school councils in the Darwin and Palmerston area. There was a feeling amongst those school councils about the sad state of education in the Territory. I estimate there was somewhere between 60 to 80 people who attended that meeting. They were representing the primary and secondary schools in the government and non-government sectors. In my view, and in the view of many others at the meeting, the former Minister for Education, representing the CLP government of the day, tried to reduce education to a mere service, a commodity to be delivered to the consumer, the student or their parents, by a service provider which was the teacher or the Education Department. In other words, he commodified education at a very basic level.
Those on this side of the House - and hopefully some on the other side, such as the member for Blain - I think expect more from an Education Minister. As our minister has pointed out, education is much more; it is an investment of the Territory and in the Territory. It also makes a substantial contribution to an enlightened and tolerant society.
What has also impressed me about the minister’s statement, as someone who was involved with St Mary’s School Board for a period of seven years - which is a non-government school - is the commitment of the minister to the non-government or independent sector. I know that commitment probably follows on from the commitment of the previous government, and it is quite a positive thing to see the way in which the government and non-government sectors in education in the Territory do work together and communicate with one another and use common resources. So, the non-government sector makes a crucial contribution to education in the Territory and this contribution is again recognised by our government.
What the minister has outlined in his statement is a comprehensive plan to build education, employment and training in the Territory. For instance, he has pledged to employ 100 new teachers over the next four years of the term of this government. He has also outlined strategies to improve retention and performance of Year 12 students. There have been issues within the last six months about the terrible state of retention of Year 12 students in the Territory. It is something that has needed to be addressed for some time.
He is also pleased to implement a Teacher’s Registration Board. This is in recognition of the high professional standing in which this government holds the teaching profession. Harking back to the meeting that I mentioned before, convened by the former CLP Education Minister, along with others who attended, I was amazed to hear the way in which he denigrated the standard of teacher training in the NT. He was actually very negative about it. Within the group of people who were there, they felt that it was very unjustified and embarrassing. But once again, this government recognises the professional standard of the NT teaching profession and the recent EBA, which was alluded to by the Member for Blain, keeps NT teachers’ salaries competitive. I think we all agree that there needs to be ongoing review of those conditions and this government is committed to making sure that our teachers are adequately remunerated.
Amongst the most important commitment by the minister is the pledge to actually implement the Collins report on indigenous education. I believe this is in stark contrast to the previous government.
Dr BURNS: Well, it is a blueprint that we are going to build on and implement, and this is what the Ministerial Statement is all about. The current minister has demonstrated the priority that this government gives to the implementation of the Collins report by announcing the creation of an implementation steering committee which is jointly headed by Bob Collins and a senior indigenous educator. We are in the business of improving indigenous education. Under this government, the Northern Territory has already reached agreement with the Commonwealth, as the minister outlined, for more funds to improve indigenous student outcomes, and I commend that. In addition, the minister has set out how we will support vocational education and training.
The Casuarina Senior College is in the Johnston electorate and I know the value staff and the school council places on vocational education and training. The minister’s plan to enable students to begin vocational education and training earlier in Year 9 is therefore very welcome. On the issue of training - I will digress again from my printed notes to point again to the example I saw at the Maningrida community some years ago when there were funds available under the former Labor government under DEET to implement employment and training outcomes for Aboriginal people. In the successful fight that that community had against petrol sniffing, that was a crucial plank. They were able to offer young men training, particularly in the building trades and some employment associated with that. But with the change of government, with the incoming Howard government, all that DEET funding was slashed. The whole thing fell on its backside. So I know the importance of education and training for indigenous people and particularly for young indigenous people.
This government is committed to developing the tertiary sector in the Northern Territory. This is necessary after years of neglect by the CLP government and cuts by the Howard government. Our minister has now outlined how this government will support NTU and Batchelor College. We have pledged to redirect up to $7m annually to support NTU. Partnership agreements between the government and these institutions will also support these improvements.
Mr Deputy Speaker, in summary, I wholeheartedly support this Ministerial Statement on education, employment and training. I believe it clearly sets out the strategy by which this Labor government will build a smarter Territory.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to congratulate the minister on a good statement. I think it is a great statement and I am also delighted to hear that the minister is making a commitment, the ALP is making a commitment, to the Collins review and looking seriously at implementing as much as they can of it. It is not a bad review at all. In fact I think it contains many valuable things. I had the good fortune in Alice Springs a couple of days ago to speak to a fellow by the name of Richard Trudgen who wrote a book called Why Warriors Lay Down and Die and the issues that he raises in that are not unlike what Mr Collins raised in his review in many areas. There is a great sense of value to be obtained from that, and I look forward to seeing the minister progress his ideas and I look forward to the steering committee implementing what they can, and gaining the most useful outcomes from the Collins review that they can.
I am convinced, after speaking to Mr Trudgen, that the traditional approach in many respects of education delivery have been wanting, not for want of good intentions, but have been wanting in terms of outcomes. That is evidenced quite clearly by the outcomes that I even see in my own electorate. So, I am so gratified to have heard what the education minister has to say. I am also gratified that he acknowledges that there was a ripple, to say the least, at the point of him taking over the portfolio, in terms of the pay and conditions of Northern Territory teachers. I am glad to see that that has been resolved and that the education minister is taking steps to repair the damage between himself and the teacher’s union.
On the issue of employment and training in remote communities, I have seen and do see on a regular basis the very, very poor outcome in remote places in the Northern Territory. It is unavoidable to do so when you visit them. I have often stood up and said that education is a serious issue in the remote parts of my electorate, as well as the remote parts throughout the rest of the Northern Territory, as is health and several other things. Some communities are doing very well to correct the education shortfall, and they are doing it by themselves. I was drawn by the Tapatjatjaka Community Government Council’s recent release, and there is an excellent piece of work done by them. I seek leave to table it, if I may.
Leave granted.
Mr ELFERINK: I point out that Tapatjatjaka, or Titjikala community is growing and growing - if members read this, and I hope that the education minister takes this on board. I am gratified to see that he is paying particular attention to this because the work that has been done in the Titjikala community is nothing short of extraordinary when you see the environment of some of the other communities in Central Australia. Indeed I had the very good fortune a few weeks ago to dish out a few certificates of achievement as well as actual certificates to members of that community. Patrick Doolan, Douglas Wells and Terry Simmons were, according to Steve McBernie, who travels around in the MALU unit, which is the truck that goes around in these communities., and he had this to say:
That is true, because I have seen the work that they have produced. Indeed, if one looks at the photographs that are on the back of this, you can start to see some of the steel products they have manufactured, and the steel products are excellent. I hope that they go commercial and start selling these things not only to other communities; there is absolutely no reason why they could not be selling them to the community at large. Their work is easily of that standard and I congratulate the work that they have done.
They have done so because they have had access to the training that is available through the Commonwealth Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. The training has been proceeding very well. In fact that is not the only commercial potential they have, they indeed have many other sorts of commercial possibilities in front of them providing essential functions around the communities, products which meet indigenous needs including stone masonry, and they are providing headstones not only to their own community, but to other communities, and they are excellent pieces of work.
Dr Burns: Headstones?
Mr ELFERINK: Headstones and other sorts of stone carving. They are producing work which is, in my opinion, of commercial standard. Steel fabrication I have already mentioned. They are also looking at feral animal control which would provide jobs, as well as different types of timbers. The activities they have put together are culturally appropriate. I quote from the document:
These activities have the capacity to adapt to Sorry Business, suit the male hunting pattern and enhance
other skills such as their knowledge base of animals, plants, tracking, acute visual recognition skills and
excellent dexterity.
I have to say that when I travelled to the community - I have done that so many times, but when I travelled on this occasion - I was very impressed with the community and how it is progressing. Indeed, I urge the members who have their computers open in front of them now to look up www.titjakala.com.au because you will get an impression of the quality of the sorts of things that are happening in their communities. I congratulate the community. I hope that the minister takes special note in terms of how to support this community with its ongoing programs because I believe that this community under its current management regime has the potential to become one of the first self-sustaining traditional communities in Central Australia since Hermannsburg used to be self-sustaining many, many years ago.
I have often said in this House it is important to produce educational outcomes and health outcomes. It is also important for the land upon which the people live to provide a living for them and I hope that the education minister, as the whole-of-government approach, will look towards the land councils who carry the management of traditional lands and hope that they will take a commercial approach or a more commercial approach to develop those lands so that jobs at the end of the day can be created. I have seen this being done in the Tiwi Islands and I am impressed by what occurs in the Tiwi Islands and there is no reason why it could not happen in other areas with the right will.
The traditional relationship between the CLP and the land councils has been less than entirely edifying and I hope that the new Labor government is in a position to bring about commercial outcomes with a new relationship with the land councils that has not been achieved up until this date. I will be most gratified to see jobs, jobs and more jobs coming from the land trusts. I continue to be critical of the structure and nature of land trusts, and I do not believe that they do represent traditional ownership systems as they have been explained to me on several occasions, however the system is there in place and I would urge the Northern Territory government in the strongest possible way to take up a relationship with those land trusts and let’s see some outcomes that will lead to good jobs for Territorians in the remote communities in the Northern Territory.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to commend the Minister for Education, Employment and Training for moving swiftly to implement recommendations of the Collins Report, Learning Lessons, that places an emphasis on better delivery of education to the Northern Territory’s remote and regional indigenous students and, indeed, try to bring the truancy that we see in the rural and remote areas of the Territory down so that more people are accessing education. In particular, I am delighted that the minister will establish a forum of senior indigenous people who can advise the government on education. The real participation by senior indigenous people in the delivery of indigenous education and its practical implementation is crucial to improving the attendance rates at schools of our indigenous youth.
I note also that the minister has announced the establishment of a steering committee comprising ATSIC, land councils, remote school principals and indigenous and public sector representatives. Drawing together some of the Territory’s indigenous brains trust in such a fashion to ensure a move away from the area of rhetoric that the previous CLP governments remained in to prompt action from this government is an exciting development. I look forward to studying the actions of this steering committee and assessing its practical applications to the urban environment.
Specifically, I believe that there is a need to ensure that practical measures aimed to improve indigenous school attendance rates are also viewed in an urban context and the models developed in the regional and remote environment can hopefully also be applied in the urban environment. As the member for Karama, I have the privilege of working closely with schools in my electorate. Further, as a parent, I am current Chair of the Karama School Council and have dedicated some of my time to working with the educators at Karama School in supporting its Urban Indigenous Education initiatives. In a practical sense, this includes learning from the principal of Karama School, Mr Bob Hale, the approach he applies to supporting indigenous pupils at his school. Mr Hale has assumed the role of leader, mentor, compassionate friend and confidante to his indigenous pupils. He believes that as far as children are concerned, they have no control over their birth, much less the colour of their skin, their social and economic circumstances, their culture, their hopes and their aspirations. Mr Hale is working hard to ensure Karama School is a melting pot of ethnic harmony. He holds to the saying of Chief Dan George and he is often quoting it: ‘the heart does not know the colour of the skin’. To this end, Mr Hale has produced a booklet entitled Educating the Indigenous Kids the Karama Way and I commend this booklet to the steering committee being established by our minister.
The Karama Way ensures that indigenous staff are strategically placed so as to maximise contact with indigenous parents through pre-school, early childhood and upper primary. Parents are aware of these points of contact and respond positively to them. Further, indigenous children are treated no differently from other pupils. That is, expectations in relation to attendance and performance are high and non-attendance or non-performance are relentlessly followed up. Indigenous children’s attendance is monitored and home visits are carried out to ascertain what practical action is needed to improve attendance. In dealing with indigenous children attending the school, the teachers and staff bear in mind culturally sensitive issues that include understanding the importance and sensitivities surrounding family business including the role of grandparents and other extended family; not demanding that children look at the person speaking to them which, in many cases, is culturally offensive; the use of praise and celebration of culture through drama and dance; recognising traditional owners of this land at public functions to assist the children with self esteem.
A practical example at the moment is the participation of an indigenous parent in a school project in upper primary. The project draws upon the particular talents and knowledge of this parent. The attendance at school of their children has improved markedly due to the parent’s attendance at school. The underpinning approach undertaken at Karama School is not to be judgmental. The school understands that some families, for reasons often not immediately apparent, are almost totally ill equipped to cope with life’s pressures. Indeed, some families are living under the poverty line and struggle to meet basic school costs such as fees, uniforms and excursions. The school’s ASPA committee must be congratulated for the tremendous work they have undertaken with the school principal and his staff to ensure that Karama School is a harmonious and culturally diverse environment. The ASPA Committee has pursued Commonwealth funding initiatives to enhance the number of indigenous staff at the school.
Karama School has a population of about 140 indigenous students out of a total school population of more than 500. This constitutes a significant part of the school population. The school has a full-time staff of about 35. This figure varies from time to time. With an indigenous percentage of pupils ranging from 25% to 28%, the school has endeavoured to achieve an indigenous staff of about eight to nine. These include teachers, teacher aides, pre-school aides, a janitor and administrative staff. All of these staff provide positive role models to the indigenous pupils and the positive results at the school, in terms of attendance and performance, have been tangible. Further, the school is currently piloting a project that streams upper school pupils into the local high school in an attempt to reduce truancy rates of indigenous students once they enter the high school system. In plain terms, they support the pupils through the transition to an often intimidating environment such as high school. The pupils commence attending high school in some classes in their final year of primary school. This means that by the time the pupils attend high school, they are already well acquainted with the school, its staff, its operations and its students. They enter a comfort zone instead of an alien environment.
It is early days yet in terms of major reforms in education delivery for our indigenous pupils. Our minister has just begun to undo the negative effects of years of neglect by previous CLP governments. These initiatives are all initiatives taken by the school despite the education system. Absolutely, the funding has come from the Commonwealth, not from the Territory previous governments. The initiatives the member for Nhulunbuy is introducing have proven applications for pupils from a non-English speaking background. I say ‘proven’ because I have seen the results in Karama. Our schools can start to reflect our multicultural society. Further, the benefits also flow through to pupils from an Anglo-Saxon heritage, like myself as a student in Darwin. They learn about a variety of cultures. This better equips them in the world of business and employment. Importantly, the improved performance of previously disadvantaged and often disruptive pupils ensures that classrooms become more orderly with a positive learning environment.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I condemn the previous governments for their neglect of our education system, for their failure to implement the Collins Report recommendations, and I congratulate our minister for his swift actions.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to congratulate the minister for his statement. Don’t be surprised, minister. I thought what you had to say made a fair bit of sense and, in fact, much of it is rhetoric but good rhetoric. I shall not criticise you for that.
Ms Scrymgour: You wrote the book on rhetoric.
Dr LIM: Now, members opposite giggle and laugh and chortle under their breath. I feel I have some confidence in speaking about education considering that I was one of the very few people who actually sat right across all levels of education for a period of 10 years when I was on the School Board of Studies between 1984 to 1994 on TAFE, the precursor of NTETA, for the same period of time and was one of the founding Council members of the Northern Territory University until my election in 1994. Apart from the minister for education of the day and the Secretary of the Department of Education, I was the one other person who sat across all those three levels of education including the Menzies School of Health Research. So I feel I have some background into education to be able to speak to it quite clearly.
During this last election campaign, as you all know, I doorknocked every house, every caravan, every town camp, and I spoke to many teachers who live in my electorate. They all asked me what my position was about the teachers campaign during the EBA discussions. One of the things they expressed to me was about the changing of their profession. Very much like a medical practitioner, the profession has changed tremendously. The technology within the profession has changed tremendously and takes a lot of time and effort and skill to master the new technology before they can impart it to the students. That was very important and that took a lot of time away from the actual teaching itself. There has to be some value put on that. I felt that it was important to express to those teachers that, yes, the Northern Territory government of the day respected that professionalism in them, and that we were trying as best we could to negotiate through the EBA prior to the government going into caretaker mode.
Interestingly, after the election, for the first time since self-government, the teachers went on strike under the Labor government. You could ask the question why? Why did that happen? Was it that the minister could not negotiate through with consideration for the needs of the teaching profession? Many of us who are parents in this Chamber do appreciate the value of teachers, the amount of time that our children spend with teachers, the amount of time that our children spend in schools. It’s a third of a day that they spend there. Teaching, teachers, schools have great impact on our children and on how our children grow up. For them to not value teachers is a very short sighted thing.
It was interesting also during the election campaign, reading the media, that very much of the to-ing and fro-ing between the teachers in the negotiations of the EBA was really being initiated by the union. When the union advised the teachers to take the deal that the current minister offered, the teachers stood up and said: ‘No, we are not. The union might be in bed with the Labor government, but we teachers have a different priority. We want something that is different’, and the teachers actually forced the union to reconsider. That speaks volumes about how the teachers feel versus how the unions feel. I suppose what the minister said – and I use his words: ‘I am concerned that the EBA gave a rocky start to the relationship between this government and teachers’. I suppose that is his form of apology to teachers and I hope that he makes reparations to the teachers and makes sure that, in due course, the teachers will come to understand that the minister, as he feels now, is genuine about his lack of sensitivity at the time that he was negotiating with them. But when the minister says that the Labor government plans to bring in 100 teachers over the next four years of the term of government, I really question how genuine that effort will be.
Where are we going to find the teachers? There is not only a Territory shortage or a national shortage, there is an international shortage of teachers. It is not only the teaching profession that has a shortage of qualified people. You look at nurses, doctors, many professions. There is an international phenomenon where young graduates today don’t come out of university and straight into their chosen career. In fact most of them, once they have their qualification under their belt, actually choose then to travel around the world, see the world, get life skills, see a wider perspective of what the world is about before they settle down into a career. Now, all of us with children in their 20s recognise that that is what is happening. That is what is causing this international shortage of professionals. They are choosing jobs other than teaching or nursing or doctoring. They can be working for wages in tourism or any other industry, knowing full well that they have a profession they can always fall back on. There is a world shortage. So, I wait to see how the minister will deliver 100 teachers over the next four years.
Mr Stirling: Backpackers.
Dr LIM: Use backpackers. If that’s what you are going to do, that’s fine. That’s the way you are going to do it.
The minister then spoke about his Indigenous Education Strategic Plan. The six-point plan. It is worth repeating. He talks about the six key elements identified in the Indigenous Education Strategic Plan.
A very strong motherhood statement, and I don’t have any problems with that. It is important, though, to ensure that families, the communities take equal responsibility to ensure that children all attend school. They have to take ownership of education, that they understand the value of education. If you do not understand or value education, then all this effort is going to be just wasted. When you hear about high school graduates, university graduates, mostly with overseas names, particularly Asian names, you have to ask why that is the case in Australia at the moment? Why are Asian students doing so much better academically than white Australians? The reason is that those ethnic groups value education, and they value it very strongly. Because of that, the parents drive the children with their own personal ambition, and instil an ambition in children to succeed academically. They also understand that if you live in a country such as Australia, you need to understand English, you need to understand the white man’s ways so that you can then take advantage of what this country has to offer. If you do not know the white man’s ways, right or wrong, if you do not know their ways …
Mr KIELY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! This reference to white man’s ways, we are talking about the culture of Australia here. We are not talking about the white man’s culture or the yellow man’s culture or the black man’s culture …
Madam SPEAKER: What is your point of order?
Mr KIELY: The point of order is this inference that there is some dominant race here.
Madam SPEAKER: No, that is not a point of order.
Dr LIM: Well, isn’t there a dominant race here? Bloody - excuse my language.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order! That is not a point of order. Go back to your Standing orders book and find out what you think it may be.
Dr LIM: He does not understand the protocol in this room.
Madam SPEAKER: You can respond, remember, in debate yourself later if you wish to.
Dr LIM: Let me accommodate the member’s sensitivities. If you do not understand mainstream Australia - let us use a politically correct word – then how do you manage to live in a country such as this? In some cultures you burp very loudly after a big meal to show your host that you appreciated the meal. You do that in Australia and people will frown upon you because you are rude. That is what I mean by understanding the white man’s ways; they are different. There is nothing wrong with being different, but if you want to get on in this country, you need to understand the dominant culture. If you do not, then you get nowhere. There is no point in complaining that you are not getting anywhere because if you do not know the methods that are currently used by the dominant culture, then you will not get anywhere.
I commend the minister for his intention to improve VET in schools. I think it is a good thing to offer our schools more opportunities, to widen their education, to tap into opportunities in mechanical or the physical side of education rather than just the academic side. It is obviously relevant that many students are not academically inclined and they would rather be focused on practical aspects of education, into trades for instance.
Centralian College in Alice Springs is a very good example of how TAFE or trade education and school education and even higher education is all coming together in one institution on one campus. It has been able to tap into the benefits of sharing scarce resources, been able to tap into the opportunities of rationalising classes so that lectures can be provided to a class, maximising the cost benefits in providing classes in Alice Springs. It also enables high school students to do TAFE courses and on completion of their Year 12, they come out with both a high school certificate as well as a TAFE certificate. I think that is a very efficient way of doing things and I encourage the development of such facilities throughout the Territory.
In terms of the Northern Territory University, I think it is important to recognise that in the very early days of the formation of the university it was the CLP government with its vision for the Territory that actually got the university off the ground. I agree with the minister that the university is now starved of funding. It is not because of John Howard. I think that every federal government since the inception of the university has starved our university of funds. Your federal member, Warren Snowdon, was right against – he was the member then – and he was right against the formation of the Northern Territory University. You know that. In his time, he supported the then federal Labor Education Minister for 20 university or higher education positions in the Darwin Institute of Technology - 20! The day we opened the University College of the Northern Territory we had over 125 students. That is how much the demand was, and the federal government could not recognise that.
The Northern Territory government, under the CLP, poured millions of dollars to get the UCNT up and running and finally, three years later, amalgamated the UCNT with the DIT to form the Northern Territory University. Since then, a lot of Northern Territory money has gone into the Northern Territory University to ensure its survival, to ensure its excellence. For a long time, the NTU was one of the best in the country. In fact, in 1994-95 it was one of the top 12 universities in Australia. So the Northern Territory University has a good record. It needs more funding now and I trust the minister will continue to lobby the federal government and continue to look at ways to improve funding to the Northern Territory University.
I know that currently there are fairly intense negotiations with Centralian College to see how the two organisations can somehow work synergistically to ensure that numbers of students increase which will then help it get money from the federal government. I encourage the minister to continue to explore that. However, do not forget that Centralian College ultimately still has a Year 11 and 12. I will be very unhappy to see Year 11 and 12 suddenly hived off again. It will be, I think, a very backward step if that ever happened. It is important to ensure that Centralian College continues with Year 11 and 12, take on the TAFE and increase its higher education offerings. I think that if you do that you will increases the student numbers and that will help augment the numbers at the Northern Territory University in Darwin.
In all, the minister has, as I said, made a reasonable statement on education. I encourage him to continue to look positively towards the betterment of education in the Territory. I know that our politics are very different and our perspectives on indigenous education will be very different, but I come from the perspective of being somebody who had to learn English, somebody who had to learn how to live in Australia and make some degree of success in living in Australia.
Mr STIRLING (Education, Employment and Training): Madam Speaker, I thank members for their most supportive comments this evening. If I begin with the shadow minister for education, I appreciate him as a committed educator in his own right in his former life, and I certainly appreciate the commitment he showed tonight. I was very pleased to see him recently at the opening of the YNOTS Program at Nabalco outside Nhulunbuy. It is the Yirrkala Business Enterprises Nabalco Operator Training School and the shadow minister was most welcome. I was certainly pleased to see him there on the day as I would be at any of these functions.
His remarks in relation to the Enterprise Bargaining Agreement process, I think it is a demeaning process frankly. It demeans us as an employer and it demeans the teachers as professionals to have this chop ‘em down sort of fight out in the public way. It does not with other sectors of industry; it certainly does not with the police force although they have an Enterprise Bargaining Agreement. I feel heavily charged with the responsibility of working through another process, a better process, so that simply does not happen and we don’t see the need to demean each other in the public view. I certainly accept there was damage to the relationship between this government and teachers; damage that has to be restored. But we did commit before the election that Northern Territory teachers would be the highest paid in Australia and following the re-shaping, I suppose, and certainly the life of the agreement, they are. The new agreement makes teachers the highest paid in Australia and negotiations on a new agreement will start in 2002. It provides pay increases of 3% from 30 August 2001, 2% from 9 May 2002, and 1% from 29 August 2002, making them the highest paid until April 2002 and the second highest for the remainder of 2002.
The agreement also establishes reviews of remote locality conditions, staffing formulae, class sizes, non-contact time for primary teachers and the provision of specialist teachers with implementation dates for agreed outcomes. I am prepared to, in my role as minister, undertake that feedback to the teachers in relation to these working parties. What I think has occurred and what added to the frustration of the teaching profession in the past was that commitments were made during the Enterprise Bargaining Agreement process that yes, government would form a working party to look at this particular aspect or that particular aspect, it was ticked off and signed through the agreement and once the agreement was underway, government and the department tended not to follow through with the same resolve and signals they were giving to teachers prior to the agreement being signed.
In many ways there were expectations being fuelled and building in respect of the Labor government being elected that we would be able to deliver more, or would deliver more, than perhaps was being delivered by the CLP. Well certainly, in the area of those other areas of the Enterprise Bargaining Agreement outside the salary increase, I think that we did move further in a whole range of areas. But I do make the commitment that we will not allow these working groups or working parties to just float along for ever and a day without progress and without reporting back because I make that undertaking. Teachers will know where the state of play is at any time and there will be a dead set cut off time by which recommendations come back.
The government will provide an additional 25 teachers per annum and we will work with teachers to rebuild our education system. A formal ballot of all eligible teachers and educators to be conducted by the Australian Electoral Commission later in October. In the meantime, our reforms will continue in, we think, a sensible manner; a new way of doing business that will involve teachers, schools, unions and the communities.
In relation to the EBA and the point I made that it is a demeaning process, I was at a teacher graduates evening the other week and a young teacher of 10 years standing quoted an ancient Chinese proverb in relation to education. It immediately brought home to me, without recalling the statement itself, that the ancients revered education; the Greeks and the Romans. It was a noble profession and it has never in our lifetime, certainly, had that status in our community and I don’t know that we’d ever get it back to the most noble professions, if you like, that the ancients used to see it as. But it is incumbent on all of us in here, as community leaders, as parliamentarians and certainly myself as Minister for Education, it is incumbent on the Australian Education Union and it is incumbent on teachers themselves as a profession overall to work together to improve the status that teachers hold in the community. There is no point working together and actually achieving an outcome there in terms of lifting the status in the community if, in October next year, we get down in the gutter in terms of an EBA and rip it all apart again. No point at all. We have to have a better way of dealing with that but in the meantime, I certainly make that commitment as well.
I am happy for the shadow minister to be briefed on education matters. In relation the CD launch, it did come through my office at one stage. There appeared to be some confusion or understanding as to whether I had in fact committed to attend. There was a runover, I think, with the Junior Parks and Wildlife Commission Rangers also that morning. I certainly apologised Monday morning first thing when it was brought to my attention that: ‘Minister, they were expecting you there’, so whether there was a misunderstanding or some fault on my behalf, I certainly apologised for not being there. I do appreciate and thank the shadow minister for his commitment to education, as I said. I understand his background and I appreciate the support he offers and he is always welcome to a briefing in this area.
I thank the member for Johnston for his support also. He has an active interest in the Northern Territory University and I expect him to be a valuable ally and contributor to policy and implementation of government policy across the education portfolio as a whole.
The member for Macdonnell who mentioned Richard Trudgen, who is a near and dear friend of mine, the author of Why Warriors Lie Down and Die. Trudgen offers such an enormous insight into the Yolngu cultural of northeast Arnhem Land, to health and education and why it doesn’t work, the problems and the misunderstandings between Yolngu and the mainstream western world. I don’t know if the member for Greatorex has come across the work or read it at all, but I would recommend it to him. I am happy to get him a copy if he was so interested because it is, as I said, a tremendous insight. Trudgen has worked in that part of the world for many, many years.
Dr Lim: I know Richard Trudgen personally, thank you.
Mr STIRLING: He is encyclopaedic in his knowledge and wisdom in this area and I would encourage the member for Macdonnell to talk to Richard at any time; any time he has the opportunity, because you can only learn when you talk to him and obviously the member for Greatorex appreciates that as well.
The member for Karama and her views on the urban indigenous situation in schools in her electorate, I appreciate that. Obviously her school or the school in her electorate is getting things right in this area and that’s something that we have to be mindful of as well in terms of the rural and remote situation for indigenous students scattered across the urban areas as well need to be considered and their progress through our education system just the same as the kids in the bush schools.
The member of Greatorex’s point about profession has changed and greater skills and use of technology. It was interesting that the member for Blain had somewhat of a different view that if you walked into a classroom at the turn of the century and you walked into a classroom last week it would not be much difference. Generally, I would agree with the member for Blain. If it is not a chalkboard it’s probably a whiteboard but it would still have the desks and chairs and the dusty smell. A classroom is always dusty for some reason. But LATIS aside and the use of technology, I think the point that the member for Greatorex was making, I mean most occupations across our workforce have been exposed to the need for greater skills and development of computer hands-on skill. I don’t pretend that’s easy. It’s certainly been very difficult for me, and you don’t often see a laptop on my desk down here. Maybe you will over time, but I’m not in a hurry. I don’t pretend that it is easy but its commonplace throughout our workforce and I don’t recall great productivity gains in terms of wages and salaries for other parts of the workforce that have had to come to grips with it. It is all right you young people.
Just on that, Madam Speaker, it frightened me to come across a statistic that the average age of the teaching profession in the Northern Territory is in the young 40s now. 41, 42, somewhere up around that area. Where are our young graduates? Where are the young people coming into the profession to bring this average down? Because the frightening thing about that is, along with us oldies in here, that whole generation is going to move through and you do ask where the young teachers are going to come from and that means we have to redouble and refocus our efforts on recruitment and training in, of course, our own institutions but also, where we do not get the full numbers there, bringing them in. Whether they get productivity increases or not in their skills, teachers do and always have carried enormous responsibilities in our community and I do not think that that has always been recognised. We as a government see education, employment and training really as the engine room for the development of the Northern Territory overall and certainly for the skilling and development of our workforce and our young people.
We will work hard, Madam Speaker, to ensure that education, employment and training remain an absolute central focus for us as a government. I thank members for their support.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
Mr STIRLING (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I rise today very briefly to speak about a very important thing that I saw on the Today show the other morning, and that was an Alice Springs resident who got some 10 minutes of national airtime, a fellow by the name of Eric Sultan. The reason that I have risen to speak about this particular 10 minutes of the Today show, I think it was on Monday morning, is that Mr Sultan is of Afghan descent and some indigenous descent as well in the Central Australian area and is a practising Muslim in our community and is part of our very strong Muslim community in Alice Springs. I think that it was extremely brave of Mr Sultan in these difficult times to identify so publicly in terms of his background, his overseas background at least, and I congratulate him on the way that he conducted himself and the deportment that he showed and the wisdom that he showed in dealing with the issue of being an Afghan in Central Australia.
The fact of the matter was that it was an excellent show in terms of demonstrating or holding out Alice Springs to the whole of Australia as the harmonious community that we live in and it is a very harmonious community. Indeed, the Islamic community is one that I have had a fair bit to do with over the last four years and I consider it a privilege to know them. It has been a privilege to work with them and it was a privilege to play a small role in securing an Imam for the community.
However, returning to Mr Sultan’s appearance on TV, it was in terms of selling Central Australia as a tourist destination, an extraordinary thing. It was also in terms of pointing out to the rest of Australia that the history of Central Australia is multifacted thing and that it is important that we remember how the Central Australian area was opened up to European settlement.
I congratulate Mr Sultan. I also congratulate the Islamic community for their contribution to the piece itself because I think it was an excellent and brave thing to do under the current circumstances. I also congratulate the community of Alice Springs itself because of their business-as-usual approach to these people. There is no difference in people’s approach to the community there and I think that Mr Sultan clearly demonstrated that he is part of the community. I also noticed in that piece very briefly the former Speaker of this House as well as former Senator for the Northern Territory, Bernie Kilgariff, doing his bit, and I congratulate him, too, for appearing in such a piece.
In short, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to commend again Mr Eric Sultan and the Islamic community of Alice Springs for being part of our community and being brave enough to continue being part of that community despite the difficult times. I am also very pleased with the community of Alice Springs as a whole in responding so well to this process and knowing that nothing has occurred in relation to the mosque in Alice Springs. It shows the maturity of a community to this issue that makes me proud to be not only an Alice Springs resident but a Territorian. I urge all members to consider Mr Sultan’s efforts as a great compliment to the community in which we live.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise tonight to bring to the attention of this House the efforts of some people, some fairly important people who live both in my electorate and outside the electorate.
The first one is Mr Reg Lowry who was awarded an Order of Australia in June 2001. Unfortunately, his efforts have not been recognised by this House previously, so it is with a great deal of pleasure that I rise to speak about Mr Lowry and the contributions that he has made to life in Darwin. He is a very well known person. He spent a long time on the YMCA. He has been on the Board there since 1970. Life Membership was conferred on him in 1991 for services rendered. He has been President nine times and he has been on the National Board of the YMCA from 1995 to 2001. Those members present might have noticed yesterday in my maiden speech that I said when I first came to the Territory I was employed by the YMCA. Reg Lowry was my boss when I came to the Territory in 1979.
Reg Lowry has also been involved with the National Heart Foundation. He joined the Board of the Northern Territory in 1987. He has been Northern Territory Treasurer and Vice-President from 1987 to 1999 and he was on the National Finance Committee of the Heart Foundation in 1990, the National Audit Committee in 1998, Northern Territory President since 1999, and member of the National Board of the Heart Foundation since then. He has also had a very long involvement with NT Little Athletics since 1975. Life Membership was conferred upon him in 1984 for services rendered. He has been Darwin President for 10 years from 1975 to 1985 and NT President 1979 to 1985.
Mr Lowry has been involved with Rotary. He has also been involved with the Arts Council and Down Syndrome as Treasurer and with Rotary in particular from 1981 to the present and as President in 1989. He has held every official position in Rotary. He has been the top ticket seller for the Tomaris Sweep for the last eight years and he is currently Treasurer.
I commend Mr Reg Lowry and his contribution to the Northern Territory community. I know he lives in the electorate of the member for Nelson, but I spoke with the member for Nelson before - I did not want to seem like I was poaching. Reg Lowry has been a boss of mine over many years and I hold him in the highest esteem. It is an honour for me to congratulate him somewhat belatedly in this place for his AO which was awarded in June 2001.
In Casuarina Senior College, a student there, Sid Vemuri, went as a delegate to the 2001 United Nations Youth Conference in Sydney in July and he was selected at that conference as one of the 17 young Australians to represent our country at the Hague International Model United Nations to be held in the Netherlands in January 2002. Sid’s selection is an outstanding achievement for him and an honour for Casuarina Senior College and the Territory. The conference that Sid will be attending brings together nearly 4000 secondary students from over 90 countries worldwide to discuss current issues of global importance in the format of the United Nations. Sid informs me that terrorism and global cooperation against terrorism will be one of the matters that is discussed at that youth forum.
Iyngaran Selvaratnama and Dev Tilakaratne, also from Casuarina Senior College, have been commended for their community work. Both are members of the Casuarina Senior College Leo Club which is sponsoring a student from Cambodia. They are also members of the Student Representative Council and have represented the college in debating and have been selected to represent the college at the National Youth Science Forum. Deevya Desai has also been selected to attend that forum.
I am proud to report that Wagaman Primary held an international food night and auction on 27 September and they raised about $2500 for the school so they are to be heartily congratulated.
It is with some sadness that I report that Jingili Primary School have advised me of the passing of Mr Joe Wirkner, who was the original groundsman at Jingili. Mr Wirkner established the school gardens which will be a tribute and a memorial to his vision and hard work, and I extend my condolences to his family, particularly his wife Margaret and son Ralph. Mim Regan, who has worked at the school for many years, and Mrs Wirkner supplied the following fax about Joe’s long standing work: Joe worked at the school until 1987 when he had to retire after hurting his back badly. He was highly regarded around Jingili for doing a lot of work in the area with Greening Australia and kids from the school always referred to the Jingili school as Mr Wirkner’s school because of the beautiful grounds that he cultivated. The school won numerous awards from Greening Australia and the Bougainvillea Festival for the grounds.
Kim Sanders of Pott Street, Moil has won the right to compete in the national finals of Tournaments of the Mind in Hobart at the end of this month, and I wish Kim well. Kim will be competing in the Maths and Engineering section.
Finally, just picking up on the tribute paid last night in the Adjournment Debate by the member for Arnhem for Mr Puggy Hunter, who died recently. Puggy Hunter, as most members would know, was the national Chairman of NACCAHO which is the National Association of Community Controlled Aboriginal Health Organisations, and I would like to pay tribute to Puggy here. I knew Puggy through my work with the Heart Foundation. He was a very fearless and tireless fighter for Aboriginal health and at any forum, Puggy Hunter could be relied upon to stand up and be counted. He would take anyone on: it didn’t matter whether they were a professor of medicine or anything like that, Puggy always spoke his mind, and he always spoke a lot of wisdom. People who have been involved with Aboriginal health for some time mourn the loss of Puggy Hunter.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to join the member for Macdonnell to congratulate our Islamic community, both in Alice Springs and in Darwin. Soon after the September 11 event, the Darwin community came under some rather unsavoury and disparaging remarks made by some louts around Casuarina and, fortunately, that was all there was in the Northern Territory against our Islamic community. Since then, the whole of the Northern Territory community has come together and been very supportive of the Islamic community. In Alice Springs, for instance, you heard the member for Macdonnell speak about Eric Sultan. Eric is one of our senior Islamic, part Afghan, part Aboriginal people, and very well known in Alice Springs for his personification of Charlie Sadadeen, who was a grandchild of the original Afghan camel traders who plied between Oodnadatta and Alice Springs.
Charlie and his Islamic community, headed by President Jawed Khan, have a very strong community of Muslim worshippers. They have their own mosque, which the Northern Territory government assisted in providing significant amounts of financial assistance to helping build the mosque. They have been very much supportive of what has been going on around Alice Springs. In the recent memorial services we’ve had in the churches, the Islamic community did turn out to offer their condolences to those who suffered in the tragedy in New York and in Washington and they were very, very outspoken in terms of their support for those people there.
I was invited by the Islamic community to spend last Saturday evening with them at the mosque here in Vanderlin Drive. I was very much taken by the many community leaders who attended the barbecue at the mosque; people from all different ethnic organisations, churches and political parties, were all there to celebrate the evening with them and it did indicate to the Islamic community that we in the Northern Territory do live a very socially harmonious and supportive life.
In the time remaining, I would like to raise a couple of issues that have been troubling me for a little while. On 2 September, I wrote to the minister for education with regard to an application by Our Lady of the Sacred Heart College, Traeger Park campus, seeking funding to help repair and upgrade the assembly area at the Traeger Park campus of the school. I wrote the letter to the minister following the letter that was written by Dr Bill Griffiths, Director of Catholic Education, and also from personal approaches made by the college principal, Brother Paul Gilchrist. On 7 September, I wrote to the minister again, this time with reference to a letter that was written to me by Peter Vaughan, the principal of the Alice Springs High School, who has also been seeking assistance to upgrade the airconditioning system.
The Alice Springs High School, as you well know, is a very old school and the state of its airconditioning is pretty bad. With the summer months now fast approaching, the airconditioning system needs to be urgently upgraded. When I didn’t hear from the minister after nearly four weeks, I wrote to the minister again on 9 October and I said in the letter:
I then saw the minister myself last Saturday and spoke to him about these two matters. He denied having seen the letters, but assured me that he would chase up those two letters, and if he did not have them in his office, he would approach me personally this week to ask me for copies of the letters. Well, to date, I still have had no response. Now these are pressing issues. The Old Traeger Park campus assembly area is in dire need of repairs. The Alice Springs High School airconditioning system is dilapidated and needs urgent repairs also. I sincerely ask the minister to address these issues as quickly as he possibly can.
I wrote another letter, this one to the minister for Essential Services. This was written about three weeks ago, and I asked him about a problem that has occurred in my electorate. A builder currently constructing a duplex development at 5 Mills Street, Alice Springs, was in the process of connecting electricity to his development. Now, his development only required about 80 amps of power. The existing supply to the street is through a 6 mm wire currently considered by PAWA to be substandard. Now, that is the cable that is in the ground, owned by PAWA, which PAWA itself considers inadequate. The supply point closest to this man’s development is across the street, directly across from his boundary.
PAWA has advised the developer that if he wants electricity, he has to bring the electricity himself from the supply point under the road to his development. But at the same time, he has to upgrade the supply point for power. Now, I know that if I was a developer, I need to bring the power from a supply point to my development, that is my responsibility. But PAWA wants this man to upgrade the supply point as well. Now, I do not think that is fair. PAWA is not prepared to provide supply of electricity to the boundary.
I have asked the minister to look into this matter. To date, I have no letter of acknowledgement. I have not heard a peep or a boo about the whole thing. I hope that the minister does not mistake this request to be about the WASSEP payment. Now the WASSEP payment is about PAWA charging developers a fee that in the future will be used to upgrade all the power and water and sewerage system in the suburbs.
Mr Wood: Not the power.
Dr LIM: It is nothing to do with that. No, this …
Mr Wood: WASSEP is water and sewerage.
Dr LIM: But in the old east side of Alice Springs, PAWA needs to – I know the acronym stands for water and sewerage, what I am saying is that …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, can you make your remarks through the Chair, please.
Dr LIM: No, no, I am talking to the room. I understand that WASSEP stands for water and sewerage, but what I am saying is that in the old east side, power needs to be upgraded, too.
Now, this poor fellow has to pay all these extra costs which in my opinion, is not his responsibility. I asked the minister to look into it and I hope that over the next few days, he will have time to look into. He will have the weekend to work on it, and provide us with an answer some time next week. I also urge the minister for Education to do likewise.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, I lay on the Table a paper from the Leader of the Opposition nominating opposition members to Assembly committees, the details of membership to be included in the Minutes of Proceedings.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
PETITIONS
Fencing at Bakewell Primary School
Fencing at Bakewell Primary School
Mr STIRLING (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 185 petitioners praying that there be a perimeter fence erected around the school grounds of Bakewell Primary School. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms with the requirements of Standing orders and I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read.
To the honorable the Minister for Education and members of the Legislative Assembly
of the Northern Territory
We the undersigned respectfully say Bakewell Primary School currently has no fencing to
prevent school children leaving school grounds and entering the road. Similarly, there is no
fencing to prevent unwanted persons going onto the school property. The CLP government has
been negligent in not erecting a fence around the perimeter of the Bakewell Primary School
grounds particularly as the road is designated as a major arterial road linking Palmerston to
the Stuart Highway.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that there be an immediate perimeter fence erected
around the school grounds of Bakewell Primary School and your petitioners as in duty bound
will ever pray.
Woodroffe Primary School –
Classroom Facilities
Classroom Facilities
Mr STIRLING (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 10 petitioners praying that there be an immediate provision of additional classrooms at Woodroffe Primary School, an assessment made without delay as to the classroom needs of Woodroffe Primary School for the immediate future in the long term and adequate classrooms to provide for the immediate future and the long term according to that assessment.
The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms with the requirements of Standing orders. Madam Speaker, I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read.
To the honourable the Minister for Education and members of the Legislative Assembly of
the Northern Territory
We the undersigned respectfully say there is a totally inadequate provision of classrooms and
facilities for our children attending Woodroffe Primary School in Palmerston. Some classes are
being held in the library and some classes are being moved from room to room within the day due
to lack of classroom space. This has been the situation now for over 18 months. Woodroffe Primary
School has declined to accept 24 pre- primary class students in the July 2001 intake due to lack of
classroom space. The CLP government has been negligent in not providing adequately for the children
and teaching staff at Woodroffe Primary School.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that there be an immediate provision of additional classrooms at
Woodroffe Primary School, there be an assessment made without delay as to classroom needs of Woodroffe
Primary School for the immediate future and the long term, there be an adequate classroom provided for the
immediate future and the long term according to that assessment and your petitioners as in duty bound will
ever pray.
Quality of Education in NT Schools
Mr STIRLING (Nhulunbuy)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 445 petitioners relating to a quality education system. Madam Speaker, I to move that the petition be read.
We the undersigned members of the AEU-NT wish to express our extreme disappointment at the
attitude of your government to resolving the education dispute. Teachers had trusted the Labor Party’s
commitment to make education a priority. To date the performance of the Minister for Education has produced
a complete lack of confidence by the teaching profession in his ability to understand the issues involved
in the current education crisis. Teachers cannot allow the education of Territory students to become the
sacrificial lamb to the budget deficit. We will continue, at our personal expense, to fight for a quality education
system. We believe in it. The lack of commitment displayed by your government leaves us no alternative. We call
on you to stand by your election promise.
WARRANT
Deputy Chairman of Committees
Deputy Chairman of Committees
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I lay on the table my warrant for Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Legislative Assembly.
MINISTERIAL REPORTS
Capital Works Program
Capital Works Program
Mr AH KIT (Transport and Infrastructure Development): Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Mr Burke: You have had five hours of briefing, Jack, have you?
Mr KIELY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Yesterday you directed that we would not refer to the honourable members in the Chamber by name.
Madam SPEAKER: You are quite correct. Leader of the Opposition, withdraw that remark.
Mr BURKE: Madam Speaker, I withdraw the fact that I called Mr Jack Ah Kit, Jack Ah Kit.
Madam SPEAKER: Be careful, be careful. Leader of the Opposition, that was unnecessary. All members, I mention that to you to make sure you do it.
Mr AH KIT: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Yesterday the opposition asked a number of questions in regard to the progress of some capital works that have been put to tender but not yet let. The member for Katherine stated that the government cannot tender jobs unless the money is ready to be spent. That is certainly the view of this government. Obviously it was not the view of the previous government when Territorians were unfortunately exposed to the mismanagement of the member for Katherine and his colleagues. In the CLP’s last budget, the budget for the current financial year, the budget papers state that the expected cost of the works in progress and approved for the Department of Transport and Works was $152.2m. But how much cash did the former CLP government actually allocate to the department’s capital works program? Just $123.5m.
In simple terms, the cash funding for the department’s capital works program was nearly $30m less than the cost of projects that had already been announced in previous years. Despite this, in their last budget, the former CLP government announced with great fanfare an additional $64m of major new capital works. Where was the money coming from?
Compare this year’s budget to the previous year’s budget, the budget for 2000-01. In the previous year - perhaps we will accept that it was just coincidence that it was not an election year - the budgeted cash for capital works was 32% more than the cost of approved works and works in progress. That is, in the previous year’s budget, cash was actually available for new works. When the CEO of the Department of Transport and Works was advised of the cash funding that was being provided by the former CLP government for capital works in this year’s budget, the CEO advised Treasury that the program was unsustainable. This leaves the question hanging as to how the former CLP government planned to implement the capital works program announced in last year’s budget if Territorians had been so unfortunate to actually have them re-elected. One is left to speculate then that the former CLP government either planned to cut the capital works program announced in its last budget or borrow ever more cash to implement the program.
They have been caught out, Madam Speaker. It is clear that the former CLP government hoped to mislead Territorians through the election campaign and fudge their way through to another razor gang exercise, as has been their practice in previous elections. This government now has to clean up the mess left behind by the former CLP government. We will deal with this through the mini-budget process.
Despite the financial black hole that the former CLP government has left this government, I wish to finish on a positive note. The government has inherited …
Mr REED: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The honourable member, and it occurred yesterday, is reading from a report. That is to say that these ministerial reports are written reports. I ask if it written reports are going to be the practice that these reports be tabled rather than the opposition having to wait for them to appear in Hansard the following day. If not, could the honourable minister table the document from which he is reading.
Mr AH KIT: Madam Speaker, this report is speaking notes that I have in front of me.
Mr Reed: Yes, and you are reading from them.
Madam SPEAKER: There is actually no point of order but there is a need to have clarification about these ministerial reports. I will talk to the Leader of Government Business about that later and clarify it. We need to discuss the format of how we will go about it.
Mr AH KIT: Madam Speaker, as I said, I wish to finish on a positive note. We have inherited this financial black hole and, as I said, we will attack it in a responsible manner. I would like to inform this Assembly that the actual hard cash that our government will spend on the capital works program this current financial year will be bigger and greater than it was in the last year of the Country Liberal Party government. At this stage in our budgetary cycle, our government is planning to spend some $20.7m more than what the Country Liberal Party government did in its final year. This increase in capital works expenditure by the Martin government will occur despite the terrible state of budget disrepair handed over to us by the former CLP government. I am pleased to report to the House that the government is on target to achieve this objective.
Budgetary Shortfall –
Northern Territory Police Service
Northern Territory Police Service
Mr STIRLING: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: No. I have ruled. Sorry.
- electronic messaging - $400 000 recurrent funding required;
Optus data communications - $230 000 recurrent funding required; and
IT outsourcing of desktop computer support and maintenance - $1.8m recurrent funding
required and the figure could be as high as $2.4m.
These amounts are recurrent and are required to meet current operational requirements and expenditure every year. They were clearly foreseeable.
Members interjecting.
- Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Let’s have some order, thank you. And remember if you do not want to have retaliation, then do not be provocative.
Mr STIRLING: Absolutely, but I won’t have contemptuous smirks from the people responsible for this. These costs were clearly foreseeable and ongoing costs required by contractual arrangements. Now, the Police Commissioner also advises that further additional funding requirements are needed to cover the investigation in the Barrow Creek incident. The cost of the investigation sits currently between $900 000 and $1m. The Commissioner advises me that he will endeavour to absorb $350 000 of this cost from other internal operating provisions, thus requiring supplementary funding of $650 000. Changes to vehicle fleet costs are estimated to be in the order of a further $800 000 recurrent, and the Commissioner has advised me that he will endeavour to absorb this amount but cannot rule out a need for further funding.
There are a number of other matters including decisions taken by the previous Cabinet relating to capital purchases and employment costs totalling $1.5m. These items include officer safety equipment, forensic equipment and other expenses committed to in the last financial year but for which no cash was allocated in the current financial year. So committed to, but no cash allocated.
I bring these matters to the attention of the Assembly as a further example of the totally inappropriate, totally inappropriate and irresponsible approach of the former government to budgetary and fiscal management, particularly the former Treasurer and minister responsible for this agency.
Planning Act Review
Mr VATSKALIS (Lands, Planning and Environment): Madam Speaker, I rise to make a ministerial report on the Planning Act. In opposition, Labor said we would review the Planning Act. In government, we are implementing that policy. This in an internal review. The outcomes and recommendations of the review will be made public and subject to consultation with business, planning groups, local government and the community generally.
The core issues we are examining are: the introduction of limited third party appeal rights; a transparent role for local stakeholders, particularly the minister; a committee to consult all stakeholders; timeliness and certainty in the processes; and strong consideration of matters such as crime prevention principles when assessing the merits of development proposals.
I advised the Local Government Association Annual General Meeting yesterday that the Territory government will retain planning under its control. I said they would be disappointed, but I believe that our size and the fact that most Territory land is unincorporated into local government means that we need to retain that control. I also said that we would be examining their role in planning and looking at ways to provide a greater and clearer role.
The introduction of the Consolidated Northern Territory Planning Scheme has been placed before government. The scheme was envisaged at the time of the introduction of the Planning Act in 1999 and is an important mechanism in making a more streamlined and Territory-wide approach to planning. However, at the same time local distinctions will be accommodated. This proposed scheme will be subjected to wide public consultation before it is finally introduced. As provided in the Planning Act, the scheme will include policy and the land use objectives guidelines in the incorporated documents and zoning controls in the development provisions. All of these issues are designed to facilitate development and make the process clear and transparent. There will be time limits built into the Act so that development is not held up. Business people are very aware that this is a pro-development government. The difference between us and the previous government is that we will be doing it properly, accountably and with clear guidelines for everyone.
Business wants clarity; they want these issues to be settled. They will build and develop within those parameters. That’s what they told me; that’s what I have taken on board in my thinking. I have met with planning groups, local government officials and representatives, some business groups, professional organisations and many other groups. I have canvassed the issue with many people. I am convinced that the policy directions we laid down prior to the election are the appropriate ones and we are looking at exactly how this can be done.
Explore the Territory –
Tourism Marketing Campaign
Tourism Marketing Campaign
Mr STIRLING (Tourism): Madam Speaker, one of the areas that the former government did leave, I think, in reasonably good shape and did a good job in was in the area of tourism. As Minister for Tourism I am keen to follow on from mostly the very good work that they achieved. I am pleased to be able to report that today, as Minister for Tourism I will launch Explore the Territory, an intra-Territory tourism marketing campaign designed to get Territorians to explore the Northern Territory for themselves and to recognise that there is plenty to do right here where we live.
We are launching the campaign aboard a restored pearling lugger down at Cullen Bay because that in itself is a great example of the type of experience that many of us here take for granted. The Territory does have some of the most sensational places to see and experience and many of us too often don’t think about going to them. There is no better nor more important time for Territorians to explore the Territory than now because the tourism industry out there is hurting.
Because of the importance of the aviation sector to tourism, our government has thrown every resource available at getting the air capacity back to the Northern Territory and we continue to work on new aviation developments daily. In the meantime, through the Tourist Commission, the government has explored other options to stimulate activity needed in the industry both here in the Top End and in Central Australia. We have met with the peak motoring associations, targeting the high yield self-drive market. We are scrutinising our drive market campaigns to look at how best to get younger travellers and families on the road to the Territory and we have committed $100 000 to this intra-Territory marketing campaign.
While it may be that interstate or international visitors will be staying at home this Christmas, locals are perhaps likely to stay home as well and the Territory’s holiday packages provide the perfect opportunity to stay at home and have a holiday. We will continue to do everything we can to support the tourism industry. The Explore Your Territory campaign features packaged accommodation, tours and attractions targeted at Territory residents and visiting friends and relatives, developed by a joint government and industry working group following the Ansett airlines collapse and aims to stimulate extra activity, both in the Top End and Central Australia. During the last financial year, more than 1.4 million visitors came to see the Territory. Territorians need to make time what is in their own back yard.
The tourism industry, as I said, is hurting. It does need the support of us, the locals. This $100 000 committed to fund the project will be administered by the regional tourism associations. The holiday packages have been developed by Territory Discoveries, the NT Tourist Commission’s wholesale division, and are advertised in brochures which will be inserted in regional newspapers next week. Here are some examples:
- Get to know the Alice, a five day package visiting the West MacDonnell Ranges, the Desert Park,
Palm Valley and Wallace Rockhole Aboriginal Community;
Tropical Mix Sport Fishing, a five day tour;
Top End Fishing Tour that also takes in magnificent scenery and wildlife; and
Discover the Parks, a six day tour including a champagne sunset cruise on Darwin Harbour, visits to
the Litchfield, Kakadu, Nitmiluk National Parks and the Territory Wildlife Park.
Madam Speaker, it is a great initiative. I pay tribute to both the Northern Territory Tourist Commission and its Chief Executive Officer, Tony Mayell, and I urge all Territorians to get behind this campaign and support our local tourism operators.
Reports noted pursuant to Sessional Order.
SENTENCING AMENDMENT BILL (No 4)
(Serial 15)
(Serial 15)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Dr TOYNE (Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to give police the power to arrest, without a warrant, an offender who is suspected on reasonable grounds of having breached a condition of a bond or a suspended sentence or of an undertaking. When a court imposes a bond or suspended sentence, it is often a condition of the sentence that the offender be under the supervision of a delegate of the Director of Correctional Services and be required to obey all reasonable directions as to reporting, residence, associates and employment. The conditions are determined on an individual basis, taking into account the offender’s personal circumstances. They are aimed at protecting society or a particular individual, usually the victim, and at the rehabilitation of the offender. Conditions that are frequently imposed are that the offender not consume alcohol or that they either reside or do not reside in a particular locality.
If an offender breaches a condition, it is important that the police have the power to arrest the offender immediately and bring him or her before a court. At present, this cannot be done. A similar situation exists in respect of a breach of a condition of an undertaking given by a prisoner on release by the Administrator in an exercise of prerogative and mercy power. Currently, if the police see, suspect or are informed that an offender has breached a condition of a bond or suspended sentence or of an undertaking, they must make an application to the court and, if it is possible, the offender must be notified of the application. This process can take a long time, particularly in communities where the court may only sit once a month. This can result in a potential threat to the safety of an individual or the general public.
Madam Speaker, this is unacceptable. The Criminal Law (Conditional Release of Offenders) Act had such a power of arrest but that act was repealed when the Sentencing Act came into operation in 1996. The failure to include such a power in the Sentencing Act appears to have been an oversight. The police already have the power to arrest without warrant in similar circumstances where they believe an offender has failed to comply with a condition of a Parole Order. Likewise where an offender has breached an undertaking or agreement to a bail condition or a Home Detention Order. This amendment was recommended by the Coroner, Mr Warren Donald SM, following his inquest into the death of Rosemary McIntyre.
Madam Speaker, it is important that potentially dangerous situations are avoided. This bill ensures that the police will be able to act quickly in circumstances where a breach might result in a threat to the safety of the community.
I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
Take two bills together
Take two bills together
Dr TOYNE (Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of Standing orders be suspended as would prevent bills entitled Local Court Amendment Bill 2001 (Serial 12) and Small Claims Amendment Bill 2001 (Serial 11): (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.
LOCAL COURT AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 12)
SMALL CLAIMS AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 11)
(Serial 12)
SMALL CLAIMS AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 11)
Bills presented and read a first time.
Dr TOYNE (Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bills be now read a second time.
The purpose of the bills is to clarify that appeals from decisions of registrars in small claims proceedings including final decisions go to magistrates and not to the Supreme Court under Section 19 of the Local Court Act. The Local Court Amendment Bill amends section 19 of the Local Court Act so that it no longer applies to appeals in small claims matters. Such appeal provisions have been transferred to the Small Claims Act.
Housekeeping amendments are also made to section 36A of the Local Court Act to ensure matters specified in the Local Court Regulations are specifically covered by the regulation-making power. An appeals structure for small claims matters will now be found in the Small Claims Act, with appeals from decisions of registrars going to magistrates, and from decisions of magistrates to Supreme Court judges. An appeal from a magistrate’s decision can only be made after a final order is made by the magistrate.
Other minor amendments to the Small Claims Act include amendments to section 19 to omit the words ‘that a judgment of the Court is final and conclusive’ whilst retaining the statement that ‘a party may not commence or continue other proceedings for the same cause or matter’; the repeal of section 49, which requires the registrar to publish details of small claims; and the removal of the matter of fees to regulations, as occurs in the Supreme Court Act and Local Court Act, by repealing section 45 and inserting a new section 51, being a regulation-making power. Section 20 of the Small Claims Act has also been redrafted to ensure the act provides the basis for an application for rehearing.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bills to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
LEGAL PRACTITIONERS AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 20)
(Serial 20)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Dr TOYNE (Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move the bill be now read a second time.
The main purpose of this bill is to amend the Legal Practitioners Act so as to improve and clarify the operations of the Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee. The bill also provides for the appointment of managers of legal practices. The Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee is a body created by section 48 of the Legal Practitioners Act for the purposes of dealing with various disciplinary matters concerning legal practitioners.
Most disciplinary matters are handled by the Law Society of the Northern Territory. However, the Complaints Committee has the power to deal with appeals from decisions of the Society and to directly handle some complaints. The decisions of the committee are subject to review by the Supreme Court. Additionally, the Supreme Court has both statutory powers and an inherent jurisdiction in respect of the discipline of legal practitioners. The committee, the Ombudsman and the Law Society have raised a number of concerns about the legislation that supports the operation of the Committee. This bill seeks to allay those concerns.
I shall now outline each of the concerns together with the government’s proposals. The first problem is that it is often difficult to obtain a quorum for the Complaints Committee - currently a quorum is four of the seven members. We propose that the quorum be reduced to three.
Additionally, most of the members of the committee are volunteers. This means that the time they are able to spend on committee hearings is relatively limited because they need to devote time to the earning of an income. We propose that the legislation be amended so that members can be paid an appropriate amount. This should mean that the members do not suffer severe financial penalty of the kind that can potentially occur if a hearing were to last more than two or three days. This amendment will make it more practical for barristers, sole practitioners or legal practitioners from small firms to accept positions on the committee.
However, these changes will not overcome all the quorum problems. The relatively small size of the Northern Territory legal profession can mean that it is difficult to obtain sufficient disinterested members who have no close business or personal connection with a lawyer who is the subject of disciplinary proceedings. To overcome this problem, we propose to create a panel of 13 persons from whom a quorum can be selected by the chairperson of the Complaints Committee. The panel will comprise:
- the chairperson - this person must be entitled to hold a practising certificate but need not
necessarily do so;
the Ombudsman or an alternate to the Ombudsman;
three lay members - this is an increase from the current single lay member;
five legal practitioners nominated by the Law Society of the Northern Territory, with two of
those members being members of the independent Bar. This is an increase from the current
three such members; and
three other legal practitioners - these members would be legal practitioners selected by the
Attorney-General. This is an increase from the current two such members.
For any particular hearing, the committee would comprise at least one legal practitioner from the group nominated by the Law Society, and at least one person who is either a lay person or the Ombudsman or the Ombudsman’s alternate.
The generality of the proposals have been considered by the Law Society and the Complaints Committee. I understand that they are both satisfied that the changes will alleviate the problems in the operation of the current provisions.
The second problem is that the legislation does not provide the committee with many procedural powers that such a committee would ordinarily be expected to possess. We propose that the committee be given the power to give directions for the expeditious and efficient conduct of proceedings. It is also proposed that the persons who commence proceedings also be given the power to withdraw from them.
A third problem is that the act is unclear as to whether the committee dealing with a charge against a legal practitioner is under a duty to inquire into the whole of the professional conduct of the legal practitioner or just the matter raised in the charge. We propose that the act be amended so that the committee can only consider the allegations raised in the charge. However, the act will now oblige the committee to refer to the Law Society for further investigation any additional matters that arise in the course of the investigation or hearing.
A fourth problem is that the committee is ill-equipped to handle complaints that may not have any possibility of a successful outcome for the complainant. Currently, the act permits the committee to dismiss a complaint if the complaint is frivolous or vexatious. However, it is possible for a complaint to be serious from the point of view of a complainant, but unfounded in terms of the disciplinary provisions in the legislation. In order to deal with this problem, we propose that section 50 of the act be amended so that the committee may summarily dismiss a charge if it is of the view that a charge would not, despite being proven, give rise to a finding of professional misconduct. Section 51B(1)(a) of the act is to provide that any decision to either dismiss such a charge or not to dismiss a charge is not to be the subject of any kind of review by the Supreme Court.
A fifth problem is that the act is unclear about the penalties that may be imposed by the Complaints Committee. The range of penalties includes fines, suspensions for a limited time, admonition, and imposition of practice restrictions. Section 50(4) of the act is written so that it appears that only one kind of penalty may be imposed. Thus, for example, the committee may impose either a fine or a suspension. The Complaints Committee has advised that it would like to be able to impose a penalty that may be comprised of one or more of the penalties listed in the act. For example, it would like to be able to impose a fine or warning linked with practising restrictions or suspension. As this request is reasonable, we propose that there is an appropriate amendment to section 50 of the act. The Law Society supports this proposal.
There is a further problem in respect of penalties. It arises from the fact that only the Supreme Court may impose the highest level of sanctions, namely removal of the name from the Roll of Legal Practitioners maintained by the Supreme Court, or disqualification from practice. It is not proposed that this position be altered. The problem is that such penalties may only be imposed after a fresh hearing by the Supreme Court. Such a hearing may duplicate matters heard by the Complaints Committee.
We propose that the act be amended so that the committee may refer to the court certain findings of misconduct. These are findings for which, in addition to any penalties the committee may have imposed, it might be appropriate that the highest level of sanctions be imposed. Section 52 is to be amended so that the court may, on referral of the matter to it by the committee, impose such higher level penalties based on the findings of the committee. The court has the option of further inquiry, but is not obliged to do so.
A sixth problem is that of the basis of appeals from the Complaints Committee to the Supreme Court. Currently such an appeal involves a rehearing of the matter by the court. This means that the court duplicates the fact-finding conducted by the Committee. Given that the committee will always be comprised of senior members of the profession, we are satisfied that it can be relied on to establish the relevant facts on which decisions can be made. Accordingly, the bill provides that section 51B be amended so that appeals can only be made on the basis of mistakes of fact or of law. We understand that both the Complaints Committee and the Law Society support this change. The proposal has also been referred to the Chief Justice.
The final problem in respect to the Complaints Committee is one identified by the Law Society. It has the effect that the legislation is not sufficiently clear concerning the matter of costs, particularly costs that may be payable in circumstances where the Complaints Committee appoints a legal practitioner to assist the complainant. Such costs are met from the Fidelity Fund established for the main purpose of compensating clients for thefts of trust money and property. The concern is that the payment of such costs with no apparent right of recovery may be wasteful if the complaint is ill-based. We propose that section 51A be amended so the committee may order that the complainant pay the costs. Additionally, it is proposed that the committee should only be entitled to appoint a legal practitioner to assist a complainant if the person is entitled to assistance in accordance with the rules prescribed by regulation. The intention is that the regulations be amended so that the rules mimic the kinds of grounds upon which legal aid may be granted by the Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission.
The bill also provides for transitional matters relative to the various changes concerning the committee. These are designed to retain current appointments to the committee, but also to provide for the application of the new provisions of matters before the committee.
I must emphasise that these amendments and reforms are of an interim nature. They focus on making corrections and improvements to the current disciplinary scheme. However, there is a general view that the disciplinary system for legal practitioners both in the Northern Territory and many other parts of Australia is in need of some more basic overhaul. These are fundamental problems arising from the complexity of the process and the respective roles of the profession and various arms of government.
The government understands that the Law Society has been, for some considerable time, putting together detailed proposals for reform. Additionally, major reforms have been developed in Queensland and Victoria, and national competition policy reviews are occurring in the Northern Territory and throughout the rest of Australia. Finally, the issue is to be considered by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General. All of these developments are considered with a view to major reform as soon as practically possible.
The bill also provides for one other matter that is distinct from disciplinary provisions. The proposed Part 8A provides for the appointment by the Law Society of managers of the practices of legal practitioners. Such appointments are necessary when a legal practitioner is unable to continue managing his or her practice. This may occur if the practitioner has died or become ill or has decamped or has been suspended or disqualified. The provisions are closely modelled on those in place in New South Wales. In brief, they permit the Law Society to make an appointment. The manager takes on all the rights and responsibilities of the legal practitioners but there is a personal protection from the liabilities incurred.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL (No 2)
(Serial 19)
(Serial 19)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Dr TOYNE (Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to amend various Northern Territory laws, none of which reflect substantive changes in policy. I now outline some of the changes to be brought about this bill.
The Pastoral Leases (Rental) Act is repealed. This Act relates to a rental increase on pastoral leases during the 1991-92 financial year and is no longer relevant. The State Bank of South Australia (Transfer of Undertaking) Act is also repealed as the transfer period has now expired. There are also various amendments to the Firearms Amendment Act (No 2) 2000 to correct errors that occurred in that Act. The Gaming Machine Act is amended to insert a penalty in section 77(10) to correct the use of ‘and’ instead of ‘or’ in section 116. Both of these amendments are to correct inadvertent omissions in the Gaming Machine Amendment Act (No 2) 2001.
The Law Society Public Purposes Trust Act has been amended to incorporate amendments to section 7 of the Legal Practitioners Act which provides that the Law Society of the Northern Territory is a body corporate by the name ‘Law Society Northern Territory’. The amendment is necessary to reflect this change.
A further amendment is made to Marine and Pollution Act. MARPOL 73/78 is the International Convention on which the act is based. As currently defined, MARPOL is fixed in time as the convention was adopted in 1978. This amendment is required to allow for the incorporation of amendments and additions to the convention that have been made since 1978. Such amendments will have no effect until the minister gives notice of the amendments in the Gazette.
The Public Notaries Act is amended to allow for the Registrar of the Supreme Court to be the local registration authority in respect of applications for appointment as a public notary pursuant to the Commonwealth Mutual Recognition Act (1992).
The Unit Titles Amendment Act 2001 and the Unit Titles (Consequential Amendments - Building Developments) Act 2001 are amended to correct grammatical errors and incorrect section references.
Section 15 of the Wills Act currently deals with the effect of divorce on wills. As there may be some uncertainty in interpreting this section, an amendment has been made to clarify that section 15 applies to wills where annulment or divorce occurs on or after the commencement of the Wills Act.
Various other acts and regulations are amended in a minor way, and are set out in schedules 1 and 2 of the bill. These amendments correct typographical errors within existing legislation.
Madam Speaker, I commend the Statute Law Revision Bill (No.2) 2001 to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
JUVENILE JUSTICE
AMENDMENT BILL (No 2)
(Serial 5)
JUVENILE JUSTICE (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL
(Serial 6)
SENTENCING AMENDMENT BILL (No 3)
(Serial 7)
SENTENCING (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL
(Serial 8)
AMENDMENT BILL (No 2)
(Serial 5)
JUVENILE JUSTICE (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL
(Serial 6)
SENTENCING AMENDMENT BILL (No 3)
(Serial 7)
SENTENCING (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL
(Serial 8)
Continued from 17 October 2001.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Madam Speaker, from the outset, can I state that yesterday I foreshadowed the possibility of some amendments. Fortunately, I have reviewed the situation and discussed it with my colleagues and we are of the view that it is not possible to resurrect the legislation with an amendment, it is so flawed. What we are going to do is, during the committee stage, we may make some suggestions to amend by repealing certain provisions of the proposed bill.
Mr STIRLING (Leader of Government Business): It is not really a point of order, Madam Speaker, but could I suggest if there is a serious intent for amendment that it would be very helpful from the government’s point of view if we had prior notice, had the amendment in our hand …
Members interjecting.
Mr STIRLING: Well, if we have it, fine.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Goyder, you do as you think best.
Mr MALEY: Madam Speaker, I stand to demonstrate to honourable members and also the Territory public that there is an enormous gulf between what has been said by the Chief Minister and the Attorney-General when compared to the real and practical effect of the amendments. To do that, I just want to remind honourable members of what has been said by both the Chief Minister and the Attorney-General in recent times.
On 10 October, there was a press release from the Chief Minister, Clare Martin MLA, member for Fannie Bay, where she in unison with Dr Toyne said:
Ms Martin and Dr Toyne said the new legislation reflected the principle that serious crime means
serious time.
The press release goes on to create the impression that that this new scheme is going to be tough on crime and that this is certainly no soft option. Now, in recent times in this very Chamber, the Attorney-General, on 17 October during a Dorothy Dix question from one of his programmed backbenchers to which he responded dutifully, said that the new scheme was going to be tough on crime. He talked about targeting offences and reiterated really much of the propaganda which has been fed to the press and the Northern Territory public over the past two weeks.
Ms Martin: Fifteen months might do it better.
Mr MALEY: Indeed, certainly over a fairly lengthy period of time. In any event, prior to this legislation of being drafted.
The Chief Minister, in her reply to the address by the Administrator, in a well spoken and deliberate fashion described the proposed changes using a fairly broad motherhood statement of serious crime means serious time. Both the Attorney-General and the Chief Minister have, in my view, deliberately created an expectation that the new legislation was going to be tough on crime. I was fortunate enough and indeed and I was grateful last Thursday to receive a briefing from employees of the Attorney-General’s department. Any comments I am going to make now do not reflect in any way upon their professionalism. They are merely, of course, following instructions of their new Labor clientele.
The Labor government has the trust of Territorians and Territory people and most people in our community won’t have the opportunity to examine closely the new legislation. It is not unreasonable for those people in the Northern Territory to rely upon the representations made by our Chief Minister and the Attorney-General.
Mr Stirling: How do you think my constituents felt when you bought mandatory sentencing in? You never told anyone!
Mr Burke: Got you rattled, has he, Syd? Already! He’s only been here two days.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! The member for Goyder has the floor.
Mr MALEY: Indeed, it is fair to say that members of the press would not have the opportunity to closely examine the real mischief of this legislation. They, too, are entitled to rely upon the representations made by the Chief Minister and the Attorney-General. I am going to explain to the House, to honourable members and also the people of the Territory that what the Attorney-General, and probably more significantly the Chief Minister, has said was in fact incorrect and misleading and that some sections of the proposed bill are superfluous and irrelevant.
Madam Speaker, if I can draw your attention to probably the bill which contains the very mischief of this amendment, that is the Sentencing Amendment Bill (No.3) of 2001. This piece of legislation contains the usual repeal provisions repealing a portion of the Sentencing Act and replacing the repeal portion of the Sentencing Act with a new division under the heading: Division 6 Aggravated Property Offences. Section 78(a) of this new scheme, the new legislation, provides:
The purpose of this division is to ensure that community disapproval of persons committing aggravated
property offences is adequately reflected in the sentences imposed on those persons.
In my view, this particular section does not assist in any way the sentencing process. The sentencing train has a number of carriages. They include things like general deterrence, personal deterrence, rehabilitation and, of course, the view of the community, the prevalence of the offence. To restate such a general and fundamental principle of our sentencing regime in an act of parliament is unusual and indeed serves no purpose but to justify perhaps a meaningless press release from the government.
Even this piece of legislation goes on further to insult the intelligence of the people of the Northern Territory and certainly the legal practitioners that practice within the criminal jurisdiction. It goes on to state another inevitable factor which is taken into account in the sentencing process. It says:
- A court that finds a person guilty of an aggravated property offence must take into account the purpose
of this division.
As I just said, the purpose is to ensure that the community’s disapproval of persons committing aggravated property offences is adequately reflected in the sentences imposed on these persons. It is really reinventing the wheel. So far, in the first two paragraphs of the new scheme, there has been absolutely no progress. There is no new scheme. There is certainly no assistance offered to the courts in exercising their sentencing discretion.
You would think that is off to a fairly bad start. Well, it actually gets worse. I suppose the operative provision from the Labor Party’s perspective is section 78B(2). It talks about:
- A court that records a conviction against an offender found guilty of an aggravated property offence must…
blah, blah, blah.
Dr Toyne: No, don’t say the blah, blah, blah. Come on, read it out.
Mr MALEY: Well, I am going to get to that. I am going to get to that.
Mr Stirling: What about informing the journalists up here?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr MALEY: So the very first hurdle which this new tough sentencing regime, this new scheme has …
Mr Stirling: Well, tell us how mandatory sentencing worked so effectively!
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Allow the member to have his say.
Mr MALEY:
- A court that records a conviction against an offender found guilty of an aggravated property offence
must record a conviction.
As you will probably be aware, and I am certainly aware from my practice, there are numerous cases where a defendant before the court isn’t convicted. Indeed, there are many, many matters which are dealt with in the magistrates court and serious matters which are dealt with by way of some sort of fine or bond without proceeding to a conviction. So your scheme doesn’t even come into effect, has no effect at all unless a person is convicted. So a finding of guilt is not enough. He has got to be convicted. If you look at the Sentencing Act, these are the types of considerations a court is indeed obliged to consider when determining whether or not to convict a person. It is Section 8 of the Sentencing Act. It says: ‘In deciding whether or not to record a conviction’ - this is before we even get to your wondrous scheme, serious crime, serious time blah, blah, blah, it says:
- A court shall have regard to the circumstances including the character, antecedents, age, health, mental
condition of the offender, the extent if any to which the offence is of a trivial nature, or the extent if any
to which the offence was committed under extenuating circumstances.
Now, these are disjunctive limbs, so if a lawyer can stand before a court and persuade a magistrate or a judge that one of these limbs is satisfied, then the court, quite justifiably so, has the option of not recording a conviction. Now, perhaps I can give you an example a bit closer to home and you might understand. If a member of your back bench, the government’s back bench, committed a property offence and we’ll say hypothetically stealing parliamentary property, a microwave, and that person came to me …
Members interjecting.
Mr MALEY: If you will just listen.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Sanderson.
Mr MALEY: … and that person came to me with a worried look on his face and said: ‘Look, Mr Maley, I want you to represent me’ in my previous life. ‘I’ve got some real concerns about the property I’ve just stolen from parliament. I am a member of parliament, I am in the Labor Party.’
Mr Kiely interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Sanderson!
Mr MALEY: I would say to him: ‘You have nothing to worry about. The chances of you getting convicted I suspect are fairly slim. Do not worry about this new scheme. You’ll be right.’ I could certainly put his concerns to rest by the very first limb of your new scheme. ‘A court that records a conviction.’ Well, there are a lot of instances where you won’t even get to that very first limb. There won’t be a conviction recorded and people who commit serious property offences will be at large.
Now, it gets worse and I’m going to go to the first limb of 2(a). If a person is convicted, then the court must order the offender to serve a term of imprisonment. Compelling stuff. That’s tough on crime. Or order the offender to participate in an approved project under a community work order. Members of the public, when you read that to them, would think: ‘That sounds pretty serious’. Indeed, members of the press and the various press releases that you have produced, would be led to believe - and once they have looked at this in a cursory fashion - they would think: ‘That sounds serious; there’s a term of imprisonment’. The only thing that’s not here is that you haven’t specified the duration of any term of imprisonment.
I will give you an example of some other legislation. In the Misuse of Drugs Act, section 37(2) specifies a period of imprisonment of 28 days unless there are particular circumstances of the offence or the offender. Well, you don’t even have to run the gauntlet of establishing exceptional circumstances here because there is absolutely no period of time which the person can expect to receive in terms of a term of imprisonment. It’s certainly been the case in our magistrates court up here that people have been told: ‘Oh, look, you’re in prison until I adjourn. You are to sit there until the court rises’ and that’s it. So, effectively, to impose this scheme on the sentencing discretion which all magistrates and judges possess does not fetter, does not affect their powers, their obligations to sentence someone in accordance with the law.
The third limb of your supposed new scheme will certainly, and I use the word ‘scheme’ very loosely because it doesn’t resemble a scheme, but the third get-out, I suppose, is that a court doesn’t have to order a person to serve a term of imprisonment albeit if it’s for one second, or order that person to participate in an approved community work order if there are exceptional circumstances. As the Attorney-General quite properly said in his second reading speech, that phrase will fall to be interpreted according to the plain, literal and English meaning of the word. Unfortunately, from a practical perspective that will invariably involve several appeals to the appellate courts, perhaps to a single judge of the Supreme Court, and then they will probably decide what the parameters are of what this phrase ‘exceptional circumstances’ really means. Then, in the meantime, there will be several matters adjourned, they will be making applications to adjourn pending the outcome of an appeal, and then in six months’ time when the appeal is determined the matters come back before the magistrates court, we’ve got some sort of guidance as to what ‘exceptional circumstances’ means and those matters can then proceed.
The instructions you have given your solicitors to draft this particular piece of legislation do not reflect what has been told by both the Chief Minister and the Attorney-General to the honourable members of this House, nor does it reflect accurately what indeed is contained in their press releases and distributed to members of the Press Gallery. In my view, both the Chief Minister and the Attorney-General have been deliberately misleading in their public statements. The proof of this is in the legislation for anyone to read ...
Mr STIRLING: A point of order, Madam Speaker. I accept he used ‘misleading’ earlier, but when he talks about ‘deliberately misleading’ it becomes a question of substantive motion. So I would ask him to withdraw ‘deliberately misleading’.
Madam SPEAKER: He may use the term misleading, but what the Leader of Government Business is talking about is ‘deliberately misleading’, so if you just withdraw the ‘deliberately’ and leave it ‘misleading’.
Mr MALEY: Madam Speaker, I withdraw.
Perhaps I can put it this way: the Chief Minister and the Attorney-General have been less than honest with the Territory people. The drafting of this legislation, if you are relying upon what’s been said certainly in the press and in this House over the past two days, falls somewhere between being recklessly negligent, or a lie, or close to a lie ...
Mr STIRLING: A point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Well, I don’t think you said it was a lie. There is no point of order.
Mr STIRLING: He alleged. It’s one or the other. He alleged.
Members interjecting.
Mr MALEY: I touched upon that at the beginning but I just want to revisit it because I think it’s an important point. Of particular concern to me in terms of trying to ensure that only good law comes before this parliament…
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr MALEY: …and, indeed, is enacted, this precedent, the idea that in our very sacrosanct acts of parliament that the current Labor government is going to enshrine in some meaningless motherhood statements is unfortunate, and I am referring to section 78A and also 78B(1). The responsibility for this legislation and the way that it has been drafted must fall upon the shoulders of the Attorney-General.
If I can make this general comment: the legislation which is being considered, particularly the amendment to the Sentencing Act, call it the Sentencing Amendment Act No 3 of 2001, not only, in my view, returns the discretion to the magistrate or to the sentencing judge at large, it probably creates some further ambiguities, so it’s even worse than just going back to the position that we have been. There is no scheme, it’s probably a step behind that ...
Mr Stirling: Peter Maley, QC.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Leader of Government Business.
Mr MALEY: There are three other portions of legislation which are also being considered at this moment. I have dealt with the most substantive.
The Juvenile Justice Amendment Bill (No 2) of 2001 certainly does not reflect any notion that the sentencing process is tough on crime in respect of juveniles. The sentencing discretion has been returned to a magistrate or a judge, and that discretion is at large.
The other two bills which are currently being considered, the Juvenile Justice (Consequential Amendments) Bill, also the Sentencing (Consequential Amendments) Bill, are just that: they are consequential amendments, and I don’t wish to speak to either of those two bills at this stage.
Madam Speaker, accordingly, the opposition cannot and indeed does not support these bills.
___________________
Suspension Of Standing Orders
Pass all stages
Pass all stages
Dr TOYNE (Attorney-General)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of Standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Juvenile Justice Amendment Bill (No 2) 2001 (Serial 5), Juvenile Justice (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2001 (Serial 6), Sentencing Amendment Bill (No 3) 2001 (Serial 7) and Sentencing (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2001 (Serial 8), passing through all stages at this sittings.
Motion agreed to.
___________________
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, these are important pieces of legislation for this new government and they will put into place a commitment we gave at least 18 months ago very clearly to the Territory community that Labor did not support mandatory sentencing. We spelled out the reasons we did not support mandatory sentencing. We gave them a very clear outline over the next 18 months and today is the day that after extensive consultation in developing our alternative, this is our alternative. Today we are putting in place the elements of Labor’s six point plan on crime. So any sense that this is being done in a hasty manner cannot be corroborated by the facts, not at all. This is a very important piece of legislation for the Territory.
The opposition spokesperson on these matters is new to the House and I thought it was good to see him participate, but he really needs to take a bit more detail onboard because to sit there and simply say ‘the government was full of lots of rhetoric about serious crime means serious time’, he still has to do a lot more work to prove that rather than just hold onto the rhetoric of the Country Liberal Party. We had spelled out very clearly…
Mr Dunham: No, you have to tell us what serious time means. Does it mean going to gaol?
Ms MARTIN: For the member for Drysdale who loves to get things down from the Internet, I am disappointed that you have not yet been able to get Labor’s six point property crime down because it spells out very clearly what we are going to do - 18 months - very, very clearly. I think it is remiss not to have absorbed the information there, because I know the member for Drysdale is very keen to absorb every aspect of Labor Party position papers in the past and now Labor Party government policy.
We spelled out in a very detailed document why mandatory sentencing did not work and why our six point plan, which was developed with wide community consultation, will work. I am confident it will work. To have the member for Goyder simply say ‘rhetoric’ is wrong - I was going to say superficial, but it is better to say it is just simply wrong - because Labor’s six point plan is underpinned by ‘serious crime means serious time’. This is tough on crime as opposed to the regime on property crime the Territory had to wear for the last four years which was simply a stunt; a stunt by every way you could interpret it; a stunt from the Country Liberal Party that they clung to year after year despite the fact that the crime levels were increasing, despite the fact that it was not tough on crime. But we heard the rhetoric year after year.
I would like to refer to some of the statements that were made initially by previous Chief Ministers about why we needed mandatory sentencing. To quote the now Leader of the Opposition - and he was then the Attorney-General - on the reason we needed mandatory sentencing. This is from 1996: ‘We will do everything to ensure that they’ that is, Territorians:
- … feel safe in their homes, that they need not fear invasion by those who would rob them of their dignity
and their possessions.
- It is also the government’s hope that the legislation will lead, in time, to a reduction in the crime rate of
property offences and a reduction in the rate of crime generally, leading to an increase in community safety.
When last year’s statistics came out from the annual police report that crime had risen by 22% across the Territory, the blinkers went on. The facts were there, staring the then government - now the opposition - in the face, and our community that property crime - he tried to bodgie up the figures. We know how good the current shadow spokesman on Treasury matters is at bodgying up figures. But he tried to bodgie up the figures in the annual police report by saying: ‘Oh, property crime had not increased’. It was the shiftiest exercise I have seen in a long time. The fact was that property crime had increased dramatically by 22% …
Mr Elferink: Is that a criticism of the Commissioner?
Ms MARTIN: The member for Macdonnell has been here long enough that he knows he does not make comments whilst he is sitting in his seat. Thank you.
So this previous government stuck to mandatory sentencing despite the patently obvious facts that it was not deterring property crime. In fact, it was doing nothing to deter property crime, and in fact we had seen property crime increase. So we know that in terms of how much you embraced it, that you were never going to let it go. But in a very open and honest way, the Labor Party set about to spell out what our alternatives were. There was wide community consultation. We held forums right across the Territory. We put out a substantial discussion paper. None of those kind of discussion papers came out from the then government, even in the run-up to the election. Talk about a policy-free zone. We put it out. Territorians knew what we stood for.
In June last year, we had an electronic campaign saying: ‘We have an alternative; it will do better. It is tough. It is: “serious crime means serious time”, and these are the ways we will do it’. So we spelt out this alternative. We gave Territorians every chance for feedback and we saw in the run-up to the election that the only issue left for the then CLP government was saying: ‘If you vote for Labor, they will scrap mandatory sentencing’. So it has been very clearly out there.
The mandate that we carry in here today is a very strong one from the Territory community because every election booth around the Territory had those big red and white signs - nothing else after 26 years in government; that is all you could say after 26 years in government: ‘Don’t vote Labor because they will scrap mandatory sentencing’. Don’t you sometimes wonder where you had got to? Don’t you sometimes wonder? Not a policy in sight. Not an initiative, not a positive plan in sight, only: ‘Don’t vote Labor because they will scrap mandatory sentencing’.
We told Territorians why we were going to scrap mandatory sentencing, and the bottom line was it did not work. It was unfair, it was inappropriate, it was ineffective, but the bottom line was that mandatory sentencing for property crime just did not work. Territorians realised that which is why - and it is a great privilege to have it happen - we are on this side and the former government is now the opposition. I think it is very important for the former government to appreciate that. You tried very hard in the run-up to the election to define yourselves as being different from the Labor Party by just that one element, by that one element of mandatory sentencing. The swing against the previous government was for more than mandatory sentencing, but let me say very clearly that was a strong component of it, a very strong component of it.
Lord knows the dollars that were spent by the CLP on advertising the fact that Labor will get rid of mandatory sentencing. It must have been a big component of the budget running up to the election. But the scare campaign was not enough because Territorians know that this new government is committed to dealing with all the elements that create property crime and the problems associated with property crime in our community. We have spelled them out and already, within 53 days of being elected to office, we have that legislation in the parliament and we are proudly standing by it.
It is about serious crime resulting in serious time. It is not a soft option like we saw with mandatory sentencing. It is not a soft option. We will have effective programs in place; we will have effective laws in place so that - I am very confident – we will proudly be able to look at the next set of statistics and say: ‘We are getting results’. Even though there was a Crime Statistics Unit set up, did we ever see any product from it? Not a skerrick, not a skerrick. Yet we will have a Crime Prevention Office. We will have a Crime Statistics Unit, and they will be reporting so we will know how this legislation is being put into effect, and we will know the impact that we are having across our community because the bottom line for this government is that we want to tackle the problem. We are not about stunts; we are about solutions.
The package that we are debating today includes the repeal of mandatory sentencing for property offences and it establishes the new crimes of home invasion and the invasion of a business premise. There is a new sentencing regime for adult offenders convicted of aggravated property offences. The era of inappropriate sentences and the distraction created by mandatory sentencing - and don’t let that be taken too lightly- the distraction created by mandatory sentencing had an enormous impact on the Territory. It had an enormous impact on the Territory and if we really want to look at one of the reasons where the previous administration took their eye off what was happening in the economy of the Territory, it was the fact that you spent months and months, now Opposition Leader, travelling the country defending mandatory sentencing and at the same time our construction sector was going to its knees, our unemployment rate was rising and the initiatives that should have been put in place were not happening. So it was a very serious distraction.
In this legislation, for the first time the seriousness of trashing of homes, businesses and cars will be recognised appropriately by criminal law. That is very different from mandatory sentencing for property crime. This is what we said: rather than having every single property crime caught up in the mandatory sentencing regime, we are targeting the offences that cause the greatest concern, the greatest grief in our community in terms of property crime. That is breaking into your home and trashing it; breaking into your business and trashing it, and damaging your car and in many cases trashing it and even burning it. They are the offences in the property crime regime that cause the most grief and they are the ones we are targeting.
Everyone in this House who has had their house broken into knows the damage it causes. Let me just talk about that because it is very important to understand that this is what we are targeting. You have your house broken into and it does undermine your confidence in going home. If you have children, it undermines their confidence in going home. When somebody has gone through your house, they might not have done a lot of damage but they have gone through your drawers. They have gone through every room in your house. They have invaded your privacy. In many cases they have invaded and trashed that privacy. That is what we are targeting: the real hurt that is done in our community where somebody breaks through a door, or breaks through a window and goes into your house, the undermining of that basic premise that home should be safe. So we are targeting that. We are targeting the trashing of homes, businesses and cars. Of course, with businesses, where you make your living, to have that invaded and trashed as well causes enormous damage.
The current laws focus on the monetary value of goods stolen or the damage caused, but those laws have failed to recognise that trashing a home, a business or a car can have a huge impact, even if the monetary value of the disturbance is relatively minor. That is something that was never recognised under mandatory sentencing. It is recognised with these new laws.
The other measures in the bills in front of us are in line with our six point property crime plan, and included are new powers for police to issue on the spot notices to appear in court and, importantly, scope for victims to express their views on sentencing through Victim Impact Statements. We will be upping the ability for victims to be able to contribute there. Again, mandatory sentencing cared nothing for victims. For all the rhetoric we heard from the previous government about ‘we are caring for victims’, there was nothing to underpin this. Yet this legislation from us recognises that, and we will move, together with other elements of our six point crime plan which look at how you can assist those who have been broken into, to fix up their house; to be able to get the best advice on what security they need, but to also restore the order, to get assistance, particularly when you are elderly, or you have a young family, to get the kind of help you need to make sure that your property is back and you can live there comfortably.
I congratulate the Attorney-General on this legislation. The Attorney-General and his department have worked very hard and very quickly to be able to get this legislation into place. I thank everyone involved with its preparation.
Madam Speaker, this government is tough on crime. The principle of serious crime equals serious time is our guiding principle when it comes to sentencing. We will be monitoring that and we will be making sure that the intention in this legislation is carried out in our courts and, if it is not, we will be wanting to know why. This is the end of mandatory sentencing on property crimes and the start of tough but fair and appropriate sentencing for Territorians who commit property crimes. It will effectively - and this is the bottom line - build a safer Territory community.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, during the previous election I was asked my views on mandatory sentencing, and I said I oppose it. It was not always clear from the election campaign that was stated against me, but all the time I said that I believe that when people trash a house, I regard that as a serious crime and they should go to gaol. I think the fault with the previous legislation was that there were still no alternatives for minor crimes. For instance, there was the case of somebody pouring water onto a cash register. To me, the alternative there would have been restitution or perhaps a community work order. In the case of someone just stealing a small item, a can of beer or a can of soft drink, there was no alternative but to send those people to gaol for 14 days.
This legislation has at least moved away from that and does allow the judicial system to put alternative forms of punishment. At the same time, I listened to the member for Goyder and I believe he has raised some serious concerns as well. If we are to believe that the gaol sentence is to reflect serious time for serious crime, then I think there has to be some way that when people are sentenced to gaol, notwithstanding that at least the judiciary now can give alternative sentences besides gaol, then there has to be some way that the gaol term is not frivolous, like half a day or something. It has to really reflect that.
My feeling is that I would be happy to see this legislation pass, but I think that we need to review it after six months to see if it is actually effective. To see if it effective, I think we need to produce a set of statistics. The Chief Minister has already spoken about setting up some criminal statistics to look at what the effect of the new legislation has. We need to not only look at what effect this new legislation has to make sure, as is stated in the notes here, that this will make the system more effective in combating the increasing crime rates, the statistics have to start now and in six months time we have to see if this is actually the case. We also have to see statistics corresponding to the clause ‘order the offender to serve a term of imprisonment’, that there is a record of what terms of imprisonment are being handed out by the courts. I think that needs to come back to this House to be reviewed. Perhaps the Auditor-General is the person who should also look at what goals the government wants from this act and sees whether in six months time they are being achieved.
My other concern is about the community work order. I must admit as a newcomer, trying to find out the definition of a community work order is fairly difficult. There are miles of legislation. The community needs to be satisfied as to exactly what a community work order is. We have had talk about Punitive Work Orders and community service orders being scrapped. Perhaps we need to clearly define what they were and what they are being replaced with.
I also think the community wants to know what happens if community orders are not carried out, not only if people do not turn up to do them, but if they turn up and then they just sort of have a nice day. What will happen to those people who do not carry out their community work orders? That needs to be clearly defined because if people are going to think that this new legislation is going to be serious about crime and that community work orders are an alternative to gaol, which I agree with, we need to clearly state exactly what community work orders are.
‘Exceptional circumstances’ does worry me. I do not quite fully understand the explanation that that will fit under common law. Again, people would like to know what exactly that means so that they can be satisfied that ‘exceptional circumstances’ are exactly that: exceptional circumstances.
Finally, I know we’re passing legislation which is all about sentencing people to gaol or not sentencing them to gaol, but I we always should keep in mind that this is at the tail end of a problem that we have in society. I mean, not all juveniles are bad people and most kids and most adults are terrific people. But I think that in all this discussion, we’re talking about sentencing people. We also have to look at focussing on support for families, looking after children and putting more things up, especially for young people, to do: sport, recreation, music. We have to encourage the positive side as well as looking at the far end of the system.
Madam Speaker, I hope that in all of this debate we don’t lose sight of some positive initiatives that should perhaps come from this Assembly.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I rise to comment on these cognate bills. The Sentencing Amendment Bill (No.3) and the Juvenile Justice Amendment Bill (No.2) are the two bills in question. The rest are consequential amendments, essentially, to those two bills. I rise also to confirm the comments of the Shadow Attorney-General that the opposition will oppose these bills in a number of ways, but certainly the substance of the opposition’s concern was reflected by the member for Goyder’s comments. It is one thing to have a philosophical argument which essentially was what the Chief Minister dribbled on about as to whether you believe in mandatory sentencing or you don’t. That is one issue. We know the Labor Party’s position since 1997 on that. They went in to the 1997 election with a belief in mandatory sentencing and then changed that when they lost the 1997 election, have since adopted a position of opposition to mandatory sentencing and I respect that position. I respect that position and I respect the fact that they are now in government.
But today, we are debating the actual legislation they have brought into this House and debating it in the context of the statements and the rhetoric that have been surrounding their supposed policies for some time. The member for Goyder, I believe, is the best placed person in this House - he was a practising defence lawyer, a person noted for his skill in that area - and whether you agree with the philosophical position or not, the member for Goyder’s comments are essentially this: what you have brought into this Chamber is simply rhetoric and in a defence lawyer’s hands, it will be disregarded. and the legislation that’s been brought forward to be passed will have no practical effect on the actions of defence lawyers and those who practice in the judicial system. Now, whether you agree with that or not is for people to consider, but his position is something that needs to be listened to in terms of the substance of the legislation that they have produced.
The other issue I would like to comment on briefly before I go into the bills themselves is this: we are in the third day of the first parliamentary session of the Ninth Assembly and this is a government that came forward with a policy of open, honest, accountable and transparent government. We are debating in the third day a very important bill, a very important bill that makes major amendments to the Criminal Code in the Northern Territory. We have 10 members of this Assembly who went to the election on a strong platform of supporting mandatory sentencing. We no longer hold government, but what we do have is a reflection in our electorates - and in the case of certainly three of them it’s almost 70% of the vote - that strongly supports mandatory sentencing. If the government decides to take a position to change the whole process, that is their right. If the government decides to change that process with some urgency, that is their right. We don’t deny that. All we ask for is the opportunity to peruse the legislation, the opportunity to have some capacity to examine the detail of the legislation and see whether or not the legislation is such that we can comment adequately on behalf of our own electorates.
Dr Toyne: Your shadow got it last Thursday. Last Thursday. He’s had plenty of time. It’s more time than you gave us. Does he sleep all day?
Mr BURKE: That is the parliamentary process, and that is something that no matter what you say about a previous CLP government, how arrogant you say a previous CLP government was, when we brought bills on urgency we might have put them through on urgency in one session, but I can’t recall a time except for immediate bills such as the railway that we’ve tried to run those bills through in 24 hours. Madam Speaker, that’s an abuse of the parliamentary process in anyone’s language. In anyone’s language, it’s an abuse of the process. It gives no capacity for the opposition as a group to consider the legislation and to be briefed.
The Attorney-General said that the shadow was briefed last Thursday and embargoed in what he could say, let’s be honest, embargoed in what he could say to himself, not share it with his colleagues and practically, you know, there is no capacity, there was no capacity to share that with his colleagues. The draft legislation that you brought forward to him last Thursday, he made a comment in the conference and the comment he made in the conference was that one of the clauses were such that a judge could suspend a sentence completely without any reference to any community work order.
Dr Toyne: Fixed.
Mr BURKE: You went away the next day and cobbled up an amendment and brought it through in your legislation. This is what happened last Thursday: the newest member of this parliament at a briefing says to all of your experts including the Solicitor-General of the Northern Territory ‘I’ve got a problem with a clause here’ and you cobbled that amendment through in 24 hours and you are suggesting to this Assembly today that everything is perfect. Everything is perfect for debate; we have had every opportunity to consider this legislation within 24 hours.
Mr Stirling: You brought more urgent motions than anyone.
Mr BURKE: You cannot point to an example except, I believe, the railway funding which you agreed with entirely, on one issue as to whether we brought legislation through within 24 hours of urgency. I ask a simple question: if you are not arrogant, if you are interested in honest, accountable, transparent, consultative government, if the new members of this Assembly who waxed so lyrically in the last two days about representing their electorates in a democratic way and it’s a whole new period for the Northern Territory, why don’t you give your colleagues here, some of whom have been in the House, you know…
Ms Lawrie: It will be a welcome change, won’t it? A welcome change.
Mr Kiely: You’re losing it, Denis.
Mr BURKE: The member for Sanderson, the new member for Karama, why don’t you have some consideration for your own colleagues who have been in the House the same time as you, have had no opportunity, one of whom was a practising lawyer, have had no opportunity to consider this legislation at all?
Mr Kiely: I am a citizen of this Territory. I know what my responsibilities are.
Mr BURKE: You’re not interested? Right. As long as we get down on the record that this honest, open, transparent, accountable, consultative government has no interest in the opposition having any capacity to interrogate legislation, to respond to the legislation. If you took the advice that you want to be an arrogant government, well Territorians will judge you for that. Territorians are expecting the sorts of things you said you would do and the first three days of this Assembly, what have we seen? We’ve seen PR statements in the first part of the day, PR statements which I believe, sadly, allow, and I hope you consider it, allow the government to fling without any recourse of the opposition to answer, allegations such as fraud which can then appear on the evening news.
Now, the fact that they can say them is one thing. If Madam Speaker gives you the right to say them, that’s one thing, the news has got no opportunity but to run it. But surely, if we’re talking about a House of debate, the opposition has some opportunity to respond. I mean, you can’t have a parliamentary system, you can’t have a forum of supposed debate if it doesn’t pass that set of tests. You have to be able to respond otherwise we don’t have a system at all. I ask you to consider that. We will oppose this legislation. We wouldn’t agree on lots of aspects but certainly, if you want real cooperation on the things that we can agree with, I would have thought that the member for Nelson is being extremely cooperative. That’s his right but, frankly, to expect him or any of us - to expect them to be across the details…
Dr Toyne: He got a briefing. So did Madam Speaker.
Mr BURKE: He got a briefing? The Attorney-General said he got a briefing. What about his ability to listen to the debate that comes from the Chamber? What about his ability to listen to other members such as such as the member for Araluen, also a lawyer, her capacity to interrogate the legislation, her capacity to contribute to this Chamber? I’m sure some of her comments will be just as enlightening as the new member for Goyder.
This is what the Chamber is about. If we are talking about passing serious legislation, let’s, please, have the opportunity to debate.
- Ms Lawrie: Well, get on with it!
I would say to you this, also: Territorians and Australians, as I have said before, are looking for some cooperation and some concern for the fact that they are extremely worried about the sort of environment they are in at the moment. I would have thought that an issue such as this could have at least been the subject of some greater consultation, for example, a draft bill could have been laid on the Table. We would probably have preferred that the draft bill be passed in the November session, but, at the very least, it could have been debated in the next week of this sittings. It would have given some opportunity for consultation by my colleagues and myself to interest groups, and also to particular interest groups in our own electorates. None of that has happened. This is a divisive indulgence. It is an indulgence by the government because they now have the trappings of power and they want to exercise it, that is one thing. But it is also divisive to the community because the best part of 50% of, I believe, the Territory community, and I would actually say more, don’t agree with mandatory sentencing being overturned, and certainly are looking for anything that replaces it to have some meat.
The garbage you have brought in here today, as the member for Goyder has pointed out, is nothing but rhetorical crap, and that is the fact of it. It will have no effect, Madam Speaker, it will have no effect on the actions of …
Dr Toyne: That’s quality debate.
Members interjecting.
Mr STIRLING: A point of order, Madam Speaker! There is a point of quality of debate and terminology used and I don’t think that is acceptable. I would ask him to withdraw it.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, I think you should withdraw that term.
Mr BURKE: Madam Speaker, speaking to the point of order, it is not as serious a word as fraud.
Madam SPEAKER: But I have just asked you to withdraw it.
Mr BURKE: I withdraw it, but I ask you to consider some of the other words that are used in this Chamber.
Madam Speaker, let’s not mistake this simple fact. These bills allow criminals to go free. The Labor government is the criminal’s friend. That’s what this legislation will do, that’s what will be the result. In their policy statements, the Labor Party said that their amendments to the Sentencing Act, and I quote:
- …state expressly that it is the intention of the parliament that people who commit the crime of house
breaking, burglary, entry and damage to homes, cars or business premises will go to gaol.
And how have these seemingly strong words been translated in these bills? I will quote the new clause 78A headed ‘Purpose’. It says:
- The purpose of this division is to ensure that community disapproval of persons committing aggravated
property offences is adequately reflected in the sentences imposed on those persons.
Now, that is the so-called strong message this parliament is sending to the courts. There is no mention of sending offenders to gaol if they commit these crimes. They can’t even get their rhetoric right. They say that serious crime means serious time and that is certainly not the case with these bills.
Let’s not forget, under the present legislation, if a court found an adult guilty, it had to proceed to conviction and impose a minimum gaol sentence that had to be served. There were limited exceptional circumstances the courts could take into account, but these were detailed by this parliament and placed in the Act. This new regime says there is no requirement for a court to proceed from a guilty finding to a conviction. No requirement. The offender can go perfectly free. This new regime says if an offender is convicted of an aggravated property offence, he or she must go to gaol unless the court suspends the sentence or unless the court imposes a community work order or unless the court can find extenuating circumstances. Otherwise, free. Off you go. No worries. And this is what my colleague, an experienced defence lawyer, was trying to point out to you. What are the exceptional circumstances? That’s a good question because the government doesn’t know and they hope someone will figure it out through the appellate court over time.
This government will let the courts decide why someone who trashes a Territorian’s home or steals their property should go free because of some exceptional circumstance that the court has found. And let’s not overlook some of the recent ones. For example, perhaps drinking too much caffeine could be an exceptional circumstance. Perhaps drinking some of those strange soft drinks that kids get into nowadays could be an exceptional circumstance. Will being a drug addict be an exceptional circumstance? Will having previously being gaoled under a mandatory sentencing law be an exceptional circumstance? We don’t know and nor does the government. Perhaps being fined and convicted for contempt could be an exceptional circumstance in a plea of mercy.
What we do know is that the people who commit these crimes will not be going to gaol, and what we do know is that the people who commit an offence against section 210 of the Criminal Code, that is, any person who steals is no longer to be considered to be part of this laughingly new tough regime of ‘serious crime means serious time’ because you’ve got rid of that schedule. What we do know is that someone who just breaks into a Territorian’s home is no longer covered by this regime. Worth looking at. If you just break in, have a look, maybe do some defecation or something - certainly don’t create an aggravation because it has got to be more than $5000 to be an aggravation; tell that to the average Territorian - you’re fined. You’re fined. Have a look around, bit of a peruse, see what the place is like, case it out, maybe come back some other day. Not a crime under your new tough serious time legislation.
What we do know from this legislation is that someone taking your car, someone stealing your tinny or caravan or trailer and illegally using it, will not be covered. Check your legislation. Nor will damaging a Territorian’s property. This is the classic: under this new tough regime, damaging a Territorian’s property is only a serious crime if it is damaged above $5000. Now, so much for the battlers. So much for the battlers. The joke of the tough regime is you’ve got to be pretty wealthy before this sort of aggravation kicks in or any of this legislation has any effect. The threshold, I will remind you, in the past, was $500 and above that we considered it a serious crime and I would suggest to you that Territorians out there consider it serious, never mind the Territorian who scrimps and saves to get a new TV for the family and sees that trashed - not a problem - or those who come home and find their homes violated and the play station, or the kid’s bike or scooter trashed. That is a minor problem. Sorry, that is not serious crime according to this government, and not only are they not going to insist the person who did it should go to gaol, they are not even going to suggest to the courts that the offender should go to gaol.
The Attorney-General yesterday spoke about offences that have a high impact on victims. Does he not understand that when someone breaks into your home, irrespective of what they steal or damage or not steal or damage, that is a high impact and that is the position we have always taken in the past, and that’s been reflected in our legislation in the past. It’s now gone. Mothers, fathers, children, they don’t feel safe. They don’t feel secure in their homes after a simple break-in and that’s the fact of it. We can all recount those stories around the place. That’s what we tried to address in our legislation. You, however, are saying it isn’t really important unless $5000 worth of damage has been inflicted. You are wrong. I cannot understand how the Chief Minister, who has told us she has been a victim of a number of crimes, has allowed you to describe such break-ins as trivial.
However, the list of these so-called trivial crimes goes on. For example, the life blood of criminal enterprise, the receiver of stolen goods - the person who pays the thief, the burglar - they are no longer to be regarded as serious criminals by this new government. All of that is gone in their new legislation. Do you not realise if this criminal element is allowed to get off scot free, then there will always be an outlet for stolen goods? Not picked up at all in your legislation.
Dr Toyne: What about receiving stolen goods? That’s still an offence.
Mr BURKE: Madam Speaker, we have said, and said constantly, that Labor was soft on crime; it was politics, it was campaign rhetoric. What we see now is that the Labor government is the criminal’s friend. That is what we have seen with this legislation. Unfortunately for Territorians, what these bills show…
Mr Stirling: Says the bloke who wanted to build a new prison. You wanted to give them a Taj Mahal to live in, you goose. You idiot!
Madam SPEAKER: The Member for Nhulunbuy, order!
Mr BURKE: Settle him down. He gets more money now. You new blokes, settle him down, he does not have to get this excited any more. He has got all the trappings of power and everything. Settle down, Syd.
Mr Kiely: He’s not depressed, that’s for sure.
Mr BURKE: Do you want to move a point of order?
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr BURKE: Unfortunately for Territorians, this government is …
Mr Stirling: The prisoners are sorry you got chucked out. They were looking forward to their new prison, their Taj Mahal. They won’t be getting it under us.
Mr BURKE: Prisoners will not need any more extensions to Berrimah Prison. You have cut that off the capital works program. You know why? There will be no more prisoners, that is why. Why do you need money to build extensions to Berrimah gaol when you won’t have any prisoners? You are not only soft on crime, you are positively supportive of crime!
Mr Stirling: We’ll put a demountable down there if we need it. You wanted to give them new, luxurious accommodation.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The Chief Minister herself pointed out the decorum in this Chamber might be a problem. I now point to the Deputy Chief Minister and …
Madam SPEAKER: I suggest that both sides of the House should remember that. There is no point of order.
Mr BURKE: Look at the comments of the Attorney-General in his second reading speech yesterday. He said that his government rejects a regime that operates unjustly and inappropriately just for the sake of appearing to be tough on crime. But what has he done? He introduces a regime that is not only not tough on crime, it does not even appear to be tough on crime. He said he is introducing a much fairer scheme, but that begs the question: fairer to whom; fairer to criminals or fairer to Territorians who are victims?
The only people who benefit from this new scheme are the criminals who enter Territorians’ homes, who trash Territorians’ homes, and who steal Territorians’ property. Is that what the Attorney-General now means, that he has introduced a scheme that is fairer for these criminals? It certainly is not fairer to the victims whose homes have been violated. He does, of course, make a token gesture to the victims by allowing them to tell the court what sentence should be handed down in their Victim Impact Statement. Well, that is a good move, but I fear the outcome might not be to your liking because what the victim will do and what the Attorney-General will do and what the government will do when victims urge the courts to gaol the offender who has done harm to them in their home and the court, in its wisdom, decides otherwise remains to be seen.
Does being able to put your view in the formal Victim Impact Statement presented to the court create an expectation that it just may have an impact on the court? The rest of this regime suggests otherwise, and just may make the victim feel that they have been done over again. Again, I point to the comments of the member for Goyder who pointed squarely to that fact. As the Attorney said in his second reading speech, the court can have regard to any factor it considers exceptional.
I believe the Attorney-General and this government have totally failed to understand the very powerful emotions that exist in all of us for justice delivered. In government, we on this side of the House believed one of our most important roles was to reflect the ambitions and desires of Territorians. We believed that there was a strong desire in the community for harsh punishment for those who attack the sanctity of a Territorian’s home. We understood that Territorians had lost faith in the courts to impose adequate punishment without clear direction from their government. That is why we introduced mandatory sentencing.
This government comes from a completely different philosophical point of view, and that is the fact. They take the stance that they know best, and they will tell the community what is best for them. They will educate the community so that political correctness reigns in the Northern Territory. I believe they are wrong.
Despite the efforts of those now in government to rewrite history, mandatory sentencing was introduced to meet the demands of the community for real justice, and it was introduced to punish criminals. It was introduced to punish criminals. Full stop. End of story. Any suggestion that it may reduce crime was a hoped-for consequence and not the prime reason for its introduction, and you only have to look at the Hansard to see that.
Just on that point, with regards to the effect of mandatory sentencing, I have a presentation prepared by the Criminal Justice Statistics Group of the Attorney-General’s Department, the group that the Chief Minister just said had never put out any information. From that Attorney-General’s Department group, it stated that the fall in annual property offences reported, pre-mandatory sentencing average, 12 700 per 100 000 of population; post-mandatory sentencing average, 11 000 per 100 000 of population. The Chief Minister and those who have been in the House said…
Ms Martin: 22% was the increase in crime.
Mr BURKE: I never once pointed to the fact that mandatory sentencing was the cause, but the fact that property offences went down is a simple fact.
Ms Martin: They didn’t go down.
Mr BURKE: And if you don’t believe that …
Mr Stirling: They did not go down. You are misleading the House. 22%.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr BURKE: The member for Nhulunbuy says I am misleading the House. This brief is prepared by the Attorney-General’s Department. Now, the allegation is now - swing to your left and tell her that she has been deliberately misleading…
Ms Martin: I beg your pardon? A point of order…
Mr BURKE: …because it has got Attorney-General’s Department Crime Statistics Units. I table that for the benefit of honourable members.
Ms MARTIN: A point of order, Madam Speaker! There is a long-established precedent in this House that you do not even indicate that advisors are here, and you do not point to them. I think that is something that the Opposition Leader should remember.
Madam SPEAKER: I take note of your comments and it is true. Leader of the Opposition, continue your remarks.
Mr BURKE: It is certainly a response to the allegations that were made that I was making this up. It is signed by the Attorney-General’s Department. I table the document. I suggest to the Attorney-General that if he needs an explanation, he should ask his own independent advisors, because that is where I got it from.
The Attorney-General, in his introduction of these bills, said they will:
- make the system more effective to combat the increasing crime rates and will provide Territorians with
a greater level of personal protection.
Under the old legislation you knew exactly what would happen. You would go to gaol, and if you did it again, you would go to gaol for a longer time.
I am going to run out of time. I have some more comments. I will probably use one of my colleagues to present these comments. But I ask the question: where in this new regime are Territorians to find the greater level of personal protection that the Attorney-General points out? He attacks the present regime because it offered no scope for discretion - and what discretion is needed when you are dealing with someone who has defiled your home is something that I do not see in terms of protecting the victim in this legislation. All I see is discretion for the criminal to ensure the criminal has every opportunity to escape any punishment, or any worthwhile punishment absolutely.
The Attorney-General says the present regime has failed because:
- It has seen inappropriate sentences of imprisonment applied to trivial offences and inadequate sentences
applied to the more serious offences such as housebreaking.
- Let me make the government’s intention crystal clear. These are meant to be minimum sentences. It is open to
the courts to impose far heavier penalties for the offences stipulated in this legislation. For example, unlawful
use of a motor vehicle carries a maximum penalty today of seven years, and for armed robbery, it is life. I
suggest there is plenty of leeway for negotiation and incentive to plead guilty where the minimum penalty
is 14 days or 28 days or 90 days or 12 months, and the maximum penalty is seven years or 10 years or life.
The discretion we put into our legislation was in the discretion between minimum and maximum. What we have at the moment is absolute discretion. That is your philosophical position, that is your right as government, but do not try and run a line in this House that somehow you are being tough on crime because it is unadulterated garbage.
It is a deceit of Territorians. It is an abuse of the system and responsibilities of this House to run that legislation through so quickly. I look forward to the opinion of my electorate when I explain to them in some detail what exactly this new government proposes with this awful legislation.
Debate adjourned.
________________________
Sitting Suspended for Luncheon Adjournment
________________________
________________________
JUVENILE JUSTICE AMENDMENT BILL
(No 2)
(Serial 5)
JUVENILE JUSTICE (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL
(Serial 6)
SENTENCING AMENDMENT BILL (No 3)
(Serial 7)
SENTENCING (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL
(Serial 8)
(No 2)
(Serial 5)
JUVENILE JUSTICE (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL
(Serial 6)
SENTENCING AMENDMENT BILL (No 3)
(Serial 7)
SENTENCING (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL
(Serial 8)
Continued from 18 October 2001.
Mr STIRLING (Police, Fire and Emergency Services): Madam Speaker, I thought, listening to the debate before we rose for lunch, that it was very sad to see the opposition seemingly locked in time and unable to move away from a position that was set for them, and a course that was set for them, in relation to mandatory sentencing by former Chief Minister Shane Stone who was probably in 1997 at about the ascendancy of his Chief Ministership and his leadership of the Country Liberal Party and the Northern Territory government at that time.
Well, times move on, as do players. Suzanne Cavanagh no doubt was a strong supporter of mandatory sentencing. Not there today. Shane Stone has not been there for a long time and yet we still have a Country Liberal Party locked, locked like they are in a vice, and wedded to this ideal of mandatory sentencing whose time, if there ever was a time for it, has simply come and gone. We do not believe there ever was time for it but Territorians delivered on 18 August this year, a decision to reject the CLP and their policies. What the Country Liberal Party need to do if they are going to provide an effective opposition in the Northern Territory is have a good look at themselves. Have a good look at the policies that they went to the Northern Territory with on 18 August and begin to revisit some of those policies and some of those tired old ideas because they were rejected by the people of the Northern Territory. I daresay they will be rejected again at a future election by the Northern Territory unless they get their heads around the table and start to listen to people and start to appreciate that people do not want those tired, stale ideas.
They had an opportunity this morning, I thought, to show that they had moved on and left the past behind them, at least show some willingness to listen and to move on and to reinvent themselves and present themselves as a fresh and new CLP.
I can appreciate that the same leader is there. I do not have a problem with that because I always believed this about the member for Brennan: I do not believe mandatory sentencing was ever his idea. I do not believe he was ever wedded to it in the same way that the former Chief Minister Shane Stone was because he saw great political appeal in it in heading to an election. I do not believe this current Leader of the Opposition ever was that married to mandatory sentencing. He was stuck with it because he was Attorney-General in the Cabinet that made these decisions and he delivered on behalf of the CLP government in his role as Attorney-General. But I have seen at different times, both in here and outside this Chamber, streaks of decency, dare I say streaks of compassion, in the member for Brennan. Not often seen, but on occasions you do see it and ideals like that, if you hold them dearly, do not sit well with mandatory sentencing. He had an opportunity this morning to stand free of Shane Stone, free of Suzanne Cavanagh and the lead in the saddle that weighed the CLP down. He had an opportunity to take the party a step forward and I was disappointed that he was unable to do that.
The purpose, of course, of all of these bills is to repeal the mandatory sentencing regime for property offences. The government, as I said, went to the people of the Territory last August saying clearly that the mandatory sentencing regime was not working and it was having no effect on crime rates. If we look at the Attorney-General’s Department Criminal Justice Statistics Group, just on the last couple of years’ figures, in 1998-99 property offences were 22 546. In 1999-2000 it did drop to 19 060 but in 2000-01, the last year on this chart for which the figures are available, back up to 22 240 offences. That is what we were saying was occurring; there was no reduction; the prime reason for bringing mandatory sentencing into the sentencing regime was to deter these types of offences and it simply was not working. It had been in place in any case in our view for far too long. There was no review mechanism built into it; something that the Independent member this morning was talking about, the need for review. There was no review process. The only review process that had any effect on mandatory sentencing was of course the electoral cycle itself with the Country Liberal Party being turfed out.
The victims got nothing out of mandatory sentencing and the judiciary, of course, had no room for discretion which we believe is the cornerstone of a legal system that separates the judiciary and makes it independent of government. Those imprisoned under the mandatory sentencing regime were often subject to unjust and inappropriate sentencing. At the election we also went to the people of the Territory with a plan to build a better Territory, a plan that included the six point plan on crime prevention and that plan, we believe, will make the criminal justice system more effective and ensure that Territorians have a greater sense of security and protection.
These bills, despite what the Leader of the Opposition and the new shadow Attorney-General were saying this morning, are the culmination of a long period of consultation and discussion with Territorians. We got out there, we talked to people, we tossed these ideas around and we listened to their views. Of course, many of these people were the very same people who the previous Country Liberal Party government had stopped listening to and stopped talking to. As Senator Grant Tambling said last week, when talking about the new Leader of the Opposition and the new deputy leader, he said they made the mistake that the enemy was anyone who criticised, competed, intervened or whinged about what they were doing. Now, Senator Tambling is a perceptive politician and I believe he is a great loss to the conservative side of politics in the Northern Territory. But who was the enemy of the new leadership of the opposition that Senator Tambling was referring to? Well, there were lots of them. Not just the judiciary and the legal profession who were saying that mandatory sentencing did not work. It was not just the police saying it was having no impact on crime rates and that their jobs were being unnecessarily made more difficult. It was not just social workers who were saying juveniles had been denied the possibility of realising their full potential by being imprisoned for often trivial offences. It was not federal parliamentary committees that were questioning the mandatory sentencing regime. I will tell you who it was: it was hundreds and thousands of ordinary Territorians who the Leader of the Opposition made his enemy.
We saw the Country Liberal Party come to this election trumpeting this mandatory sentencing regime, particularly in the last week or so before the election itself. Hundreds and thousands of dollars spent on an advertising campaign warning Territorians that a vote for Labor was a vote to throw out mandatory sentencing. Well, they got it right. They got it right. That is exactly what it was and many of the people that they had stopped listening to had been telling them themselves that mandatory sentencing wasn’t the answer. And they wouldn’t listen.
It wasn’t the enemy talking, as I’ve explained; it was the thousands of Territorians who lined up on Saturday 18 August and told them what they thought of the Country Liberal Party and their mandatory sentencing regime. When it came to the election I think they looked back rather than forward and said: ‘Hey, mandatory sentencing got us home in 1997. It’s our one shot in the locker; let’s try it again. It was a winner four years ago and it can be again’.
They had stopped listening, as I said. They believed it would deliver them another four years even though everyone was saying that it simply wasn’t going to work, that it is unjust and it makes the difficult job of police even more difficult. They ran the election late in the campaign as a referendum on mandatory sentencing and, as I said, thousands of reasonable Territorians accepted that challenge and they lined up and cast their judgment on both the Country Liberal Party government and the mandatory sentencing regime. We see the culmination of that arrogance, of that failure to listen and the culmination, I think, of the type of paranoia that led the CLP to distrust the judgment of ordinary, decent Territorians and their insane adoption of, as Senator Tambling noted last week and I quote: ‘a we-know-what’s-best approach to government’.
As the government, we are delighted to be able to repeal the current mandatory sentencing regime for property offences. There was a time when I thought and looked forward to being the Attorney-General to deliver that. That is not the case. It does not lessen my pride one inch to stand here alongside the Attorney-General of the Northern Territory in full support of the bills that he is putting in the House today. It is with enormous pride that we do this because it does acknowledge that we listen to Territorians. We went to the election with a strong six point plan to target crime, not for the sake of appearing tough on crime but because we listened to what Territorians wanted and we delivered a plan that we believe will work because it is just and it properly attacks the sorts of offences that ordinary Territorians are worried about.
Territorians know that under our plan, those who should go to prison will go to prison. Territorians should know that the Police Administration Amendment Bill 2001 will provide police with more efficient processes to bring alleged offenders to court. It should be noted that it will reduce costs and the use of police and court resources by creating what essentially will become a one-step process. The purpose of the bill is to provide police with the power to issue a Notice to Appear that will require the alleged offender, other than a juvenile, to attend court to answer a charge for an offence. Justice (Consequential Amendments) Bill (No.2) 2001 provides that if a person does not attend court as required by notice, the court may issue a Warrant to Arrest.
One aspect of the juvenile sentencing regime will remain: the court will maintain the option to order participation by a juvenile offender in a diversionary program. It is important to note that with the repeal of the juvenile mandatory sentencing regime, all juvenile sentencing will be at the complete discretion of the court, as all fair minded Territorians would want it to be. There is provision in both the Sentencing Act and the Juvenile Justice Act for Victim Impact Statements that may contain a statement of the victim’s wishes in respect of sentencing.
These bills are the result of listening to ordinary Territorians in workshops. When I was for that time shadow Attorney-General, I participated in many of those workshops and those discussion groups that got us to where we are and helped get us to where we are today. This was one of our major election promises. It is particularly pleasing to me that it does come down as one of our first legislative initiatives.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bills to honourable members and I do ask - I do genuinely ask - of the opposition that they do have a good look at where they stand on issues such as this because time moves on and if they are going to be a credible opposition and be in a position to offer a credible alternative next time round, the people will be looking for a party that reflects 2005 attitudes, views and aspirations of Territorians, not those that so convincingly won in 1997 but failed in 2001.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I find it astonishing that the Leader of Government Business comes in here and says to the people of the Northern Territory: ‘Look, we’re bringing a new, fresh look at our system of government. We got the people’s mandate to put together the policies, to bring forward the policies that we said we were going to bring forward to the people of the Northern Territory’. I listened to the Leader of Government Business with some astonishment, because this was the same Leader of Government Business yesterday who entered the parliament after making these promises - his leader’s face appears on the Labor in the Northern Territory position paper on good government. This is the Labor Party that came in here on the promise to Territorians that Labor believes it requires vigilance by the parliament and the people to ensure that democracy is protected, not whittled away, and that institutions are strengthened, not weakened, by the power of the Executive.
This position paper goes on and on describing how they are going to change good government in the Northern Territory and to restore the parliament’s power here in the Northern Territory. Yet what is the first thing they do when they came in here on Tuesday when debate was started? We started setting up our committee system and the Leader of Government Business, on those promises that he made to Territorians, started gagging debate. We hear the honourable members’ noble speeches about the power of the parliament, and specifically the member for Johnston whose maiden speech I listened to very carefully, start saying how important it is to be a member of parliament and how wonderful it is to be here in this powerful institution and then three times before he even delivers his maiden speech, three times votes to gag the opposition. I invite the member for Johnston to think about this. Three times. Three times they gagged debate. Even when he was in 1997 going through the outrageous process of trying to undermine your dignity absolutely, he was allowed to speak as well as another member from the opposition on that very first day of the eighth parliamentary term, and he was allowed to speak at some length. Now, what do we hear from the members opposite? We are interested in good government, we are interested in open government, we are interested in all these things that the parliament has to do and yet when they get the very first opportunity…
Mr KIELY: A point of order, Madam Speaker. I am wondering what the relevance of this to mandatory sentencing is.
Mr ELFERINK: Speaking to the point…
Madam SPEAKER: Excuse me. We must keep our comments relevant to the subject. I am sure the member for Macdonnell, you are entitled to have some leeway, will get back to the subject.
Mr ELFERINK: Absolutely, Madam Speaker. This comes down to their credibility. The Leader of Government Business has the audacity to walk in here and say: ‘Oh, we are so credible. We are credibility personified’ and we hear from the new members how they’re going to be terrific parliamentarians. The members opposite, all of them, are slaves to the party process and it is still going to be pursuing their system of executive parliament here in the Northern Territory. Welcome to the new members of parliament of the Northern Territory.
Mandatory sentencing was designed to do a job in its time. I listened very carefully to the Leader of Government Business and his comments in relation to this. It was designed to do a job and that job was to restore the public’s belief that they were going to get some sort of response out of the court system after their houses were being broken into. That was the job of mandatory sentencing. I cannot recall how often I have heard, prior to 1997, how desperately disappointed people were with the court system in terms of the sentencing practices. That is what mandatory sentencing was designed to do. It was designed to put villains in gaol. People who had gone through a criminal justice system and, dare I say, the fairest criminal justice system in the world, and then if they were found guilty, they were then sentenced. The problem with the sentencing regimes, or the lack of a sentencing regime, the use of courts at the time in relation to the Sentencing Act, was that the courts were failing to satisfy public opinion.
The government of the day was very, very sensitive to those issues and so they introduced mandatory sentencing. Certainly the courts must have been aware of the public pressure that was being brought to bear, but then again the courts don’t face an electorate every four years or so, and therefore the courts are not as responsive to public concerns in the areas of sentencing. That was the principle behind mandatory sentencing.
Mr Kiely: Separation of powers.
Mr ELFERINK: I am glad you said that. I’m coming to that. What I heard at the time from the members opposite is that mandatory sentencing will fill our prisons to overflowing. Juvenile detention centres would have people sleeping on the floor. After mandatory sentencing was introduced, Wildman River Juvenile Detention Centre was shut down because there were not enough people to put in it. The Don Dale Centre was never full during the period of mandatory sentencing.
This point that we were going to fill the gaols with people never eventuated. So we hear today that people aren’t afraid of facing the mandatory sentencing processes; we hear today from the Attorney-General that it had no effect. It had no effect on people and villains whatsoever. I ask the Attorney-General, and I invite him to clarify this point to me in his address in reply: why are so many people currently seeking adjournments to avoid facing the current regime? Obviously it is having some impact on them. It does work on their psyche and it has created some fear in their mind. I find it curious that the courts are already signaling that they are looking forward to working under the Labor Party’s new sentencing regime, the weaker sentencing regime, so that they can engage in sentencing practices that they want to engage in.
So the message from the courts is quite clear to the community of the Northern Territory: we are not going to put people in gaol.
Dr Toyne: The separation of powers. Have you heard about that?
Mr ELFERINK: We are not going to put people in gaol.
Dr Toyne: No, we haven’t said that.
Mr Wood: Not for minor offences.
Mr ELFERINK: We are not going to put people in gaol at all.
Mr Wood: One can of beer is not a reason to go to gaol.
Mr ELFERINK: I will pick up on the interjection from the member from Nelson. That particular incident to which you were referring, the one that was run by the Labor Party at the time, the one can of beer is no reason to put somebody in gaol. It is when you are standing in someone else’s property at the time, at night time. It is when you are standing in someone else’s property at the time.
Occasionally you hear it from people around the traps that mandatory sentencing was designed as a racist policy. I do not accept that. Nowhere in the Sentencing Act is any person identified by their race at all. It is not identified at any point in the Act. If the members opposite can identify anywhere in the Sentencing Act where a person is identified by their race, I will support their amendment to remove that from the Sentencing Act. The point is that the mandatory sentencing process assumes that a person, no matter who they are, who comes before the courts …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Would the member please resume his seat for one moment. Now, I need to remind you that you need to direct your comments to me, not across to that side of the House and the people on that side of the House need to remember that they should not be responding across at the member. If you would like to continue.
Mr Mills: They are only new.
Madam SPEAKER: Did you hear me? Well, take note.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, thank you for your counsel. Nowhere in the legislation is there any reference to race, and the assumption by any court, any court where a person comes before it on a criminal matter, is that that court will deal with that person individually and that person is responsible, if found guilty, for the actions that have brought them before that court.
The other issues to which other people refer and then try, through some fallacy, to build a systemic race issue into it, is an issue that deals often with the socioeconomic background of the people and other issues that affect that person over their lifetime, but it does not abrogate them from their responsibilities in specific criminal acts which bring them before the court and for which guilty verdicts are returned upon them.
I have also heard around the traps and the debates about the separation of powers. This is an astonishing accusation and it shows an astonishing lack of understanding about what the separation of powers was, why it was created and how it has evolved over time. It was created or penned down as a philosophy by a French fellow by the name of Montesquieu as far back as prior to the French Revolution where he said that the Executive and the parliament had to be two separate entities. He didn’t refer to the judiciary at the time. That’s something that has been factored in as it, as a philosophy, over time has developed. There are three tiers to our system of civil society. They are separated but they are also inextricably linked. Why did Montesquieu separate the powers? I will tell you why Montesquieu separated the powers: so that when one of those powers failed, another could intervene to keep the civil order and to maintain the society in which they lived.
Prior to 1997, before the introduction of mandatory sentencing laws, there was an expectation in our society that the courts were going to do a job which they were not doing. It was incumbent upon the parliament to interfere because of the expectations of the people in the community at the time. That is not a breach of the separation of powers; it is how the separation of powers is designed to work.
Secondly, we breach the separation of powers, if you accept that argument, every single time we pass a bit of legislation in here which affects the operation of the courts. Today we have heard the Attorney-General set maximum penalties in relation to particular offences, and he is hoping to push those through. Is he breaching a court’s discretion? Is he breaching a court’s discretion in relation to sentencing? Absolutely, he is. Absolutely he is interfering with that court’s discretion. A court, by law, may not under any circumstances sentence a person to greater than the period outlined in the Code. A person who commits a common assault faces a maximum penalty of two years. That doesn’t mean that a court can sentence them to 48 years imprisonment.
Mr Bonson: You don’t understand the separation of powers, do you?
Mr ELFERINK: It means that the interference of the parliament in the court system occurs on a regular basis. It is how our system works. We are also a superior court, for the information of the member for Millner.
I listened also with some dismay to the Chief Minister’s comments a little bit earlier in relation to what she had to say about the figures that were published by the Police Commissioner in his annual report. She suggested that in some way the government had interfered with the Police Commissioner when putting together his annual report. I am horrified at the suggestion. The minister for Police very recently suggested that the Commissioner had worked with distinction, and I believe he has. But to suggest that that Commissioner, a man who has worked with distinction, has allowed himself and his position to be used to create an annual report, a report to which he puts his signature prior to publication, and suggests that he in some way has allowed himself to be used in a political sense is an indictment upon him.
If that is the Chief Minister’s position in relation to the Commissioner of Police, then she has appropriate actions which she should take. If that is not her position, she should certainly not come into this parliamentary Chamber and make those sorts of inferences about the Commissioner of Police. That is an astonishing allegation to make. It is an astonishing thing for the Chief Minister to say. I look forward to the Attorney-General, in relation to his comments about that particular matter, because I think it is incumbent upon the Attorney-General to say so.
At the outset, I realised that this particular piece of legislation was going to be turned over. I accept that the people of the Northern Territory have given the Labor Party a mandate to govern the Northern Territory, and I congratulate them for it wholeheartedly. I look forward to being a robust parliamentarian and challenging them on when they fail. But they offer us nothing in terms of what they are going to replace. I listened carefully to the second reading speech by the Attorney-General. He says: ‘We have a six point plan to fix crime in the Northern Territory’. I am interested to notice that he announces in the opening couple of paragraphs of his speech is that police officers can issue Notices to Appear. Now, this is a blinder. We are going to fight crime in the Northern Territory by getting the police to fill out a form. That is an absolutely incredible assertion by the Attorney-General, and I would like to seek some clarification that that is one of the six points: ‘Freeze, mate! Drop the crowbar or I’ll fill out a form!’. That is basically what is being suggested in the second reading speech. I would love to hear from the Attorney-General in relation to that particular issue.
Dr Toyne: Where do I say that? Nothing about a crowbar.
Mr ELFERINK: Actually I will quote the Attorney-General, now that he has interjected:
- Other bills addressing our six point plan are …
and he goes on to say:
- … car trashing and issuing by police officers of Notices to Appear.
I am interested also in relation to some other comments that the Attorney-General had when he said:
- The regime has resulted in a position of unjust and inappropriate sentences of imprisonment.
That is true, but as I pointed out earlier, the problem was that those unjust and inappropriate sentences which have appeared under the mandatory sentencing regime - and they have from time to time - were not as profoundly unjust as some of the sentences that were being dished out prior to the introduction of the mandatory sentencing process.
I am curious also about the comments that the Attorney-General made in relation to the inadequate sentences applied to more serious offences such as housebreaking.
- It seems that the inappropriate sentences of imprisonment apply to the trivial offences, and inadequate
sentences apply to more serious offences of housebreaking.
How? Mandatory minimum sentencing did not put a cap on the sentencing process whatsoever. The legislation places a cap on it, and it is a substantial cap in terms of the length of time that somebody could be spending in gaol, but how has the mandatory sentencing regime enforced a system of sentencing which has provided inadequate sentences for housebreaking? I would love to hear how the Attorney-General justifies the particular remark. I am quite surprised by that.
The Attorney-General also goes on to say that the regime was subject of a complaint to the United Nations Human Rights Committee. So? If I am charged with drink driving, I am still innocent until proven guilty. Have we got a result from that particular committee process? Were we convicted by them, or is it simply the lodging of the complaint which justifies a condemnation by the Attorney-General? If so, is that the orientation that he is going to bring to his role as Attorney-General in relation to criminal law here in the Northern Territory?
I am also surprised about the comments he makes in his second reading speech about including new offences of aggravated home and business invasion, car trashing as well as robbery, unlawful entry, assault with attempt to steal, aggravated criminal damage. Having looked at the amendments - and I am sure that we will debate those out when we get to the Criminal Code amendment – I am still having trouble trying to differentiate between those particular offences. However, that is for a later debate.
The process of the separation of powers - returning to it very quickly - also comes up in the Attorney-General’s comments. The Attorney-General says:
- The Court has complete discretion to determine the length of the sentence according to the seriousness
of the offence or to make any other sentencing order it is authorised to make.
The courts have indicated so far, from what I can make out, that they are looking forward to the removal of the mandatory sentencing regime so that they can return to their traditional sentencing practices. These are the sentencing practices that caused such grave dissatisfaction in the community in the past. What you are doing is watering down the ability for people to put pressure on the courts to have sentences which are reflective of their expectations.
You say: ‘Yes, well, they can fill out a Victim Impact Statement and in that Victim Impact Statement they can actually say what they would like to see happen to the offender once he has been found guilty’. But the truth of the matter is that that is creating an expectation that will not be met by the courts unless there is some mechanism or model in which you can force the courts to take due notice of those sorts of statements. But even a Victim Impact Statement in its own right, I would suggest to the Attorney-General, is a guide; it is something that may influence the judge if he chooses to allow it to influence him.
I find it difficult to talk about the exceptional circumstances to which the Attorney-General referred because in this new age of open and accountable government, the Attorney-General has allowed us 24 hours since he delivered his speech to find out what the common law definition of ‘exceptional circumstances’ are. I am afraid that I have not had the time to study the case law which surrounds exceptional circumstances at common law, and I imagine that it would not be an insubstantial body of law, not an insubstantial body of law at all. I think that the courts are going to have to spend quite a bit of time turning their attention to this particular part of the law. But to come into this Chamber and say: ‘We are a fair, open, accountable, honest government, but we are just going to ram this piece of legislation through in 24 hours’ does not ring true. It certainly does not ring true with the good government statement which the then Leader of the Opposition, Clare Martin, put out prior to gaining government, a promise upon which she was given the trust of Territorians.
I also turn my attention to the comments in relation to victim-offender conferencing, and I support the Attorney-General in what he has got to say in relation to that. I think it is a good program, and I would hope to see that the process keeps going. But I would like an assurance from the Attorney-General, if he is able to do so, that the victim is still part of the process inasmuch as they acquiesce to the process prior to the process being entered into.
I also notice that the courts have been given sentencing powers by the Attorney-General, and I quote:
- All juvenile sentencing will be completed at the discretion of the court.
which means that basically, the court has complete sentencing powers in relation to juveniles which this parliament will not encroach upon at all. I would ask Attorney-General in relation the juveniles who have, in some instances in the past in the Northern Territory, specifically around the northern suburbs of Darwin, how he is going to reassure the people at home that those juveniles who are now at liberty and break into people’s homes and steal their video cassette recorders and trash their houses and all those sorts of other things are going to receive appropriate sentences. If the sentencing is completely at the discretion of the court - and by all means, the Attorney-General can say: ‘Yes we are happy to give full discretion to the court’ - but if he is prepared to give full discretion to the court, he cannot go out there and say the parliament and the government will look after your interests, Mr and Mrs Northern Suburbs. You can’t say that because it is only the courts that can say that. They can say that through their sentencing processes. So, what the Attorney-General is trying to do is create a hope, an expectation, in the people in the northern suburbs, but he is completely disempowering himself of the ability to do so.
Madam Speaker, I have been a supporter of mandatory sentencing . I think that it has had its faults over time. I am the first to admit that and it has created from time to time unjust outcomes. Unfortunately, the regime which preceded it also created unjust outcomes - in my opinion, far more profoundly unjust outcomes. The fact of the matter is that the government will get their way here today and as a result of getting their way here today, the mandatory sentencing regime will be removed. However, I hope that the watering down of the sentencing provisions will not lead the courts to shirking from their responsibilities of protecting Northern Territory citizens. I am at a loss to know how the Attorney-General can influence the courts, but that is the decision that will probably be passed in this parliament. But Mr and Mrs Northern Suburbs will be looking closely at this government and I think that this government will pay dearly if they have failed the people in the northern suburbs.
Mr HENDERSON (Industries and Business): Madam Speaker, I would like to start my contribution to this debate by talking about a constituent of mine whose son was the first person in the Northern Territory to be sentenced under the mandatory sentencing legislation that the previous government brought in to this parliament.
There is a fundamental principle for all legislation and penalties that the punishment fit the crime. That is the fundamental principle that we should be adhering to. My constituent advised me during the campaign - came to speak to me about my position on mandatory sentencing in light of his son, Matthew Bradley - I have had confirmation: I can talk about Matthew in this parliament today - who was 17 years old when he was sentenced to 14 days goal at Berrimah. Matthew’s crime was that he broke into the Toyworld shop at the Jape complex in Coconut Grove and stole fairly insignificant, in terms of monetary value, property. When he got home and his father found out about it, he was forced back - and he wasn’t actually forced; it was his own decision. He went to Berrimah Police Station and of his own volition made a full statement.
In addition, he went to the owners of the business and made a full apology for the action he undertook and he paid them the money for the damage that he caused and for the items that he had taken. He did this off his own bat. Despite that, despite this young man recognising that what he had done was wrong, making full restitution and voluntarily going to the police and volunteering a statement, he still spent 14 days in Berrimah gaol. Consequently, he has to wait for 10 years until this criminal record is actually expunged from file. There are a number of employment opportunities that Matthew is now restricted from as a result of this criminal conviction that he received at 17 years of age: 14 days imprisonment in Berrimah gaol.
I would find it unbelievable that of the 25 members of this parliament, unless there are some saints in here, each and every one of us could not look back in terms of our youth and identify a time that we took something that was not ours, whether it was from our parents, from the neighbours or shop lifting. I am sure each and every one of us could indicate a time when they took something that was not theirs. The principle that the punishment fit the crime, I would argue, does not fit in Matthew’s case or the fact that he is now carrying this conviction for 10 years which is restricting his employment opportunities.
Just after I was elected to this parliament, I was approached by another constituent whose son was studying interstate, looking to gain qualifications to give him an opportunity for a career as a commissioned officer in the defence forces. This constituent came to me absolutely distraught. His son had come back to Darwin at the age of 18, studying interstate, big night out in town, as we all did when we had our 18th birthdays, had far too much to drink and got involved in a rumble in Mitchell Street somewhere and a car window was broken. He didn’t remember fully how this came to be, but anyway, he was charged and prosecuted. Again, he offered to make full restitution but there was no facility under the legislation as it stood at this time for any other penalty to be imposed but a 14 day gaol sentence. Again, this young man lost his lifetime ambition to serve with the defence forces as a commissioned officer because of his criminal record.
So I would argue that in these instances, the punishment does not fit the crime. Our responsibility as legislators has to be to put in place good public policy by way of legislation that actually works in terms of the policy objectives. What were the policy objectives as stated by the previous CLP government that led to this legislation being framed in the first place? Again, I will go back to the Opposition Leader’s comments in terms of the legislation that was introduced in 1996. The objectives were:
- We will do everything to ensure that they feel safe in their homes, that they need not fear invasion by
those who would rob them of their dignity and possessions.
Laudable. None of us here want crime occurring in the first place. That is the bottom line in terms of public policy: we do not want a climate that creates crime and encourages criminal acts to exist in the first place.
Then again, on 17 October 1996, the Opposition Leader stated that one of the benefits of mandatory sentencing was that imprisonment is a deterrent to offending and that it is also the government’s hope - very vain it turned out to be - that the legislation will lead in time to a reduction in the crime rate of property offences and a reduction in rate of crime generally, leading to an increase in community safety. So this was the hope of the government. This was the policy objective that the government had for this legislation. This was the legislation that was introduced in 1996.
So, having determined what the policy objectives were, that were on the record at the time, where did these laudable objectives come from? We have always said on this side of the parliament that mandatory sentencing was not the solution; it was a political stunt. To demonstrate this political stunt, there was a gentlemen by the name of David Gibson, who was a criminal lawyer with 15 years experience and who was a senior solicitor of the NT Attorney-General’s Policy Division from 1994 to 1997. David Gibson went public on ABC radio on Tuesday 25 July 2000 about exactly how the previous government’s mandatory sentencing regime came about. I am quoting from the public comments that Mr Gibson made:
Initially it started out actually as a campaign promise for the 1994 election and certainly wasn’t developed
with the input of the department at the time.
So this is a political policy that was determined by the CLP.
It was something that was internal to the CLP. The thinking was a generally - a fairly sort of simplistic
proposition that the tougher the sentence, the greater the deterrent effect and the less likelihood of offending.
So here was the simplistic thought process that went into this. It was then activated, I think, when Shane Stone came into office and it was then, basically, that the proposal was developed internal to the department.
The interviewer said: ‘It wasn’t developed with good, rounded advice then?’ and Gibson says: ‘No. The great concern at the time was that it would lead to an…’ - and these were the issues, these were the drafting issues that were given to the department. The idea was not canvassed out in the public in terms of would this be good public policy, and one of the great concerns that the governments of the day had at the time was, and I quote:
The great concern at the time was that it would lead to an explosion of the prison population and perhaps
necessitate the building of a new prison. And that was the objective they wanted to avoid.
This was the rider that went to the Attorney-General’s department: ‘Well, we’ve got this public policy. We think it will be very popular but if we catch all of these people and put them in gaol, it’s going to cost us a hell of a lot of money and we’re going to have to build new gaols. So how do we actually frame some legislation that’s going to look tough but not actually cost us any money because we certainly don’t want an explosion in the prison population?’ Despite the rhetoric if you do the crime you’ll do the time, in terms of the legislation they were saying: ‘Oh, oh. We don’t actually want that; we want to avoid an explosion in the prison population and the need to build a new gaol’.
He went on to say that:
- Our brief really was to simply develop proposals so that it wouldn’t cause such an explosion in the prison
population that you’d need a new prison.
So that was the brief that went from the government of the day to the Attorney-General’s department who quite properly and rightly have to advise government on legal matters and draft legislation.
The interview goes on in a lot of detail and the interviewer asked:
- Well, you described the climate at the time as government by talkback. What do you mean?
And he said:
- One of the main disagreements I had with the policy was that there was never any particular attempts to
assess exactly what was going on.
We’ve had the member for Macdonnell in his usual flamboyant language talk about the appalling sentencing practices of the judiciary of the day and community outrage in terms of all of the sentences they were handing down. He waxed lyrically about nobody is going to go to gaol under this new legislative regime we’re talking about today. He went on to say:
I mean, no studies were made at the time as to what the actual level of sentencing was. What was happening
is that, say, three, four or five cases would get on to the front page of the NT News per year and this would
sort of lead people - ringing and developing a general sort of public perception that this was a problem but
there was in fact no empirical evidence that was necessary to support this case and really, the only way that
you can assess that is to really sort of sit down and conduct a survey if you like on these particular offences
because you really have to look at when an offender goes before the court that they get a sentence but at the
same time work out whether that sentence is adequate or not on general principles and there are a whole lot
of factors.
So there was no attempt at all in terms of developing public policy, in terms of developing legislation where the government of the day actually sought to statistically analyse and understand what was occurring via the sentencing regimes as opposed to the public perception that people were getting away scot free and nobody was going to gaol. He went on to say:
But it seemed to me that the policy was based more on a general perception that was borne out of media
coverage, out of chats around the backyard barbecue, that sort of thing. It certainly didn’t have any
statistical foundation.
So here we have public policy, legislation on the run that is not based in fact whatsoever, and that actually came from somebody who was working in the Attorney-General’s department at the time. People on the other side of the House should be ashamed that that is the policy basis that they used; that is the empirical, statistical evidence that they used to create a sentencing regime that I would argue in many cases the punishment didn’t fit the crime and many people went to gaol. It was nothing other than a political stunt.
It was a two part interview and he went on the next day to say that briefings went up to the Attorney-General that sort of listed a range of objections to the particular policy, being mandatory sentencing, that went up from the Attorney-General’s department to the Attorney General at the time.
I think in fairness to Burke, he wasn’t in control of the policy and he was really just obviously acting on
the instructions of the Chief Minister and because he was sort of new to the position at the time, I don’t
think he had any strong views on the policy.
Here we have the Attorney-General of the time getting advice from his department with objections based on legal assessment in terms of the legislation they were trying to draw up and Burke, the Attorney General at the time, the current Leader of the Opposition: ‘Oh, well, I don’t care. I’m only the Attorney General. My Chief’s telling me what to do’. So the interviewer asked:
- Was there a lot of dissatisfaction and disquiet within the department?
and David Gibson says:
Well, yes. I think almost uniformly it was regarded as a bad and dangerous policy simply because it was
so ill conceived. It was implemented in such a sort of simplistic fashion and I think it has sort of being
borne out in the time that it’s been here as a policy…
Dr LIM: A point or order Madam Speaker. I bring your attention to the state of the House.
Madam SPEAKER: We do not have a quorum. Ring the bells. We have numbers now. Continue, minister.
Mr HENDERSON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. He went on to say:
It was implemented in such a sort of simplistic fashion, though I think it’s been borne out in time it is a
policy that certainly obviously could have dramatic effects on the lives of certain individuals.
So again, here we have confirmation that the Attorney-General’s department at the time regarded the legislation that the previous government was framing as bad and dangerous policy because it was so ill conceived and there was no factual basis to it whatsoever. He went on to say:
The danger of the policy primarily is that it could well have the sort of opposite effect of what is intended.
I mean, most studies have shown that if you incarcerate particularly young offenders for long periods of
time, it is somewhat akin to setting up a graduate school in crime and if, for example, you’re putting someone
away for three months or a year, that’s on their record. It decreases, obviously, dramatically their employment
prospects.
as young Matthew Bradley has found out in his case.
They’re associating with more seasoned criminals. I mean, you’re effectively breeding, if you like, a new
sort of class of criminals. This is aside from the question of the simple injustice of locking someone away for
relatively minor crimes for a year or so or for three months - longer than people who commit sort of violent
offences and sexual offences. Often that, of course, does great injury to the general perception of the legal
system being fair.
I believe that each and every one of us can look at the imbalances in terms of what is here today, prior to this legislation going through, where people get away for serious assaults and offences and often serve much less than a three month or a one year sentence. The principle that the previous government put in place was that we should be legislating mandatory minimum sentences for every type of offence. Let’s bring people before this parliament and sentence them here in the parliament is essentially the principle that was behind mandatory sentencing.
I would argue that there is empirical evidence here from David Gibson, who was working in the department at the time, that certainly all the advice was that it was bad and dangerous policy. There was no statistical basis to support the perception that the judiciary was being soft on people who were committing property offences. What we are seeking to do is put in place a regime that has a whole-of-government crime prevention approach. We are the only jurisdiction in Australia that doesn’t have a central office for crime prevention, and that’s what we’re putting in place.
The crime prevention policy is more than just this legislation that we are debating today, and the purpose of the agency that we will be establishing for crime prevention is a whole-of-government approach to crime prevention across all levels, to actually evaluate the success or failure of crime prevention strategies, something the previous government failed to do. It was politics; it wasn’t public policy. It wasn’t a serious attempt at reducing the crime rate. It was a political decision to make the previous government appear tough on crime that wasn’t based on any statistical evidence at all and certainly wasn’t reviewed in that light. To provide policy advice about crime reduction initiatives to the whole of government and, very importantly, independently collect, analyse and publish crime statistics - something that we, when we were on the other side of this parliament, found akin to pulling hen’s teeth, was to actually drag statistics out of the government of the day to actually support their public policy position that mandatory sentencing was working in terms of reducing crime.
So what this government is about is a crime prevention strategy and a sentencing regime that is tough, that will send people to gaol who deserve to go to gaol, and to provide an element of discretion to ensure that the punishment fits the crime.
I will go to the Leader of the Opposition’s words, when he made a contribution to this debate, about ‘divisive indulgence’. That’s what he called this legislation. Well, if ever there was legislation that was divisive and indulgent, it was certainly the previous mandatory sentencing regime which, as I have outlined today, was manifestly ill conceived, was not based in fact and certainly did nothing to reduce the crime rates. In terms of the crime rates, we have debated in this House, on many occasions over the last two years, exactly what was happening. What was the profile in terms of the criminal activity that was occurring across the Territory, particularly here in Darwin, and what were the drivers of the causes of crime?
We produced statistical evidence taken from the Australian Institute of Criminology that showed that one of the major contributors to property crime was drug abuse and misuse of illicit drugs. We debated this up hill and down dale, produced the statistics from the Australian Institute of Criminology, the statistics from the Health Insurance Commission that showed that in the Northern Territory, we had nine times the per capita prescription rates for morphine, for methadone - the word that the previous government would never mention - twice the per capita prescription rates, 460 000 needles being distributed, Australian Institute of Criminology statistics that showed that 46% of all property crime was committed by people who tested positive for opiates.
What did we have the previous Chief Minister, the now Leader of the Opposition, say in this parliament? Drug related crime was minuscule. Minuscule! So not only was the previous government averse to statistical analysis in terms of their ill-conceived mandatory sentencing regime, they failed, even when the statistics were placed before this House, to understand that if we were serious, and as a legislative body, in terms of putting in place legislation that was going to underpin the policy position, which was to prevent crime, that we should look at drug crime and drug use in our community. Oh, no. it was all too hard. It was minuscule. It is certainly something that we on this side of the House will be having a very strong position on and in the coming sessions of parliament, we will be introducing legislation to address the issue of drugs in our community and drug crimes.
One of the first things that we will be doing is doubling the size of the Drug Squad so we can actually get the people - and they barely deserve the tag of ‘people’, but I will defer to parliamentary protocol - who prey on our population, who prey on our kids by manufacturing, distributing and profiting from illicit drugs and giving our Drug Squad the manpower to actually get out and close these people down, bring them before the courts and lock them away for a very, very long time. That is what we are on about, actually tackling the causes of crime, where the real drivers of crime are coming from, as opposed to the previous government who had a political stunt, and even when the facts were presented before them, put their heads in the sand. So don’t come in here talking about ‘divisive indulgence’. We are on about actually getting to the causes of the crime and reducing crime in our community.
In terms of the legacy of mandatory sentencing, we need to go no further than the 1999-2000 annual report from Police, Fire and Emergency Services that showed how failed the previous government’s policy position was. The policy position, never forget, was that this legislation was brought into this parliament with the stated objective of reducing crime. We have figures from the Police, Fire and Emergency Services Annual Report that show that in the last year, 1998-99–1999-2000, there was a 22% increase in reported crime across the Territory. It was a failed legislative regime. It failed in its public policy objectives in terms of reducing crime. It was ill conceived. It wasn’t based on any statistical evidence and the previous government stands condemned.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bills to honourable members.
Mr REED (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I, on behalf of my constituents, want to record my opposition to these amendments and the demise, as it will be, of mandatory sentencing. The position simply is that no value is placed by the government on the fact that a lot of Territorians - especially those who were victims of crime whereby those who undertook that crime were treated under the mandatory sentencing regime - thought it appropriate that if people so acted that they would be punished and they quite liked the idea that who anyone who broke into their home would be punished or if that hadn’t happened - if it did in the future - that they could at least be satisfied that there would be an appropriate punishment for trashing their belongings that they worked long and hard to accrue and that they had gathered perhaps over a lifetime, and as you would, Madam Speaker, treasure those items and not want to see them dealt with in a way that those people who break into homes do.
It is important for us to reflect on the fact that many Territorians saw value in the punishment aspects of the legislation and also, of course, in the fact of the deterrence value of the legislation.
Now things have changed, and in terms of the member for Wanguri, the last contributor to this debate, who seemed to be affronted by the fact that this was CLP policy that was used to bring about this legislation and that he was terribly concerned about that - that is, it didn’t come from within the public service - well, I would have thought, as a politician, he would be aware that - and it’s happening in front of his very eyes, so to speak, at the moment with the federal election - political parties espouse to the populace and to their constituencies policies. Governments are elected or not, on many occasions, in relation to their policies.
Such was the case in 1994 when the CLP had a policy which said: ‘Introduce compulsory imprisonment of 28 days for repeat offenders, including juveniles, for crimes such as unlawful entry, unlawfully on the premises, stolen motor vehicle, interfere with motor vehicle, shop lifting and criminal damage’. That was the CLP Law, Order and Public Safety policy put to Territorians before the 1994 general election.
The member for Wanguri shouldn’t be concerned about policies of a political nature. That’s very much what political parties are all about. For him to suggest that no one knew of these policies, well, as I recall, they were spoken about very widely and promoted very strongly. Indeed, the only people who failed to put up a law and order policy, as I recall, in that election was the Labor Party of the day who promised to put up many policies in the lead up to that election and failed to do so. To set the record straight in relation to how policies are formulated by political parties and how then they can be adopted by a government, serves a useful purpose.
The Chief Minister made reference this morning, which was rather unfortunate, suggesting that the Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Services Annual Report was influenced by myself as the minister and that I was the cause of, as she put it, inappropriate or misrepresented figures being published in the Police, Fire and Emergency Services Annual Report. That is a terrible thing for a Chief Minister to say about a government agency. Government agencies’ annual reports are based on facts, the operations of their agency, and they report those facts and operations in their annual report. They are not, and cannot be influenced by ministers; they are simply factual data. For her as Chief Minister to suggest that the Commissioner of Police erroneously - for whatever reason, through influence or other means - corrupted the figures in past Police, Fire and Emergency Services annual reports …
Members interjecting.
Mr REED: Madam Speaker, I believe that the former speakers on the other side of the House had their contributions made in silence. I think it appropriate on this occasion that …
Madam SPEAKER: I think so, too. Members of the government, order!
Mr REED: So for the Chief Minister to suggest that the Police Commissioner would publish false figures and statistics is a very sad reflection on her as Chief Minister, and indeed the new government, if that is how they believe that their government agencies operate.
The lot of victims is going to be worth close scrutiny over the coming term of parliament. I know many Territorians will be looking at what happens as a result of the repeal of the mandatory sentencing legislation, because what we are about to experience is a step back to the old regime that Territorians were most unhappy with. I remind members that this legislation came about because the public, the voters, were of the view that the sentences being handed down by the courts were inadequate; they were not addressing the needs or meeting the expectations of the public. On many occasions, the government suggested to the courts that the sentencing should be more appropriate. The response did not come in relation to property offences, and as a consequence of that, policies were developed and laws introduced that ensured that there would be mandatory minimum sentences for property crimes.
Now, it is a fait accompli, I believe, that over the next few years we will see a recurrence of the courts handing down a slap over the wrist for property offences. It is going to very interesting to see how Territorians accept that because we have the history of their concerns about inadequate sentences, and those concerns are going to be re-ignited as we see this legislation passed today. That re-ignition will become more and more evident as the years pass and as the courts go back to their old process, and that is on too many occasions they will be accepting: ‘Oh, this fellow who broke into a house did not really mean to do it, had a bad upbringing, was under the influence of alcohol at the time, really did not know what he was doing, cannot take responsibility for his actions’. So, notwithstanding that he may, under this legislation be found guilty, the matter may not proceed to a conviction.
Well, those people who have their houses or premises or property entered and damaged and find that the courts start applying outcomes of that kind are going to be very, very aggrieved. It is going to be most interesting to see how Territorians cope with that, and how indeed the government copes with it because cope with it they will have to. It is inevitable that that will be the consequence of this legislation and it is inevitable that Territorians will regale against it, because they did in the past. They will do it with some venom in the future because they will have experienced and be aware of what happened formerly. You, Madam Speaker, would recall the Letters to the Editor in the NT News and other newspapers across the Northern Territory from Territorians expressing concerned about the inadequacy of sentences in relation to property crime.
That built up to the fact that legislation was introduced to make sure that there were appropriate sentences handed down to those people who trashed people’s property. Now, having had the protection of that - or at least the reassurance that if someone did trash their property or broke into their homes and stole their treasured belongings that they collected over a period of perhaps a lifetime - they now find themselves unprotected in that regard and unable to be assured that anyone who does commit crimes of that kind will at least be punished. That is going to see us, as we go back now to the old hand-slapping and accepting almost, perhaps, any excuse for having someone commit a crime, that Territorians will be much stronger in their opposition to those sorts of decisions. I hope the courts do not start handing down decisions of that kind.
I am, frankly, not confident that they will not, because this legislation will enable them to do so. It provides now full discretion back to the courts. We have seen where that has not satisfied the needs of the community - not the needs of politicians or political parties’ needs - but it has not fulfilled the needs and expectations of the people of the Territory. We will see those circumstances arise again in the future. It will be interesting to see both what the public reaction is and what the government reaction is. They will have to respond to it as a government, because there is nothing more certain than the fact that it will occur.
We have seen it, in fact, since mandatory sentencing was introduced, in other areas of court decisions. There has been public outcry in relation to the public’s concerns about the inadequacy of a particular sentence. Now, I think one of the risks that we face here is that those sorts of more lenient sentences will now become perhaps more prevalent, because mandatory sentencing played also another role. That role was that it demonstrated to the legal system on behalf of the community that the community wanted tough sentencing and the community wanted, if someone had broken the law, for those people to be appropriately punished in relation to the public’s views. The mandatory sentencing legislation, by projecting those views, emanated across the legal system to one extent or another.
Other people, of course, would disagree with me. I think perhaps it did have an influence more broadly. There is potential for us now to experience a withdrawal of that influence and to see, because of the government’s position in relation to their softness on crime, a re-emergence of what the public may perceive to be inadequate sentencing in relation to offences that are committed against the law abiding majority section of constituents and Territorians.
So I strongly, on behalf of my constituents, my electorate, and I know many other Territorians, oppose these pieces of legislation. For an open, honest and transparent government it is absolutely extraordinary that legislation of this scope and impact is introduced into this House on one day and passed on another. This is a government that went to the people on the basis that they would consult, that there was a need for people, for Territorians, to be able to have their say in relation to these matters. Clearly, it is not an issue in relation to this particular piece of legislation and it is curious how choosy the government is now being shown to be in relation to what they say and then, of course, what they put into practice. Territorians will see a lot more of this also, I expect, demonstrating that they are being very duplicitous in this regard, and I think Territorians will get very tired of that as well.
So, on behalf of the electorate of Katherine, where I know that this mandatory sentencing legislation was very strongly supported, I oppose the removal of the mandatory sentencing legislation from the statutes. As I say, as a keen observer of these matters, I will watch with great interest the decisions brought down by the courts, not only in property offence cases in the future, but in all cases. I will watch with even more interest the reaction from Territorians when there are what they perceive to be inadequate sentences and in turn, of course, watch then the reaction of this government as to how they will answer to Territorians for having taken this protective legislation from them.
Ms CARTER (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, as far as I am concerned, and I am sure many, many of my constituents, this is a sad day for Territorians and in particular for the victims of crime, a group that we tend, I gather here today, to be looking to forget. Well, we certainly do not forget them and we are going to stand up for them.
The Labor government really misses the point on the whole issue of mandatory sentencing. You repeat over and over and over again ad nauseum that the purpose of mandatory sentencing was to reduce crime. We did not say that. What we say is that mandatory sentencing is here for justice. For justice. I personally do not have any problem with the concept of punishment, even for somebody who is 15 years of age. These people know what they are doing. When they break into somebody’s home and trash it, when they go in there and pinch things, when they break in through the roofs of businesses and steal things and wreck things, they know very, very well what they are doing and they know why they are doing it. It does not matter to me that they are 15 years of age. They know exactly what they are doing and when they do it, they hurt other people. They hurt people who have saved, they hurt people who have been responsible, they come in and do their business and what is the end result for them now? Nothing. Nothing at all will be the result for them because of your soft policies that are now going to come in.
What we want is justice for the victims of crime and it is not going to happen now. The aim of this legislation that you are now going to put in is to look after the perpetrators of crime, not the victims of crime. You are bringing in this thing where you are upping the amount of damage that needs to be done before it is called serious from $500 to $5000. Well, that is marvellous, but it is not a good thing in my electorate where I have many, many people - and I wouldn’t be smirking too much over there if I were you because you also have many constituents who don’t own much - who don’t own much. If somebody goes into one of the Housing Commission units in my electorate, they will have a very, very hard time doing $5000 worth of damage because the people do not own goods to that value. They might own a couple of thousand dollars worth of stuff all together if you add in the fridge, the TV and the video recorder. Somebody goes in, a nice little tyke at the age of 16 or 17, trashes it all up. End result: nothing, because it did not hit the $5000 mark. Not serious enough for you guys now. Might be all right in certain areas where people own $4000-$5000 TVs, easy to do. I am very, very concerned about the victims who are not well off and who do not own a lot. Their hearts will be broken by this when they see yet and yet again the revolving door, the famous revolving door of the magistrates court: in you come and out you go, quick as you like, no problem at all. And that is what we are going to see here.
So, I ask a couple of questions. I will be really interested to see the definition of what constitutes ‘serious’, ‘serious crime’, because this is what you are harking back to all the time. Serious crime is going to get you serious time. Well, what on earth will be ‘serious crime’ and what on earth will be ‘serious time’? An hour sitting in the chair? Serious time? I doubt it very, very much. I also have to say that I am disappointed to hear from the new government that our Territory police force is incompetent. They claim our police do not, cannot, do not try to catch the criminals who break into the homes of Territorians. The Attorney-General said it again today. I quote: ‘Nearly 90% of offenders in urban areas continue to get away with property offences undetected’. Look at that statement any way you like and it still says: ‘This government believes our police force is slack; our police force does not catch offenders; our police men and women are inefficient and cannot do the job’.
The member for Sanderson said today: ‘You just didn’t catch 'em’, he cried from his chair. We just didn’t catch 'em. Well, I totally disagree with that argument, but I wish the Labor Party would for once stand up and bluntly say that is what they believe. They should go to Commissioner Bates; they should go to the Police Association and say: ‘We think you lot cannot do the job’. But they will not. They will continue to hide behind their spurious argument that says mandatory sentencing does not work because the vast majority of offenders are not caught by the police. Both aspects of that argument are false. You cannot equate the number of offences with the number of offenders. Ironically, most of them are hard working little buggers who manage to commit many, many offences. The capture and consequent sentencing of one offender may deal with 80 or more offences. You do the figures the way the way the Labor Party does and that same offender has just wiped the slate clean for one offence and they are still looking for another 79 offenders. It is a false argument and one that is most offensive to our hard working and dedicated police men and women.
The new government, with these bills, is totally repealing the mandatory sentence provisions in relation to juveniles. They have persisted in their argument that children are being locked up for trivial offences. Worse, they say it is Aboriginal children who are being locked up in large numbers. Again, I would refer the Attorney-General to the presentation prepared by the Criminal Justice Statistics Group of his own department.
I seek leave, Madam Speaker, to table the following document from the group headed Rate of Juvenile Detention – Juvenile Property Offender Summary I, Juvenile Property Offender Summary II, Juvenile Property Offender Summary III.
Leave granted.
Ms CARTER: Basically, they show that the rate of detention of young, Aboriginal Territorians is one third of that of the rest of Australia and that the rate of imprisonment for Aboriginal juveniles detained has not changed since the introduction of mandatory sentencing. Further, they state that on average in any one week, less than one juvenile, and that means Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal, receives a mandatory sentence. I would suggest he ask his department for the figures or consult his colleague, the Minister for Correctional Services, for a full breakdown of the figures. Instead of just relying on the rhetoric, why not look up the figures and the facts before rushing to judgment?
Obviously the opposition is not going to support these bills, but we recognise that the Labor Party is now the government and has the right to implement its policy, however misguided and based on myths that policy may be.
Before concluding, I wish to point out to this House and to Territorians the hypocrisy of this action by the government. Their colleagues in Western Australia strongly support mandatory sentencing. Their colleagues in the federal parliament, including the Territory’s Labor godfather, Warren Snowdon, have supported mandatory sentencing for people smugglers. Lastly, they themselves have left in the Sentencing Act the mandatory minimum sentencing provisions for sexual and violent offences.
Madam Speaker, We will oppose these changes because they simply pander to the legal lobby and reject the view of the majority of the community. We oppose these changes because they are based on mistruths, myths and political correctness rather than justice for Territorians. We will oppose these bills because they rely totally on our courts to administer justice rather than exercise the right of this parliament to impose minimum as well as maximum sentences.
We oppose these bills because they fail Territorians and offer no retribution nor adequate punishment for those who enter Territorians’ homes and businesses, trashing them and stealing their property. We certainly oppose this legislation and I personally will watch with great interest to see how the sentences start to come out. As I said yesterday, I believe a year or so from now we will start to see the watering down of sentences and I think you people need to think very carefully about your stance on this because we will be going to the polls again in the next three to four years.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I thought it was very important to speak in this debate because I think a time will come when Territorians will want to know where we stood on this very important issue. For that reason I’d like to put my great support for minimum mandatory sentencing on the public record. It has been debated in this parliament a number of times. There were position papers put out including by the now government prior to the election that made an attempt to convince people that in the absence of the mandatory sentencing regime that is currently in place up until probably tonight, the then opposition had this reputed tough-on-crime stance and that those who did the crime would do the time.
By interjection, the Chief Minister yelled across the parliament that I should get a hold of the copy of the position paper that Labor put out in the election, and I should have a read of it. I can inform the House that I actually did. I do have this paper and I have had a read of it and it is still very difficult as a legislator to look at what ‘serious crime means serious time’ means in fact.
The debate thus far has had a variety of interjections about the Westminster system, the separation of powers, confidence in the judiciary and the magistracy, etcetera. I think perhaps we should read a couple of things into parliament including from Labor’s position paper and its six point plan, particularly point one: Serious Crime Means Serious Time. One sentence says that: ‘Labor will amend the Sentencing Act’ which is what we are talking about here today ‘to state expressly that it is the intention of the parliament that people who commit the crime of housebreaking, burglary, entry and damage to homes, cars or business premises will go to gaol’ – comma – ‘unless extenuating circumstances exist’.
So essentially, what the public was told in the lead up to the election was: we will keep sending them to gaol; they will go to gaol. It will still be a mandatory sentence with the one exception that we’re going to have to look at extenuating circumstances. They have now built that into the act.
The difficulty in trying to describe this as legislators, and I hope that it would provide some guidance to the judiciary who have to grapple with what an extenuating circumstance is, is that it is ill-defined. In fact, invisible. It is not covered adequately in either the minister’s second reading speech or in any of the debates thus far. So as legislators, we are passing the problem off to the courts to say extenuating circumstances is the loophole.
I guess they would want to know how that loophole is prescribed because it means the difference between someone going to gaol and someone not going to gaol. So for starters, we, as legislators, have given them a blurry set of circumstances with which they have to contend and it is a set of circumstances that they will seek some delineation. Some speakers have been a bit derogatory about the magistracy, and I would say that they would be looking for this loophole to be as large as possible to give them as much discretion as possible. You can understand that. I would probably do the same in their position. The balance is that:
The insertion of a clause setting out the intention of parliament’s wishes to see serious criminals go to gaol
will be a new and the first benchmark that judges and magistrates will have to comply with. This initiative will
address the community’s concern about judges being soft on crime.
Well, it’s not going to work. The legislation fails at that very first hurdle. So the pivotal issue here, the keynote issue, is: will you go to gaol or not? Under Labor there is a loophole about extenuating circumstances. I think they have been very well described by my colleague, the Shadow Attorney-General, and I think you could probably also go to some of the other papers in Labor’s position papers to see the sorts of extenuating circumstances that the judiciary may wish to look at.
In the paper, which is quite an extensive one, I go to page nine:
The evidence is clear that many factors leading to crime appear in early life.
- truancy and antisocial behaviour in school
behavioural problems,
socio-economic stress,
unemployment, and
boredom for young people.
So we are on a road that does not take us back to where we were and where we had immense dissatisfaction from the community. It takes us back to a worse point. That will become evident to commentators pretty quickly, and particularly those who are the victims of crime. I, too, know the gentleman that was door knocked by the member for Wanguri and I, too, door knocked him. We are in the position also where our family knew his child. We could all bring stories in here, Madam Speaker. One of the stories that often gets trotted out is about the minute nature of the economic costs of this particular good; a can of beer, a this or that, a towel off the clothes line with which a man…
Dr Burns: A loaf of bread.
Mr DUNHAM: A loaf of bread, perhaps. The issue is that sometimes it’s not economic issues that attend on it and that’s where we get to Labor’s proposition that we talk to the victims. So if somebody breaks into the house of an elderly person living alone, it has a massive impact on them and it’s very difficult, in fact, to describe in the quantifying terms of economics. It is an issue that goes to their confidence in living alone. It is an issue often that goes to them having a greater sense of apprehension than is probably real, but nonetheless it is a sense of apprehension that could cause them to move into other accommodation, supported accommodation, leave the Territory. Those are really important factors. The person may pinch something that’s very small. They may pinch a silver frame on a photo. The photo may be something of immense emotional, sentimental value to them.
In a debate like this where we talk about small amounts of money, I think we forget the social dynamic and that is really unfortunate. I would have hoped that that would have been at the forefront of my colleagues on the government’s minds given that they purport to have great social consciences. I would have thought to set a mere monetary calibrator on matters relating to theft and destruction is pretty foolish because you can destroy someone’s confidence, their capacity to live alone, their enjoyment of the community unfettered, and these are really important things.
So, we have another problem for the Labor party in that they have said to people: ‘We will count what you say. We will take it into account and we’ll go to the judges and say: “that is a terrible thing and it should be reflected in his sentencing”.’ We know that not to be the case. We know that some people will be seeking retribution far and beyond that which our courts can mete out in any event, but I would suspect that it would be: ‘Don’t you worry; I’m the judge. I do this stuff and, yes, you’re a bit upset and I can see you’re a bit florid about this particular issue, but bad luck’. So, I think that is a terrible thing for victims of crime because they are toying with their emotions at a time when they’re vulnerable. They are holding out to them that there is the capacity for their circumstances to be featured in the sentence and we know that that will not be the case. That will bring great disappointment.
There were some speakers who talked about mandates, and we support mandatory sentencing; we lost, you don’t support it; you won, therefore the people spoke. I am a bit surprised at that simple formula and I am surprised on a couple of accounts because I listened to all the maiden speeches, and I thought they were pretty good in the main, and I noted that many of them talked about our quality of life and security and those sorts of lifestyle issues. One of them I will quote from where this particular person talked about the big issues, out they went:
- The big issues for the government are to effectively address social and economic issues such as
health, education, job security, crime and punishment.
Crime and punishment. Now, I think you’ll find that if we really look at what the people want, not only did we hear it loud and clear - and I can’t believe that an electoral line on a map would delineate opinion as radically as those opposite would have us believe - I believe they have had people come to them strenuously talking about the need for courts to be tougher on criminals, the status of victims and their circumstances be recognised, and that the inevitability of prison be at the forefront of criminals’ minds before they embark on their behaviours, and I would be absolutely surprised if they can tell me they doorknocked without those issues featuring largely.
I note, too, that the Opposition Leader tabled some data that showed, coincidentally with the introduction of mandatory sentencing, there had been a reduction in crime, particularly housebreaks. The Opposition Leader showed there’d been a reduction in crime, so while we don’t wave a flag and say there’s an exact nexus between the cause and effect of reducing crime in this particular area, housebreaks, we would say that we were trending towards a reduction in crime, and we’re pretty proud of that. I think you can always trend toward zero and never, ever get there, but the valiant hope for governments is that these terrible issues that are hard to grapple with will trend in the right direction.
In sharp contrast with those opposite, I quote from the NT News of 26 September, and it is an article dealing with TIO premiums. I was aghast to read the grabs from Mr Henderson, who sees himself as the minister responsible for the TIO, and he talks about why there’s going to be a 30% rise in premiums and he attributes it to a number of things, but the thing that really worries me, I suppose, is that he says:
- It’s based on a probable downturn in the global economy and, with that downturn, a projected increase
in crime which will hit household insurance.
Now, I don’t know why they are trending those figures up, but I guess it’s largely because if you were foolish enough to introduce laws of this type, you should be frank enough, and I admire him for his frankness, I think that’s a pretty gutsy thing for a minister to do, to come in and say: ‘You’ve just elected a Labor government and household premiums will go up because you’re going to get more housebreaks’. That is a particularly brave thing for the minister in charge of the TIO to do. I applaud his courage and I point out for people who may be researchers to this debate that the prognosis for this legislation is particularly poor. This is not something we don’t know about; this is something that we had a long heritage of magistrates with sentences that the community found to be offensive. We tried to remedy that. We’re now going back not to that state, but as my colleague, the Shadow Attorney-General pointed out, to a worse point. It will become very evident, very clear and very quickly that this legislation will not achieve what it set out to do.
I note, too, that in their 10 point plan they have a variety of audit mechanisms and I look forward to seeing those, particularly a before and after one. That audit mechanism should work on a situation that exists now and perhaps at quarterly intervals because a significant amount of data has to be put in. It’s very difficult to cleanse this type of data when you realise that often one person can commit a variety of crimes and recidivism and other issues, but I would think that if this data was collected and adequately benchmarked and cleansed, it should provide a trend of the like that the brave minister pointed out.
The other couple of points I will touch on is what we did for victims. One of the first things victims want is that the perpetrator be caught and brought to justice, and we put a lot of effort into that. We were a jurisdiction that led the way in Australia, for instance, with our DNA science. We were able to demonstrate pretty quickly that we had the capacity to chase the criminals and to get them, even if it took a while. Some millions of dollars was spent on the lab, and I would hope that this is a priority for this incoming government notwithstanding that having caught them we’re going to let them go, I still think it’s really important that perpetrators be identified and brought to justice such as it is.
VOCAL, for instance, the Victims of Crime Assistance League, we funded that. There are a number of initiatives through my previous department of Health and Community Services where there were counselling and other initiatives that were available, and to talk about this government’s attitude to victims of crime, one would only have to do a very short excursion into Hansard to see a particular debate where Labor stood up and pilloried us for, I think it was this particular subject, and as the clock wound down, the then Deputy Chief Minister kept saying talk about victims, let’s get on to victims, and the entire speech was taken up with perpetrators.
There is some commentary that this is a racist piece of legislation. I reject that entirely on a couple of counts. First, it’s patently untrue if you look at the wording that’s in there. If the argument is a statistical one that Aboriginal people are over represented in crime stats, that is unfortunately true. But it should be remembered by those opposite that would seek to use this in some way to portray us as anti-Aboriginal to look at the statistics that capture victims also, because the unfortunate sad truth is that while there are many Aboriginal perpetrators of crime, there are many Aboriginal victims of crime, and we think that they deserve the full force of the law also. We believe that Aboriginal people should be able to live in peace and harmony and have their goods protected by the law in the same way as people living in the leafy northern suburbs. Those who would put that argument are the same sort of people that would run the case about, for instance, domestic violence being a cultural phenomena that we should accept. I don’t believe we should accept it. I believe that Aboriginal victims of crime should have the full force of the law to protect them.
I will finish on does the punishment fit the crime, and it came out of the member for Wanguri’s speech where he talked about a particular case. Well, we can talk about a lot more; there are lots of cases we can all trot out where a gentleman was kicked and subsequently died and although the nexus was not clear, he got $1000 bond and a taxi driver was slashed in the face and $176 was awarded because it was the cost of the window that was broken, and we could go on. I believe that in many cases the sentences are not fitting the crime. I do not believe they dissuade those who would seek to take our laws on; I do not believe that the circumstances at the moment are such that the community is comfortable with the sentences being handed down by the government. If we look at the separation of powers in the Westminster system, we can’t expect the magistracy or the judiciary to do the polling of the type we have done. We’ve walked the streets and knocked the doors, we’ve talked to people and put out newsletters and position papers and you can’t expect that the magistracy or judiciary will do the same.
If you are pure about the Westminster system, you have to have a notion that the people will call on governments to do certain things. You must have a notion also that in this House we will debate those issues fully. We will have processes in here that allow us to look at the pros and cons, to look at other options, to have words described to us that are perhaps confusing or curious, and that’s why I think due process is really important because while we’ve heard the message from the community - and I’m sure you have, too - it is necessary now for us as legislators to put that into a piece of legislation that is readable, understandable and transparently translates from what the community is asking into a statute. This has not done that, and it has not done it because despite the rhetoric about open and honest government and how you produced this paper 18 months ago, this bill has been produced in a very short time.
I pay great tribute to my colleague, the shadow Attorney-General who could have stood up and bleated about how many days it has been since the election, like some ministers have. He not only took great time to read this stuff, he took it to the party room, he brought pieces of legislation from other jurisdictions, he gave us the vast benefit of his experience in the court setting notwithstanding his youth. It was interesting to see him stand as our first speaker and to take the Attorney-General on in such a way that left him floundering because it was quite evident there are some specious, nonsensical and pieces of whimsy that have been put into the legislation in an attempt to dress it up as a harsh piece of government work taking on criminals. I was very proud to see him standing here so new in this parliament and taking on the inept Attorney-General.
I noticed that one of the interjections from somebody on the other side was: ‘Oh yeah, I suppose you will want a QC’. Well, I think this bloke would be a good QC …
Mr Stirling: Well, make him one! Make him one. Shane gave himself one. Why not Peter? You give them to yourselves every time you get a new leader. Every new leader should be a QC.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr DUNHAM: … but as a person who is republican by disposition, I do not really adhere to the notions of Queen’s Counsel, although I notice that even those people who are avowed republicans and staunch Labor people like this little accolade. They do not mind this hanging off the back of the name because somehow it does have an impact on one’s income.
If we go back to the interjection I belatedly picked up that was made earlier this morning about this gentleman being a QC, whether it is a QC or an Attorney-General or a very valuable member of the opposition who is able to interrogate the government in such a way that they realise just how stupid this legislation is, I think he will make his mark on the Territory. As someone who has a heritage here and who will stay here, we will hear a lot more from this young man. As the first piece of legislation is dealt with in this House, I am sure it will also come back to this House. I am sure that the clamour will come from a variety of quarters once those pennies have dropped, and once the audit of our procedures are in place, and once people realise that the words that were in here about ‘you will go to gaol’ were actually a falsehood, and that it was a fraud perpetrated on the electorate. Once people realise that, they will be saying: ‘Well, we think we like the old stuff; we think we like mandatory sentencing and we like the idea of people who do wrong and offend our laws being punished and going to gaol’. I look forward to that debate also because there will not be any Mereenie loopholes or black holes or any of that stuff, and the excuses they parade out will have to rest entirely upon their own ineptitude, which has been amply demonstrated here today. The idea that…
Mr Stirling: You blokes ran out of questions, that is how well you did.
Mr DUNHAM: ‘You blokes ran out of questions, that is how well you did’. Okay, I suppose I could pick that up, too. That is a great interjection to pick up because I really have not had much of an occasion to speak in this parliament because the processes in place somehow seem to disallow debate. I am very happy to pick up that interjection from the Leader of the Government Business that ‘You blokes ran out of questions, that is how good you are’.
I can tell you that I have a number of questions I would be willing to ask. In fact, in the spirit of cooperation that I believe should exist in these early days, most of them I have put in writing and those letters are unanswered. They are unanswered. So, we have several documents we can go from. We can go from the Percy Allan Report No 1 which has largely been discounted. Certainly, Percy has talked about raising taxes and they do not want to do that. There is a $68m black hole in Percy’s report for starters, before you start on anything else. Percy Allan No 2 we could go on. We can go on the fabled Access Economics stamp of approval report. We could go on these specious and frivolous documents that were provided to the punters before the election…
Dr TOYNE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I really do not know what that has to do with the debate.
Mr Dunham: I am picking up an interjection. Take your seat.
Dr TOYNE: Sit down. I have a point of order.
Mr Dunham: Sit down.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, thank you! That is enough of that!
Dr TOYNE: Madam Speaker, I am raising relevance here. This has absolutely nothing to do with the debate.
Madam SPEAKER: All of the debates have been far-reaching on both sides of the House.
Mr DUNHAM: Thank you, Madam Speaker. There should probably be some other opportunities for debate and it would allow us to canvass these wider issues in other forums that may be more appropriate and may be more satisfactory to the member for Stuart. I look forward to those other forums. The little charade of ministerial statements without questions in the morning is something that this parliament has to look to and be frank about. If this really is a Chamber of debate, if this really is a parliament - and the word derives from the French where people speak - it is inappropriate that we should be gagged in the way that seems evident over the last couple of days.
Returning to mandatory sentencing, these bills are something that will be shown very quickly to be as inept as they have been demonstrated. With the Sentencing Act, magistrates will be very quickly looking for some guidance relating to the big loophole. As was demonstrated by my colleague, I think you will find that fewer and fewer people are getting there anyway because there are several loopholes that enable them to jump ship before then.
Dr TOYNE (Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I have listened attentively to some 2 hours of debate, and I thank the honorable members for their contributions, generally speaking.
I have to discount the considerable body of unsubstantiated opinion, pure sour grapes and dead ignorance in some of the presentations that we have had. Taking that aside, there are some issues I would like to take up and try to further clarify for members.
First of all, the Leader of the Opposition raised the matter of urgency and why we are using urgency and whether it is a fair thing to be using urgency. In the Eighth Assembly, there were a total of 58 bills passed on suspension of Standing orders. On this basis, there were a total of 58 bills passed on the same day of urgency; bills passed in the same week of urgency, 22; bills passed on urgency and passed on the second week of sittings, 35. So, do not talk to us about it not being justified to bring legislation into this House on urgency.
I refer to Hansard of 28 April 1998 as an example of some of those bills going through. There were six bills brought to the House on that day of sittings - six important bills, in fact, only one of which the opposition had been consulted on. John Bailey, the member for Wanguri at the time, said:
- I have not read it yet. I received it only today and you want me to pass it today. That is what we are
complaining about.
We gave your shadow a briefing last Thursday. We provided him with the draft legislation and he indicated to us that he was appreciative of the fact that we did that. I circulated the second reading speeches and explanatory memoranda to all members of this House yesterday. Now, if you cannot prepare yourselves for legislation with that sort of lead in, then you are being lazy and you are being incompetent.
In regard to the concerns by one speaker about whether the courts could convict or not convict, we are not going to get into the game of forcing courts to convict in every case because that is mandatory; it is a mandatory arrangement for the courts. The courts have to have the discretion as to whether to convict. We have heard evidence here today of the impact of a conviction …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker. The Attorney-General should well know that we did not at any stage force the courts to convict anybody.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Mr Elferink: You can’t force a conviction, you dill, only the sentence. It’s two separate things, you wally.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr TOYNE: Madam Speaker, the member for Macdonnell has already had his go and he seems to be wanting to turn this into a secondary debate.
Madam SPEAKER: I am sorry, I cannot hear the minister speaking because of the rumbling and grumbling.
Mr Elferink: He’s the Attorney-General and he can’t tell the difference between a conviction and a sentence.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Macdonnell! Just be quiet!
Dr TOYNE: To return to my point, we have heard today of the impact a conviction makes on a person’s life and I believe that it is absolutely imperative that the courts do have the right, on judging the circumstances of the case, to choose whether to convict or not to convict. That is inherent in the bill.
The heart of what we are saying about discretion is that the courts have the detail of each case before them; the courts have to have some discretion in arranging the sentencing to fully reflect that detail. We have seen, since mandatory sentencing was introduced in March 1997, many cases that have become famous or, more importantly, infamous for being patently out of odds between the seriousness of the crime and the seriousness of the sentence that was imposed under mandatory sentencing provisions. Minimum mandatory sentencing is picking up crimes that, even by any commonsense around the community, is patently unjust to have imposed the sentences that those people received.
In terms of the claims that we are not building serious time into this legislation, all of the speakers opposite have been very careful to avoid mentioning what is currently in the Sentencing Act and what is in the Criminal Code Amendment Bill. When you look at the scale of sentences and offences that are taken up in our aggravated crimes, we have aggravated crimes of robbery, section 211; assault with attempt to rob, section 212; unlawful entry, section 213, which covers burglary, housebreaking and breaking into businesses; persons found armed with the intent to unlawfully enter a building, section 215; aggravated unlawful use of a motor vehicle, section 218(2) which covers breaking into cars where there is damage to the vehicle; aggravated criminal damage, section 251(2) which applies to damage over $5000; vehicles added as a particular damage equivalent to one half of the value of the vehicle; and the new offences of home and business invasion under section 226(b)(3) which covers violation of house and property. Now the things that are not in our aggravated category are simple unlawful use of motor vehicles, section 218(1); simple criminal damage, section 251(1), simple offence which will cover criminal damage less than $5000; stealing, section 210; receiving, section 229.
When we look at the sentencing maximums that apply to the sentences that will be in the Sentencing Act after these bills go through, we start with simple offences of maximum of two years in gaol; intent to commit crime for which a punishment not greater than a maximum of three years; a building that is a dwelling house, maximum of five years; if a building is occupied at time of entry, maximum of seven years. That maximum of seven years equates with unlawful entry of a dwelling house or business premises, and unlawful damage which also carries a maximum of seven years which is part of the new provisions. If intent to commit any other crime therein in a dwelling house, maximum of seven years; intent to commit any other crime therein in a dwelling house, maximum of 10 years; serious damage or damage greater than $5000 equates, under our business and home invasions, to a maximum of 10 years; commits offence at night time, twice the punishment prescribed for that offence; firearm, dangerous or offensive weapon in the possession of the intruder, maximum 20 years; firearm, dangerous or offensive weapon in a dwelling house, maximum of life.
How many years should people stay in gaol? Are we going to lock everyone up for life for everything? Those maximums are adequate in the view of this government to cover the ‘seriousness’ of the crime.
With the Sentencing Amendment Bill, we have a spill through after conviction through the courts being asked to, first of all and in most cases, in fact in the overwhelming number of cases, consider a period of gaol matching the seriousness of the crime. We then have a community work order option, and then we have exceptional circumstances. There has been some talk about the meaning of ‘exceptional circumstances’ as it is used in this bill. As stated in my second reading speech, the term ‘exceptional circumstances’ as used in the mandatory sentencing regime is repealed and no longer applies. The term as it exists under the new scheme is to be interpreted and applied by the courts using accepted rules of interpretation. It is expected, therefore, that a common law definition will evolve. For example, in New South Wales for over 10 years the Supreme Court has applied the rule that where there is trafficking in illicit drugs there is a presumption of imprisonment except in exceptional circumstances. Although this is not a statutory rule, the New South Wales Supreme Court has been called upon on various occasions to determine whether exceptional circumstances exist in specific matters.
In New South Wales they have defined exceptional circumstances to be quite narrow. In a leading New South Wales Supreme Court case which was R v Cacciola [1998] NSWSC 531, Priestley JA stated that:
- A combination of subjective circumstances each strong in itself does not add up to exceptional circumstances
unless the aggregate of all those circumstances point to the case being one of real difference from the general
run of cases that come before the courts.
In that case, the court felt, due to a very wide range of mitigating factors surrounding the circumstances of the offender, that exceptional circumstances existed. The Northern Territory Supreme Court is not bound by decisions of the New South Wales Supreme Court. As courts in other jurisdictions have developed a definition so, too, will our courts.
We believe that by putting this principle of exceptional circumstances to our courts, they will evolve through precedent the framework by which exceptional circumstances will be determined and that is right and proper. The courts are the ones dealing with the detail of the cases as we go through.
In terms of the points that were raised about the intent of sentencing provisions within the act itself, we have two important definitions that are in the Sentencing Amendment Bill. First of all, community work orders which were queried by, I think, the member for Nelson. The purpose of making a community work order is to reflect the public interest in ensuring that a person who commits an offence makes amends to the community for the offence by performing work that is of benefit to the community. That new definition of community work orders is very much in line with the consultations we have had regarding the most appropriate form that these types of punishments can take. It is very much in line with recompensing the victim of crime through some action of the offender, whether that victim is an individual or whether that victim is a household or whether that victim is a community such as a remote community in parts of the Territory. That allows the community work order to be tailored to the terms of the crime and to the recompensing of the victim, so it’s another aspect of our intention to provide further support for the victims.
Now, in terms of community work orders and equating them with imprisonment, it is not the intention that these two options be interchangeable or to have the same status. In section 78B, imprisonment is clearly placed above community work orders, making it clear that it is the most serious penalty of the two. The purpose of having these two options available is to acknowledge that although in most cases an aggravated property offence will deserve a serious sentence, the level of seriousness may vary. In some cases imprisonment will be appropriate, but where mitigating factors are evident, a community work order may be more appropriate. It was decided against drafting section 78B of the Sentencing Act to only provide for the presumption of imprisonment for aggravated property offences. In a case where mitigating but not exceptional circumstances existed, the lack of an alternative sentencing option may have resulted in the court being obliged to impose a disproportionate penalty in the circumstances.
It is up to the court to determine which of the sentences are appropriate in each specific case. So you can see there that we are not expecting that courts will use community work orders as their first or most common option. They are very much a lower level of penalty and they very much have to be justified within the sentence handed down by a court as to why a community work order was ordered rather than a term of imprisonment.
Some members have called attention to our changing of the threshold for aggravated offences carrying the 10 year maximum penalty to $5000. There are two reasons for that in the discussions we have had. The first is that the $500 penalty was put into our legislation in 1984. What is 500 1984 dollars worth today? To one degree, we are bringing the monetary value of that threshold forward so that it matches today’s dollar values. A more important aspect to this is that we are very much, within this legislation, trying to target the crimes that we have put forward in what we have said publicly, that is serious attacks on households, serious attacks on businesses and serious and damaging attacks on motor vehicles.
To the extent that $5000 in today’s value, given some of the vehicles and households and the belongings that are involved, is still not a particularly high value. In fact, alongside the $5000 area, if I can take members to the Criminal Code Amendment Bill which we will be considering today as well, there are two ways in which an aggravated crime can be defined. One is through the dollar values that we have put forward. The other is in section 2 of the Criminal Code Amendment Act for the purposes of section 226B(3):
(a) the following matters are relevant in determining whether damage is of a serious nature:
(i) any physical, psychological or emotional harm suffered by a person as a result of the damage;
(ii) any apprehension, fear, distress or revulsion caused to the person as a result of the damage; and
(b) the amount of loss is determined by adding the following amounts:
(i) the loss that results directly from the damage;
- (ii) any loss incurred as a consequence of restoring the dwelling house or business premises
to the condition it was in before the crime was committed including cleaning costs and
economic loss in respect of time spent in the restoration.
I believe that those provisions within the Criminal Code Amendment Bill do pick up some of the points that the member for Port Darwin was raising about households that may not have $5000 worth of belongings in them, but under those provisions it could be judged by a court that there is non-material damage of sufficient extent that the crime would be considered serious. Aggravation will be very widely applied, and certainly can be applied under these new provisions.
I finish my remarks with the point that the bills we have before us today are part of a Crime Prevention Reform package which we are bringing in as a government. Apart from the legislative changes that we are considering today in this House, we will be looking at quite significant reforms in the operational arrangements of police and, in fact, the two final bills that we will consider today, the Justices Amendment Bill and the Police Administration Amendment Bill, feed directly into the reforms in police work that the Minister for Police will be promulgating through his department. We want to create much greater police presence in terms of the investigation of household and business property theft. We want to see a much greater police presence around the neighbourhoods in which people live so that a policeman or a policewoman is available much more readily when someone has had a crime committed at their household.
Now, to give the police the additional power to link the offenders into the court system once an offence has been alleged or discovered adds weight to the legislative framework that we are putting in place today. The bills that we are considering today should be read in the context of being part of an overall package and we will be following up a later date in the parliament with legislation specifically aimed at drug dealing and drug manufacture in the Northern Territory and the rehabilitation of drug offenders. We believe, on advice that we have had from the police and others, that the bulk of property crimes are committed by relatively small numbers of people. I mean, some suggestions are that 80% of these property crimes are committed by as low a number as maybe 150 people in Darwin and maybe 50 people in Alice Springs. They are multiple offenders and they have some very clear antecedents as to why they have taken up that type of lifestyle. Many of them, as we heard earlier from the member for Wanguri, have drug habits that are then leading into repeat property crime and property offences.
We believe that targeted action on drugs and on those particular families and individuals that have taken up these activities in a big way is going to make greater inroads than an untargeted strategy like mandatory sentencing. So our Crime Prevention package will be very strongly implemented around the legislation that we that are talking about today.
I will pass finally to the issue of review which the member for Nelson raised in his contribution, and I thank him for that. We have already heard from the member for Wanguri that a Crime Statistics Unit will be established in a much stronger way under our government and that information will not only be available to this parliament on an ongoing basis to inform debate, but it will also be distributed to the households of the Northern Territory so that if you want to make the point ‘What are the people in the Northern Territory going to think about our strategies and the way we are implementing them?’, we are going to give them the information, accurate information, so they can make up their own minds about this. We are not going to be sitting here second guessing. They will be told how the crime trends are going: how many offences; how many are cleared up; what sort of sentences and court proceedings followed; how many people re-offend; and what the overall cash value of property crimes in their area are. We used to have that in Neighbourhood Watch, at least in a limited way. We are going to expand that and take that out to the general population so we have an informed community and we have informed debate in this House. The Crime Prevention Unit will analyse, on behalf of government, the trends that are apparent in the statistics that are being collected and we will certainly make sure that parliamentarians, among others, have full access to that information.
In response to the member for Nelson’s query about whether we could have a review in six months, I can make an undertaking today: we will bring this back as a ministerial statement in six months time, or thereabouts, and we’ll throw that open for debate. We, as a parliament, can decide how things are going.
Madam Speaker, with those few comments, I would again like to thank the honourable members for their contributions. It has been a very fulsome debate, as it should be because this is a very significant piece of legislation. With those remarks, I will conclude.
Madam SPEAKER: The question is that the bills be now read a second time.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 14 Noes 10
Mrs Aagaard Mr Baldwin
Mr Ah Kit Mr Burke
Mr Bonson Ms Carney
Dr Burns Ms Carter
Mr Henderson Mr Dunham
Mr Kiely Mr Elferink
Ms Lawrie Dr Lim
Mr McAdam Mr Maley
Ms Martin Mr Mills
Ms Scrymgour Mr Reed
Mr Stirling
Dr Toyne
Mr Vatskalis
Mr Wood
Motion agreed to; bills read a second time.
In committee:
Sentencing Amendment Bill (No 3) (Serial 7):
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole.
Mr BURKE: Mr Chairman, I understand that in terms of debate, there is one issue the shadow Attorney-General would like to comment on. Perhaps we could take that first and move through the rest.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Does the shadow Attorney-General want to do it clause by clause until we get there?
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, I suggest that we go clause by clause until we come to the appropriate clause that needs to be addressed, and we address it.
Mr CHAIRMAN: I invite the shadow Attorney-General to raise any issues that he wishes to under the question of the whole.
Clause 6:
Mr MALEY: Mr Chairman, there are a couple of points that I wish to raise and seek clarification from the Attorney-General, and they relate to clause 6, which is section 78A of the substantive act, being the Sentencing Act. I am going to seek some clarification and ask some questions of the Attorney-General in respect of section 78B(2)(a) and (b) and the construction which he had read into this piece of legislation.
The first query is in relation to section 78A, that is clause 6 in 78A of the substantive act. This is the clause which reads:
- The purpose of the division is to ensure that community disapproval of persons committing aggravated
property offences is adequately reflected in the sentences imposed on those persons.
I am not going to repeat what I said earlier, but this is a purposive provision. I am wondering why did the Attorney-General instruct his solicitors to include this purposive provision which is, as I said, is a fundamental sentencing prerequisite in any event as opposed to all the other competing sentencing criteria? Why did the Attorney-General instruct his lawyers to include this particular provision when (a) it is already something which is utilised by the sentencing court, and (b) it is only one of about five competing sentencing discretions, and it adds nothing to the interpretation of the balance of the legislation which follows it?
Dr TOYNE: That section of the bill is simply to underline the intent of our policy. We made it very clear through our six point plan on crime prevention that we wanted to indicate to the courts the level of seriousness that the community as a whole feels about certain offences. Dealing with aggravated property offences, when it is read in conjunction with the Criminal Code Act as it will exist, that is simply saying to the courts that the spill of sentence types in the Criminal Code is an indication of popular opinion about the seriousness of those crimes.
Mr MALEY: This particular clause, you would expect, reads as if it is a preamble. It does not read as part of a constructive step-by-step piece of legislation. Despite what you said, that does not explain the unusual approach that you have adopted in inserting this piece of policy in the substantive part of the Sentencing Act.
Dr TOYNE: I can only say that it is quite common practice in putting legislation out that the intent of the parliament is written into the act. In fact, that was the practice of the previous CLP government on many occasions. I have probably got a quote on the desk there, I will just get it for you. Yes, a quote from the Criminal Code Amendment Act of 2001, which was brought here by the previous government. Section 149(a), Right to Safety from Attack by Intruders. This was your legislation for self-protection:
It is expressly declared that it is the public policy of the Territory that occupants of dwelling houses and
commercial premises, and persons invited into those premises, have a right to enjoy absolute safety in
the premises from attack by intruders.
Mr Stirling: That was out of the New South Wales legislation.
Dr TOYNE: Absolutely the same principle that we are using in our legislation. That is we are indicating to the courts the view of the parliament expressly through the legislation.
Mr MALEY: In respect of section 78A - and perhaps you should take some advice on this - the effect of section 78A in its current form and its current position is effectively zero as an interpretive tool for the following section which is section 78B. If it serves no constructive and proactive purpose in the interpretation of the legislation. Why is it, then, that you have instructed your solicitors to insert this particular piece of drafting, which is in the form of a preamble, in section 78A of this proposed bill?
Dr TOYNE: Well, if you look at 78B(1):
A court that finds a person guilty of an aggravated property offence must take into account the purpose
of this Division before sentencing a person in relation to the offence.
So it is basically feeding into that provision in the next section of the bill.
Mr ELFERINK: Further on to the issue raised by the shadow Attorney-General, he outlined that there were numerous and competing reasons and philosophies behind the sentencing process. You have outlined one. Why this one to the exclusion of the others and, secondly, are you sending a clear message to the courts that it is the intention of the parliament only for the courts to concentrate on this one aspect?
Dr TOYNE: The member for Macdonnell needs to look at the Sentencing Act itself. The sentencing guidelines are quite numerous and I probably would not want to read them all out here. But Part 2, section 5 deals with sentencing guidelines:
The only purposes for which sentences may be imposed on an offender are …
and then there is probably a whole alphabet of different reasons that already exist in the legislation. We are bringing in this other criteria which just adds the dimension that is in our policies in addition to what is already in the Sentencing Act.
Mr ELFERINK: This is where I am having my problem with it. Under Division 6, Aggravated Property Offences, which is quite specific - and throughout the second reading process, the Attorney-General has been quite specific about outlining aggravated property offences. Does he expect the court to turn its attention to solely the position outlined in section 78A - because it is located specifically, or headed specifically in relation to aggravated property offences? Why can’t the court simply allow the guidelines outlined in the Sentencing Act to apply to these offences as well? Why, specifically, do we change the intention of the legislation at section 78A?
Dr TOYNE: We are not saying that they should solely consider section 78A. We are saying that it is an important new criteria that we as a government, on behalf of the community, are saying should be considered in sentencing. But it supplements what is already in the Sentencing Act and can be used alongside the other criteria.
Mr ELFERINK: So this brings me back to my point in all of this: why are we outlining this? Under the Attorney-General’s own words, this has now become a superfluous section.
Dr TOYNE: It is bringing to prominence the areas of offence that we are describing as aggravated offences. I went through those aggravated offences during my Address-in-Reply. They are the offences that we believe the general public are particularly concerned about. We are saying, through this purpose, insertion into the legislation and the description of the aggravated offences that are in the Criminal Code Amendment Bill, that these are the offences that the court should pay particular attention to when they are considering the level of punishment during sentencing.
Mr MALEY: Section 78A, you just touched upon a point I was going to raise. If the reason for the existence of this section is to make sure it is at the forefront of the sentencing judge or magistrate’s mind, then why didn’t you make it clear or articulate that intention by using words such as ‘give this particular sentencing consideration more weight’? All you have done here is flag it. You did not have to flag it. Whether it was flagged or not, it would make no difference. When you talk about its reason being to justify the existence of section 78B(1), that really goes to the very nub of my argument.
The sentencing consideration which you refer to in section 78A exists, has always been applied, and probably will always continue to be applied. For you to articulate it, not direct a court to give it any further weight, and then to have in the following section to remind a court to keep this in mind, really achieves absolutely nothing.
Dr TOYNE: You are playing with words there. Mr Chairman, let’s read the words:
- A court that finds a person guilty of an aggravated property offence must take into account the purpose
of this division.
In other words, they must go back and say:
- The purpose of this division is to ensure that the community disapproval of persons committing aggravated
property offences is adequately reflected in the sentence imposed on those persons.
We are not saying you should think about it or give this a little bit of thought, we are saying you have to take it into account.
Mr DUNHAM: Mr Chairman, my question is that the words ‘community disapproval’ are a fairly nebulous description because the community approves and disapproves of things right throughout the place and that disapproval waxes and wanes on community attitude. It would be a very difficult thing to judge. My assumption is that the magistrates and judges will find some difficulty with gauging what that is and I am hopeful that this debate will be available to them so that they can take some guidance from the parliament. On that basis, I would propose that ‘community disapproval’ of persons committing aggravated offence is a very serious crime and it is something that this parliament would, in all likelihood, see people progressing to gaol unless there were very, very rare circumstances, so that the community disapproval is then evident to the sentencing judge and it is evident that we would see that this in all likelihood would progress to a sentence to gaol and in the event that it does not, it would be an anomalous circumstance rather than a normal circumstance.
Dr TOYNE: I do not agree that ‘community disapproval’ is a nebulous thing because it got you out of government. It can very much be measured and followed. I believe that when a judge is handing down a sentence for any of these aggravated offences, section 78B makes it pretty clear that there is a spill of sentencing options for a court and, taken in conjunction with 78A which is saying to a court: ‘Look, you are dealing with crimes here that are viewed very seriously by the general public, and therefore you must take that attitude of the general public into account when you are sentencing’, I do not think there would be too many courts that would just go straight to what you call a soft option. What we are very much indicating through this is that gaol is the most common outcome in these cases by far. By far. We are not going to have too much of a percentage of exceptional circumstances or community work orders. Gaol will be the most common sentence. Further to that, read in conjunction with the spill of different crimes of seriousness in the Criminal Code as it will be, there is a very clear indication there to courts as to significant terms of gaol is what we are expecting.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chairman, this goes to the heart of what I said during the second reading debate and this is that the Attorney-General is trying to, on the one hand, absolve his position or remove the parliament’s influence in the sentencing process entirely and, on the other hand, he is trying to say: ‘Well, parliament and the public expect you to do this’. What he has come up with as a result is a fairly flaccid and facile motherhood statement about how much the community approves. I don’t doubt that the community disapproves of home invasion, as they care to term it. In fact, I certainly do not approve of it, but when a judge or a magistrate for that matter is turning their attention to this issue, how much does the community disapprove? Mmm. A lot. Heaps. Maybe a little bit. I don’t know. This is the problem. The Attorney-General is trying to develop something here that he can go out in the public arena and say: ‘Oh well, I have something here in which I can rest upon and say, you see, we are giving a clear instruction to the courts that we have a certain level of expectation but then we are going to do nothing to actually bind those courts to fulfilling that expectation’. So the Attorney-General here should be quite clear about what he expects the courts to do.
He either expects them to imprison people or he expects them to exercise their full discretion. But this sort of motherhood statement is just a flaccid, facile attempt to enshrine a political purpose in a piece of legislation. And it is going to be an extremely clumsy tool for the courts to use because it is going to actually muddy the waters in the sentencing process rather than make those waters clearer. There are sentencing guidelines, as the Attorney-General has just demonstrated, and those sentencing guidelines are quite clear. Why are we creating ourselves a new section 78A which says that the community’s expectation should be reflected? That is what this whole debate is about. The whole mandatory sentencing debate has been about community expectations being reflected. That is what it was about in 1997. This is a section that is meaningless in intent and it is going to be an awful and clumsy tool which will give, when are going through the appeals process, any appellate court a headache to deal with.
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, certainly the balance we are trying to strike here is to return discretionary abilities to the courts and it is our very clear policy position that courts are the professional bodies that can best make decisions about the particulars of cases that come before them and the circumstances of both the offender and the victim. In the case of the framework that we are putting forward, we are particularly drawing attention to the new areas of offence and sentencing options that are set up under these amended provisions. We are reinforcing, within that context, the general context that already exists within the Sentencing Act. The Sentencing Act, the Sentencing Guidelines, section 5(d) says:
- to make it clear, that the community, acting through the court, does not approve of the sort of conduct in
which the offender was involved.
Now, that is very similar in intent but what we are bringing into the Criminal Code is the new offences of home invasion and business invasion. We are bringing into the Criminal Code enhanced sentencing action against car theft and trashing of cars. Those offences are very high in the public mind as being serious offences and by putting that provision into the bill, we basically said: ‘Here is a new area and a new focal point within the overall sentencing provisions that we want the courts to pay particular attention to in addition to the general provisions that already exist within the act’.
Mr MALEY: In relation to the construction of section 78B(2), that is clause 6 of the bill, the section says: ‘a court that records a conviction…’ I have already highlighted the discretion which is exercised in terms of deciding whether or not there is going to be a conviction once there is a finding of guilt. It does not necessarily follow that there is going to be a conviction. I have already highlighted and explained to the House that the finding of a conviction does not necessarily follow a finding of guilt and I have taken you and honourable members to the section which allows and gives a sentencing magistrate or court a discretion to convict or not convict. You have adopted a very principled approach by saying that the burden of a conviction is perhaps unfair having regard to the particular circumstances of a given case and there have been some examples talked about today. I am just wondering why the government adopted such a principled position in respect of section 78B(2) when, if you look at other portions of the Sentencing Act, just by way of example section 78BA and section 78BB, where you talk about where a court finds an offender guilty, the court must record a conviction.
So why, then, has the government adopted a different approach in determining whether or not there is going to be a conviction after a finding of guilt in respect of section 78B(2), and what type of message is the government sending out to the community?
Dr TOYNE: Can you restate what you said? We’ve had, as you can see, a conference and we really can’t tease out the point you’re trying to make. Can you just try and restate it in another way?
Mr MALEY: I will put it this way: you talked, in your Address-in-Reply, about having a principled position, giving the court discretion to not convict or convict and that principled position which the government has adopted has manifested itself in this provision and that’s why you have deliberately drafted it to read that it only comes into force if the court records a conviction.
Dr TOYNE: Yes.
Mr MALEY: Now, my query to you - and I gave an example of other provisions which exist in the Act, and I just remind you of that: there are other provisions, section 78BA and section 78BB, where once there’s a finding of guilt, a court must record a conviction. Why is there a different approach taken in respect of property crime such as home invasions, and what type of message are you sending out to the community?
Dr TOYNE: I think those sections you are referring to deal with rape and assaults, the sort of serious crimes of assault. We don’t feel that the offences that we are talking about here, aggravated property crime equate to the sentencing provisions there. I will further clarify it from here. The retention of the regime of sexual and violent assaults committed by adults reflects the seriousness with which the government views crimes against the person. Now, that’s a category of crimes against the person. We’re talking about crimes against property in the current legislation. The mandatory sentencing regime for sexual and violent offences is more in keeping with community concerns. It is more properly targeted at appropriate offences and involves a great level of judicial discretion. The regime requires that where an offender is found guilty of a second or subsequent assault involving violence, he or she must be given an actual sentence of imprisonment. For sexual offences such as paedophilia, the requirement to serve an actual term of imprisonment applies for first time offences as well. So we make a very clear distinction between property crimes and crimes against persons, particularly of the destructive kind that we’re talking about with sexual offences.
I will just further say that this legislation has come out of our six point plan which is not dealing in any way with sexual offences and assault. There are other areas that we’ll develop in policy as we go forward with reform that may well go into those other areas.
Ms CARNEY: Mr Chairman, does the Attorney-General acknowledge the absolute inconsistency in his statement of principle? That is, on the one hand that the court should have discretion for one set of offences and should not have discretion for another set of offences?
Dr TOYNE: No, I don’t.
Ms CARNEY: Is that a no?
Dr TOYNE: It’s a no.
Mr BURKE. It’s a follow-up in a similar line. That is, on the one hand you haven’t dealt at all with the mandatory sentencing provisions as regarding sexual offences and aggravated assault, yet at the same time you’ve stood in this Chamber and said on a point of principle this government does not intend to influence the court. Now, that’s the question. The question is: in pure logic and principle, on the one hand you’re prepared to arbitrarily direct the court with regard to aggravated assault and sexual offences so that they have no flexibility other than a sentence of imprisonment; on the other hand you stand on a point of principle and supposedly say you will not influence the court on principle on other charges.
Mr Stirling: In relation to property offences, Mr Chairman. We were always very clear on that.
Mr BURKE: The question, Mr Chairman, was to the Attorney-General.
Mr Stirling: We were always very clear on that. We never for once suggested…
Mr Burke: A point of order, Mr Chairman.
Mr CHAIRMAN: I think the question was to the Attorney-General.
Mr Stirling: Mr Chairman, any one can jump in at the Committee stage of the debate and address the point before the floor. It’s not Question Time.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Order! The Leader of Government Business has the floor.
Mr STIRLING: Thank you, Mr Chairman. This is not Question Time. If I jump, first risen, recognised by the Chair, I have the floor.
Mr Burke: You weren’t recognised!
Mr STIRLING: I had the floor.
Mr Burke: You weren’t recognised. Admit that.
Mr STIRLING: I was, thank you very much.
Just by way of illustration of this point, Mr Chairman, we never said, for example, that in relation to DUI offences - where it is mandatory that you lose your licence for so long, given the level of intoxication at the time of the offence, you do six months, 12 months, 18 months depending on the priors that you have - that we’d be doing away with that. Is that not a form of mandatory sentencing? Yes, it is a form of mandatory sentencing. Never once when we were in opposition did we argue with the principle that the courts apply those sorts of sentences in relation to the DUI offences.
Now, if that is somehow crossing your message, you are simply playing with this point of principle, whether we stand on this point of mandatory sentencing or not. We have always agreed and always supported the previous government’s approach in sentencing in relation to DUI. It’s a form of mandatory sentencing. We agree with that. Many people ask in debate and in question and ask me as an individual: ‘Where do you stand on issues like that if you are opposed to mandatory sentencing?’ Opposed to mandatory sentencing in relation to property offences was always our view.
Dr TOYNE: Can I make the further point, Mr Chairman, that in the case of crimes against the person: there is no minimum mandatory sentencing for those crimes. So if you want to talk about consistency, the point that we’re building up here is that there are domains of crime and there are domains of public policy regarding crime. There doesn’t have to be the one approach applied to every single type and species of crime. Often, the more serious the crime and the more complex the crime, the more the court’s discretion may have to be brought into play. But if you’re talking about crimes of such serious nature that they can attract life imprisonment or some very severe sentences, all the more reason for some discretion to be built into the court’s action. Yet we see with property crimes there is a minimum provision put in. With these serious crimes against the person, no minimum provision. So I don’t think consistency is an issue here. I think that crimes are in domains. There are areas and domains of crime where it’s appropriate to have some mandatory provisions; there are areas of crime where it is inappropriate, and it’s patently inappropriate from the outcomes of the courts.
Mr MALEY: Attorney-General, just moving on to the following two subparagraphs, that is, if there is a conviction then the court must order the offender to serve a term of imprisonment or order the offender to participate in an approved project under a community work order. Are you seriously suggesting that as a matter of construction, because the reference to a term of imprisonment appears on the page above the reference to an approved community work order, that a court is required to firstly consider a term of imprisonment? If you are seriously suggesting that that is the construction that you expect this legislation to reflect, then can you explain why you have a disjunctive ‘or’ at the end of the first sentence? A clear ‘or’. There is no reference to the court will first consider this option and if it is not suitable, then it goes onto subparagraph 2. Why have you got that disjunctive ‘or’ there if that first limb is the term of imprisonment and that’s supposed to be considered first?
Dr TOYNE: I was just trying to find out what a ‘disjunctive or’ was, but we have figured that one out. Aggravated crimes, under what will be the act, are very serious crimes. They are indicated to be very serious crimes and they carry quite severe maximum penalties. Although the disjunctive ‘or’ is there, we don’t believe that there will be many occasions where a court would depart from a period of imprisonment. I can certainly say that I am basing my scrutiny of court outcomes on the assumption that we will not be having very large numbers of cases where imprisonment is not taken up by a court because I am bound to go to the DPP and get them to review cases that are not in common with the intent this law.
Mr Burke: The separation of powers, don’t forget that. Ask them nicely.
Dr TOYNE: Have you learnt about it now, Denis?
Clause 8:
Mr MALEY: In this proposed piece of legislation, Clause 8, you have an amendment to Section 106B of the principal act. The new amendment, 5A, reads that there is now a capacity for a Victim Impact Statement to include some sort of reference to what the victim sees as an appropriate penalty. Why haven’t you gone a step further and directed that a court should place some weight upon what the victim requests, if there is any request, in the Victim Impact Statement?
Dr TOYNE: The purpose of Victim Impact Statements as they stand is to give the court access to the victim’s wishes in terms of the carriage of that case. It is inherent in Victim Impact Statements that the court will consider them in sentencing. But if I could make a further point about this: when we looked at the practicalities of including victims wishes in sentencing in a court, the main constraint on that at the moment is not the legislation which already does enshrine Victim Impact Statements, but the actual resourcing of the Victim Support Unit and VOCAL in providing victims with sufficient support so that they can actually get the confidence and the framework to be able to put forward a statement in an empowered way. There will be issues, and this is what brings me to the point I was making earlier: we are talking about a reform package here and the legislation has to be placed in that context. We will be certainly trying to bring forward a greater capacity for victims, whether they are in remote courts and happen to be Aboriginal people or whether they are in courts in our urban centres, to actually produce a meaningful and effective Victim Impact Statement for consideration by the courts.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chairman, this highlights the point I was trying to make earlier, and I will bring the Attorney-General’s attention to 78B(1):
- The Court that finds a person guilty of an aggravated property offence must take into account the purpose
of this division before sentencing the person in relation to that offence.
The purpose, of course, is stated in section 78A:
- The purpose of this division is to ensure that community disapproval of a person committing an aggravated
property offence is adequately reflected.
That excludes, by it’s very nature in section 78A, the Victim Impact Statement and the wishes of the victim. How can the Attorney-General, by the exclusive nature of section 78A, guarantee that the courts will take notice of Victim Impact Statements, and the victim’s wishes?
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I really think the point is nonsensical. There is absolutely nothing to stop a court considering the background opinion of the public as expressed through this legislation, through its parliament, and the wishes of individual victims in terms of reaching a verdict and a sentencing arrangement in a case. There is absolutely nothing to stop those two things existing side by side.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chairman, I am struggling with this a bit. A court that finds a person guilty of an aggravated property offence must take into account the purpose of the division, the purpose being community expectations. How does what he has just said relate to Victim Impact Statements? He just simply says: ‘Oh we’ll expect the courts to do it’. Why do you have to have a purpose of the division which clearly states one particular expectation to the exclusion of others?
Dr TOYNE: Because in the opinion of the general public it is very important for the victim’s wishes to be taken into account in sentencing. So we are actually enacting what we’ve heard through pretty wide consultation, doorknocking and so on. We now have a mechanism which will allow public wishes, as regards the inclusion of the victim in the court and sentencing procedures, to be enacted. They are completely consistent.
Mr ELFERINK: But as the shadow Attorney-General pointed out before, there are sentencing guidelines for that purpose. Once again, it explains or demonstrates the facile and useless nature of section 78A.
Bill agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
Sentencing (Consequential Amendments) Bill (Serial 8):
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
Juvenile Justice Amendment Bill (No 2) (Serial 5):
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
Juvenile Justice (Consequential Amendments) Bill (Serial 6):
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
Reports adopted.
Dr TOYNE (Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bills be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bills read a third time.
CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT BILL (No 4)
(Serial 4)
(Serial 4)
Continued from 17 October 2001.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Madam Speaker, once again, I was briefed last Thursday in respect of this proposed legislation and I am indebted for that. There are a number of provisions contained in the Criminal Code Amendment Bill (No 4) 2001. I was interested to hear what the Attorney-General had to say in his second reading speech and in particular at page 3 of that speech when he was articulating some of the great benefits and some of the important planks behind this new legislation. He went on to say - and I will just remind honourable members of what he said:
- Unlike the current provision of unlawful entry, it will not be necessary to prove that, at the time the person entered the premises, he or she intended to commit an offence. The essence of the crime here is the encroachment upon the premises themselves.
He is talking about, of course, as he describes it, the new provisions of home invasion and invasion of business premises and he is relying upon this assertion that there is a difficulty with the current legislation.
If I could perhaps ask the Attorney-General to take some advice. If he turns the page and has a look at section 214 of the current Northern Territory Criminal Code at (3) it says - and this applies to the unlawful entry provisions in section 213:
- Proof of the fact that a person has unlawfully entered a building is evidence that he did so within intent
to commit a simple offence or crime therein.
So we have an evidential provision which addresses, certainly in part, the question of intent. The proposed bill - remembering that it was all done in the framework of ‘serious crime means serious time’ and is a tough new approach - goes on to provide an expanded definition of the term ‘damage’. Remember that the substantive new offence talks about ‘any person unlawfully enters a dwelling house and unlawfully damages property…’ blah, blah, blah. There is an amplified definition of the term ‘damage’ contained in the draft section 226A(1) and (2). The draft bill in its current form, talks about taking into account a number of matters in determining whether damage is of a serious nature - there is an aggravating circumstances contained within that section 226B itself - and it talks about any physical, psychological or emotional harm suffered by a person as a result of the damage; any apprehension, fear, distress or revulsion caused by a person as a result of the damage.
Let me tell you from a practical perspective, provisions like that are not useful. That is, to use the words of a senior barrister I spoke to over lunch time: ‘It is waffle’. It is not going to assist; it is a feel-good statement which does not advance the interest of justice at all. You have to remember that in a practical context, anyone who falls to be dealt with under section 226B, this new home invasion provision, probably 98% of the time the matter will be heard and determined in the magistrate’s court. Whilst the maximum penalty certainly reflects how serious our community views this particular act, the court is of course bound by section 122 of the Sentencing Act in that it cannot impose a sentence of imprisonment in excess of five years.
So, no matter what you say, unless it is going to be taken to the Supreme Court, in reality almost all matters are dealt with summarily – not all, 98% of matters are dealt with summarily. Then really, what you have in terms of a maximum penalty, whether it be seven or so years, if it is in excess of five, it is impossible for a magistrate to impose a penalty beyond those five years.
Whilst it might, of course, form the basis of fairly compelling press release, the real and practical effect is that there is an enormous amount of overlap between this new provision - in fact, between the provision as it currently exists for unlawful entry as contained in section 213, and if you look at section 226, apart from the slightly extended and amplified version ‘definition of damage’, they really cover very much the same conduct. If the government is under the mistaken belief that if you have two sections which cover ostensibly the same type of conduct, then that’s going to have an effect on crime, than the government is sadly mistaken. Apart from the political mileage of the term ‘home invasion’ and ‘invasion of business premises’ which is contained in the heading of the new provision, it once again does not advance justice.
If the government is serious about catching the types of damage which they have decided to have an internal definition and refer to, then the sensible and logical approach would be to include that amplified and broadened definition of damage in the current provision which is section 211 of the Criminal Code dealing with specifically unlawful entry of buildings and dwelling houses. It also includes a number of aggravating circumstances which, quite frankly, should be included in this section. For example, in the current provision we talk about if a defendant commits an offence and it occurs at night time then he is liable to twice the punishment. It is difficult and there are scenarios which, if you take a given set of facts, the maximum penalty available to a court would be slightly higher under section 226B but there are also hypotheticals that if a person committed a certain offence, although he could be charged with either section 226B or section 213, he would actually be liable to receive a greater term of imprisonment under the old legislation. There is no consistency.
Most of the legislation contained in this proposed bill is surplusage and, really, if the government is serious about having a succinct and readable Criminal Code, then any amplification or broadening of the definition of ‘damage’ should be contained in the current provision of unlawful entry at section 213.
There is another very interesting and serious anomaly which I want to bring to the Chamber’s attention. The Attorney-General, reading from his second reading speech, read into Hansard, and he was very passionate about this, the other change which is clause 5, the change to section 251 of the Criminal Code, the criminal damage aspect of the Northern Territory Criminal Code. He was commending the bill to the House. He was talking about the bill will amend the Criminal Code to provide an increased penalty of seven years imprisonment for cases where serious damage is done to a motor vehicle. He goes on to explain that there are some anomalies relating to how, if there is a motor vehicle and 50% of it is damaged, then there can be some changes. But he says:
- The offence occurs when either $5000 worth of damage is done or the vehicle, which is less than $5000 is
damaged to 50% or more of its value.
I do not want to parrot what I said earlier today, but there are many members of our community who will not have an opportunity to peruse the legislation and they are quite entitled to rely upon what our Attorney-General says in parliament and indeed, what appears in Hansard, and for him to say that there is an increased penalty of seven years for offences under section 251 is incorrect.
If I could just remind honourable members that if you look at section 251 of the current Criminal Code, and that is the offence of criminal damage, it says that if you commit an act of criminal damage and it is less than $500, then you are liable to imprisonment for two years; if the loss caused is over $500 then you run the gauntlet of being dealt with and the maximum penalty is seven years. Under this proposed amendment which the Attorney-General endorsed to this House as increasing the penalty, if the loss is under $5000 then a defendant only faces a maximum penalty of two years. Now there is a rider on that, of course. He talks about, in a new sub-section, which is sub-paragraph (c)(a), he talks about, and has commended this to the House, that if the motor vehicle is worth less than $5000 but the damage is to 50% or more of the motor vehicle, then that can amount to serious and it is elevated and falls within the scope of a matter that could be dealt with by a maximum term of imprisonment of seven years.
Not only has the Attorney-General misled parliament by saying that there is an increased penalty, it really is the situation where there is actually a decreased penalty. We have taken three steps backwards and one step forward.
The instructions which he gave to his counsel are clearly inconsistent with what he has put on the public record. Indeed, both the Chief Minister and the Attorney-General reiterated the same words. The proof of the pudding is in the legislation. There is certainly no plan and there is no scheme and whilst I accept the proposition that the government certainly has, and it has been said by some of my colleagues today, the mandate to repeal mandatory sentencing, they do not have a mandate to reduce the penalty for some very serious conduct that gets caught under our Criminal Code.
Madam Speaker, for those reasons, I cannot support the bill.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I will just speak briefly to this particular Criminal Code Amendment Bill essentially to put on the record that I consider the new crimes of home invasion and invasion of business premises to be nothing new, nothing that isn’t already fully provided for in the Criminal Code. I would also emphasise the fact that under the current Criminal Code intent is shown by the mere fact that the person is there. Under this new legislation the word ‘intent’ has been removed. I ask the question of the Attorney-General why that word purposely has been removed under his amendments. I surmise then that the Attorney-General is of the view that if a person enters your home or your business premises, in a general sense they are probably thrill seekers or out for a good time and therefore should not be dealt with severely. If they are looking around but do not have any intent to steal anything when they walk in but decide whilst they are there they will take the opportunity and trash the place, that therefore should be seen as a mitigation to the fact that it was not their intent at the outset to cause that damage and therefore they should be dealt with, with some leniency.
That is the way I interpret the way he has given instructions. That is the way I interpret the fact that the intent has been removed and as my colleague, the shadow Attorney-General, has said, to our mind unless you can provide further explanation, you have weakened the current legislation in terms of demonstrating the seriousness of a person entering a dwelling, whether it be a personal home or commercial premises, and damaging that in any shape or form. Essentially meaningless waffle in terms of the language and certainly a weakening of the provisions that currently exist for those who do enter a dwelling, whether it be commercial or domestic, because by mere fact that they are there under the current legislation, that shows intent in itself.
The other question I would ask the Attorney-General is - and it wasn’t adequately answered to me before - there are two questions. One is why the issue of motor vehicles has been separated out. Is that again just political waffle? Currently under the Criminal Code, under Section 251 Criminal Damage in General, 251(1)(c): ‘the loss caused or intended to be caused by such damage is greater than $500…’. That clause alone picks up the issue of motor vehicles. Those motor vehicles that are less than $500 can be demonstrated through that current schedule or that current clause and I ask the question why the issue of motor vehicles have been separated out.
The last question is the simple question as to why the issue of aggravation and seriousness has now being raised to $5000. You made the point that times have moved on, anything that is less than $5000 now is essentially not serious and therefore shouldn’t be captured in this sort of legislation. I will give you an example that came to me recently of a house that was broken into, trashed and goods stolen. I will go through some of those goods:
- DVD player. New, two weeks old, Omni brand, colour silver chrome, also stole box and left remote.
Assessed by the insurers as $370;
VHS video. Recorder and remote, Panasonic MV, ST270 series, colour grey black with remote
assessed as $350;
Makita 30 mm hammer drill. Two-speed hammer drill, model NHP1310, colour blue, near new, knob to
engage hammer drill loose. $270 assessed by the insurers;
Makita Jigsaw. New, used once, still in box, colour blue. Assessed as $320;
Makita angle grinder. 100 mm angle grinder, still in the box, attachments contain brown wire brush, extra.
Assessed $150;
DVDs. Four pre-recorded, Savage Garden, Fiddler on the Roof, True Grit and one other, assessed $120;
Binoculars. One Gerber binoculars, waterproof, bright yellow colour, 7 x 50, one Gerber small opera type
black binoculars, 10 x 20, both in black carry case together. Assessed $250 and $150;
Knives. One folding blade approximately 150 mm in black leather pouch, G96 brand, wooden and brass handle,
one folding blade, approximately 100 mm in presentation case, Franklin Mint, fire and female on handle.
Assessed at $80;
Music CDs. Approximately 30 CDs, variety of techno and late music at $25 each. Most CDs are marked.
Assessed at $750; and
Video camera. Sony video, not digital, carry bag, cables, two batteries, three hours one battery, one hour another
battery. A battery charger, has extendable life, lift-up eye piece, colour black, colour bag black, also contained
cables, approximately four cassettes. Assessed at $1000.
All of those together, I indicate to the Attorney-General, total $3340. Now, that is nowhere near your demonstration of what is a serious crime to the average Territorian and all I simply say to you is you go out there and peddle that to the average Territorian because we certainly will be, and reminding the average Territorian that your idea of a serious break in to a home is only that that exceeds $5000 in costs, and you run your lines and we will run ours. We will see what Territorians think of it. We don’t agree with this legislation. The language is waffle, but certainly the moving of aggravation to the point of $5000, I believe, is an insult to Territorians.
Madam SPEAKER: Attorney-General, before you go on, you have failed again to move your motion to suspend Standing orders, so could you go back and do that?
________________
Suspension Of Standing Orders
Pass All Stages
Suspension Of Standing Orders
Pass All Stages
Dr TOYNE (Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of Standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Criminal Code Amendment Bill (No 4), (Serial 4) passing through all stages at these Sittings.
Motion agreed to.
________________
Dr TOYNE (Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, the first thing that we need to make really clear in this bill is that we are placing two new areas of offence into an existing structure of sentencing guidelines within the Criminal Code, so the example that the Leader of the Opposition just indicated would definitely come under other areas of the stealing provisions in the existing Code. So it is not like they don’t make the threshold for aggravation under the offences that we are talking about in this bill, therefore they go off scot free and to go and do it again. They will still be in court; they will still be punished under the existing provisions and they will probably cop a fairly decent sentence for that level of theft.
What we are indicating through this amendment is that we want to introduce and calibrate areas of trashing of businesses, trashing of homes and trashing of vehicles. There is an element here that isn’t present in the current Criminal Code. It is an element of invasion, of contravention of privacy which is beyond the mere material transaction of the crime, so that is why we are turning to provisions which do abandon the intent of the crime in the strict terms of the intent to steal or the intent to wilfully damage. We are basically saying, in line with very strong opinion around the households, that some people go into homes with the express purpose of trashing those homes. Some people take motor cars away, not just to use them and park them somewhere so that the owner can get them back, but to trash them. Some people go into businesses and they go there not necessarily to steal the contents of the business, but to trash the business. This is the element of criminal behaviour that we are trying to capture in these new provisions.
In terms of calibration, we have gone to the unlawful entry provisions in the current Criminal Code and we have calibrated the seriousness of these new offences against the existing framework of sentencing to indicate the level of seriousness that is being placed within the overall legislation which will represent the amended Act.
I will indicate again, as I did in the earlier debate, that for the purposes of section 226B, clause 3 of the amending bill, the following matters are relevant in determining whether damage is of a serious nature: it is not simply the cash value of the materials that have been taken or damaged beyond use; it is also the impact of the crime on the household or on the business, the business people, in terms of physical, psychological, emotional harm as a result of the damage done and any apprehension, fear, distress or revulsion that are caused to the victim of the crime as a result of the activities of the offender. It extends the amount of loss beyond the actual value of the goods taken or damaged or displaced; it extends the concept of loss to what is required to repair and replace the dwelling or the business into the original working order that it was in before the offence occurred. So we are looking at quite a different focus to this legislation than the existing offences within the Criminal Code.
We are looking at trashing as a separate and a differently motivated offence than the offences of unlawful entry in themselves, criminal damage in themselves or theft in themselves. This is a different dimension. It is a dimension of a combination of vandalising tendencies and invasive tendencies, the invading of other people’s privacy.
In terms of the offences where the shadow Attorney-General claimed that I had misled the House, I will just clarify that. If I have indicated that there is an increase in the penalty when there isn’t, that may come out if I clarify it. The Criminal Code provides currently for three offences of criminal damage. There’s simple criminal damage under section 251(1), and its aggravated forms, section 251(2). Damage of less than $500 is the simple form; more than $500 becomes an aggravated form attracting seven years gaol maximum; and a further aggravation of over $50 000 where the offender is looking at 14 years gaol. So you have a three-tier system in the existing Code. I will just make a point about what we have done: the simple criminal damage now becomes up to $5000 in damage instead of $500 for reasons I gave earlier, and that is the two year maximum offence for sentencing; aggravated becomes over $5000, and that attracts seven years of imprisonment, equivalent to the category at the moment; further aggravation is up to $50 000. So, in effect, what we have done is to retain the length of sentences; we have recalibrated the dollar amounts that divide those categories of offence for the reasons that I’ve given.
Eighteen years have passed since the $500 level was put into our law. The value of the dollar has changed out of recognition in that 18 years, and we have brought this up to the equivalent level of seriousness of material damage that would have been close to what that would have represented in 1984, so that is the only change to it.
Now, if I have claimed somewhere that we have increased to seven years, well, I’ll certainly say no, we’ve retained it at seven years just to be clear about it. We have simply recalibrated the dollar amounts that divide the categories.
Stealing is not a part of this. I have made the point before that we are trying to specifically target a new type of activity as a criminal activity. The activity of trashing is all of the above; it can involve stealing, it can involve vandalism, criminal damage, it can involve unlawful entry, it can involve the use or non-use of weapons, so all of that. But the thing we are trying to capture here, and it’s something that we have taken from public concerns, is that in contemporary life, there are people going around deliberately attacking the material base and the privacy and the security of businesses and homes. We believe that there needs to be a specific response in our laws to take account of that type of activity.
Madam Speaker, with those comments I will leave the process to go to Committee.
Madam SPEAKER: The question is the bill be now read a second time.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 13 Noes 11
Mrs Aagaard Mr Baldwin
Mr Ah Kit Mr Burke
Mr Bonson Ms Carney
Dr Burns Ms Carter
Mr Henderson Mr Dunham
Mr Kiely Mr Elferink
Ms Lawrie Dr Lim
Mr McAdam Mr Maley
Ms Martin Mr Mills
Ms Scrymgour Mr Reed
Mr Stirling Mr Wood
Dr Toyne
Mr Vatskalis
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Dr TOYNE (Attorney General)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
Pass all stages
Pass all stages
Dr TOYNE (Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of Standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Police Administration Amendment Bill (Serial 2), and Justices Amendment Bill (No 2) (Serial 3) passing through all stages at this Sitting.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, although I support the content of these bills, because I support anything that can reduce the paperwork of the police, I don’t particularly feel that these two bills need to be treated as a matter of urgency. While I have agreed with the other bills going through because I felt that there was a good argument for them being passed as a matter of urgency, and that related to a log jam of cases in the courts, I think in this case there is no such argument. We should use urgency only as written in Standing Order 179 which states:
- A bill can be declared urgent provided that the Speaker is satisfied that the delay of one month provided
by Standing Order 178 could result in hardship being caused.
I believe that this bill could lay on the Table for a month without any hardship and would allow time for public comment, and I think that is very important. I know it is a relatively minor issue, but it would be good in this case to let the people know that we are looking at some changes to the way people are summonsed. As I said, I will support the bill when it comes through, but I think we need to keep the process as transparent and accountable as possible.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 13 Noes 11
Mrs Aagaard Mr Baldwin
Mr Ah Kit Mr Burke
Mr Bonson Ms Carney
Dr Burns Ms Carter
Mr Henderson Mr Dunham
Mr Kiely Mr Elferink
Ms Lawrie Dr Lim
Mr McAdam Mr Maley
Ms Martin Mr Mills
Ms Scrymgour Mr Reed
Mr Stirling Mr Wood
Dr Toyne
Mr Vatskalis
Motion agreed to.
POLICE ADMINISTRATION
AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 2)
JUSTICES AMENDMENT BILL (No 2)
(Serial 3)
AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 2)
JUSTICES AMENDMENT BILL (No 2)
(Serial 3)
Continued from 17 October 2001.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I have not had an opportunity to properly consider this legislation, so I cannot give a detailed and considered response. What I can say is that there certainly is qualified support from the opposition, and we have no problem with the very concept of reducing the paperwork, so our initial response is certainly positive.
However, the concerns raised by the Independent member for Nelson are really the cornerstone of our concerns, as well as the fact that the shadow police minister has not yet been briefed, let alone briefed on this particular piece of legislation which will have a direct effect on that organisation. There is no need to rush these two pieces of legislation through. They do not form any part of this so-called scheme which the government have been referring to during the course of today. We have not had an opportunity to properly consult the very people that will be affected by these changes, namely the Northern Territory Police, their Association and the courts and the staff of the Office of Courts Administration.
Whilst the legislation is, on the face of it, adopting a successful practice which exists in other jurisdictions and it will lessen the burden of paperwork on police at the front line, it is nevertheless incumbent, in fact a duty of the opposition to properly vet such legislation to ensure that it is fair and just law. In the circumstances, we are not in a position to support the legislation, but I have a rider on that: we do have qualified support in that we agree with the general principle; we just are not in a position to give a considered response and properly carry out our duties having regard to the haste in which it has been brought before this parliament.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, while we are here, I just wanted to pick up on the points made by the shadow Attorney-General. The shadow Attorney-General is quite right. From the Labor leader, Clare Martin, her position paper on good government, I would like to read the following:
- Governing in the Northern Territory has become based on the entrenched power of the government of the day.
Our system is not open nor is it accountable and democracy is reduced as a result. There is a contempt for
well-accepted parliamentary procedures used elsewhere in Australia, and thorough scrutiny of government
decision-making cannot occur.
The hypocrisy is self-evident. The member for Nelson is absolutely correct in his position, and I support his call. I think that the Labor party and the parliamentary wing of the Labor party should be looking very, very hard at your position paper.
Mr Ah Kit: Call us the government. We are the government.
Mr ELFERINK: We have heard the attitude from the member for Arnhem, and his attitude is ‘get used to it’. They have the audacity to say that we were arrogant in government and yet they come in here and try to take over the parliament in the way that they found so contemptible in the past. You are legends, guys. You are absolute legends!
Dr TOYNE (Attorney-General): Madam Chairman, a short debate but a lively one. I want to explain why urgency is sought on these two bills. We see it as integral to the package of reform that we are bringing forward at this time. We believe that with the police minister’s activities in reshaping the police work that will be involved in instigating or enforcing the law that we brought in today that we want to see the police being able to quickly produce a strong connection back to court action and sentencing for offenders that are caught in the context of these new offences that we have brought in, the offences of home invasion and business invasion particularly.
These were good bills to start with. They do take a lot of dross out of the life of our police and save the public purse considerably in terms of the resources and the time that police are putting into chasing alleged offenders for appearances in court. I can give, as a small example, a case where a young man from Lajamanu had been arraigned to appear in court and it took about three weeks of police time to actually finally get that person in front of a court, not because the young man was being particularly elusive - although in actual fact he was proving to be very elusive - but he was simply doing what young Walpiri blokes do all the time, and that is move around. People could not find out where he was at the times that the courts were available to actually hear his case.
This is sensible law. It does cut out the dross. I can give my personal undertaking as Attorney-General that there were particular reasons why we brought this package forward in a relatively short timeframe. I have explained the reasons for urgency of the core bills. We want to have enough weight to the legislation and the new law that is in place to make inroads on these crimes. We are very serious about the police backing up the intent of these laws and our courts backing up the intent of these laws, but we do need to work across the domains of crime prevention if we are going to make any impact on the current crime rates.
I think the members opposite would be the first to agree that particularly property crime is a very intractable problem and we have to take a very wide-based action on it. It will involve the courts; it will involve the police; and it will involve our social services, education system and a lot of other things as well. We want to get started on that and we want to have a broad enough base to launch into these initiatives and hence we have brought a fairly broad package to the parliament today.
While we are on the point of urgency, I just want to put members on notice that we again will be forced to bring one more bill on urgency to this Sittings and that is the Chief Magistrate validation for exactly the same reasons that we have had to bring forward the mandatory sentencing repeals today. If that validation bill is not passed by this parliament in time for the Federal Court decision coming down, our court system could be in total chaos, so we will be bringing that forward. But from this bad start, if you like, in terms of the number of bills that have come through under urgency, I can assure you that my intent as Attorney-General will be to give the parliament the normal periods of scrutinising the vast majority of bills. In fact, I would hope at the end of the Ninth Assembly that we can have a look at the score card and we can say: ‘Well, we didn’t get 58 urgency bills through this House’. It is not our intention at all. This is a particular circumstance early in our term. All the other bills that are on the Notice Paper are as a result of this week and next week, you will be seeing in November.
Motion agreed to; bills read a second time.
Dr TOYNE (Attorney-General)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bills be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bills read a third time.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Education, Employment and Training
Education, Employment and Training
Mr STIRLING (Education, Employment and Training): Madam Speaker, I rise to make a statement as Minister for Education, Employment and Training. My portfolio covers pre-school, primary, secondary, post-secondary and tertiary sectors. That is from pre-school to retirement in terms of preparing children and adults for employment and fitting them for the learning and re-learning required for the rapidly changing 21st century world of work.
The extraordinarily rapid pace of social, technological, economic, legal, demographic, environmental and cultural change throughout the modern world is known to us all. The Northern Territory now competes on an international level to attract investment and create jobs. We want these jobs to go to Territorians, not to ‘fly in, fly out’ experts brought in for the short term by their companies. For this, the Territory needs government with vision. We need to be on the front foot. We must strengthen our capacity to forecast and analyse business opportunities and to identify Northern Territory areas of competitive advantage and Northern Territory niche areas. We need a jobs strategy to deliver these opportunities to our home-grown workforce. We must work to position the Territory as an attractive location for international business with a competent, skilled workforce able to train and re-train to match emerging business opportunities.
It is with this in mind that this government had the common sense and foresight to combine into one the portfolios of education, training and employment. Through collaboration, this Labor government will develop a Northern Territory Employment Strategy. To do this, the government will work closely with the community, business and education sectors Territory-wide and at regional level. An employment strategy is only as good as the education and training which underpin it. So as Minister for Education, Employment and Training, I want to turn to each of those areas.
School education is a top priority. Our children must be equipped to meet the challenges of a rapidly changing world. Everybody knows that good teachers are the essential ingredient of good education. As the government, we have a strong commitment to working with teachers and a deep respect for the commitment Northern Territory teachers have to their students. I want to emphasise this given the recently concluded Enterprising Bargaining Agreement: that process was a difficult one. Responsible fiscal management is essential as a precondition of reform. Given this, and the very difficult budgetary context this new government has inherited from it predecessor, the task was made more challenging. I believe the resolution of teachers’ concerns to keep salary levels competitive is excellent. By reducing the time of the agreement we have allowed for further consideration of this issue well before Northern Territory teachers were at risk of falling behind.
But I am concerned that the Enterprise Bargaining Agreement process did give a rocky start to the relationship between this government and teachers. Government does recognise and respect the very real concerns teachers have to improve the quality of education. We share those concerns. In accordance with our election commitment, this government will add 100 teachers to the teaching force over the life of this government. We will work with teachers over issues they have identified in the bargaining process such as relief teacher arrangements in the regions, non-contact time for primary teachers and professional development. Government recognises the role that teachers play in working to equip our young people to take their place as contributors to the Territory’s future.
I look forward to implementing this government’s reform agenda in public education. We will do this in close collaboration with our teachers. Teachers want and deserve respect as professionals. I have asked the department to consult fully with all stakeholders in developing the model for a Northern Territory Teachers’ Registration Board. Such a body can bring teachers to the centre in setting standards and appropriate professional development strategies for teachers.
This government has a real commitment to public education and alongside this commitment, we support the vital contribution that the independent schools sector makes to our education system and the important additional choice it offers for families in providing for the education of their children.
Our reform agenda in public education includes building basic skills in literacy, numeracy, and information technology skills; forging effective working partnerships with parents and the wider community; and a greater emphasis on school to work transition. Students will be able to commence Vocational Education Training programs earlier in Year 9 to better prepare them for employment. These programs will have a strong regional focus aimed at developing firm partnerships between schools, training providers and employers, and looking in particular at how vocational education in schools might more effectively add to employment options for remote indigenous students, improving the retention and performance of our Year 11 and 12 students and urgently tackling the unacceptable outcomes in indigenous education which will be a key focus.
The Collins report, Learning Lessons, provides a blueprint outlining the actions needed to improve indigenous education. In opposition, we supported the recommendations of the Collins review. Specifically, this government will work to implement the five key elements identified in the indigenous education strategic plan:
- (a) students go to school regularly;
(b) students are fit and able to learn;
(c) students have good schooling;
(d) students are tracked and their educational outcomes are measured; and
(e) the indigenous education program is managed with full accountability.
We are not just talking about building three secondary schools in the bush as offered by the previous government. We are not interest in ad hocery here. We will do things properly. I think the comment was made yesterday in relation to us not following through on the three secondary schools in remote communities. I could not think, next to the $4 million for the new minimum security prison, of a bigger waste of public money at the moment. We have Aboriginal kids in these communities coming out with a Year 2, 3 or 4 if they’re lucky level of literacy and numeracy. What would you do with a high school? What would you do with a high school when they are attaining levels of Year 2, 3 or 4 literacy?
This is how out of touch our predecessors were. The former Chief Minister remains completely out of touch. We will work to get the basics right and the delivery right in these Aboriginal communities so that the literacy and numeracy levels and standards rise to a point where it would be appropriate to have high schools in these communities.
As Collins pointed out, a number of reforms are required at the systems level. This government, for example, is committed to the introduction of a student tracking system and to a business information system that allows all students’ outcomes to be recorded and monitored for improvements and for better reporting to all parents. Again, it is an indictment of the predecessors that they were 27 years in charge of education in the Northern Territory and never once in that 27 years did they bother to have a tracking system for kids in indigenous communities to know basically whether they were going to school or not or what the outcomes or what their literacy and numeracy levels were. It would be subject, I daresay, to a Royal Commission if that sort of omission was allowed in an urban situation, yet for 27 years they didn’t care enough about indigenous education not to put in place a proper student tracking system so that we had any idea at all about what was occurring with these students in rural and remote communities.
This government will implement recommendation 144 of the Collins Report to replace the Indigenous Education Council of the Northern Territory with a forum of senior indigenous people who can advise government on education. Improvements in indigenous education cannot happen unless indigenous people are driving the agenda and accepting the agenda and the commitment required for change.
We will establish a Collins Review Implementation Steering Committee to be co-chaired by the former Senator Bob Collins himself and a senior indigenous educator. The majority of this Committee’s membership will be made up of senior indigenous people from ATSIC, the land councils, indigenous remote school principals, indigenous health and the public sector. We must maximise the resources available to address the declining attendance and educational outcomes for indigenous students. Already the government has cleared the 12 month blockage between the Commonwealth and the previous Northern Territory government to reach an agreement with the Commonwealth to provide funds over four years under the IESIP and NIELNS programs. This is proof positive that this government will work collaboratively with any and all parties to improve indigenous student outcomes.
It wasn’t very difficult at all, Madam Speaker. Dr Kemp, the Commonwealth Minister for Education, rang me on one day early in my term as Minister for Education. I simply arranged through the department and within a relative short time, we had things going from our end and Dr Kemp was able to get the paperwork through almost immediately following the calling of the Commonwealth election. That probably pushed things along from their end as well. But again, a matter of weeks where our predecessors had said: ‘No, no. We don’t need that $19 or $20m’ or whatever was on offer. ‘We can go it alone because we don’t like the terms that you are offering it to us on’. Now that, again, underlines the commitment that our predecessors had to indigenous education.
Collins identified the need for government departments to work together. This government will move beyond the rhetoric of inter-agency cooperation. The key task is to clear the way for practical cooperation between government agencies on the ground. My Cabinet colleagues and I will actively pursue this.
In the post-secondary and tertiary sectors, today’s school students can expect to have several career changes in their lifetime and some of the jobs they will have do not yet exist. We must ensure that Northern Territory students come out of school equipped as learners for the future. Equally, we must ensure the post-secondary sector can ensure streamlined, responsive and timely training provision. We need training providers who can move in ahead of the employment opportunities offering just-in-time skills and qualifications upgrades so our people can reskill quickly in areas of future opportunity. A strong, respected and independent tertiary education sector is essential to the future of the Northern Territory. Our higher education institutions have a significant role to play in the development through the provision of high quality post-secondary and tertiary education, research and training to meet the social, economic and environmental needs of the Northern Territory community.
This government is committed to building a smarter Territory. We must develop a strong knowledge base and capacity, and to do this, we must train and retain local graduates. We must grow our own expertise. Our university has been starved of funding under the Howard government’s arrangements. The Northern Territory government is committed to making the Northern Territory University and the Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education more viable institutions. We will underpin their role in our community by redirecting up to $7m annually to them for consultancies, research and professional development of public sector staff. The vehicle for this redirection will be a partnership arrangement between each institution and the government setting out the obligations and commitment of both parties. These agreements will recognise that the university and Batchelor Institute are committed to making important, distinctive and excellent contributions to learning in fields of study of particular relevance to the Territory such as energy research, defence, indigenous studies, desert knowledge and tropical knowledge. The application of these additional resources will strengthen the viability of the university and Batchelor. At the same time, we will be making the Northern Territory tertiary sector more competitive by expecting excellence. A commitment to explicit standards will be built into the agreement.
In the lead up to the election, Labor promised to put kids first and build better Territory schools, to skill our youth and to skill our economy and to build a smarter Territory. Through the new combined portfolios of Education, Training and Employment, by working with the community and with business, we will build a better Territory where all Territorians can contribute to a strong, vibrant, social, environmental and economic future.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, I initially preface my comments in commending the minister for the statement. I genuinely do so, minister. This statement outlines a wonderful vision. My role in opposition will not be to oppose, but to analyse aspects of it to ensure that it progresses responsibly. I can tell you from the outset, my role in opposition will be to participate in the progression or the progressing of educational issues in the Northern Territory. I also would like to place on the record my appreciation for the phone call that I received, just to touch base early on, in terms of preparing for the role that we have ahead of us, from the minister, but I would also quickly add that I do need a briefing. I have asked for a briefing. I have written requesting briefings. I am yet to receive them. Nonetheless, I do appreciate the phone call initially and it is good hear that Minister Kemp has also made contact.
The combining of the portfolios Education, Employment and Training is one that I understand and respect and it really is an honour for me to be given the portfolio in the shadow capacity with responsibility for my side. I understand the combining of those aspects of these portfolios. I will certainly be working - I trust it is perceived in a positive way - to ensure that this statement receives some legs and makes a difference.
Once again, though - it has been mentioned a couple of times - I have to say that this document here, in terms of good governance, has caused me some genuine concern because we have seen, even today, as has been mentioned by the member for MacDonnell, I really had this sense of, you know, hope that we are moving into a new era. I am participating, albeit from the opposition side, in a new era, a new phase for the Northern Territory, and honestly, I am telling you that the tone and resonance of this position paper and good governance, even when we had the Independent member make such sensible and considered comments in terms of the progressing of issues for the welfare of the Northern Territory, I can’t understand why the government was locked into a position of urgency.
I digress from the substantive issue but nonetheless, why I mention that is that there is this sense of a golden era, that we are moving down the track into some great new time for the Northern Territory, but the way that things have transpired in the last couple of days, caused that sense of hope just to be tarnished, just slightly. I will remain ever confident and ever positive and play a part to make sure that we do keep this thread moving forward.
I have this picture that we have got a wagon loaded up and we’re ready to go off into a completely new territory and open up places that have never been open before. Untap resources. Now, the statement in a sense, gives you that sense that we are going to release the wonderful resources of the Northern Territory and conquer places that have been unexplored. I hope that we can do it. As I say, from the opposition’s side, I will not be standing in front of this great wagon as it goes off to explore this great country. I won’t be trying to pull the wheels off it.
A member: Terry Bonanza.
Mr MILLS: Bonanza, yes, that sort of picture! You can hear the music, can’t you? But embedded in this is that element. I can understand it; we are all people, but embedded in this is going to be that little proviso that sadly, we have been put into a difficult position by the previous regime. Perhaps it’s like you carefully put one wheel on to this wagon that’s a little bit faulty and you’ll say ‘Oh, well we were given this wheel by the other mob, so if we can’t make it, don’t look at us’. I played football once with a pair of boots that didn’t have sprigs on them; I let everybody know that I didn’t have sprigs on my boots so if I happened to not be able to turn sharp enough and get the ball, then they’d understand it’s because of my sprigs, there is nothing wrong with me. But if I happened to excel, despite the fact that I had no sprigs, they’d think I was a remarkable player.
So I guess there’s that little element in there that I would like to just put the spotlight on just slightly because, once again, great vision; we are moving in a direction, and I just hope that we can get there, and I will play my part, as I said a number of times.
It is almost rhetoric to say that our children and those in training, those who are seeking to be gainfully employed, are really our greatest resource. We have talked at great length about oil and gas and trains and all kinds of infrasturcture, and that’s good. Sometimes it seems that those who are looking after infrastructure development or mining and so on seem to have a higher profile in the scheme of things. The Treasury seems to be have a higher position in the scheme of things, or perhaps Attorney-General’s and the like, but I have always felt proud of the profession of those who work with people, and develop the talent, the resource of people and develop them. I respect that. I would have to say that being given shadow responsibility for education, employment and training, I reckon we are dealing with the most valuable resource genuinely that the Northern Territory has. So I will make sure that we don’t compromise that in any respect.
I also appreciate that the ministerial statement acknowledges the changing times. The teaching profession - just as a comment - is a profession that really is under a certain amount of pressure and I think it is a profession that we really do need to start to seriously think about. I will have to mention the EBA negotiations but to go to a higher level, rather than talk about the enterprise agreement that was reached, at this point, I read something of interest recently. They said that in terms of professions, if you took the medical profession and the teaching profession, and took them back just over 100 years, so we’re in the 1890s, and you had the doctor in the place that the doctor would work 100 years back, and took them forward a hundred years, their place of work would have been changed in a way that they just can’t recognise in terms of the technology that is around them, the technology that is available. But if you took a teacher back 100 years, into a classroom 100 years ago, then brought them forward a hundred years, they could very easily recognise the place in which they work. It hasn’t really changed a lot; it is still the same medium. We’re still working with children and the technology in many respects hasn’t interfaced so much with teaching.
I really think that the profession of teaching, we do need to focus on it because it plays an absolute critical role in delivering the very things that we espouse. One aspect that I will be playing in this is that I really do want us as a community - and I’m sure I will see bipartisan support - in the notion of scrutinising the profession of teachers, of teaching. Not so much to say ‘Let’s all like teachers now’, but the whole issue of the status of teachers as we view it and as teachers themselves view it, must be addressed.
There has been a Senate committee, the report is called A Class Act, and they spent a considerable amount of time putting out a report and analysing the issue of the status of the teaching profession, the status of the profession in the general community, amongst parents, amongst students and amongst teachers themselves. We can see, particularly through the EBA - you look at the press or the letters that were written, there was no letter in the middle. There were those who were very derogatory about the teaching profession and there were those who praised teachers no end. In fact, the Senate committee report, Class Act, at chapter four found, quite interestingly, that those who have a close association with teachers, who actually know a teacher and actually understand what they go through, have the highest regard for the profession. But strangely, they will say: ‘What do you think of teachers?’ and they will speak of the teaching profession in derogatory terms. Then ‘What do you think of your own child’s teacher?’, and they’ll speak and wax lyrical about the wonderful teacher that their child has, but it doesn’t seem to translate to teaching generally. A great sadness.
I think this is compounded - we can talk about it in terms of a community sense - but it is compounded in a very serious and concerning way with teachers themselves. I have found teachers who are ashamed to say that they are teachers. When they go out socially, they would prefer not to admit that they are teachers. I hope that we can do some things - and I will be injecting comments into this area - to hope that we can move forward because I had this confirmed to me last week when I went to a rugby league presentation. I won’t mention this guy’s name, but he is a teacher who I really respect, and I respect the work that he does outside the classroom in terms of looking after the development of rugby league in Palmerston. I have probably named him now, if anybody wants to know or find out who he is. He admitted to me that he prefers not to be known as a teacher. I found that was really quite sad because the contribution that he has made is immeasurable. But the tone of our community seems to be one that doesn’t allow a teacher to stand with their head up high. I would like to see that addressed and I will be doing more on that.
Now, it goes without saying, from the conservative side of politics, that we are very, very interested in the economy because the economy is the issue that will enable the vision, largely, to be made real. The line of questioning in the last couple of days - I am sure you understand; I know we play the political game here - that really was where we were coming at. We are wanting to have that issue securely addressed, and please don’t regard for a moment that that side of the House has the monopoly on care and compassion and understanding and the progressing of social issues. You don’t have the monopoly on it; it is also evident on this side, and we will work together. But it may be manifested in a way that perhaps you don’t understand.
Mr Stirling: We see it in you, Terry. We don’t see it in many of your colleagues.
Mr MILLS: Sorry, I’m not too good with interjections. I didn’t understand you.
- Mr Wood: He was congratulating you.
Mr MILLS: He was? Okay. Anyway, the strong commitment to working together, and I’d have to say, I did pick up, minister, in some of the transcripts that you had expressed a lack of respect for teachers, and I trust that that will be rectified and addressed. I also recognise that at present, the teaching profession in the Northern Territory is seriously hurting as a result of the EBA and I just hope that we can build some bridges, because really it’s not about teachers feeling good; it’s about the students who are being taught by those teachers. So I trust it will receive your due attention. I know things are very busy at the moment, but that is an absolutely critical issue and it must be addressed.
I have inquired - I am having some difficulty in getting a clear view on this - but I did have a number of teachers express their grievances to me with regards to the pay dockings, and there were teachers that I understand who were away teaching hockey, or on hockey exchanges, those who were at swimming pools and running swimming lessons down at the pool, who, when they received their pay, found that they had next to nothing left but they participated in no way at all. I trust that that pay has been reimbursed. I haven’t found that it hasn’t been, but it came to my attention on a number of occasions that there were those who were quite unjustly docked in their pay though they didn’t actually participate in work bans.
The whole community must be involved in this and I do appreciate the intention to engage all aspects of our community in moving forward in education. The issue of building bridges, I was addressing that with regard to the teaching profession just a moment ago. If we are going to make progress, the bridges must be built in order for us to transact business. In the case of the teaching profession at this time, I would have to say that the bridge is damaged and it will receive some attention, I am sure.
If I could just go to NTETA, I am interested in the training options that are available to Aboriginal communities. For someone who has done cross-cultural training, I would ask the minister to please ensure that the assessment strategies that are involved in training programs in indigenous communities, which are largely generated from Canberra, reflect what is actually able to be accommodated in the Aboriginal community. I do not want to be involved in a situation where we can have reports here in this parliament that give the impression that a lot is happening because the bureaucracy is engaged in the delivering of training, when that training is not making much of an impact out in the community itself. It is right at that interface that we must have some attention paid because the training mechanisms, or the mechanisms to discern and to qualify that the training has been completed, is sometimes right out of kilter with what the communities, say at Daly River or Maningrida, can actually achieve. I ask if attention could be paid to make sure that there is a closer interface between what is being asked and what is being achieved so that there is real progress, not bureaucratic progress, not the sense that we have made some kind of impact on this. It has to be real progress and on that very point, genuine listening to what is required by those in the Aboriginal communities. You probably think it strange coming from me, but I can tell you that I know that that is occurring. You can have the bureaucracy very satisfied with its own sense of achievement, and it may not actually be translating out there where the service is actually designed to deliver a response and an improvement.
Now, I prefaced this by this sense of hope that we have that there is a new era. That hope, as you well know, was dampened quite considerably by the EBA negotiations where the teachers had this profound hope and it was securely dashed in a matter of days.
Mr Stirling: No, it was not.
Mr MILLS: Yes, it was. I trust that that hope can be restored and that sense of sparkle can be reinstated back into the teaching profession. Also, I have to say, minister - I am not going to take my time slanging - but there was a sense of hope, and are you aware that at Raintree Park on Saturday there was the launch of a CD? The hope was that you would be there. I was there. I MCd and you did not come, mate. Kakadu Studios have a CD that was launched. It’s an NTETA program and you might need to let them know that you apologise for not being there, or there was some explanation? I do not know, but they did expect you there.
Finally, as I started, I do need a briefing. I would compliment the minister and support this statement. I will be sticking with you and making sure that we can make progress.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to respond to the minister’s statement. As I outlined in my maiden speech, I have a long standing commitment to education, and personally I have reaped the benefits of a first grade education including the research and university sector within the Territory. Like the honourable member opposite, I want the best opportunities in education, employment and training for Territorians. I just digress from my printed notes here. I did not get a chance in my maiden speech, but I, too, have been a teacher at tertiary level. When I was at the University of New England, I had a lot to do with curriculum development, teaching in science, mainly physiology and pharmacology, and developing courses that were professionally accredited. So, I have experience as a teacher at the tertiary level and I think I have an understanding of education issues particularly at that level.
I am proud to affirm all elements of the minister’s statement on education, training and employment. His statement reinforces, once again, the way in which this Labor government values education. Through combining the portfolios of education, training and employment, there is a strong and practical link there which I believe was probably missing to a large degree under the previous government because all of these things fit together. Education, training and employment are crucial elements to the development of the Territory.
What the minister’s statement has done is to detail our strategies to build these areas up after 26 years of lack of understanding and neglect by the CLP. This lack of understanding became very clear to me during a meeting that I attended last year. The meeting was convened by the then Education Minister, Mr Lugg who is no longer with us, but he was representing the government. The meeting was to try and allay the very real concerns of school councils in the Darwin and Palmerston area. There was a feeling amongst those school councils about the sad state of education in the Territory. I estimate there was somewhere between 60 to 80 people who attended that meeting. They were representing the primary and secondary schools in the government and non-government sectors. In my view, and in the view of many others at the meeting, the former Minister for Education, representing the CLP government of the day, tried to reduce education to a mere service, a commodity to be delivered to the consumer, the student or their parents, by a service provider which was the teacher or the Education Department. In other words, he commodified education at a very basic level.
Those on this side of the House - and hopefully some on the other side, such as the member for Blain - I think expect more from an Education Minister. As our minister has pointed out, education is much more; it is an investment of the Territory and in the Territory. It also makes a substantial contribution to an enlightened and tolerant society.
What has also impressed me about the minister’s statement, as someone who was involved with St Mary’s School Board for a period of seven years - which is a non-government school - is the commitment of the minister to the non-government or independent sector. I know that commitment probably follows on from the commitment of the previous government, and it is quite a positive thing to see the way in which the government and non-government sectors in education in the Territory do work together and communicate with one another and use common resources. So, the non-government sector makes a crucial contribution to education in the Territory and this contribution is again recognised by our government.
What the minister has outlined in his statement is a comprehensive plan to build education, employment and training in the Territory. For instance, he has pledged to employ 100 new teachers over the next four years of the term of this government. He has also outlined strategies to improve retention and performance of Year 12 students. There have been issues within the last six months about the terrible state of retention of Year 12 students in the Territory. It is something that has needed to be addressed for some time.
He is also pleased to implement a Teacher’s Registration Board. This is in recognition of the high professional standing in which this government holds the teaching profession. Harking back to the meeting that I mentioned before, convened by the former CLP Education Minister, along with others who attended, I was amazed to hear the way in which he denigrated the standard of teacher training in the NT. He was actually very negative about it. Within the group of people who were there, they felt that it was very unjustified and embarrassing. But once again, this government recognises the professional standard of the NT teaching profession and the recent EBA, which was alluded to by the Member for Blain, keeps NT teachers’ salaries competitive. I think we all agree that there needs to be ongoing review of those conditions and this government is committed to making sure that our teachers are adequately remunerated.
Amongst the most important commitment by the minister is the pledge to actually implement the Collins report on indigenous education. I believe this is in stark contrast to the previous government.
Dr BURNS: Well, it is a blueprint that we are going to build on and implement, and this is what the Ministerial Statement is all about. The current minister has demonstrated the priority that this government gives to the implementation of the Collins report by announcing the creation of an implementation steering committee which is jointly headed by Bob Collins and a senior indigenous educator. We are in the business of improving indigenous education. Under this government, the Northern Territory has already reached agreement with the Commonwealth, as the minister outlined, for more funds to improve indigenous student outcomes, and I commend that. In addition, the minister has set out how we will support vocational education and training.
The Casuarina Senior College is in the Johnston electorate and I know the value staff and the school council places on vocational education and training. The minister’s plan to enable students to begin vocational education and training earlier in Year 9 is therefore very welcome. On the issue of training - I will digress again from my printed notes to point again to the example I saw at the Maningrida community some years ago when there were funds available under the former Labor government under DEET to implement employment and training outcomes for Aboriginal people. In the successful fight that that community had against petrol sniffing, that was a crucial plank. They were able to offer young men training, particularly in the building trades and some employment associated with that. But with the change of government, with the incoming Howard government, all that DEET funding was slashed. The whole thing fell on its backside. So I know the importance of education and training for indigenous people and particularly for young indigenous people.
This government is committed to developing the tertiary sector in the Northern Territory. This is necessary after years of neglect by the CLP government and cuts by the Howard government. Our minister has now outlined how this government will support NTU and Batchelor College. We have pledged to redirect up to $7m annually to support NTU. Partnership agreements between the government and these institutions will also support these improvements.
Mr Deputy Speaker, in summary, I wholeheartedly support this Ministerial Statement on education, employment and training. I believe it clearly sets out the strategy by which this Labor government will build a smarter Territory.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to congratulate the minister on a good statement. I think it is a great statement and I am also delighted to hear that the minister is making a commitment, the ALP is making a commitment, to the Collins review and looking seriously at implementing as much as they can of it. It is not a bad review at all. In fact I think it contains many valuable things. I had the good fortune in Alice Springs a couple of days ago to speak to a fellow by the name of Richard Trudgen who wrote a book called Why Warriors Lay Down and Die and the issues that he raises in that are not unlike what Mr Collins raised in his review in many areas. There is a great sense of value to be obtained from that, and I look forward to seeing the minister progress his ideas and I look forward to the steering committee implementing what they can, and gaining the most useful outcomes from the Collins review that they can.
I am convinced, after speaking to Mr Trudgen, that the traditional approach in many respects of education delivery have been wanting, not for want of good intentions, but have been wanting in terms of outcomes. That is evidenced quite clearly by the outcomes that I even see in my own electorate. So, I am so gratified to have heard what the education minister has to say. I am also gratified that he acknowledges that there was a ripple, to say the least, at the point of him taking over the portfolio, in terms of the pay and conditions of Northern Territory teachers. I am glad to see that that has been resolved and that the education minister is taking steps to repair the damage between himself and the teacher’s union.
On the issue of employment and training in remote communities, I have seen and do see on a regular basis the very, very poor outcome in remote places in the Northern Territory. It is unavoidable to do so when you visit them. I have often stood up and said that education is a serious issue in the remote parts of my electorate, as well as the remote parts throughout the rest of the Northern Territory, as is health and several other things. Some communities are doing very well to correct the education shortfall, and they are doing it by themselves. I was drawn by the Tapatjatjaka Community Government Council’s recent release, and there is an excellent piece of work done by them. I seek leave to table it, if I may.
Leave granted.
Mr ELFERINK: I point out that Tapatjatjaka, or Titjikala community is growing and growing - if members read this, and I hope that the education minister takes this on board. I am gratified to see that he is paying particular attention to this because the work that has been done in the Titjikala community is nothing short of extraordinary when you see the environment of some of the other communities in Central Australia. Indeed I had the very good fortune a few weeks ago to dish out a few certificates of achievement as well as actual certificates to members of that community. Patrick Doolan, Douglas Wells and Terry Simmons were, according to Steve McBernie, who travels around in the MALU unit, which is the truck that goes around in these communities., and he had this to say:
- Patrick Doolan, Douglas Wells and Terry Simmonds are amongst the best welders I have seen on
remote communities.
That is true, because I have seen the work that they have produced. Indeed, if one looks at the photographs that are on the back of this, you can start to see some of the steel products they have manufactured, and the steel products are excellent. I hope that they go commercial and start selling these things not only to other communities; there is absolutely no reason why they could not be selling them to the community at large. Their work is easily of that standard and I congratulate the work that they have done.
They have done so because they have had access to the training that is available through the Commonwealth Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. The training has been proceeding very well. In fact that is not the only commercial potential they have, they indeed have many other sorts of commercial possibilities in front of them providing essential functions around the communities, products which meet indigenous needs including stone masonry, and they are providing headstones not only to their own community, but to other communities, and they are excellent pieces of work.
Dr Burns: Headstones?
Mr ELFERINK: Headstones and other sorts of stone carving. They are producing work which is, in my opinion, of commercial standard. Steel fabrication I have already mentioned. They are also looking at feral animal control which would provide jobs, as well as different types of timbers. The activities they have put together are culturally appropriate. I quote from the document:
These activities have the capacity to adapt to Sorry Business, suit the male hunting pattern and enhance
other skills such as their knowledge base of animals, plants, tracking, acute visual recognition skills and
excellent dexterity.
I have to say that when I travelled to the community - I have done that so many times, but when I travelled on this occasion - I was very impressed with the community and how it is progressing. Indeed, I urge the members who have their computers open in front of them now to look up www.titjakala.com.au because you will get an impression of the quality of the sorts of things that are happening in their communities. I congratulate the community. I hope that the minister takes special note in terms of how to support this community with its ongoing programs because I believe that this community under its current management regime has the potential to become one of the first self-sustaining traditional communities in Central Australia since Hermannsburg used to be self-sustaining many, many years ago.
I have often said in this House it is important to produce educational outcomes and health outcomes. It is also important for the land upon which the people live to provide a living for them and I hope that the education minister, as the whole-of-government approach, will look towards the land councils who carry the management of traditional lands and hope that they will take a commercial approach or a more commercial approach to develop those lands so that jobs at the end of the day can be created. I have seen this being done in the Tiwi Islands and I am impressed by what occurs in the Tiwi Islands and there is no reason why it could not happen in other areas with the right will.
The traditional relationship between the CLP and the land councils has been less than entirely edifying and I hope that the new Labor government is in a position to bring about commercial outcomes with a new relationship with the land councils that has not been achieved up until this date. I will be most gratified to see jobs, jobs and more jobs coming from the land trusts. I continue to be critical of the structure and nature of land trusts, and I do not believe that they do represent traditional ownership systems as they have been explained to me on several occasions, however the system is there in place and I would urge the Northern Territory government in the strongest possible way to take up a relationship with those land trusts and let’s see some outcomes that will lead to good jobs for Territorians in the remote communities in the Northern Territory.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to commend the Minister for Education, Employment and Training for moving swiftly to implement recommendations of the Collins Report, Learning Lessons, that places an emphasis on better delivery of education to the Northern Territory’s remote and regional indigenous students and, indeed, try to bring the truancy that we see in the rural and remote areas of the Territory down so that more people are accessing education. In particular, I am delighted that the minister will establish a forum of senior indigenous people who can advise the government on education. The real participation by senior indigenous people in the delivery of indigenous education and its practical implementation is crucial to improving the attendance rates at schools of our indigenous youth.
I note also that the minister has announced the establishment of a steering committee comprising ATSIC, land councils, remote school principals and indigenous and public sector representatives. Drawing together some of the Territory’s indigenous brains trust in such a fashion to ensure a move away from the area of rhetoric that the previous CLP governments remained in to prompt action from this government is an exciting development. I look forward to studying the actions of this steering committee and assessing its practical applications to the urban environment.
Specifically, I believe that there is a need to ensure that practical measures aimed to improve indigenous school attendance rates are also viewed in an urban context and the models developed in the regional and remote environment can hopefully also be applied in the urban environment. As the member for Karama, I have the privilege of working closely with schools in my electorate. Further, as a parent, I am current Chair of the Karama School Council and have dedicated some of my time to working with the educators at Karama School in supporting its Urban Indigenous Education initiatives. In a practical sense, this includes learning from the principal of Karama School, Mr Bob Hale, the approach he applies to supporting indigenous pupils at his school. Mr Hale has assumed the role of leader, mentor, compassionate friend and confidante to his indigenous pupils. He believes that as far as children are concerned, they have no control over their birth, much less the colour of their skin, their social and economic circumstances, their culture, their hopes and their aspirations. Mr Hale is working hard to ensure Karama School is a melting pot of ethnic harmony. He holds to the saying of Chief Dan George and he is often quoting it: ‘the heart does not know the colour of the skin’. To this end, Mr Hale has produced a booklet entitled Educating the Indigenous Kids the Karama Way and I commend this booklet to the steering committee being established by our minister.
The Karama Way ensures that indigenous staff are strategically placed so as to maximise contact with indigenous parents through pre-school, early childhood and upper primary. Parents are aware of these points of contact and respond positively to them. Further, indigenous children are treated no differently from other pupils. That is, expectations in relation to attendance and performance are high and non-attendance or non-performance are relentlessly followed up. Indigenous children’s attendance is monitored and home visits are carried out to ascertain what practical action is needed to improve attendance. In dealing with indigenous children attending the school, the teachers and staff bear in mind culturally sensitive issues that include understanding the importance and sensitivities surrounding family business including the role of grandparents and other extended family; not demanding that children look at the person speaking to them which, in many cases, is culturally offensive; the use of praise and celebration of culture through drama and dance; recognising traditional owners of this land at public functions to assist the children with self esteem.
A practical example at the moment is the participation of an indigenous parent in a school project in upper primary. The project draws upon the particular talents and knowledge of this parent. The attendance at school of their children has improved markedly due to the parent’s attendance at school. The underpinning approach undertaken at Karama School is not to be judgmental. The school understands that some families, for reasons often not immediately apparent, are almost totally ill equipped to cope with life’s pressures. Indeed, some families are living under the poverty line and struggle to meet basic school costs such as fees, uniforms and excursions. The school’s ASPA committee must be congratulated for the tremendous work they have undertaken with the school principal and his staff to ensure that Karama School is a harmonious and culturally diverse environment. The ASPA Committee has pursued Commonwealth funding initiatives to enhance the number of indigenous staff at the school.
Karama School has a population of about 140 indigenous students out of a total school population of more than 500. This constitutes a significant part of the school population. The school has a full-time staff of about 35. This figure varies from time to time. With an indigenous percentage of pupils ranging from 25% to 28%, the school has endeavoured to achieve an indigenous staff of about eight to nine. These include teachers, teacher aides, pre-school aides, a janitor and administrative staff. All of these staff provide positive role models to the indigenous pupils and the positive results at the school, in terms of attendance and performance, have been tangible. Further, the school is currently piloting a project that streams upper school pupils into the local high school in an attempt to reduce truancy rates of indigenous students once they enter the high school system. In plain terms, they support the pupils through the transition to an often intimidating environment such as high school. The pupils commence attending high school in some classes in their final year of primary school. This means that by the time the pupils attend high school, they are already well acquainted with the school, its staff, its operations and its students. They enter a comfort zone instead of an alien environment.
It is early days yet in terms of major reforms in education delivery for our indigenous pupils. Our minister has just begun to undo the negative effects of years of neglect by previous CLP governments. These initiatives are all initiatives taken by the school despite the education system. Absolutely, the funding has come from the Commonwealth, not from the Territory previous governments. The initiatives the member for Nhulunbuy is introducing have proven applications for pupils from a non-English speaking background. I say ‘proven’ because I have seen the results in Karama. Our schools can start to reflect our multicultural society. Further, the benefits also flow through to pupils from an Anglo-Saxon heritage, like myself as a student in Darwin. They learn about a variety of cultures. This better equips them in the world of business and employment. Importantly, the improved performance of previously disadvantaged and often disruptive pupils ensures that classrooms become more orderly with a positive learning environment.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I condemn the previous governments for their neglect of our education system, for their failure to implement the Collins Report recommendations, and I congratulate our minister for his swift actions.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to congratulate the minister for his statement. Don’t be surprised, minister. I thought what you had to say made a fair bit of sense and, in fact, much of it is rhetoric but good rhetoric. I shall not criticise you for that.
Ms Scrymgour: You wrote the book on rhetoric.
Dr LIM: Now, members opposite giggle and laugh and chortle under their breath. I feel I have some confidence in speaking about education considering that I was one of the very few people who actually sat right across all levels of education for a period of 10 years when I was on the School Board of Studies between 1984 to 1994 on TAFE, the precursor of NTETA, for the same period of time and was one of the founding Council members of the Northern Territory University until my election in 1994. Apart from the minister for education of the day and the Secretary of the Department of Education, I was the one other person who sat across all those three levels of education including the Menzies School of Health Research. So I feel I have some background into education to be able to speak to it quite clearly.
During this last election campaign, as you all know, I doorknocked every house, every caravan, every town camp, and I spoke to many teachers who live in my electorate. They all asked me what my position was about the teachers campaign during the EBA discussions. One of the things they expressed to me was about the changing of their profession. Very much like a medical practitioner, the profession has changed tremendously. The technology within the profession has changed tremendously and takes a lot of time and effort and skill to master the new technology before they can impart it to the students. That was very important and that took a lot of time away from the actual teaching itself. There has to be some value put on that. I felt that it was important to express to those teachers that, yes, the Northern Territory government of the day respected that professionalism in them, and that we were trying as best we could to negotiate through the EBA prior to the government going into caretaker mode.
Interestingly, after the election, for the first time since self-government, the teachers went on strike under the Labor government. You could ask the question why? Why did that happen? Was it that the minister could not negotiate through with consideration for the needs of the teaching profession? Many of us who are parents in this Chamber do appreciate the value of teachers, the amount of time that our children spend with teachers, the amount of time that our children spend in schools. It’s a third of a day that they spend there. Teaching, teachers, schools have great impact on our children and on how our children grow up. For them to not value teachers is a very short sighted thing.
It was interesting also during the election campaign, reading the media, that very much of the to-ing and fro-ing between the teachers in the negotiations of the EBA was really being initiated by the union. When the union advised the teachers to take the deal that the current minister offered, the teachers stood up and said: ‘No, we are not. The union might be in bed with the Labor government, but we teachers have a different priority. We want something that is different’, and the teachers actually forced the union to reconsider. That speaks volumes about how the teachers feel versus how the unions feel. I suppose what the minister said – and I use his words: ‘I am concerned that the EBA gave a rocky start to the relationship between this government and teachers’. I suppose that is his form of apology to teachers and I hope that he makes reparations to the teachers and makes sure that, in due course, the teachers will come to understand that the minister, as he feels now, is genuine about his lack of sensitivity at the time that he was negotiating with them. But when the minister says that the Labor government plans to bring in 100 teachers over the next four years of the term of government, I really question how genuine that effort will be.
Where are we going to find the teachers? There is not only a Territory shortage or a national shortage, there is an international shortage of teachers. It is not only the teaching profession that has a shortage of qualified people. You look at nurses, doctors, many professions. There is an international phenomenon where young graduates today don’t come out of university and straight into their chosen career. In fact most of them, once they have their qualification under their belt, actually choose then to travel around the world, see the world, get life skills, see a wider perspective of what the world is about before they settle down into a career. Now, all of us with children in their 20s recognise that that is what is happening. That is what is causing this international shortage of professionals. They are choosing jobs other than teaching or nursing or doctoring. They can be working for wages in tourism or any other industry, knowing full well that they have a profession they can always fall back on. There is a world shortage. So, I wait to see how the minister will deliver 100 teachers over the next four years.
Mr Stirling: Backpackers.
Dr LIM: Use backpackers. If that’s what you are going to do, that’s fine. That’s the way you are going to do it.
The minister then spoke about his Indigenous Education Strategic Plan. The six-point plan. It is worth repeating. He talks about the six key elements identified in the Indigenous Education Strategic Plan.
- (a) students go to school regularly;
(b) students are fit and able to learn;
(c) students have good schooling;
(d) students are tracked and their educational outcomes are measured;
(e) indigenous education programs are managed with full accountability; and
(f) indigenous families, communities and governments share responsibility for education outcomes.
A very strong motherhood statement, and I don’t have any problems with that. It is important, though, to ensure that families, the communities take equal responsibility to ensure that children all attend school. They have to take ownership of education, that they understand the value of education. If you do not understand or value education, then all this effort is going to be just wasted. When you hear about high school graduates, university graduates, mostly with overseas names, particularly Asian names, you have to ask why that is the case in Australia at the moment? Why are Asian students doing so much better academically than white Australians? The reason is that those ethnic groups value education, and they value it very strongly. Because of that, the parents drive the children with their own personal ambition, and instil an ambition in children to succeed academically. They also understand that if you live in a country such as Australia, you need to understand English, you need to understand the white man’s ways so that you can then take advantage of what this country has to offer. If you do not know the white man’s ways, right or wrong, if you do not know their ways …
Mr KIELY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! This reference to white man’s ways, we are talking about the culture of Australia here. We are not talking about the white man’s culture or the yellow man’s culture or the black man’s culture …
Madam SPEAKER: What is your point of order?
Mr KIELY: The point of order is this inference that there is some dominant race here.
Madam SPEAKER: No, that is not a point of order.
Dr LIM: Well, isn’t there a dominant race here? Bloody - excuse my language.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order! That is not a point of order. Go back to your Standing orders book and find out what you think it may be.
Dr LIM: He does not understand the protocol in this room.
Madam SPEAKER: You can respond, remember, in debate yourself later if you wish to.
Dr LIM: Let me accommodate the member’s sensitivities. If you do not understand mainstream Australia - let us use a politically correct word – then how do you manage to live in a country such as this? In some cultures you burp very loudly after a big meal to show your host that you appreciated the meal. You do that in Australia and people will frown upon you because you are rude. That is what I mean by understanding the white man’s ways; they are different. There is nothing wrong with being different, but if you want to get on in this country, you need to understand the dominant culture. If you do not, then you get nowhere. There is no point in complaining that you are not getting anywhere because if you do not know the methods that are currently used by the dominant culture, then you will not get anywhere.
I commend the minister for his intention to improve VET in schools. I think it is a good thing to offer our schools more opportunities, to widen their education, to tap into opportunities in mechanical or the physical side of education rather than just the academic side. It is obviously relevant that many students are not academically inclined and they would rather be focused on practical aspects of education, into trades for instance.
Centralian College in Alice Springs is a very good example of how TAFE or trade education and school education and even higher education is all coming together in one institution on one campus. It has been able to tap into the benefits of sharing scarce resources, been able to tap into the opportunities of rationalising classes so that lectures can be provided to a class, maximising the cost benefits in providing classes in Alice Springs. It also enables high school students to do TAFE courses and on completion of their Year 12, they come out with both a high school certificate as well as a TAFE certificate. I think that is a very efficient way of doing things and I encourage the development of such facilities throughout the Territory.
In terms of the Northern Territory University, I think it is important to recognise that in the very early days of the formation of the university it was the CLP government with its vision for the Territory that actually got the university off the ground. I agree with the minister that the university is now starved of funding. It is not because of John Howard. I think that every federal government since the inception of the university has starved our university of funds. Your federal member, Warren Snowdon, was right against – he was the member then – and he was right against the formation of the Northern Territory University. You know that. In his time, he supported the then federal Labor Education Minister for 20 university or higher education positions in the Darwin Institute of Technology - 20! The day we opened the University College of the Northern Territory we had over 125 students. That is how much the demand was, and the federal government could not recognise that.
The Northern Territory government, under the CLP, poured millions of dollars to get the UCNT up and running and finally, three years later, amalgamated the UCNT with the DIT to form the Northern Territory University. Since then, a lot of Northern Territory money has gone into the Northern Territory University to ensure its survival, to ensure its excellence. For a long time, the NTU was one of the best in the country. In fact, in 1994-95 it was one of the top 12 universities in Australia. So the Northern Territory University has a good record. It needs more funding now and I trust the minister will continue to lobby the federal government and continue to look at ways to improve funding to the Northern Territory University.
I know that currently there are fairly intense negotiations with Centralian College to see how the two organisations can somehow work synergistically to ensure that numbers of students increase which will then help it get money from the federal government. I encourage the minister to continue to explore that. However, do not forget that Centralian College ultimately still has a Year 11 and 12. I will be very unhappy to see Year 11 and 12 suddenly hived off again. It will be, I think, a very backward step if that ever happened. It is important to ensure that Centralian College continues with Year 11 and 12, take on the TAFE and increase its higher education offerings. I think that if you do that you will increases the student numbers and that will help augment the numbers at the Northern Territory University in Darwin.
In all, the minister has, as I said, made a reasonable statement on education. I encourage him to continue to look positively towards the betterment of education in the Territory. I know that our politics are very different and our perspectives on indigenous education will be very different, but I come from the perspective of being somebody who had to learn English, somebody who had to learn how to live in Australia and make some degree of success in living in Australia.
Mr STIRLING (Education, Employment and Training): Madam Speaker, I thank members for their most supportive comments this evening. If I begin with the shadow minister for education, I appreciate him as a committed educator in his own right in his former life, and I certainly appreciate the commitment he showed tonight. I was very pleased to see him recently at the opening of the YNOTS Program at Nabalco outside Nhulunbuy. It is the Yirrkala Business Enterprises Nabalco Operator Training School and the shadow minister was most welcome. I was certainly pleased to see him there on the day as I would be at any of these functions.
His remarks in relation to the Enterprise Bargaining Agreement process, I think it is a demeaning process frankly. It demeans us as an employer and it demeans the teachers as professionals to have this chop ‘em down sort of fight out in the public way. It does not with other sectors of industry; it certainly does not with the police force although they have an Enterprise Bargaining Agreement. I feel heavily charged with the responsibility of working through another process, a better process, so that simply does not happen and we don’t see the need to demean each other in the public view. I certainly accept there was damage to the relationship between this government and teachers; damage that has to be restored. But we did commit before the election that Northern Territory teachers would be the highest paid in Australia and following the re-shaping, I suppose, and certainly the life of the agreement, they are. The new agreement makes teachers the highest paid in Australia and negotiations on a new agreement will start in 2002. It provides pay increases of 3% from 30 August 2001, 2% from 9 May 2002, and 1% from 29 August 2002, making them the highest paid until April 2002 and the second highest for the remainder of 2002.
The agreement also establishes reviews of remote locality conditions, staffing formulae, class sizes, non-contact time for primary teachers and the provision of specialist teachers with implementation dates for agreed outcomes. I am prepared to, in my role as minister, undertake that feedback to the teachers in relation to these working parties. What I think has occurred and what added to the frustration of the teaching profession in the past was that commitments were made during the Enterprise Bargaining Agreement process that yes, government would form a working party to look at this particular aspect or that particular aspect, it was ticked off and signed through the agreement and once the agreement was underway, government and the department tended not to follow through with the same resolve and signals they were giving to teachers prior to the agreement being signed.
In many ways there were expectations being fuelled and building in respect of the Labor government being elected that we would be able to deliver more, or would deliver more, than perhaps was being delivered by the CLP. Well certainly, in the area of those other areas of the Enterprise Bargaining Agreement outside the salary increase, I think that we did move further in a whole range of areas. But I do make the commitment that we will not allow these working groups or working parties to just float along for ever and a day without progress and without reporting back because I make that undertaking. Teachers will know where the state of play is at any time and there will be a dead set cut off time by which recommendations come back.
The government will provide an additional 25 teachers per annum and we will work with teachers to rebuild our education system. A formal ballot of all eligible teachers and educators to be conducted by the Australian Electoral Commission later in October. In the meantime, our reforms will continue in, we think, a sensible manner; a new way of doing business that will involve teachers, schools, unions and the communities.
In relation to the EBA and the point I made that it is a demeaning process, I was at a teacher graduates evening the other week and a young teacher of 10 years standing quoted an ancient Chinese proverb in relation to education. It immediately brought home to me, without recalling the statement itself, that the ancients revered education; the Greeks and the Romans. It was a noble profession and it has never in our lifetime, certainly, had that status in our community and I don’t know that we’d ever get it back to the most noble professions, if you like, that the ancients used to see it as. But it is incumbent on all of us in here, as community leaders, as parliamentarians and certainly myself as Minister for Education, it is incumbent on the Australian Education Union and it is incumbent on teachers themselves as a profession overall to work together to improve the status that teachers hold in the community. There is no point working together and actually achieving an outcome there in terms of lifting the status in the community if, in October next year, we get down in the gutter in terms of an EBA and rip it all apart again. No point at all. We have to have a better way of dealing with that but in the meantime, I certainly make that commitment as well.
I am happy for the shadow minister to be briefed on education matters. In relation the CD launch, it did come through my office at one stage. There appeared to be some confusion or understanding as to whether I had in fact committed to attend. There was a runover, I think, with the Junior Parks and Wildlife Commission Rangers also that morning. I certainly apologised Monday morning first thing when it was brought to my attention that: ‘Minister, they were expecting you there’, so whether there was a misunderstanding or some fault on my behalf, I certainly apologised for not being there. I do appreciate and thank the shadow minister for his commitment to education, as I said. I understand his background and I appreciate the support he offers and he is always welcome to a briefing in this area.
I thank the member for Johnston for his support also. He has an active interest in the Northern Territory University and I expect him to be a valuable ally and contributor to policy and implementation of government policy across the education portfolio as a whole.
The member for Macdonnell who mentioned Richard Trudgen, who is a near and dear friend of mine, the author of Why Warriors Lie Down and Die. Trudgen offers such an enormous insight into the Yolngu cultural of northeast Arnhem Land, to health and education and why it doesn’t work, the problems and the misunderstandings between Yolngu and the mainstream western world. I don’t know if the member for Greatorex has come across the work or read it at all, but I would recommend it to him. I am happy to get him a copy if he was so interested because it is, as I said, a tremendous insight. Trudgen has worked in that part of the world for many, many years.
Dr Lim: I know Richard Trudgen personally, thank you.
Mr STIRLING: He is encyclopaedic in his knowledge and wisdom in this area and I would encourage the member for Macdonnell to talk to Richard at any time; any time he has the opportunity, because you can only learn when you talk to him and obviously the member for Greatorex appreciates that as well.
The member for Karama and her views on the urban indigenous situation in schools in her electorate, I appreciate that. Obviously her school or the school in her electorate is getting things right in this area and that’s something that we have to be mindful of as well in terms of the rural and remote situation for indigenous students scattered across the urban areas as well need to be considered and their progress through our education system just the same as the kids in the bush schools.
The member of Greatorex’s point about profession has changed and greater skills and use of technology. It was interesting that the member for Blain had somewhat of a different view that if you walked into a classroom at the turn of the century and you walked into a classroom last week it would not be much difference. Generally, I would agree with the member for Blain. If it is not a chalkboard it’s probably a whiteboard but it would still have the desks and chairs and the dusty smell. A classroom is always dusty for some reason. But LATIS aside and the use of technology, I think the point that the member for Greatorex was making, I mean most occupations across our workforce have been exposed to the need for greater skills and development of computer hands-on skill. I don’t pretend that’s easy. It’s certainly been very difficult for me, and you don’t often see a laptop on my desk down here. Maybe you will over time, but I’m not in a hurry. I don’t pretend that it is easy but its commonplace throughout our workforce and I don’t recall great productivity gains in terms of wages and salaries for other parts of the workforce that have had to come to grips with it. It is all right you young people.
Just on that, Madam Speaker, it frightened me to come across a statistic that the average age of the teaching profession in the Northern Territory is in the young 40s now. 41, 42, somewhere up around that area. Where are our young graduates? Where are the young people coming into the profession to bring this average down? Because the frightening thing about that is, along with us oldies in here, that whole generation is going to move through and you do ask where the young teachers are going to come from and that means we have to redouble and refocus our efforts on recruitment and training in, of course, our own institutions but also, where we do not get the full numbers there, bringing them in. Whether they get productivity increases or not in their skills, teachers do and always have carried enormous responsibilities in our community and I do not think that that has always been recognised. We as a government see education, employment and training really as the engine room for the development of the Northern Territory overall and certainly for the skilling and development of our workforce and our young people.
We will work hard, Madam Speaker, to ensure that education, employment and training remain an absolute central focus for us as a government. I thank members for their support.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr STIRLING (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I rise today very briefly to speak about a very important thing that I saw on the Today show the other morning, and that was an Alice Springs resident who got some 10 minutes of national airtime, a fellow by the name of Eric Sultan. The reason that I have risen to speak about this particular 10 minutes of the Today show, I think it was on Monday morning, is that Mr Sultan is of Afghan descent and some indigenous descent as well in the Central Australian area and is a practising Muslim in our community and is part of our very strong Muslim community in Alice Springs. I think that it was extremely brave of Mr Sultan in these difficult times to identify so publicly in terms of his background, his overseas background at least, and I congratulate him on the way that he conducted himself and the deportment that he showed and the wisdom that he showed in dealing with the issue of being an Afghan in Central Australia.
The fact of the matter was that it was an excellent show in terms of demonstrating or holding out Alice Springs to the whole of Australia as the harmonious community that we live in and it is a very harmonious community. Indeed, the Islamic community is one that I have had a fair bit to do with over the last four years and I consider it a privilege to know them. It has been a privilege to work with them and it was a privilege to play a small role in securing an Imam for the community.
However, returning to Mr Sultan’s appearance on TV, it was in terms of selling Central Australia as a tourist destination, an extraordinary thing. It was also in terms of pointing out to the rest of Australia that the history of Central Australia is multifacted thing and that it is important that we remember how the Central Australian area was opened up to European settlement.
I congratulate Mr Sultan. I also congratulate the Islamic community for their contribution to the piece itself because I think it was an excellent and brave thing to do under the current circumstances. I also congratulate the community of Alice Springs itself because of their business-as-usual approach to these people. There is no difference in people’s approach to the community there and I think that Mr Sultan clearly demonstrated that he is part of the community. I also noticed in that piece very briefly the former Speaker of this House as well as former Senator for the Northern Territory, Bernie Kilgariff, doing his bit, and I congratulate him, too, for appearing in such a piece.
In short, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to commend again Mr Eric Sultan and the Islamic community of Alice Springs for being part of our community and being brave enough to continue being part of that community despite the difficult times. I am also very pleased with the community of Alice Springs as a whole in responding so well to this process and knowing that nothing has occurred in relation to the mosque in Alice Springs. It shows the maturity of a community to this issue that makes me proud to be not only an Alice Springs resident but a Territorian. I urge all members to consider Mr Sultan’s efforts as a great compliment to the community in which we live.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise tonight to bring to the attention of this House the efforts of some people, some fairly important people who live both in my electorate and outside the electorate.
The first one is Mr Reg Lowry who was awarded an Order of Australia in June 2001. Unfortunately, his efforts have not been recognised by this House previously, so it is with a great deal of pleasure that I rise to speak about Mr Lowry and the contributions that he has made to life in Darwin. He is a very well known person. He spent a long time on the YMCA. He has been on the Board there since 1970. Life Membership was conferred on him in 1991 for services rendered. He has been President nine times and he has been on the National Board of the YMCA from 1995 to 2001. Those members present might have noticed yesterday in my maiden speech that I said when I first came to the Territory I was employed by the YMCA. Reg Lowry was my boss when I came to the Territory in 1979.
Reg Lowry has also been involved with the National Heart Foundation. He joined the Board of the Northern Territory in 1987. He has been Northern Territory Treasurer and Vice-President from 1987 to 1999 and he was on the National Finance Committee of the Heart Foundation in 1990, the National Audit Committee in 1998, Northern Territory President since 1999, and member of the National Board of the Heart Foundation since then. He has also had a very long involvement with NT Little Athletics since 1975. Life Membership was conferred upon him in 1984 for services rendered. He has been Darwin President for 10 years from 1975 to 1985 and NT President 1979 to 1985.
Mr Lowry has been involved with Rotary. He has also been involved with the Arts Council and Down Syndrome as Treasurer and with Rotary in particular from 1981 to the present and as President in 1989. He has held every official position in Rotary. He has been the top ticket seller for the Tomaris Sweep for the last eight years and he is currently Treasurer.
I commend Mr Reg Lowry and his contribution to the Northern Territory community. I know he lives in the electorate of the member for Nelson, but I spoke with the member for Nelson before - I did not want to seem like I was poaching. Reg Lowry has been a boss of mine over many years and I hold him in the highest esteem. It is an honour for me to congratulate him somewhat belatedly in this place for his AO which was awarded in June 2001.
In Casuarina Senior College, a student there, Sid Vemuri, went as a delegate to the 2001 United Nations Youth Conference in Sydney in July and he was selected at that conference as one of the 17 young Australians to represent our country at the Hague International Model United Nations to be held in the Netherlands in January 2002. Sid’s selection is an outstanding achievement for him and an honour for Casuarina Senior College and the Territory. The conference that Sid will be attending brings together nearly 4000 secondary students from over 90 countries worldwide to discuss current issues of global importance in the format of the United Nations. Sid informs me that terrorism and global cooperation against terrorism will be one of the matters that is discussed at that youth forum.
Iyngaran Selvaratnama and Dev Tilakaratne, also from Casuarina Senior College, have been commended for their community work. Both are members of the Casuarina Senior College Leo Club which is sponsoring a student from Cambodia. They are also members of the Student Representative Council and have represented the college in debating and have been selected to represent the college at the National Youth Science Forum. Deevya Desai has also been selected to attend that forum.
I am proud to report that Wagaman Primary held an international food night and auction on 27 September and they raised about $2500 for the school so they are to be heartily congratulated.
It is with some sadness that I report that Jingili Primary School have advised me of the passing of Mr Joe Wirkner, who was the original groundsman at Jingili. Mr Wirkner established the school gardens which will be a tribute and a memorial to his vision and hard work, and I extend my condolences to his family, particularly his wife Margaret and son Ralph. Mim Regan, who has worked at the school for many years, and Mrs Wirkner supplied the following fax about Joe’s long standing work: Joe worked at the school until 1987 when he had to retire after hurting his back badly. He was highly regarded around Jingili for doing a lot of work in the area with Greening Australia and kids from the school always referred to the Jingili school as Mr Wirkner’s school because of the beautiful grounds that he cultivated. The school won numerous awards from Greening Australia and the Bougainvillea Festival for the grounds.
Kim Sanders of Pott Street, Moil has won the right to compete in the national finals of Tournaments of the Mind in Hobart at the end of this month, and I wish Kim well. Kim will be competing in the Maths and Engineering section.
Finally, just picking up on the tribute paid last night in the Adjournment Debate by the member for Arnhem for Mr Puggy Hunter, who died recently. Puggy Hunter, as most members would know, was the national Chairman of NACCAHO which is the National Association of Community Controlled Aboriginal Health Organisations, and I would like to pay tribute to Puggy here. I knew Puggy through my work with the Heart Foundation. He was a very fearless and tireless fighter for Aboriginal health and at any forum, Puggy Hunter could be relied upon to stand up and be counted. He would take anyone on: it didn’t matter whether they were a professor of medicine or anything like that, Puggy always spoke his mind, and he always spoke a lot of wisdom. People who have been involved with Aboriginal health for some time mourn the loss of Puggy Hunter.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to join the member for Macdonnell to congratulate our Islamic community, both in Alice Springs and in Darwin. Soon after the September 11 event, the Darwin community came under some rather unsavoury and disparaging remarks made by some louts around Casuarina and, fortunately, that was all there was in the Northern Territory against our Islamic community. Since then, the whole of the Northern Territory community has come together and been very supportive of the Islamic community. In Alice Springs, for instance, you heard the member for Macdonnell speak about Eric Sultan. Eric is one of our senior Islamic, part Afghan, part Aboriginal people, and very well known in Alice Springs for his personification of Charlie Sadadeen, who was a grandchild of the original Afghan camel traders who plied between Oodnadatta and Alice Springs.
Charlie and his Islamic community, headed by President Jawed Khan, have a very strong community of Muslim worshippers. They have their own mosque, which the Northern Territory government assisted in providing significant amounts of financial assistance to helping build the mosque. They have been very much supportive of what has been going on around Alice Springs. In the recent memorial services we’ve had in the churches, the Islamic community did turn out to offer their condolences to those who suffered in the tragedy in New York and in Washington and they were very, very outspoken in terms of their support for those people there.
I was invited by the Islamic community to spend last Saturday evening with them at the mosque here in Vanderlin Drive. I was very much taken by the many community leaders who attended the barbecue at the mosque; people from all different ethnic organisations, churches and political parties, were all there to celebrate the evening with them and it did indicate to the Islamic community that we in the Northern Territory do live a very socially harmonious and supportive life.
In the time remaining, I would like to raise a couple of issues that have been troubling me for a little while. On 2 September, I wrote to the minister for education with regard to an application by Our Lady of the Sacred Heart College, Traeger Park campus, seeking funding to help repair and upgrade the assembly area at the Traeger Park campus of the school. I wrote the letter to the minister following the letter that was written by Dr Bill Griffiths, Director of Catholic Education, and also from personal approaches made by the college principal, Brother Paul Gilchrist. On 7 September, I wrote to the minister again, this time with reference to a letter that was written to me by Peter Vaughan, the principal of the Alice Springs High School, who has also been seeking assistance to upgrade the airconditioning system.
The Alice Springs High School, as you well know, is a very old school and the state of its airconditioning is pretty bad. With the summer months now fast approaching, the airconditioning system needs to be urgently upgraded. When I didn’t hear from the minister after nearly four weeks, I wrote to the minister again on 9 October and I said in the letter:
- I wrote to you on the 2nd September in relation to the OLSH Traeger Park Campus assembly upgrade. To date
I have not received any acknowledgement of the letter, nor any response as to what commitment you will make
to the school to assist in the upgrade.
I further wrote to you on 7 September 2001, in relation to the airconditioning upgrade at the Alice Springs
High School. Again, I have not received any acknowledgement of the letter, nor any response as to what
commitment you will make to the school to assist in the upgrade.
May I request your earliest response to these matters?
I then saw the minister myself last Saturday and spoke to him about these two matters. He denied having seen the letters, but assured me that he would chase up those two letters, and if he did not have them in his office, he would approach me personally this week to ask me for copies of the letters. Well, to date, I still have had no response. Now these are pressing issues. The Old Traeger Park campus assembly area is in dire need of repairs. The Alice Springs High School airconditioning system is dilapidated and needs urgent repairs also. I sincerely ask the minister to address these issues as quickly as he possibly can.
I wrote another letter, this one to the minister for Essential Services. This was written about three weeks ago, and I asked him about a problem that has occurred in my electorate. A builder currently constructing a duplex development at 5 Mills Street, Alice Springs, was in the process of connecting electricity to his development. Now, his development only required about 80 amps of power. The existing supply to the street is through a 6 mm wire currently considered by PAWA to be substandard. Now, that is the cable that is in the ground, owned by PAWA, which PAWA itself considers inadequate. The supply point closest to this man’s development is across the street, directly across from his boundary.
PAWA has advised the developer that if he wants electricity, he has to bring the electricity himself from the supply point under the road to his development. But at the same time, he has to upgrade the supply point for power. Now, I know that if I was a developer, I need to bring the power from a supply point to my development, that is my responsibility. But PAWA wants this man to upgrade the supply point as well. Now, I do not think that is fair. PAWA is not prepared to provide supply of electricity to the boundary.
I have asked the minister to look into this matter. To date, I have no letter of acknowledgement. I have not heard a peep or a boo about the whole thing. I hope that the minister does not mistake this request to be about the WASSEP payment. Now the WASSEP payment is about PAWA charging developers a fee that in the future will be used to upgrade all the power and water and sewerage system in the suburbs.
Mr Wood: Not the power.
Dr LIM: It is nothing to do with that. No, this …
Mr Wood: WASSEP is water and sewerage.
Dr LIM: But in the old east side of Alice Springs, PAWA needs to – I know the acronym stands for water and sewerage, what I am saying is that …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, can you make your remarks through the Chair, please.
Dr LIM: No, no, I am talking to the room. I understand that WASSEP stands for water and sewerage, but what I am saying is that in the old east side, power needs to be upgraded, too.
Now, this poor fellow has to pay all these extra costs which in my opinion, is not his responsibility. I asked the minister to look into it and I hope that over the next few days, he will have time to look into. He will have the weekend to work on it, and provide us with an answer some time next week. I also urge the minister for Education to do likewise.
TABLED PAPER
Opposition Members on Assembly Committees
Opposition Members on Assembly Committees
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, I lay on the Table a paper from the Leader of the Opposition nominating opposition members to Assembly committees, the details of membership to be included in the Minutes of Proceedings.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016